God took David's child's life - a contradicion in the Bible?

[zoidar]

Hebraic block logic allows separate accounts to be in tension with each other without any problems. This is because the details of the account are there to support a goal and it's not about the conflict or tension it may create with other "blocks", it rather is about what it is trying to support or point to. It's like two people drawing the same picture, both will never look the same even though both may accomplish the same goal. When we take isolated details like this out of accounts then compare them with each other they are going to be conflicts because those details are never meant to act alone. The accounts in 2 Samuel 12 and Ezekiel 18 both have a purpose and context and we need to establish that first before we scrutinize the details as the details do not act alone and are a part of the support for the context.

Western logic is very fact-driven so two separate accounts should have details that perfectly fit together. Eastern logic is not fact-driven but goal drive or honour-driven. The details are there to support the message it is trying to communicate and we need to understand that message and its limits if we are going to isolate the details and try and mix and match them with other accounts. We cannot apply our modern western demands over these accounts and expect they will work.

Very insightful post! Thanks!

 

[bling]

An enemy forced to surrender would feel they themselves deserve no punishment at all. They are surrendering by force.

“Forced to surrender” means they are captured by their enemy. I am talking about surrendering soldiers, tired of fighting a losing battle.

Then this would be love of attrition, instead of love of contrition (see above).

No?

Who will judge God for John 3:8? Or John 15:16? Or John 6:65? You can't control when you're born. How then can you claim that you can control being born from above?

John3:8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” This is not talking about God acting “arbitrarily” He is directing the wind, but man knowing where the wind came from and is going.

John15: 6 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.” This is in the context talking about the 12 and not all humans and it is not selection for salvation, since Judas is part of the group, but for discipleship.

There is no John 6:65

Just because I cannot control “where I was born” does not mean I cannot control other things, I am talking about very limited control over my thoughts about some very limited decisions.

Who will judge God for loving Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:13)?

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. - Romans 9:14-16

This takes a whole section to explain will add a post..
I can certainly see how God could work with the disposition of Jacob over the disposition of Esau and how He would hate the fact that He could not work with Esau. Just as we are to hate and Love at the same time our family. God can certainly hate and Love Esau at the same time. We do not know Esau went to hell in the end.

Who are we to JUDGE GOD for literally raising a dead man to life? - Ephesians 2:1



But according to your scenario, we sovereignly allowed God to show love towards us. <-- While still enemies, no less. The terms of unconditional surrender here are downright wacky.



If so, then it is not earned via a free will choice. Simple.

Ephesians 2:9 is always contradicted if the decision of faith is a work in-itself. Faith is not a work. You're saved by God's grace through faith, and that faith being not of yourselves (meaning "not works"), it is the gift of God (meaning "not earned"), and Paul repeats it just so you get it, "NOT WORKS," lest any man should boast.

That's justification. Once you are truly justified by God, you are guaranteed to produce the fruit of good works.

If no works, then it was nothing more than an empty claim, and that professing believer is nothing more than a hypocrite and a liar.

I, along with you, are totally against the idea of earning and deserving any part of salvation.

True sincere beggars are not “working”, but are willing to accept pure charity (gifts) which is not payment.

You cannot avoid "through faith." It's not, "For you have been saved by grace, and that not of yourselves. . ." It's "salvation by grace through faith. . ." It's a package deal. And it's unavoidable.

Regardless of that fact, grace is still unmerited. On close analysis, Paul is denoting "not works" up to 5 times in that passage alone.



I'll concede that Adam as the Federal Headship of mankind may have had more capacity for a mutable will, or the option to choose righteousness than any of his progeny. However, the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). Before Adam sinned! Therefore, by extension, Adam's choice was an illusion from his POV exclusively, and at the same time unavoidable from God's POV exclusively.

I am just trying to establish the existence of free will in at least a human.

1 Cor. 15:45 is saying nothing about “Adam being foreordained”, It all has to do with humans starting out with an earthly body and we will later on have a lasting Spiritual body look at 1Cor. 15: 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

1 Peter 1: 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. This is not talking about all humans or even the elect, but Christ.

You seem to be equating God’s perfect foreknowledge with God foreordaining everything. God has perfect foreknowledge of everything that “will happen” from our perspective since it has already happened from God’s perspective. God at the end of time has the history of everything that has happened throughout time and that information is provided to God at the beginning of time providing perfect foreknowledge, but that does not mean God foreordained everything that happened in history.

Yes, God before Adam and Eve were even created historically knew what they did throughout their lives, but that does not mean God made them do it. You can historically know what your child did yesterday, but that does not mean you forced your child to do those things yesterday. Everything is yesterday for the God at the end of time who also exists at the beginning of time.

"
So in the end, you're merely equivocating "free will" in the freewill offering.

Being selfish is the opposite of being righteous, so wanting something for selfish reasons is not righteous. Being willing to get what you want by humbly accepting it as pure charity, means giving up on self, wimping out.

I am sorry but God is commanding them to make free will offerings, so if that is not possible then God should not command that of them. Again, I am just trying to show a human can have free will, if that happened after God conforms him or changes his heart, OK for now.

- God's continual intent is always His Holiness, righteousness, and wrath upon sin. It's a given thing. Psalms 7:11 This is only suspended by undeserving mercy and grace (whether Common Grace or Special Grace in salvation).

Psalms 7: 11 God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.

But look what God is judging Ps. 7:9… the righteous God who probes minds and hearts.

If God puts everything into our mind and hearts, why does God have to probe and find out. Your idea says: “those God made evil will receive wrath and those God made good will be rewarded”, so why probe?

