Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.
 

Of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2018
571
445
Atlanta, Georgia
✟48,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's more, it seems to me that both Calvinists and Arminians generally agree with the idea of the will being in "bondage": No one comes to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws him.

It is the details of exactly how a person is drawn to Christ that differ. But of course, we need careful definition of terms and agreement on them to continue a useful discussion about the subject.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.
There are different free wills because the term "free' is qualified by what it's free from. Moreover the 'will' has two definitions, 'desire' and the 'faculty of reasoning'. The will of man before the fall could rightly be called a free will in that it was free from corruption while in a state of innocence. It therefore could will only to do the good and without any deliberation.

In my understanding, the current sentiment of the term free will is that people are responsible for their choices and actions. It becomes a means of judgment in that sense by conflating responsible with culpable. The issue becomes more nuanced when it's pointed out that there are carnal compulsions that we act upon that are of the carnal will, and that it is love/empathy that actually makes a person care about how their actions affect others and subsequently act responsibly. Hence there is a spiritual will and a carnal will and not one free will.

Therefore the free will mindset does not factor in the implications of two opposing wills because it's fixated on choice/option. It reasons that since there is an option between right and wrong this necessarily means a person could have chosen the right path (which is an assertion). This is usually why, to a free will mindset, being responsible for one's actions actually means there was a choice/option.

However that assertion is in conflict with Christianity, which teaches that the carnal mind cannot be subject to God and that a person who is in a carnal mindset reasons right and wrong differently than the spiritual mindset. Which is why the mind must be renewed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The capacity to make decisions of my own volition. The question it raises is the extent to which my will is free, and to what extent it is encumbered. If Adam, and Eve, ate the apple, was that a decision that they made, or was the game loaded from the beginning, so that was always going to happen?

Actions of course have consequences, and free will does not excuse one from those consequences, and equally the lack of free will will not absolve you of the consequences.

In Baptism the candidate is asked, Do you turn to Christ? and responds I turn to Christ. The decision to turn to Christ would be irrelevant were not not for free will. Being Christian is not compulsory, but is a response to grace once offered on a tree.

Clearly, since the foundation of the world God knew that one would turn to Christ or not. Those who pursue a theology emphasizing the sovereignty of God may end up concluding that we in fact have been predestined for heaven. That seems to imply that we have not free will, yet that is counter to how we experience life, the account of the garden, and the urgency of the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The capacity to make decisions of my own volition.
In a deterministic view the choice/option of right and wrong precedes the choice/decision. The moral/immoral decision of how to treat our fellow man happens because of the circumstance of sharing a planet with others. It is therefore inevitable that a choice/decision will be made which is why the moral/immoral decision is a choice/decision made out of necessity and is not voluntary. The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The capacity to make decisions of my own volition. The question it raises is the extent to which my will is free, and to what extent it is encumbered. If Adam, and Eve, ate the apple, was that a decision that they made, or was the game loaded from the beginning, so that was always going to happen?
You make it sound like it has to be one or the other. What was always going to happen was, according to the law of causality, going to happen. Choice is part of how it happened. And yes, the choice is also caused. Now if to your mind that negates choice, maybe you can tell me how anything after First Cause happens without being caused. Adam most certainly did decide. And he did so precisely as God planned.

Actions of course have consequences, and free will does not excuse one from those consequences, and equally the lack of free will will not absolve you of the consequences.
Agreed. In fact, agreed regardless of which meaning (or use) of "Free Will" you intend.

In Baptism the candidate is asked, Do you turn to Christ? and responds I turn to Christ. The decision to turn to Christ would be irrelevant were not not for free will. Being Christian is not compulsory, but is a response to grace once offered on a tree.

