Free Will

[Carbon]

In a way, this goes back to the basic problem of communicating what we don't understand. We assume certain meaning, for example, to "existence". Just above I read that before God created there was nothing. The writer saying that, was trying to make a good point, but I can hear the screams and jeers, particularly from atheists, "Then God didn't exist either!"

But the fact is, OUR comprehension of 'existence' is sorely lacking in knowledge and understanding. —Particularly when it comes to God's existence. We may think we have a pretty good handle on what OUR existence means, but that doesn't quite fit God's existence—even from our point of view.

We want knowledge and understanding, but we have a need to organize our thoughts, putting handles on them so we can carry them around. This necessarily happens short of fact, and complicated by our necessarily temporal point of view, not to mention our fallen self-centered nature. We even play at math on our small conclusions: "If A is true, and B is truth, then A=B, sort of". But we don't even understand A nor B. "If God is Love, and he wants all to be saved, then universalism is the obvious conclusion."

We ought to be at least skeptical of ourselves. Human reasoning can only go so far, with limited data and presumptive understanding.

But one thing that would really help is to recognize that all fact is in God's hands, and that there is no reality, no substance, no authority, to our point of view. Drawing conclusions from what we see, is dangerous at best. God is the default fact. Everything else is measured by that, from HIS point of view.

We are not the source, nor even causes, of the truth.

 

[His clay]

General observation: Sometimes it not a matter of one's doctrine being off, but it's a matter of being able to communicate that is the issue. Hmmm, we all have that issue to varying degrees.

Back to my

This is a good point. We need to try hard to communicate well to others. On the flip side, I've often experienced intentional misrepresentation and repeated failures to understand my points when I repeat the point with other illustrations and examples. My patience online has grown very thin because I don't have the time to keep on repeating and explaining what the other consistently gets wrong repeatedly. Hence, I often point to the passage in James 1. Let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

 

[Eleanor]

In a way, this goes back to the basic problem of communicating what we don't understand. We assume certain meaning, for example, to "existence". Just above I read that before God created there was nothing. The writer saying that, was trying to make a good point, but I can hear the screams and jeers, particularly from atheists, "Then God didn't exist either!"

But the fact is, OUR comprehension of 'existence' is sorely lacking in knowledge and understanding. —Particularly when it comes to God's existence. We may think we have a pretty good handle on what OUR existence means, but that doesn't quite fit God's existence—even from our point of view.

We want knowledge and understanding, but we have a need to organize our thoughts, putting handles on them so we can carry them around. This necessarily happens short of fact, and complicated by our necessarily temporal point of view, not to mention our fallen self-centered nature. We even play at math on our small conclusions: "If A is true, and B is truth, then A=B, sort of". But we don't even understand A nor B. "If God is Love, and he wants all to be saved, then universalism is the obvious conclusion."

We ought to be at least skeptical of ourselves. Human reasoning can only go so far, with limited data and presumptive understanding.

But one thing that would really help is to recognize that all fact is in God's hands, and that there is no reality, no substance, no authority, to our point of view. Drawing conclusions from what we see, is dangerous at best. God is the default fact. Everything else is measured by that, from HIS point of view.

We are not the source, nor even causes, of the truth.

OK, I just found an Editor!

Feel free to clarify what I muddle up.

 

[makesends]

Once, on a radio talk-show, I heard a caller say something like, "The right sees this, the left sees that, when really the truth is probably somewhere in the middle". I wanted to call in and yell, "NO! The truth is what it is, and the various points of view arrange themselves in reference to IT."

Can you imagine God looking at humanity and doing truth somewhere amongst the varying points of view and conclusions we have drawn? God doesn't even talk that way. For example, I say he uses anthropormorphisms to help us understand, but I have to conclude, then, that we see them backwards, as though he is like us. Because what he says is altogether true, yet it would be absurd to say that we are the pattern he must follow.

No! God does truth and it is what it is. He speaks truth, and we go fool trying to say it better.