Because that would make God a contingent being!!!

Either God's will is sovereign, or man's will is sovereign. <-- You can't have it both ways!

God is sovereign in the fact He has decided to help those who are willing to accept His help and will not force His help on those who refuse His help. Man’s sovereign choices is only with accepting or refusing God’s help.

We know some people are saved and others are lost, so are the lost God’s fault for them being lost, since He desires all to be saved or are the lost the result of their not accepting God’s help (Love)?

- This overlooks John 5:21 <-- Not man's will. The Son gives life to whom He willeth; not to whom man willeth of the Son.

John5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

John 5:21 is not saying: “…to whom are arbitrarily choose to give it.” Jesus seemed please to help any and all who humbly accept His help as pure undeserved charity.

- This overlooks John 5:25. The rejection was based on their own dead and unregenerate hearts. Dead men cannot will themselves to life again. Dead men cannot resurrect themselves.

John5: 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Those dead in sin will here His voice, but it is not the “dead” doing anything to come to life, but the hearing the message believing and accepting the message.

- One can argue that John 5:39 is itself an immutable fact. Jesus' persecutors could not will themselves out of their unbelief, and Jesus knew their heart. See also John 2:24-25. If Jesus could be surprised by the free will of His persecutors and false disciples, then He would be more open to "commit Himself" to them and the potential of their surprising Him. But He didn't. Because He could not be surprised and He knew their hearts.

Jesus does not have to be in ignorance of what a person is going to do in order to Love them, we are given a wonderful example of Loving our enemies with Jesus.

"whomsoever" is always in the context of man's finite POV. It is not given for man to know who the elect are.

John 6:64-65

“Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

And not based on some foreseen "free will decision" to come to Christ, because that would be circular reasoning. It is the Father who initiates.

The Bible has “whosoever” and the Bible is not written to mislead us, so “whosoever” means “whosoever” or the Spirit would have used different words.

Yes!! The Father has a tremendous draw like the master of the huge wonderful glorious banquet, very hard to refuse, but just like in the banquet parables people can still refuse the invitation.

"Others" are never entitled to it. Thus, God is guilty of nothing.

What? No one is intitled to it, so it cannot be that the others are not intitled to it!! God would be a shameful rescuer if He could just as easily and safely rescue everyone from hell and only rescued a few. The reason only a few are rescued is because Many are not willing to humbly accept God’s rescuing, since that is accepting pure undeserving charity (love/mercy/grace/forgiveness). They do not like Godly type Love (charity) and Godly type Love (unselfish/unconditional) is the only Love in heaven. They would be unhappy in heaven.

Moreover, if Christ died for absolutely everyone who ever lived, but that atonement only worked for those who chose to save themselves, then Christ died in vain for those who willfully refused to save themselves.

Atonement is a huge topic, but I can assure you Christ can be the atonement sacrifice benefiting everyone and everyone not experience atonement.

This verse only says what Christ chose to do (as well as what Christ might not have done). No free will of man is implied here. On the contrary, see verse 25. It's all fore-ordained prophesy. See also verse 19b, "but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

John 15:25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

OK, when you say: “it is all foreordained prophesy” we are only talking about Christ who was fully predestined and foreordained to do what He did, but that does not mean all humans are foreordained and predestined to do what they do. Foreknowledge of what they did was known by God from the beginning of time.

In 19 Jesus is talking about the 12.

Then God is a contingent being. You're creating more problems than solutions here. In fact, you are creating an idol subject to your executive control. God is not mocked.

God is going to do what God told us He will do, there is an individual judgement contingent on what the person did.

 

[bling]

Except for your first sentence, that my logic is off, I agree with you here. To God as timeless, speaking something into existence is no different than to sustain its existence throughout. So also, with cause. To me, the very fact of fact itself is his doing. The smallest particle (or cause of the smallest particle) of matter, force, or anything else, is God at work. I did not imply otherwise.

So also with his use of secondary causes, or means, to accomplish his ends.



You see necessity of 'free will', whatever that means. You add in autonomy of the creature, which I have already showed is a bogus concept, to buttress your claim of free will. We will not overrule God's plan. We cannot. Yet you find it necessary to defend God against notions of cruelty or unfairness, as if he needed your help --as if he was altogether as we are, mere creatures. I say you see the necessity of 'free will', not as a Biblical Doctrine, but a simple fact shown throughout Scripture, because you see man choosing, obeying and disobeying, exercising his own will to arrive at his decisions. I completely agree man chooses, and exercises his own will to choose. That does not imply FREE will. In fact, to the contrary, it demonstrates his bondage to his will. Man is unable to choose contrary to his will, be it spur-of-the-moment, (at the very point of decision) or after long consideration of the options and their expected consequences. You may argue the options are real, not just perceived, and I'll allow the point only in that should one have chosen a different option it would be the actual option God had planned all along, just as the one that WAS chosen is the option God had planned all along. Options are not choices. They are perceived possibilities. No one of them is actual, if different from what will happen. Call it what you want --Fate, or like I call it, Predestination. Causation. We obey or disobey his command, but we always do precisely what he has planned.



God's causation is inescapable. But his causation does not preclude will, and its resulting choices. Rather, it confirms them.

There is nothing “bogus” about God allow humans the miraculous ability to make some autonomous free will choices, being a first causer of that choice. God is doing lots of first causes all the time, God has made man in His image. If I am a prodigal son the father can lock me in my room, put a fence around me, send armed servants after me, but would it not be more pleasing to the Father if I learned a hugely important lesson and chose of my own free will to return home?