Now, here we get into the question I raised in the OP. Which "Free Will" are you referring to? [Use 1] 1. If you mean that the lost is capable of turning to Christ without God enabling him to do so, you are wrong. (Sorry, but... yeah, wrong.) [Use 2] 2. If you mean that without God's making his will free (by redemption and regeneration) his decision is irrelevant, you are correct. But here we encounter another word, the use of which is undefinied. You say "irrelevant" --irrelevant to what --success of conversion? --success of salvation? --are you making the assumption that Salvation does not actually apply until that moment one makes that decision sans the help of God in doing so? Do not the Scriptures deny it is possible for the unregenerate to do so, or even to want to?

Clearly, since the foundation of the world God new that one would turn to Christ or not. Those who pursue a theology emphasizing the sovereignty of God may end up concluding that we in fact have been predestined for heaven. That seems to imply that we have not free will, yet that is counter to how we experience life, the account of the garden, and the urgency of the Gospel.

--Concluding that we (WHO?) are predestined for heaven? The elect are. The rest are not. I'm not sure if you meant to imply there is something wrong with that idea. But just to add to your confusion, the Reformed position on the Gospel no more lessens the urgency of it than any other position. It only does so to the mind of those who see it as man's choice, not God's. It is reasoning that leads one to say that God knows because he foresees --not Scripture. Of course he foresees --he forecauses!

The urgency of the Gospel is not what we think it is --that is to say, yes, we must repent and turn to Christ asap, but the work of regeneration is God's work and God's choice. If God changes one to the point that he desires Christ, his "accepting" of Christ is the evidence --not the cause-- of regeneration. So the urgency of the Gospel is the same as for any obedience in that regard. More, though, it is urgent because of the force behind it. This is God himself, not the will of man, who has worked the Gospel within us. We are set upon a new path with a new reason to live. Urgent? Definitely! I cannot trust my decision, no way it is worthy of God's respect. But if it is God's decision, my whole life is about him.

Does man choose Christ? Certainly we decide for Christ. Freely? Only the regenerate are free from their bondage to sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
In a deterministic view the choice/option of right and wrong precedes the choice/decision. The moral/immoral decision of how to treat our fellow man happens because of the circumstance of sharing a planet with others. It is therefore inevitable that a choice/decision will be made which is why the moral/immoral decision is a choice/decision made out of necessity and is not voluntary. The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.
Not sure I get what you are saying. If one has a gun to his head (forcing a decision) is it not still a decision? You say, "voluntary". Does that mean "volitional"? Because the will is involved in all decisions, if only from choosing the easiest or most convenient, or least argumentative, or safest thing to do for the moment.

As for your general point, I think I agree --let me put it in different words: Right and wrong choices are not the same thing as obedience and disobedience. One may make moral (right) choices and be doing so even for noble reasons, but still be at enmity to God. Instead of obeying God, he is at best satisfying conscience or acting out of genuine concern for someone else's well-being.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
In a deterministic view the choice/option of right and wrong precedes the choice/decision. The moral/immoral decision of how to treat our fellow man happens because of the circumstance of sharing a planet with others. It is therefore inevitable that a choice/decision will be made which is why the moral/immoral decision is a choice/decision made out of necessity and is not voluntary. The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.


There is, I have noticed since even before I was a teen, the fact that good habits inculcate good attitudes, and further good deeds, even in other areas of life from those habits. Good deeds, whether done by a Christian or the unsaved, still witness of the goodness of God. But you are right, the capacity in the unsaved to do what is right is not what instills righteousness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
What's more, it seems to me that both Calvinists and Arminians generally agree with the idea of the will being in "bondage": No one comes to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws him.

It is the details of exactly how a person is drawn to Christ that differ. But of course, we need careful definition of terms and agreement on them to continue a useful discussion about the subject.
Not only the details of how one is drawn to Christ, but more specifically, when a person is changed (and therefore, how a person is changed). Does one's eternal destiny hinge on the will of man, and man's decision, or on the work of God?
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not sure I get what you are saying. If one has a gun to his head (forcing a decision) is it not still a decision? You say, "voluntary". Does that mean "volitional"? Because the will is involved in all decisions, if only from choosing the easiest or most convenient, or least argumentative, or safest thing to do for the moment.
I used 'voluntary' because every moral/immoral decision is inevitable, and not voluntary. The moral/immoral decision qualifies as a choice made out of necessity.

