Is "Belief" a choice?...lets talk about that.

[Look Up]

I think that a lot of issues on this subject is the desire to make this an either/or instead of a both/and. The argument always falls to God chooses vs man chooses. The truth of the matter it is God chooses man and man chooses God. Both acts are done freely. God wills freely because of His sovereignty, and man wills freely because of God's grace.

Theologically at least on the Catholic side, it is believed that God predestines some for eternal salvation, and He does this without violating man's freedom, in fact He gives man the grace to truly freely choose. There are quite a few theories on how to reconcile both facts, but at the end of the day it is a mystery.

As a Protestant, as far as your above description goes, I don't see anything with which I would disagree.

I also do not understand why one thinks that a man choosing freely requires God to surrender his sovereignty. Is a king any less of a king, if he rules a nation of free men than a nation of slaves? I don't think so. Quite honestly that is the difference between a good king and a bad one. One is benevolent to his subjects, while the other is a tyrant.

Albion might not disagree with your metaphor given some clarification, but the question remains what Albion means by "the freewill that everyone talks about" and whether, as I tried to broach the subject earlier on this thread, we understand the nature and degree of freedom, and what one is free from or not. Is, as I had asked, anyone ever absolutely free from God (in every sense)? And I suppose we would agree that we are not.

But I also suppose we would agree there are times when man and God freely choose each other, at least such that the human being can sense or believe no coercion or force in the choice outside him or herself including with respect to the will (volition), whatever that may entail, not that we are ever absolutely outside divine influence or perhaps in cases, omnipotent causality in such a way that God is never the author of, nor approves sin. And mystery is involved indeed.

But I suspect Albion's "freewill that everyone talks about" means that claimed freedom from God which implies (whether the "freewill" speaker is aware of it or not) a power over divine sovereignty, perhaps especially in that God "casts us adrift" with regard to (initial) conversion to Christ. In the absence of divine influence of any sort, that is, who would "choose Christ"? Or perhaps alternately, in the absence of predestining love and grace, who would repent and turn from idols to the living God? And the way I have at times heard "freewill" claims would suggest such limitations on divine sovereignty whether I represent Albion accurately on the matter or not.

Albion may, after all, be influenced for example by the most ancient dominical and apostolic record (ahem)--the NT. Jesus and Peter and Paul speak in terms of people being slaves to sin, not necessarily meaning that the slave has no power not to sin in all senses but that the non-freedom--the bondage--prevents pleasing God. "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8 using Paul's characteristic sense of the word "flesh" & cf. 6:20). "Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). What slave to sin then would freely chose God, freely obey God in the absence of causal divine predestination to conformity to the image of God's Son (Rom. 8:29), in the absence of divine liberation? "We love God [one might add "freely"] because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

Moreover there are passages concerning divine hardening of hearts (not that the hardened don't want to be there; the feeling, as it were, is mutual even as slaves to sin freely chose to sin) which would seem to strengthen the above case, though perhaps I should cut it short there for now. Whether freedom to choose God requires God to relinquish His sovereignty or not depends on the nature of the freedom.

 

[Look Up]

P.S. In my above post addressed to Erose, I attempted to add a square bracket around the second "s" in my quote of Albion "casts us adrift," but that action seems to have created a single "strike through" to all remaining characters in the post. I was otherwise unable to correct the typographical issue than to eliminate the square brackets ("[]"); my apologies to Albion.

 

[Albion]

One cannot say for certain just how much was understood by Adam and Eve in the fall. It would seem they were keenly aware that their disobedience of God was very seriously evil.
That being said, what did Jesus cry out on the cross? "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

I don't want to disagree out of hand with what you've written here, but OTOH I don't know what it has to do with the post of mine that you're quoting from. No one's been denying that God forgives sin or that Adam and Eve were aware of what they'd done.

 

[Albion]

I don't know why you think free will means that God would surrender His own sovereignity?

Because he naturally has control of everything. And if he then sets it aside and allows men to "do the best they can," resulting in most of the humans he's supposed to be keen to save making the wrong choices out of ignorance...he's accepting of the Devil winning out in the struggle for Men's souls while He, God, doesn't exercise his sovereignty.

It would be like you being able to grow a beautiful garden--and you want to have one--but you stand aside and never water the flowers, so that most of them die. You could have had a great garden, but you don't get one.

Also, how does predestination help the people that are not predestined to be saved or do not get saved?

It doesn't help them, but God's sovereignty was what we were discussing.

 

[Albion]

But why would that matter in the sense that we have the information about how they fell and what took place.

We have the information but we are still members of a fallen race. We bear our children in pain; we have to work for our living; we do not get to live without suffering a physical death, etc. We lost all those things that Adam and Eve lost.

They had the free-will to choose to obey God's command or to not obey God's command. Why would that not be free-will?

They HAD free will. After misusing it, things changed for them and their descendants.

 

[Albion]

I think some people naturally seek God. How else can you explain Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism having so many followers.