The Father’s “plan” for the son was for the young son to become like He is which is an unselfish Lover. There is only one way for that to happen and that is “He that is forgiven much Loves much” Luke 7, so if the son humbly of his own free will accepts the father’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt, that son will automatically Love much like the Father Loves. If the son never returns of his own free will the Father’s Love does not change, but that son never obtains Godly type Love.

I am not defending God’s actions since they are totally perfect, consistent with being a totally unselfish, unconditional Lover. I am just showing how it works. You seem to be describing a very cruel God.

Since the objective should drive everything, what do you see as the objective of a mature adult?

Let me give you this: God’s objective as it relates to humans is to do or allow all He can to help willing humans to fulfill their object. (God is the epitome of unselfishness).

 

[bling]

You continue to insist on this thing called "free will" without evidence. Like I said before. You throw it around as-if you knew what it meant, when it is in-fact one of the most controversial subjects in the philosophy of man.

I have already given you scripture references, you have only given me scripture which shows there are times some men are not given a choice, which does not address all the time for all people in every situation.

In fact, "free will" as you know it didn't even exist until 1524. And it was Erasmus the humanist who argued for it; not his opponent Luther. So I'm not even sure if you're someone who accepts the minimum of Protestant theology.

I use the Bible.

Do we have the power to make choices? Yes, but only according to our wills, which are fundamentally limited. And if limited, then our wills are not truly "free" in any sense. Moreover, our wills are corrupt. Thus, we are even further limited by our dead hearts (total depravity). We then contradict ourselves when we assert the ability to do what we cannot do.

Free will is all we have time to discuss, those other topics I do not agree with and are off topic.

The free will I am talking about is a miraculous very limited ability God has provided for at least a while to mature adults, so they are able to complete their earthly objective. It allows humans to be a first cause for at least one choice.

Then you're simply chasing your own tail, because if they were not allowed to actually use their free will, then God was sovereignly in-control the entire time. ". . .because His time had not yet come." - John 7:30. God was in full control and the persecutors of Jesus had no free will in the matter. Obviously. You're just adding to scripture what isn't actually in the text.

You might mentally decide to murder Christ, but not be able to fulfill your desire, so are you guilty of murder in God’s eyes? God prevented them from physically murdering Christ at that time, but did they decide to sin or did God give them only one way to choose?

The demeaning analogy here is intentionally demeaning to the complexity of God's creation. It also overlooks the fall that we were collectively born into. YES, every child of Adam has a pre-programmed nature as a result of the Fall. We are born into corruption.

Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had and only one way to sin, so why would our nature have to change for us to sin? We know our knowledge increased, knowledge of good and evil which gave us lots more ways to sin, but where does it say our nature changed?

• Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

• This takes a lot to explain:
  
  But I would use this explanation:
  
  by William P. Murray, Jr.
  
  
  Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.
  
  
  Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV
  
  
  This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.
  
  
  The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")
  
  
  David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:
  
  
  1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”
  
  
  ....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:
  
  
  2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”
  
  
  Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:
  
  
  1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”
  
  
  1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”
  
  
  David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.
  
  
  2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”
  
  
  David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....
  
  David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered 'defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.
  
  
  Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17
  
  This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.
  
  
  
  

• [*]Genesis 8:21 - the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

• “His youth” is not his birth
  
  
  
  

• [*]Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

• This is very poetic and most likely a Hyperbole, since newborns do not tell lies.

• [*]John 3:6 - “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”

• Right and we are all born with flesh.
  
  
  
  

c.f. Proverbs 22:15

This does not support the idea of being born a sinner and it talks about parent discipline driving out from the child, this folly and parent discipline cannot drive out sin.

Question: Why are you a Christian and your unbelieving friends aren’t? Is it because you’re more righteous than they are? Is it because you did the right thing and made the right response?

They might be more macho, willing to take the punishment they fully deserve, they are better soldiers then I was and they might be able to better carry their burden in their conscience from past sins, while I am a wimp, when I came to my senses like all people do at times in their life, I could see where I was heading and was just not willing to go through the punishment I fully deserved. I gave up trying to fight a losing battle and surrendered to my hated enemy hoping he just might provide undeserved charity to relieve me of this huge burden I carried from previously hurting others (sin). Is it right or wrong to take the punishment you fully deserve?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is nothing “bogus” about God allow humans the miraculous ability to make some autonomous free will choices, being a first causer of that choice.

In this statement, whom are you referring to by, "being the first causer of that choice."

Please, then, define not only 'first cause', but 'autonomous free will'. Then show how Scriptures demonstrate those definitions are valid as applied to mere creatures. (But remember, Reformed Theology does not deny will, nor actual choice. So pointing out that humans have will and choice will not suffice.)

Show where Scripture says, or even sounds like, "God allow humans the miraculous ability to make some autonomous free will choices", instead of or merely sounding like some made up excuse for him to not be responsible for the sins of humanity.

Do you really need your repentance to be worthy
apart from him?

Since the objective should drive everything, what do you see as the objective of a mature adult?

No. It is not in our purview to even know the objective, though we know something about it. That is God's alone. We must NOT interpret Scriptures according to what looks to us like the objective. We must interpret Scriptures according to good sense, i.e. exegesis. The mature Christian is obligated to obedience, faithfulness and further pursuit of Christ. Christ is his objective. Love is no, except as God defines it --not as we envision it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Free will is all we have time to discuss, those other topics I do not agree with and are off topic.

