Decision VS Free-Will

[Rightglory]

CantateDomino,

The moment we are regenerated we are just as saved as a person who has endured and persevered and been sanctified for 90 years, yet those who will ultimately be saved have endured and persevered and been sanctified all through their Christian life - but not in order to earn or deserve their salvation but as a result of their salvation.

If regeneration is de facto salvation and all that comes after has no meaning toward salvation, what is the purpose of sanctification?
Can man choose to reject Christ at any time after he has been regenerated?

 

[Basis_Vectors]

I see no dilema , and no ships .... only hardships

God Is sovereign . Free will is nothing but a philosophical concept that almost never gets defined .

simply put there is NO limit to God's rule , there is a limit to man's freedom.

I'm not trying to argue, but I honestly see a paradox in this.

Hypothetically: If I had a 15 year old pubescent son, in my very finite wisdom I would not give him the keys to my library and porn stash and expect him to make the correct decision i.e. to NEVER see what is in the stash. From my understanding, we are in a similar situation.

Humans were given a perfectly self-sustaining planet. We were given "a choice": if we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil we would die. Obviously we did it. But this was all planned otherwise a messiah wouldn't be needed. As a result, everyone is subject to sin, wickedness, etc. However (unbeknown to most all humans), some people are already elected from the foundations of the earth to be with our Father.

To me it is highly discouraging to see this, and to feel like free will isn't in the least bit free. Do you think the thief crucified next to Jesus knew that he would be in paradise, after a life of debauchery and evil? If someone can be horrible all their life and then repent and go to heaven, what about the people that keep going but get beat down at the "last minute" and do something that keeps them out of paradise? If the "bad to good" case can happen, the "good to bad" case can too.

It seems more everyday there is no justice, and it also seems more and more people try to justify this sick and vile world through a bunch of nuanced philosophies that are supposed to make one feel better (or guilty) about living on this once again VOID world. Couple this with the theory that free will does not exist: hopefully you can see the paradox.

Why create us if it is a known fact that most all of us will burn (for whatever period of time) in the lake of fire? God sent His son to die for us because he loved the world, but it seems obvious to me that some of us are NOT going to get anywhere near paradise because our lives are written.

 

[cygnusx1]

paradox is fine , I am happy with paradoxes .

cotradictions I am not so keen on and few know or care for the difference .

Good and evil is decided by God , sometimes men have killed under God's will , how many Holy wars are in the OT ?........sometimes they have been killed for killing , all does not depend upon an act but the motives for that act ; hence Rahab who told a lie is welcomed into the house of faith and Annanias and Sapphira are struck down for lying ........ God's motives in ordaining any sin is always Holy and good , men sin with a heart in defiance of good and are held culpable for it.

Joseph under the direct governing will of God was treated appallingly with great sin , but God had a differnet motive to Jospeh's brethren , even though the same event was willed By God and his sinful brethren.

 

[Rightglory]

cygnusx1,

God Is sovereign . Free will is nothing but a philosophical concept that almost never gets defined .

so because you don't understand it, or cannot define it, it does not exist?

simply put there is NO limit to God's rule , there is a limit to man's freedom.

False dilemna again. Who is limiting God's rule. Man being free is not limiting God's rule. God ordained that man would be created in His Image which includes the ability to rationalize, to make choices, in other words man is free to choose. Man is not autonomous if that is what you are alluding to, but then that is not a free will either. Man must have choices in order to make rational decisions. That is why he was created with a rational soul. The ability to reason.

 

[cygnusx1]

I see yet again no free will definition but I am expected to give it .........I am going for a rest , can't do all the running .









If you wish to maintain free will you had better define your term and what it isn't , and just how it fits with God's

1. Decree
2. Foreknowledge which is exaustive and fixed

 

[Rightglory]

cygnusx1,

Did God merely know His Son would be crucified ? no ..
Acts 2
[22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
[23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

There is nothing in these verses that says God decreed certain men would crucifiy Christ. It specifically says, foreknowledge, not decree. Those men were completely free to act as they did and will be held accountable.

but some attempting to deny God rules over all events claim God decreed ONLY His son would die but merely foreknew the sin that would do it ...... is that what scripture tells us ? Of course not , Acts 4 is even more explicit ;
Acts 4

False dilemna again. no one is denying God rules in this world. But He rules within the framework of His creating man free to choose. Acts 4 does not address your theology either. You will find NOTHING in scripture that even suggests that God sins. That God is responsible for the sin of man.

You have a huge contradiction in your theology. A theology that has not ever existed within historical Christianity. I don't think you will find a single CF who does not believe that God created man free. Only once was it attempted to show that man did not have a will, dealing with the fact that Christ in His Incarnation did not have a separate human will. This was declared a heresy in the 6th Ecumencial Council. There has not been a single disagreeing voice since.

To think otherwise is to fail to understand why God created man in the first place. It fails to account for God's reason for revealing Himself to us. Why we are obligated to align our wills with His IF we desire to be in a relationship with Him. Why man is held accountable for his deeds, and not God.