As for your general point, I think I agree --let me put it in different words: Right and wrong choices are not the same thing as obedience and disobedience. One may make moral (right) choices and be doing so even for noble reasons, but still be at enmity to God. Instead of obeying God, he is at best satisfying conscience or acting out of genuine concern for someone else's well-being.
Respectfully, that doesn't sound like the point I was trying to make, but I could be wrong. The subject matter can easily get lost in the semantics since right and wrong are perceived differently depending on how carnal or spiritual the mindset.

Overall I'm trying to point out that the term free will denotes more than just making choices. The term will alone suffices to denote this.

I also said this: The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.

Righteousness is a choice in a legalistic moral point of view, but in the spiritual view righteousness is a spiritual commodity that compels the choice without the letter of the law. It seems to me that if there were an equal ability to choose right over wrong and wrong over right so that a person were capable of choosing either one equally, then that would constitute some sort of doublemindedness. Therefore I believe there are pre-dispositions. For example suppose I would ask someone if they could choose to believe God was untrustworthy one moment, and then choose to believe that he was trustworthy the next, according to their own volition? I don't believe that's possible.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I used 'voluntary' because every moral/immoral decision is inevitable, and not voluntary. The moral/immoral decision qualifies as a choice made out of necessity.
So, the will is not involved in that choice made out of necessity? I'm not sure why you are going there.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.

As a view of creation I find your proposition most unsatisfying. It suggests that the capacity to decide, and to create, rather that being part of the image and likeness we bear, is simply a deception engineered by God, and that is clearly outside the nature of God as revealed in the canonical scriptures.

Does man choose Christ? Certainly we decide for Christ. Freely? Only the regenerate are free from their bondage to sin.
I take this to be the argument based on a theology of double predestination. Of course I come at this as an Anglican, and our position on this is not quite the same.

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.​

I acknowledge the sovereignty of God, however I live as if I have free will, for I must choose Christ and choose the right, in this life here and now. When that day come to pass, and I stand before my make in heaven and see that this was predestined, then I will give thanks and worship, however to presume such a state now is to suggest that My life and action is without bearing and without meaning and purpose, and that proposition as, as the article suggests a most dangerous downfall.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, the will is not involved in that choice made out of necessity? I'm not sure why you are going there.
Thanks for this response, but no that's not what I'm saying. Of course the will is involved in every moral/immoral choice/decision. But the moral/immoral choice, is a choice made out of necessity because we all must respond to, or deal with, how we interact with others in our lives. To rephrase, the moral/immoral choice is about how we treat our neighbor, hence there is no moral/immoral choice to be made without a neighbor to deal with. To rephrase again, the moral/immoral choice/decision is inevitable so long as we are sharing space with others. It cannot be avoided, hence it qualifies as a choice/decision made out of necessity since it is not voluntary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a view of creation I find your proposition most unsatisfying. It suggests that the capacity to decide, and to create, rather that being part of the image and likeness we bear, is simply a deception engineered by God, and that is clearly outside the nature of God as revealed in the canonical scriptures.
Thank you for this response.

Childeye 2 said: The capacity to make decisions of one's own volition doesn't instill righteousness, it simply reasons upon what it believes to be true.

Respectfully, all I meant was the same as this:
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
As a view of creation I find your proposition most unsatisfying. It suggests that the capacity to decide, and to create, rather that being part of the image and likeness we bear, is simply a deception engineered by God, and that is clearly outside the nature of God as revealed in the canonical scriptures.


I take this to be the argument based on a theology of double predestination. Of course I come at this as an Anglican, and our position on this is not quite the same.