You have not proven the existence of free will.
You deny that God is a 100% non-contingent being.
You deny the doctrine of Total Depravity.
You deny Substitutionary Atonement (in the other thread).

So yeah, we're pretty much done here.

 

[bling]

The implication here seems to be what is often claimed by opponents to Reformed Theology --that God regenerating a person quite apart from his cooperation, without consulting him first or even asking his permission, is an assault --is FORCING himself on that person. To me the concept is ludicrous:

Here we have what by default is a will in bondage to sin, unable to choose according to God, but only according to the flesh. Corruption. Death. And we are going to complain because God changes that will?

No, it's even stranger than that! We assume the default is altogether US! As if we in this state are of some dignity or integrity or value in and of ourselves! We know, but ignore the fact that it is by GOD'S OWN PLAN that we are born enslaved to sin.Are we going to claim then, that it is our RIGHT to our own fallen nature, and that God has no right to change our very being to a superior condition without first consulting us? Did he consult us before we were made born sinners? He can do as he pleases with any of us. We are not our own. Fprcing???!!!

We are not “born sinners”, but all mature adults do sin.

Sin does have purpose for the nonbelieving sinner. It is truly unfortunate that we need to sin to help us in fulfilling our earthly objective, so God not desiring us to sin will allow us to sin.

I have already explained the objective to you, but will explain more about: “Godly type Love”:

1. Would you prefer to be Loved by someone you programmed to love you or by someone who chose to sacrificially Love you od their own free will over very likely selfish alternatives? Would God not be the same way?

2. Godly type Love is not a knee jerk reaction, it is not logical (you get nothing from it and it can produce much more pain and sorrow for the Lover, it is sacrificial) then what the Lover might get from it. It is a thought-out decision of the Lover to Love in spite of what the person being Love did, is doing or even will do.

3. Godly type Love is way beyond human ability to develop, learn, earn, deserve, or payback, so it has to be given as a pure undeserved gift from God, to be a gift of pure charity it has to be shown to be desired (accepted as pure charity) by the receiver of the gift. If the receiver of the gift really does not want the gift then the transaction is not completed and the receiver does not obtain the gift. Understand gifts: a gift is owned by the receiver of and is complete their gift, so they can do as they please with that gift. If they really do not want the gift they can give it away, so they need to find value in the gift.

4. God is the epitome of this unselfish, unconditional Love, so if you experience this Love you are experiencing God Himself.

5. Heaven is like one huge Love Feast so to not desire, like, or want this type of Love means you would not be happy in heaven.

6. The only way humans can initially obtain this Love is by accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt created by your sins and thus automatically receive and unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). Instinctively trying to place this Love in people would result in a robotic type of love and not the Godly type of Love and God cannot force someone to Love others with Godly type Love since it cannot be forced on a person, they have to desire this Love.

Just being willing to humbly accept pure charity as undeserved charity is a desired for Godly type Love which is all God need to provide you with the Gift of Love. If God were to provide you with undesired Christy, you would not accept it and if you got it you would give it away since you now own it and as a gift can do what ever you want with it.

This messed up tragic world with sinning is actually the very best situation for willing humans to accept the gift of Love as charity.

 

[bling]

It's a simple question: "Do you believe God can be surprised?"

Everything has all ready happened for God at the end of time, so it is all unchangeable history and that information is part of what God knows before time began so God is not surprised.

Then the unbelieving sinner cannot choose righteousness. The unbelieving sinner is without Christ, and therefore can do nothing.

I never suggested the unbelieving sinner does anything righteous, but that does not mean the unbeliever sinner cannot selfishly do stuff. The unbelieving sinner can for selfish reasons humbly accept pure charity.

Then there is no free will to even choose "good."

That is right for the unbelieving sinner.

Which, of course, assumes the existence of "free will" without proof. I'm really going to need that proof here, or else you don't have a leg to stand on.

I gave you scripture and as I pointed out with the scripture you gave they only show all men all the time cannot exercise free will, which I agree with.

Then God is not a slave to random circumstance. If you don't believe in luck, then you agree that the verse is saying God is in-control over every apparently random element in the universe. From God's omnipotent POV, even a king does not have free will. - Proverbs 21:1

Right no luck.

The “king” does not have control over the nation he rules, but that is not addressing the individual decisions a king is making in his personal life.

Now you're parsing God's knowledge that exists outside of and non-contingent to time! The verse doesn't say "present." That was a deliberate eisegetical insertion on your part, because you would much rather the verse be read that way.

God has perfect knowledge of the earth’s future as unchangeable history, but that does not remove man’s free will.

Yes. It is the "most likely" interpretation according to your presuppositional bias. However, one cannot have salvation by grace through faith. Again: It's a package deal. Once you start dicing the verses up into tiny pieces at that level, we're gonna start having problems. You must necessarily suspend and omit "through faith," at least temporarily, in-order to make it fit your agenda. You essentially need it in-order to make faith a work of the flesh, instead of the entire package included in the gift.

Not sure what you are saying. The gift is salvation through faith and not just faith.

Then that soldier has not been born from above. He still has an unregenerate heart.

right

What's the motive to give up? Force? If threat of force, then it's nothing more than love of attrition in an analogical war of attrition.

A soldier gives up and is tired of continuing to fight a losing battle. Partly it is laziness, partly in those times when your actions bring you to your senses, you see a scary future you do not thing you can handle (you are weak), partly I am not strong enough to handle the punishment I fully deserve, and believe my hated enemy just might have some unbelievable charity that just might allow me not have to go through my deserved punishment.