 

[drstevej]

RG,

Let me get this...

[1] God created man with free will
[2] God knew man would sin
[3] God has no responsibility ???

... seems like you have a problem

 

[cygnusx1]

it is clear you are still hiding behind the crystal ball view of God .

It explicitly states Christ being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ...

but you wish it to say only foreknowledge when it plainy says much more . what are you afraid of ? charging God with sin ?

I notice you didn't even quote Acts 4 again it doesn't suit you and your argument .

you reduce what is written to what you can accept , I don't.

why have you deliberately quoted Acts 2 and not ACTS 4 ?

thus there is no problem with me , the problem is your own and you are intent on dragging away at it .

here I will quote it once again ;

Acts 4

[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

notice the last line , it hardly fits with anything you post , but it sure fits with what I post

 

[Basis_Vectors]

paradox is fine , I am happy with paradoxes .

cotradictions I am not so keen on and few know or care for the difference .

Good and evil is decided by God , sometimes men have killed under God's will , how many Holy wars are in the OT ?........sometimes they have been killed for killing , all does not depend upon an act but the motives for that act ; hence Rahab who told a lie is welcomed into the house of faith and Annanias and Sapphira are struck down for lying ........ God's motives in ordaining any sin is always Holy and good , men sin with a heart in defiance of good and are held culpable for it.

Joseph under the direct governing will of God was treated appallingly with great sin , but God had a differnet motive to Jospeh's brethren , even though the same event was willed By God and his sinful brethren.

Yes, but what I am questioning is the situation of those people that truly sin (all of us). For those humans not saved, it seems as if nothing they could have done would change their "path/end" since God knows what it will be anyway.


In quantum physics every probable and improbable possibility is "open" until it is observed. Then the system takes on that "state" function. Take Schrodinger's Cat: put a cat in a box and let poison seep in at a "random" time. Now, the cat is in every quantum state of existence (50% dead, 50% alive) because it isn't observed. As soon as someone opens the box and observes the cat, it takes on a particular state function (100% dead or 100% alive).

The allegory I am trying to make is God knows our futures and our "end." Therefore it seems like since "someone" observed our "state," all of our events (state functions) are chosen according to their "probability" i.e. our events in space-time are well defined already.

So, is even this conversation free will, or was it a very small part of a set of state functions already "observed" and chosen? And, what does that mean for us? I suppose I am getting to the question of whether predestination actually has merit...

 

[Rightglory]

drstevej,

Let me get this...
[1] God created man with free will
[2] God knew man would sin
[3] God has no responsibility ???
... seems like you have a problem

Only to you I presume. Scripture does not have a problem. God is not being held accountable for man's sinful acts. Or can you show that God sins, and will be held accountable?

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus1,

It explicitly states Christ being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ...

that is precisely what it says. It does not say that God decreed that those men would sin in carrying out the crucifixion of Christ. It is specifically God knowing that it would happen at that point in time and Christ entered history. Which is why those men are held accountable and not God. God does not sin, nor does He cause any man to sin. He does not even tempt man to sin. It is solely man's responsibility for his sin.

but you wish it to say only foreknowledge when it plainy says much more . what are you afraid of ? charging God with sin ?

absolutely, which is why God created man free. God cannot sin. He did not create sin. Sin is a disobedient act of man against God.

I notice you didn't even quote Acts 4 again it doesn't suit you and your argument .

I responded that it does not even address decrees of God. It clearly puts man in a cooperative, synergistic relationship with God.

[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
notice the last line , it hardly fits with anything you post , but it sure fits with what I post

Christ crucifixion was predetermined and even predetermined in a fixed time frame in history. But nothing about God causing man to sin here. God uses man's sinful acts to accomplish his ends, as scripture is full of these examples. But God does not cause man to sin or even tempt man to sin. It would be absurd to even contemplate that God would hate sin within your view.
You have yet to show any text that God sins, that God is responsible of the sin of man. It would make Christ's atonement superfluous. Why would God need to atone for sin when in your view He is the creator of sin, and even causes man to sin.
Can you show anywhere in all of historical Christianity that such a view was ever held as the Gospel Truth?

 

[drstevej]

drstevej,
Only to you I presume. Scripture does not have a problem. God is not being held accountable for man's sinful acts. Or can you show that God sins, and will be held accountable?

Ditto for your critique of Calvinism.

Selah. Game. Set. Match.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes, but what I am questioning is the situation of those people that truly sin (all of us). For those humans not saved, it seems as if nothing they could have done would change their "path/end" since God knows what it will be anyway.

I hear you loud and clear friend


would that others could/would open their eyes and see their own dilema in running from God's Sovereignty to God's Omniscience , as if it solves any problem

It solves nothing because they haven't even begun to think through the rammifications as is clear from a couple of posts above me .