 

[Carbon]

Once, on a radio talk-show, I heard a caller say something like, "The right sees this, the left sees that, when really the truth is probably somewhere in the middle". I wanted to call in and yell, "NO! The truth is what it is, and the various points of view arrange themselves in reference to IT."

Can you imagine God looking at humanity and doing truth somewhere amongst the varying points of view and conclusions we have drawn? God doesn't even talk that way. For example, I say he uses anthropormorphisms to help us understand, but I have to conclude, then, that we see them backwards, as though he is like us. Because what he says is altogether true, yet it would be absurd to say that we are the pattern he must follow.

No! God does truth and it is what it is. He speaks truth, and we go fool trying to say it better.

Amen!

 

[David1701]

Adam was a pattern (type) of Christ (Heb 12:14), not a symbol of Christ, as is the dove for the Holy Spirit.

 

[His clay]

Once, on a radio talk-show, I heard a caller say something like, "The right sees this, the left sees that, when really the truth is probably somewhere in the middle". I wanted to call in and yell, "NO! The truth is what it is, and the various points of view arrange themselves in reference to IT."

Can you imagine God looking at humanity and doing truth somewhere amongst the varying points of view and conclusions we have drawn? God doesn't even talk that way. For example, I say he uses anthropormorphisms to help us understand, but I have to conclude, then, that we see them backwards, as though he is like us. Because what he says is altogether true, yet it would be absurd to say that we are the pattern he must follow.

No! God does truth and it is what it is. He speaks truth, and we go fool trying to say it better.

I like how you point out that the "middle" isn't the standard of truth. Rather, the truth is what it is regardless of how people react to it.

The "pole argument" is fallacious in many ways. You have already stated the first. Another way it is wrong is that one can arrange the poles however one wants to arrive at the desired median. For example, the Calvinist could point out that hypercalvinism is an extreme, and Arminianism is an extreme, so we ought to pick the middle, so Calvinism is the answer. The Arminian could do the same thing by pointing out how Pelagianism is an extreme; Calvinism is an extreme, so we should pick the middle of the road Arminianism. In short, its easy to pick whatever pole you want to arrive at the desired "middle".

 

[Carbon]

I like how you point out that the "middle" isn't the standard of truth. Rather, the truth is what it is regardless of how people react to it.

The "pole argument" is fallacious in many ways. You have already stated the first. Another way it is wrong is that one can arrange the poles however one wants to arrive at the desired median. For example, the Calvinist could point out that hypercalvinism is an extreme, and Arminianism is an extreme, so we ought to pick the middle, so Calvinism is the answer. The Arminian could do the same thing by pointing out how Pelagianism is an extrem; Calvinism is an extreme, so we should pick the middle of the road Arminianism. In short, its easy to pick whatever pole you want to arrive at the desired "middle".

Yes, and that's just fooling one's self and lying to ones self.

 

[makesends]

Yes, and that's just fooling one's self and lying to ones self.

Amen that!

 

[Eleanor]

Stubbornness is not a virtue...

One man's stubbornness is another man's faithfulness and accuracy.

 

[Eleanor]

It is a spiritual mystery in a sense due to the fact all whom He died for were seated with Him in the heavenlies, Ephesians 2:5ff.

There is so before and after in eternity. All is now.

But we don't live in eternity, we live in time where there is before and after. We were condemned before our new birth and are redeemed after our new birth. If it were possible (which it is not) for the elect to die before their rebirth, they would die condemned.

 

[civic]

There is so before and after in eternity. All is now.

But we don't live in eternity, we live in time where there is before and after. We were condemned before our new birth and are redeemed after our new birth. If it were possible (which it is not) for the elect to die before their rebirth, they would die condemned.

God the Son lives in time

 

[makesends]

God the Son lives in time

Lived. Interacts in time, lives in eternity. Even from our point of view.

 

[civic]

Lived. Interacts in time, lives in eternity. Even from our point of view.