God changes the heart. The dead man does not change his own dead heart.

Jesus has the very best vocabulary and can use any words he wants to describe the young son for the best communicate to His audience the state of the son. Jesus describes the young son twice as being “dead” so by deity’s definition of spiritual dead the person can do stuff like turn to the father for purely selfish reasons.

 

[The Transcendentian]

This/these (kind of examples) is/are some of the exact reasons I believe God in and of the OT did change, or go through some changes over time, etc, leading up to Jesus time, etc, and also maybe after or during Jesus time, etc...

Cause there seems to be some change here, etc...

There is passage in Exodus as well (can't find it right now) that also talks about Him punishing the children for their fathers or forefathers crimes as well, etc, toward those who hate Him, etc, but shouldn't He have "already known", etc...? "Already known" who those ones would be, or would become, or who they already are or were or would be, etc, etc, etc, in the future, etc...? Shouldn't He have "already known", etc...?

Anyway...

Anyway, and that seems to have changed by the time we get to Ezekiel, etc, multiple places in that book that He says He is no longer going to do that, etc, or operate like that, etc, but that each one would only now only stand only each one individually for their own crimes only now, etc, almost as if, He (God in and of the OT), had "learned" that "that" wasn't very productive anymore, etc, but was actually counter-productive to what He was actually trying to do, or make happen, or cause to come to pass, and/or accomplish, etc...

And in my opinion, there seems to a lot of this in the OT, etc, as if God was "learning", etc...

Or growing, changing, and/or evolving, etc...

Why I think He is/always was/has to be/have been, etc, etc, etc, God the Spirit, etc, or God the Holy Spirit, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

God doesn't change or grow, He might change His human relations strategy occasionally but if there was a change then it was a planned change that God planned from the begging. God is omniscient there is nothing new He needs to learn or for Him to learn. God Himself does not and will not change, He may do different things at different times but that doesn't mean the He Himself has changed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are not “born sinners”, but all mature adults do sin.

Sin does have purpose for the nonbelieving sinner. It is truly unfortunate that we need to sin to help us in fulfilling our earthly objective, so God not desiring us to sin will allow us to sin.

I have already explained the objective to you, but will explain more about: “Godly type Love”:

1. Would you prefer to be Loved by someone you programmed to love you or by someone who chose to sacrificially Love you od their own free will over very likely selfish alternatives? Would God not be the same way?

2. Godly type Love is not a knee jerk reaction, it is not logical (you get nothing from it and it can produce much more pain and sorrow for the Lover, it is sacrificial) then what the Lover might get from it. It is a thought-out decision of the Lover to Love in spite of what the person being Love did, is doing or even will do.

3. Godly type Love is way beyond human ability to develop, learn, earn, deserve, or payback, so it has to be given as a pure undeserved gift from God, to be a gift of pure charity it has to be shown to be desired (accepted as pure charity) by the receiver of the gift. If the receiver of the gift really does not want the gift then the transaction is not completed and the receiver does not obtain the gift. Understand gifts: a gift is owned by the receiver of and is complete their gift, so they can do as they please with that gift. If they really do not want the gift they can give it away, so they need to find value in the gift.

4. God is the epitome of this unselfish, unconditional Love, so if you experience this Love you are experiencing God Himself.

5. Heaven is like one huge Love Feast so to not desire, like, or want this type of Love means you would not be happy in heaven.

6. The only way humans can initially obtain this Love is by accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt created by your sins and thus automatically receive and unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). Instinctively trying to place this Love in people would result in a robotic type of love and not the Godly type of Love and God cannot force someone to Love others with Godly type Love since it cannot be forced on a person, they have to desire this Love.

Just being willing to humbly accept pure charity as undeserved charity is a desired for Godly type Love which is all God need to provide you with the Gift of Love. If God were to provide you with undesired Christy, you would not accept it and if you got it you would give it away since you now own it and as a gift can do what ever you want with it.

This messed up tragic world with sinning is actually the very best situation for willing humans to accept the gift of Love as charity.

Your reasoning seems entirely built on your worldview --that God put us here us to do something. Not that God put us here for HIM to do something.

Once again --we are made FOR God. We are not made to be dignified as fellow entities with God, as though we happened to him. HE made us. We are nothing without him. We will not be completed until we see him as he is. He is not finished with us. THERE is our potential --to become what he made us for, designed us to be --the Dwelling Place of God himself. It is happening even now. He is making his construction even now, but it will not be seen as completed until then.

 

[Macchiato]

The son was not punished by death. David was punished by the loss of his son.

This!

 

[bling]

Thanks for taking the time to develop the answer to my question. I'm not sure if you meant to just go on about Love, or to do so to help explain what "man's earthly objective" means.

I was thinking you were referring to some mission that man is on --for example, as many denominations claim, God has a specific calling for each believer, and it is up to the believer to discover what that is and fulfill it-- or maybe you were referring to --and this seems more like what you meant-- a universal (at least to the redeemed) command to be pursued in obedience, the specific one(s) being to love God with one's whole being, and like it, to love one's neighbor as oneself.

Either way, you seem of the opinion that man's efforts, in accordance to God's command and work in them, but still the effort of man apart from God, also therefore a decision and effort by free will, is how this is accomplished. This is where my major discomfort with the whole structure you proffer shows up. This is why my ears perked up at hearing the term, 'earthly objective', which sounds almost humanistic to me.