They may seek some sort of higher being or purpose that doesn't necessarily include a god. There's a certain yearning or curiosity that comes with being human, but what we've been discussing is Man's ability or inability to find the REAL God.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

It's a tough issue, I think we both can agree. And, in fact, I'm not entirely settled in my own mind about it.

However, I do find that the predestinarian argument is persuasive...and comforting. It's easy to say we all have freewill and make our own beds, but really, if you put a proposition before someone who cannot understand the matter adequately, it's not credible to conclude that whatever his choice turns out to be is a matter of a "free" and voluntary choice.

Then if we apply that to knowing God (and, therefore, Christ and the Gospel etc.), we ought to know that for God to give Man the freewill that everyone talks about would be to surrender his own sovereignty and cast us adrift at the same time, of course also saying to us, in effect, "You had your chance. Too bad you didn't know what you were doing").

Here is your post I was addressing Ablion.
Here is where you bring up the issue of not really understanding our sin and the consequences thereof. This is why I say it seems Adam and Eve did have understanding enough to know yet, they sinned grievously though the consequences were unknown to them. I was extrapolating from that situation to present day in bringing up: Father forgive the for "they know not what they do."
Do we today then sin in ignorance? Paul says he persecuted the church in ignorance.
I do not understand all these acrynyms so I may have missed your mark,

 

[ToBeLoved]

Because he naturally has control of everything. And if he then sets it aside and allows men to "do the best they can," resulting in most of the humans he's supposed to be keen on saving make the wrong choices out of ignorance, he's accepting of the Devil winning out in the struggle for Men's souls...while He, God, doesn't exercise his sovereignty. It would be like you being able to grow a beautiful garden--and you want to have one--but you stand aside and never water the flowers, so that most of them die. You could have had a great garden, but you don't get one.

Ok, but if God created human beings with this free-will because He wanted them to CHOOSE to worship Him in love, rather than by design, has God given up anything or created exactly what He set out to create from the beginning?

Because God knew that tree was in the garden, because He commanded them not to eat from it.

I believe that we were created to choose to love God, not be forced without free-will and that we were designed that way.

 

[Albion]

Here is your post I was addressing Ablion.
Here is where you bring up the issue of not really understanding our sin and the consequences thereof.

? I don't seem to find that anywhere in my post.

Do we today then sin in ignorance? Paul says he persecuted the church in ignorance.
I do not understand all these acrynyms so I may have missed your mark,

For one thing, we were talking about belief (or faith), not committing sins.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Because he naturally has control of everything. And if he then sets it aside and allows men to "do the best they can," resulting in most of the humans he's supposed to be keen on saving make the wrong choices out of ignorance, he's accepting of the Devil winning out in the struggle for Men's souls...while He, God, doesn't exercise his sovereignty. It would be like you being able to grow a beautiful garden--and you want to have one--but you stand aside and never water the flowers, so that most of them die. You could have had a great garden, but you don't get one.

Not to nit pick, but I think that is not a correct analogy.

God is God no matter who He creates or what that creation does.

God's power does not lessen because He does not have control, if He never intended to have complete control in the first place.

This is also a bad analogy but I'll use it anyway.

If a parent sends their child to school each day for 8 hours, there is a chance that that child will disobey them and the parent takes that chance because it is in the best interest of the child to be given that advantage of school and knowlege over a bad behavior that may need to be fixed.

If another parent homeschools their child and that child is never out of the parent's sight nor does that child interact with anyone else, there is MUCH LESS of a chance of that child disobeying the parent because they do not have the opportunity to do so. So is the homeschooling parent that controls their child's behavior by controling who and what situations that child has a better parent because that child does not have the same opportunity to disobey?

Because the chances are much less for the homeschooled child. Should God homeschool us and never let us out of His site or into situation where we can choose wrong.

I know this is a weird example, but I think it makes my point. God gives us opportunity to grow and learn and choose to do His will and love Him. Not keep us in a box where we have no opportunity to do nothing else but what He wants us to do.

Does that make sense?

 

[Albion]

Ok, but if God created human beings with this free-will because He wanted them to CHOOSE to worship Him in love, rather than by design, has God given up anything or created exactly what He set out to create from the beginning?

In a sense, yes. Erose asked if a king ceases to be a king if he rules one kind of people as opposed to another. But it's not the kind of people that is critical in this but the control exercised by the king. It's the "sovereignty of God" that's in question, not whether he is the sovereign.

But getting back to your question, what if the king (or our God) who is deeply concerned that Mankind be reconciled to him, stands aside and lets the "chips fall where they may" or, to put it another way, permits Satan to do his best without the intervention of God? That IS to surrender God's sovereignty in effect, yes.

So does this make sense--that he'd allow Satan just to win by default in the great majority of cases because Man's ability to choose God over the Devil has been sin-dimmed? That's what the "Man has complete free will to choose God or not" argument says.

 

[Albion]

God's power does not lessen because He does not have control, if He never intended to have complete control in the first place..