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.​

I acknowledge the sovereignty of God, however I live as if I have free will, for I must choose Christ and choose the right, in this life here and now. When that day come to pass, and I stand before my make in heaven and see that this was predestined, then I will give thanks and worship, however to presume such a state now is to suggest that My life and action is without bearing and without meaning and purpose, and that proposition as, as the article suggests a most dangerous downfall.

RC Sproul comments in one of his essays on something I have noticed often --his comment in the context of the Double Predestination debate, while I have noticed it in many other subjects: "The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse." This is part of the reason for my OP.

Anyhow, without commenting on the obvious differences between what your denomination believes and what I believe, and for brevity's sake, I will respond to your last paragraph: Your claim, "...to presume such a state now is to suggest that my life and action is without bearing and without meaning and purpose..." is not Scriptural. The fact one sees, for example, no urgency to the Gospel if eternity does not hinge on YOUR DECISION RIGHT NOW, but on God's decision made from the beginning of time and performed as HE sees the time right, has no impact on the truth of Scripture. Doctrine must not be built on what merely seems to work best.

I see in your thinking the same thing as in the thinking of most people, that they seem to hold God to our standards, as though he must behave according to his command to us. You (collectively) see it unreasonable, for example, that God should require obedience without providing the means to obey -- or no, worse: to require it while planning from the beginning that they would not obey and in fact prohibiting them from acquiring the means of obedience. You want a God who operates in our realm, not from his realm, his level. You want him to be like his creatures. You will deny it, but that is what you are doing when you imply that the notion, that all good things are the work of God, denies you purpose.

God has the absolute right of CREATOR. Earlier I read a complaint of God "forcing regeneration" on the Elect. Are you kidding? --I say as if you had said it --(I don't know who said it). He can make us in any state he pleases, and is to be admired and worshiped for doing so. Do you really want our present state of bondage to sin to be preferred over [I'm tempted to say, "over Free Will"] regeneration, as if he is intruding on our right to self-determination? What right to self-determination would that be, anyhow? "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Thanks for this response, but no that's not what I'm saying. Of course the will is involved in every moral/immoral choice/decision. But the moral/immoral choice, is a choice made out of necessity because we all must respond to, or deal with, how we interact with others in our lives. To rephrase, the moral/immoral choice is about how we treat our neighbor, hence there is no moral/immoral choice to be made without a neighbor to deal with. To rephrase again, the moral/immoral choice/decision is inevitable so long as we are sharing space with others. It cannot be avoided, hence it qualifies as a choice/decision made out of necessity since it is not voluntary.
I understand that, as far as it goes, but I don't understand why mention it. How is that relevant to the Free Will question?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.
First off do you agree with the following:

Unbelieving sinful man cannot of his own free will do anything noble, honorable, worthy, righteous or holy, but he/she can do stuff for selfish reasons?

If sinful man did make an autonomous free will choice to follow Christ that would be an honorable, righteous, and worthy of something choice, so sinful man cannot make such a choice?

Just because we know somethings are predestined does not mean everything is predestined?

Just because one can show man does not make free will choices sometimes does not mean man does not have free will in other areas?

God has in human terms “foreknowledge” of everything?

God is outside of time and not limited by human time?

From God’s perspective there is no before or after in the human universe, but God expressing himself anthropomorphically to humans using our understanding of time in communicating with us?

God’s omnipresent ability would include God existing throughout time?

God in His existence with perfect knowledge at the end of human time would know “historically” every thought and decision of humans throughout human existence?

Since God at the end of time is outside of time, He could send all historical information back to Himself at the beginning of time?

History cannot be changed: if it happened it happened even if God was the only one to know about some happening it cannot be changed, but God could do it over another way if he wanted?

Just the fact God (or anyone else for that matter) at the end of time knows historically all the choices a person made, does not keep, some of those choices, when they were made, from being autonomous free will choices?