We are made by God, for God. Not for ourselves. We are not even complete individuals as such, but are made complete by God in us. During this temporal life, we will never see ourselves as we are in God's sight. Part of HIM. While I don't deny the activity of the human will in deciding (and yes, the decisions are real, with real results --even in the eternal realm-- anything pursued as good, is God's doing it in me --not both of us doing our part. God is doing his part, no doubt, but he is also doing OUR part. We are doing it because he is in us doing it. It is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

One other important objection: You say God does all this for our sake (which I agree with) but not for God's sake (and there I disagree). God is righteous and pure in some things he does not allow for us, specifically even mentioning, pride and self-importance, and therefore jealousy. He will not yield his glory to another. (I have asked myself, Why would he care what Satan thinks of him and his work? (ref Job) Why would mere human creatures, small, weak, stupid, matter to him to the point that he emphasizes repeatedly his majesty, justice, purity, love?). His Glory is the main cause of creation, or the main purpose of creation. He made us for that end, and the end is not so much during this "earthly objective" I don't have the time to develop this for you, but I am sure of it as I am that the Gospel makes no reference to the ability of man to do anything worthy apart from Christ. Hence, I say God has done all this for his own sake, primarily. Our sake takes a far second. (And by that I don't mean that it is our duty to figure out what will glorify God and what will not, and to behave accordingly, though concerning that we must do what is right.) Here's one link that might lend a little insight into the subject, if you are inclined to be curious about it. it. The Primacy of God's Glory

Anyhow, thanks for lending me your time. God bless you.

Edit: I forgot to mention my question whether 'earthly objective' is God's objective concerning us, or is our objective as given to us by God. By your comments, I have to conclude you mean it as our conception (because it is commanded) to be done apart from God's doing --i.e. that you think it is done by free will.

OK, I read your attachment also, but have not taken the time to review all the verses referenced.

If the objective is bringing glory to God:

1. Look at the Father in the prodigal son, that father was glorious beyond imagination, but His glory is not seen in his great power, wealth, worldly wisdom, or what people thought of his actions, but in His Love for a very unworthy foolish son (us) and an unloving older son. Did his sons bring him glory or did His Love for them bring Him glory?

2. How could the sons in the prodigal son story bring glory to God?

3. If God is in total control how can you do anything that does not bring Glory to God, since God is doing it?

4. A tree brings glory to God by being a tree, so does a person bring glory to God by being a person?

5. Did Adam and Eve bring glory to God by sinning in the Garden?

6. Jesus talks about His glory being on the cross, but that was not done because Jesus wanting personal glory and God allowed Christ to go to the cross not for His glory, since God is always glorious, but God’s and Christ’s Love for undeserving humans, while Christ is on the cross is seen as great glory.

7. The glory of God is in His mercy, grace, charity, Love, forgiveness, patience, justice, parenting, help and plain for humans.

8. Christ came to earth to help us to see how God really is, so looks at Christ’s Love we can easily see Christ is totally unselfish always doing what is the very best for each individual human who is willing to accept His help. This means God is totally unselfish, doing everything He can to help willing individuals.

9. The epitome of Love would be totally unselfish (unselfishness being a way to measure Love), with unselfishness of God would be seen in Jesus doing everything possible for the sake of willing individuals.

10. If God is doing all He can for the sake/Love of others (thus showing His greatest glory) then our helping others would also be for His sake, since that is what He is doing.

11. God is just and it is in the best interest of those willing to accept God’s help for God to be just.

12. God’s wrath against evil doers who will not repent, helps willing individuals to want to repent.

13. 1 Cor. 13:1-4 tells us we have to have Love to do anything righteous and God is righteous so all He does it out of Love. To have Godly type Love is to be compelled by that Love to do all we do, but since God is Love, God is compelling us.

 

[bling]

Right. The fact that faith is not the word directly referred to as the gift does not rule out that it is part of the gift. Bringing back into the mix the bare and painful fact that fallen man is unable to do good, and redeemed man can do nothing apart from Christ, faith then, is also not humanly conceived nor even promoted, though again, our regenerated will is completely embroiled in the activity. We do decide, and that, according to our will. But always according to the work of God IN US. It is God who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.

Unbelieving sinful man cannot do anything righteous, but he can do selfish stuff. All mature adults do have a God given faith ability which allows them all the time, to trust people and thing, including a "faith" in idols to provide the person with something, which idols cannot do.

 

[bling]

In this statement, whom are you referring to by, "being the first causer of that choice."

The individual.

Please, then, define not only 'first cause', but 'autonomous free will'. Then show how Scriptures demonstrate those definitions are valid as applied to mere creatures. (But remember, Reformed Theology does not deny will, nor actual choice. So pointing out that humans have will and choice will not suffice.)

A first cause is the result of the miraculous ability to think something (which can later be the cause of other reactions to those thoughts) which is not the result of other causes. God thought the universe and thus spoke the universe into existence. Humans think something they are solely responsible for thinking and thus are the first cause of that thought.

Autonomous free will choices are choices the individual is fully personally responsible for making, since they are his/her choices and not the result of previous choices made by others (including God). The person making these autonomous free will choice could have chosen not to make the choice he/she made without any change to the situation in which the choice was made.

Show where Scripture says, or even sounds like, "God allow humans the miraculous ability to make some autonomous free will choices", instead of or merely sounding like some made up excuse for him to not be responsible for the sins of humanity.

First off: Scripture is full of choices people are held responsible for making and it would not be just to hold someone responsible for making a bad choice for which they could not do anything differently. Now, one bad choice can lead to other bad choices which could be unavoidable, but the first bad choice could have been avoided. This is not saying a mature adult without the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love can keep from all sins since with the knowledge of good and evil there are tons of ways to sin, but any one sin could have been avoided.