I don't think you realize it, but you're avoiding the issue. If God does not exercise his sovereignty, then we are correct to say that he's put it on hold (or whatever other way you want to phrase it). WHY WOULD HE put it on hold and allow us to fall victim to Satan with hardly a fight?

HOWEVER, the bottom line to all of this is that I said I find the Predestinarian argument to be persuasive, that's all.

 

[ToBeLoved]

In a sense, yes. Erose asked if a king ceases to be a king if he rules one kind of people as opposed to another. But it's not the kind of people that is critical in this but the control exercised by the king. It's the "sovereignty of God" that's in question, not whether he is the sovereign.

But getting back to your question, what if the king (or our God) who is deeply concerned that Mankind be reconciled to him, stands aside and lets the "chips fall where they may" or, to put it another way, permits Satan to do his best without the intervention of God? That IS to surrender God's sovereignty in effect, yes.

So does this make sense--that he'd allow Satan just to win by default in the great majority of cases because Man's ability to choose God over the Devil has been sin-dimmed? That's what the "Man has complete free will to choose God or not" argument says.

But that is almost exactly what God does. He does not intervene for those who are not His Children and choose Him to be their Savior.

The gift of grace, through faith.

We have to have faith. So we come to God and choose God.

Satan does run amuk. God even calls satan the king of this world. And God tells us that 'this world is not our home'. But satan will have his day, because his future is already decided. He will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. So satan get's to think he's god for a while, then God does what He wants. So who wins? GOd.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't think you realize it, but you're avoiding the issue. If God does not exercise his sovereignty, then we are correct to say that he's put it on hold (or whatever other way you want to phrase it). WHY WOULD HE put it on hold and allow us to fall victim to Satan with hardly a fight?

HOWEVER, the bottom line to all of this is that I said I find the Predestinarian argument to be persuasive, that's all.

So, let's look at this.

The question could also be asked 'Why did Jesus not come in glory with the full power of being the Son of God and God Himself and wipe out the Pharisee's and the ruler's (ie Pontius Pilot) and such?

God was not exercising His authority over mankind letting them kill His Son. But what became of it. God reconciled all those who believe in His Son back to Himself.

So who won? God who get's billions of His Children back through Christ or the people that crucified Christ (ie. Pharisee's and Pontius Pilot) got to kill Jesus dead?

God won!

People did evil, but God used it for good. Are not we His Children used for His good in an evil world when we love our neighbors as ourselves? Does satan win because we did not choose to exercise our authority to serve self, not God.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

? I don't seem to find that anywhere in my post.


For one thing, we were talking about belief (or faith), not committing sins.

I guess we'll have to drop it b/c I'm traveling and in slow tablet mode.

 

[Albion]

So, let's look at this.

The question could also be asked 'Why did Jesus not come in glory with the full power of being the Son of God and God Himself and wipe out the Pharisee's and the ruler's (ie Pontius Pilot) and such?

God was not exercising His authority over mankind letting them kill His Son. But what became of it. God reconciled all those who believe in His Son back to Himself.

So who won? God who get's billions of His Children back through Christ or the people that crucified Christ (ie. Pharisee's and Pontius Pilot) got to kill Jesus dead?

God won!

What of the perhaps 80% of all people who have ever lived who were NOT believers but, according to your freewill POV, were in contention for salvation?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't think you realize it, but you're avoiding the issue. If God does not exercise his sovereignty, then we are correct to say that he's put it on hold (or whatever other way you want to phrase it). WHY WOULD HE put it on hold and allow us to fall victim to Satan with hardly a fight?

HOWEVER, the bottom line to all of this is that I said I find the Predestinarian argument to be persuasive, that's all.

How do you explain God not exercising His sovereignity when Jesus was on the earth? God put it on hold, but yet He was still God and man. So asking your same type of question, 'why did Jesus (fully God, fully man) allow satan to tempt Him for 40 days and 40 nights?

Why would He put it on hold and allow himself to be held up by satan without a fight?

 

[ToBeLoved]

What of the perhaps 80% of all people who have ever lived who were NOT believers but, according to your freewill POV, were in contention for salvation?

What of all the people who existed during the Old Testament when God was with the Hebrews and only the Hebrews?

Why were not all the other people in contention for salvation or at least to have their sin atoned for temporarily by the high priests?

 

[Albion]

How do you explain God not exercising His sovereignity when Jesus was on the earth?

The whole matter of the Incarnation, etc. was part of a divine plan. We know that. But the issue of leaving all men basically to their own dim abilities when it comes to appropriating Jesus' merits goes to the issue of freewill or election in the matter of salvation. Your thinking seems to amount to him saying "You're on your own," which, I'm thinking, can hardly be less cheery than thinking that he chooses his elect and secures them according to his plan.

 

[Albion]

What of all the people who existed during the Old Testament when God was with the Hebrews and only the Hebrews?

I don't know. However, that's a somewhat different issue from what we're talking about. We could look at this from the freewill POV, too, and we'd have to conclude that they had no chance, right? If so, Election doesn't look any worse by comparison. Isn't that so?