If heaven is a real place then time exists there does it not . Why do they cry out how long will you wait Lord to repay and take your vengeance from those in heaven upon the wicked here on earth ?

 

[Eleanor]

I disagree again, Rom 4 shows that non imputation of sin equates to imputed righteousness,

There is nothing in Ro 4 about non-imputation of sin. Do you mean Ro 5?

which is Justification before God. As stated, its legally related.

Non-imputation of sin in Ro 5 does not mean justification; i.e., declared righteous, it means only lack of guilt and condemnation.
One is still unrighteous by birth, by their very nature an object of wrath (Eph 2:3).

Imputed and accounted are two different things.

Sin was in the world between Adam and Moses, but it was not "accounted, charged" to the doers thereof. They sinned, but no punishment was due them.

Imputed is "applied to," made guilty of, regardless of personal guilt or not, as in Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind, though none committed Adam's sin (Ro 5:12-14).

Sin not accounted (but actually committed) = not guilty-->all those between the time of Adam and Moses.
Sin imputed (but not actually committed) = guilty-->all those born of Adam (which is why those between Adam and Moses all died when there was no law to transgress and cause their deaths (Ro 5:12-14). Adam's sin was imputed to them (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Eleanor]

You're lucky.... I try to get them to define the FREE part of FREE WILL refers hoping they will say something like: "not determined/influenced/whatever by God" as then I know logically "I GOTCHA" ... (giggle); but my experience is that they stick with "it's a choice" which is true.

Yeah, I like to throw the Law of Causality at them too ... or
Furthermore, from nothing nothing comes and since before creation nothing existed, all knowledge must come from God and the source of His knowledge is His wisdom and ability to cause all things. If God's knowledge of his creatures were derived from the creatures by the impression of anything upon him, as there is upon us, he could not know from eternity, because from eternity there was no actual existence of anything but himself; and therefore there could not be any images shot out from anything, because there was not anything in being but God. Stephen Charnock

Aside: ... the Law of Causality lends itself to "hard determinism" ... that's when our side believes in Free Will but rename it "a mystery". (mischievous giggle)

"Free will" is not a concern of the Bible. It is a concern of philosophy, required in order that man may be justly held accountable for his condemnation.

Free will, as it is presented and operates in Scripture, is simple:
"power to freely and willingly, without external force or constraint, choose what one prefers, likes."

But man's will is governed by his disposition, what he prefers, likes.
And that is the rub with God. Man prefers self-governance and abhors total submission to God in all things.

God works in man's disposition to give him to prefer the things of God, which he then freely and willingly chooses.
That is the operation of "free will" in the Bible.

I assume this understanding is common knowledge on this board.

 

[brightfame52]

I just showed you Scripture that proves it is the work of God.

We believe by His power, not ours. Since He caused it, we don't get any glory. He does. This is why we believe in Soli Deo Gloria.

But I get it, you cannot believe those truths since they undermine your hyper-Calvinism.

It is the work of God that man believes, yet the man still believes or do you advocate God believes for the person ?

 

[brightfame52]

Please attempt to demonstrate your position, with exegesis of Scripture; rather than merely claiming it to be so, thanks.

I already have.

 

[brightfame52]

eleanor

There is nothing in Ro 4 about non-imputation of sin. Do you mean Ro 5?

I cant believe this, I just posted it Rom 4:8

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[brightfame52]

Not only are you disagreeing with Calvinists which you claim you are one , you are also disagreeing with God and scripture. That is not a good position to place yourself in.

Why don't you accept correction from your Calvinist brothers in Christ ? I understand why you will not listen to me.

From the book of Wisdom

Proverbs 15:31-32
He who listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise.
Those who disregard discipline despise themselves, but the one who heeds correction gains understanding.

Proverbs 13:18
Poverty and shame come to him who ignores discipline, but whoever heeds correction is honored.

Rom 4 shows that non imputation of sin equates to imputed righteousness, which is Justification before God. As stated, its legally related.