Gen. 1-3 Did Adam and Eve have free will?

Exodus 35:29 “All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord freewill offerings for all the work the Lord through Moses had commanded them to do.” Are these truly free will offerings?

Jonah 3: 10 “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” Did the people of Nineveh change what God said he would do?

Jer. 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

How is this not saying that God’s actions are contingent on the choices of the people?

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40). Note that Jesus does not say, "you cannot come", which the Greek does not say here, but, "you refuse to come", in order that you may have eternal life. It was their own rejection of Jesus and the Gospel, that would damn their souls, and not because they were "unable" to make the "choice" themselves.

Christ is God here on earth. The “whomsoever” does not mean only the elect, but lots of people, who then made the choice to accept or reject Christ. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)

To say: “Christ only reveals Himself to those who God have chosen to accept Him”, means God is guilty of not helping others to accept Christ.

John 15: 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

If they have no free will, they have an excellent excuse for sinning?

There are all the “whosoever” verses making it contingent.

Do you really need your repentance to be worthy
apart from him?

Nothing makes you “worthy” of anything. Repentance is just changing direction, leaving the direction you are going and trying another direction which may not be any better. If you turn to God because you feel you deserve God’s help you have in some ways repented, but you will get nothing good out of it.

No. It is not in our purview to even know the objective, though we know something about it. That is God's alone. We must NOT interpret Scriptures according to what looks to us like the objective. We must interpret Scriptures according to good sense, i.e. exegesis. The mature Christian is obligated to obedience, faithfulness and further pursuit of Christ. Christ is his objective. Love is no, except as God defines it --not as we envision it.

Any and all organizations need a simple “Mission Statement”, which should be available to everyone in the organization or you can have people going in different directions. God has provide us with the Mission Statement in the form of a command.

 

[bling]

Your reasoning seems entirely built on your worldview --that God put us here us to do something. Not that God put us here for HIM to do something.

Once again --we are made FOR God. We are not made to be dignified as fellow entities with God, as though we happened to him. HE made us. We are nothing without him. We will not be completed until we see him as he is. He is not finished with us. THERE is our potential --to become what he made us for, designed us to be --the Dwelling Place of God himself. It is happening even now. He is making his construction even now, but it will not be seen as completed until then.

What does God lack which some created beings could provide for Him that He could not do better with whom He already has?
Everything around us speaks to man's objective, so how does it show us being made to help God out?

 

[Mark Quayle]

OK, I read your attachment also, but have not taken the time to review all the verses referenced.

If the objective is bringing glory to God:

1. Look at the Father in the prodigal son, that father was glorious beyond imagination, but His glory is not seen in his great power, wealth, worldly wisdom, or what people thought of his actions, but in His Love for a very unworthy foolish son (us) and an unloving older son. Did his sons bring him glory or did His Love for them bring Him glory?

2. How could the sons in the prodigal son story bring glory to God?

3. If God is in total control how can you do anything that does not bring Glory to God, since God is doing it?

4. A tree brings glory to God by being a tree, so does a person bring glory to God by being a person?

5. Did Adam and Eve bring glory to God by sinning in the Garden?

6. Jesus talks about His glory being on the cross, but that was not done because Jesus wanting personal glory and God allowed Christ to go to the cross not for His glory, since God is always glorious, but God’s and Christ’s Love for undeserving humans, while Christ is on the cross is seen as great glory.

7. The glory of God is in His mercy, grace, charity, Love, forgiveness, patience, justice, parenting, help and plain for humans.

8. Christ came to earth to help us to see how God really is, so looks at Christ’s Love we can easily see Christ is totally unselfish always doing what is the very best for each individual human who is willing to accept His help. This means God is totally unselfish, doing everything He can to help willing individuals.

9. The epitome of Love would be totally unselfish (unselfishness being a way to measure Love), with unselfishness of God would be seen in Jesus doing everything possible for the sake of willing individuals.

10. If God is doing all He can for the sake/Love of others (thus showing His greatest glory) then our helping others would also be for His sake, since that is what He is doing.

11. God is just and it is in the best interest of those willing to accept God’s help for God to be just.

12. God’s wrath against evil doers who will not repent, helps willing individuals to want to repent.

13. 1 Cor. 13:1-4 tells us we have to have Love to do anything righteous and God is righteous so all He does it out of Love. To have Godly type Love is to be compelled by that Love to do all we do, but since God is Love, God is compelling us.

I don't know if you mean by 'the objective' -- are you saying 'the objective God had in making us', or 'the objective he has set before us to pursue', or 'the objective we perform/ accomplish' or 'the objective we [should] bear in mind as we obey' or just what.

But if the objective is God's glory, are we the ones do decide just what does that? Or are we to try to glorify God by obedience and love?

As to your numbered questions, they are all pretty much the same: "How could the sons in the prodigal son story bring glory to God?"

The answers are all the same as what I said above: The sons glorify God by sin or by obedience; obedience more obviously, or on purpose by the one that obeys. But we also glorify God by disobedience, in that God glorifies himself through EVERYTHING, angels and demons, good and bad, love and hate, law and sin, beauty and ugliness, justice and inequity, blessing and horror and the unusual and the mundane and so many other things. Of course Adam's disobedience brought glory to God. Not that Adam did what he did in order to glorify God, but that as in EVERYTHING else, God glorifies himself, directly or indirectly, sooner or later.