Howabout if God knew you were going to sin , did HE have a choice in stopping you from sinning ? only one step closer to either fatalism "what will be will be " not because God decreed anything (allegedly) but He merely observes what will be .... not much point in praying then !

or there is the Reformed answer , God's inscrutable will

In quantum physics every probable and improbable possibility is "open" until it is observed. Then the system takes on that "state" function. Take Schrodinger's Cat: put a cat in a box and let poison seep in at a "random" time. Now, the cat is in every quantum state of existence (50% dead, 50% alive) because it isn't observed. As soon as someone opens the box and observes the cat, it takes on a particular state function (100% dead or 100% alive).

yes , and even what is not God knows ! scripture ? yes , several

The allegory I am trying to make is God knows our futures and our "end." Therefore it seems like since "someone" observed our "state," all of our events (state functions) are chosen according to their "probability" i.e. our events in space-time are well defined already.

He knows what He foreordains , the alternative means He gets His knowledge from without , ie, God learns something .

So, is even this conversation free will, or was it a very small part of a set of state functions already "observed" and chosen?

that is why many today recognising the serious problems inherent in the crystal ball defence of God view have fled to the heresy of "open Theism" , they recognise the inevitability of foreknown choices , even though some refuse to see it

And, what does that mean for us? I suppose I am getting to the question of whether predestination actually has merit...

It's in scripture . therefore it has ample merit.

what takes priority , God's word or our understanding ?

 

[cygnusx1]

God in ordaining sinful actions of men , yes I have quoted the scripture several times and it is still being denied , cannot sin , for to sin one must be UNDER THE LAW , God is not under The Law , the Law is laid down not for the RIGHTEOUS but for sinners , can God kill and be free of any sin ......... obviously !! Genesis 6

therefore , seeing as God cannot sin , preordaining the sinful actions of men , read acts 4 once again , means God does NOT sin .

Acts 2 and Acts 4 are not a good place for the crystal ball defence of God people to go ? why ? because foreknowledge is not the only word mentioned in those texts about sin.

 

[Tangible]

Can man choose to reject Christ at any time after he has been regenerated?

Short answer - yes. There is no choice involved in our salvation, but if we are so foolish as to persist in rejection and denial of the salvation once given us by God as a free gift, then ultimately that salvation can be lost.

 

[cygnusx1]

"God uses mans sinful acts" pure Calvinism !!! LOL

 

[cygnusx1]

Short answer - yes. There is no choice involved in our salvation, but if we are so foolish as to persist in rejection and denial of the salvation once given us by God as a free gift, then ultimately that salvation can be lost.

then your going to need a whole lotta luck in heaven !

fingers crossed everybody , God might have to rescue humanity again and again and again ..........

 

[Basis_Vectors]

God in ordaining sinful actions of men , yes I have quoted the scripture several times and it is still being denied , cannot sin , for to sin one must be UNDER THE LAW , God is not under The Law , the Law is laid down not for the RIGHTEOUS but for sinners , can God kill and be free of any sin ......... obviously !! Genesis 6

therefore , seeing as God cannot sin , preordaining the sinful actions of men , read acts 4 once again , means God does NOT sin .

Acts 2 and Acts 4 are not a good place for the crystal ball defence of God people to go ? why ? because foreknowledge is not the only word mentioned in those texts about sin.

Hmm... this is an interesting approach. I don't accuse God of sinning (although I get the impression you are speaking generally,) but your analogy makes a lot of sense.

I will look more into this.

 

[Rightglory]

cygnusx1.

God in ordaining sinful actions of men , yes I have quoted the scripture several times and it is still being denied , cannot sin , for to sin one must be UNDER THE LAW , God is not under The Law , the Law is laid down not for the RIGHTEOUS but for sinners , can God kill and be free of any sin ......... obviously !! Genesis 6
therefore , seeing as God cannot sin , preordaining the sinful actions of men , read acts 4 once again , means God does NOT sin .

Acts 2 and Acts 4 are not a good place for the crystal ball defence of God people to go ? why ? because foreknowledge is not the only word mentioned in those texts about sin.

which is reformed theology; It is not scriptural theology since it has never been so held in all of history. It may be nice to create your own theology but it means little if it does not align with scripture as it was given to us.

You can say a lot of things to rationalize your own theology, but if it has never been held as the Gospel and believed from the beginning, what good is it?

Just so you know, one must not be under any law to sin. It is only because of the law that we know we sin. Adam was not under the law. It did not come until Moses.

You create false dilemnas constantly. Man does the sinning. You want God to do this for man, which is sinning through man. God can do whatever He wants, but when what is sin in man and God compels man to sin, God cannot hold man accountable. If we are to hold to your view and bring it to its logical conclusion, there is no sin in this world because God is doing it, thus it cannot be sin.

 

[cygnusx1]

It has often been pointed out in the past that every objection made against the eternal decrees of God applies with equal force against His eternal foreknowledge:

Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them; that is, He either is willing they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them. (Jonathan Edwards).
​