God has the power to provide humans with at least some limited autonomous free will choices if He desired?

If man needed to have some very limited autonomous free will in order to fulfill man’s earthly object, God’s Love for humans would be great enough to provide humans with this very limited free will, virtual miraculous, ability?

God could certainly predestine to save all humans who fulfilled their earthly objective, if God wanted to without changing anything in scripture?



Here is what we might not agree with:

The one autonomous free will choice mature adults need to be able to make in order to complete their earthly objective is to humbly accept or reject God’s help (charity/mercy/grace/Love/forgiveness) as pure charity. In other words: sinful humans can choose to hang in there, be macho, pay the piper and take the punishment they fully deserve or they can wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy, while they still hate their enemy (God) they are just willing to humbly accept their enemy’s undeserved pure charity. They still might feel they deserve from their enemy to be severely tortured to death, for their previous war crimes, yet they are willing to take undeserved charity. They are not being righteous, holy, glorious, honorable, worthy and noble in what they are doing, since it is for selfish reasons, they are willing to accept their enemy’s charity.

God is not forcing his charity on the sinner like some kind of shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, since that would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the sinner obtain Godly type Love in that manner. By accepting this Love in the form of forgiveness Jesus has taught us “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…” so humbly accept pure undeserved forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt automatically results in the former sinner receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) and thus fulfill the first part of sinners earthly objective.

So, when does God know who in man’s future will accept His Love, since God at the end of time would know historically who all accepted His Love throughout time? The God at the end of time is also God at the beginning of time, so God at the beginning of time knows who of their own autonomous free will ability accepted His Love as charity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,008
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
First off do you agree with the following:

Unbelieving sinful man cannot of his own free will do anything noble, honorable, worthy, righteous or holy, but he/she can do stuff for selfish reasons?

If sinful man did make an autonomous free will choice to follow Christ that would be an honorable, righteous, and worthy of something choice, so sinful man cannot make such a choice?
Agreed and agreed

Just because we know somethings are predestined does not mean everything is predestined?
Just because one can show man does not make free will choices sometimes does not mean man does not have free will in other areas?
Disagreed and disagreed, if I follow what you are saying. Your structure there, "just because", is not well defined in its implications. The fact one thing can be shown to be the result of particular cause, is not the reason the other situations can be shown to also be the result of that same particular cause --that I agree with. But the fact that First Cause has caused ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE, shows that all things are predestined --at least according to my use of the term "predestined". As for your second "just because", we need to define "free will" to deal with it, though I imagine from your reading of what I just said you have your question answered already.

God has in human terms “foreknowledge” of everything?

God is outside of time and not limited by human time?

From God’s perspective there is no before or after in the human universe, but God expressing himself anthropomorphically to humans using our understanding of time in communicating with us?

God’s omnipresent ability would include God existing throughout time?

Agreed all, though I'm not sure what implications you think are necessary by those constructions you have posited. For example, you say "...no before and after in the human universe..." (to which I could, donkey-like, say you have just contradicted yourself, haha) but I'm wondering do you continue then, that ask if with God there is no cause--effect sequence, no causal "before and after"?

God’s omnipresent ability would include God existing throughout time?

God in His existence with perfect knowledge at the end of human time would know “historically” every thought and decision of humans throughout human existence?

Since God at the end of time is outside of time, He could send all historical information back to Himself at the beginning of time?
Your first statement I quote here, I wondered what you are getting at, your second, I wondered why you would define his knowledge as "historical". Your third sounds ludicrous to me --"send back to himself"??? Why would he need to do that? He is not encumbered by events and passage of time. From the beginning the Lamb was Slain.

History cannot be changed: if it happened it happened even if God was the only one to know about some happening it cannot be changed, but God could do it over another way if he wanted?
Haha God could do it over, and we would never know he had done so, but why? We are talking about God here, not some powerful learning child.
 
Upvote 0