To me, all you said does nothing but promote the fact that in us there is no good thing, apart from Christ, apart from the work of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A first cause is the result

Already you contradict yourself. First Cause cannot be a result. Thus, God alone is first cause.

A first cause is the result of the miraculous ability to think something (which can later be the cause of other reactions to those thoughts) which is not the result of other causes. God thought the universe and thus spoke the universe into existence. Humans think something they are solely responsible for thinking and thus are the first cause of that thought.

I should think it was readily available to your mind that our thoughts are ALWAYS the result of other causes. 'Thought' cannot be truly spontaneous except in God. At the best, your thought could be one spontaneously planted in your mind by God!

First off: Scripture is full of choices people are held responsible for making and it would not be just to hold someone responsible for making a bad choice for which they could not do anything differently. Now, one bad choice can lead to other bad choices which could be unavoidable, but the first bad choice could have been avoided. This is not saying a mature adult without the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love can keep from all sins since with the knowledge of good and evil there are tons of ways to sin, but any one sin could have been avoided.

OF COURSE they are held responsible for their choices! You make the logical leap that then our choices must be uncaused, autonomous. That is not so. You set up a narrative of how things happen but you depend on freewill because you cannot conceive of man being responsible by having will alone, in bondage to sin, or to Christ.

'Freewill' choices, applied to all matters of choice, but most obviously to Salvation, MUST depend on either mere chance, or on the notion that one person is inherently better than another in some way, a notion that is quickly denied by most Christians. The narrative is necessary to you because it is not obvious in Scripture, though it includes elements of Scripture. It reminds me in a way of the theory of Evolution that according to some is a proven fact, yet it is only a narrative, held together by a fragile lattice of interpretations of whatever evidence is available. The gaps are filled by mere say-so. It has a central tenet --that "life on earth cannot have been created suddenly as it is now, so therefore it took a long time and drawn out means, and we are going to come up with a cohesive narrative that does the job." You are doing the same, based on the tenet that "it would be unjust to punish anyone for doing what they are bound to do". Somehow the fact that they always WILL to do it, doesn't do it for you. "Their will must be FREE, independent of cause, to be responsible."

If I take you to the two necessary logical conclusions of your narrative, would that help? If Creatures are necessarily actually spontaneous or autonomous in any way or to any degree, then 1. Chance rules, since all causes are gone, or 2. they are inherently better than others who choose wrong.

1. If they are victims of chance --then how are they responsible for their choices? But "thank goodness we don't have to consider that, since it is self-contradictory to say that Chance rules!"
2. It is abhorrent to Christianity, the thought "that one person is inherently better than another. After all, God is fair! God would not do such a thing!"
3. Am I misrepresenting something? Is there some other explanation for autonomy in a creature? You have already said God caused it --those very words should have raised your eyebrow to the self-contradiction. You claim God caused causelessness, and that, in creatures that are the results of his causing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How is this not saying that God’s actions are contingent on the choices of the people?

I have no problem with God responding to the choices of people, but to me it is ludicrous to think he did not predestine them to do precisely as he did.

As I have shown, to claim they acted without exterior cause (freewill), unbound to sin or to Christ, relegates their choice still caused --by the (self-contradictory) rule of chance, or their inherent inequity of goodness (also, apparently caused by chance or by the Creator)

 

[Mark Quayle]

What does God lack which some created beings could provide for Him that He could not do better with whom He already has?
Everything around us speaks to man's objective, so how does it show us being made to help God out?

Somebody with whom to share his Glory, for one. Someone to praise him in return, in full integrity of the image of God --something the Angels do not have, but that we will have when we are transformed upon seeing him as he is. It is for THAT he has made us. THAT is his purpose --and it is his Glory.

 

[bling]

I don't know if you mean by 'the objective' -- are you saying 'the objective God had in making us', or 'the objective he has set before us to pursue', or 'the objective we perform/ accomplish' or 'the objective we [should] bear in mind as we obey' or just what.

The reason God made us in the first place and set us on this messed up earth.

God’s Love would compel God to make being who could become like He is for the sake of those being who will become like He is (in that they will have this unbelievable huge gift of Godly type Love).

But if the objective is God's glory, are we the ones do decide just what does that? Or are we to try to glorify God by obedience and love?

For us to do anything beneficial for others we have to have Godly type Love (1 cor. 13:1-4)

If we Love Him we will obey Him.

As to your numbered questions, they are all pretty much the same: "How could the sons in the prodigal son story bring glory to God?"

The answers are all the same as what I said above: The sons glorify God by sin or by obedience; obedience more obviously, or on purpose by the one that obeys. But we also glorify God by disobedience, in that God glorifies himself through EVERYTHING, angels and demons, good and bad, love and hate, law and sin, beauty and ugliness, justice and inequity, blessing and horror and the unusual and the mundane and so many other things. Of course Adam's disobedience brought glory to God. Not that Adam did what he did in order to glorify God, but that as in EVERYTHING else, God glorifies himself, directly or indirectly, sooner or later.

To me, all you said does nothing but promote the fact that in us there is no good thing, apart from Christ, apart from the work of God.

OK, I thought you would felt everything brings glory to God including evil, satan, sin and people in hell.

Can that which displeases God bring glory to God and if it brings God glory why does it displease God?

Why would it matter what we do, if everything we do brings glory to God?

If everyone is glorifying God why do they not all go to heaven?

Without an objective and saying we just have an uncontrollable purpose on earth, what reason do you have for living, since you are nothing more then a robot?