God's permissive will?

[Fervent]

Choice does not require multiple possibilities. At the most, it requires only perceived multiple possibilities —options. But empirically, it has been shown that only one of the options is possible. To assert otherwise is to merely speculate. The fact that we don't know, doesn't mean something is actually possible— it only means that we think that way.

It is the same with "chance", "random", "it just so happens" and such terms. "'Chance' is just a placeholder for, 'I don't know.'"

If there are not multiple options there is no choice only the illusion of choice. You're confusing a human model of causation with reality in fact, but that model requires one of the most fundamental experiences of human beings to be mere illusion. Volition in general must violate mechanical causation, so the options before us are either to explain it or explain it away. The problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that your position is inconsistent and uses an unnatural definition of "choice" that doesn't fit the way it typically used.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk said:
You conflicted yourself.


How do those two things conflict? You're going with, "It is not free if it is caused"? Is the choosing human creature not himself caused? Then how are his choices uncaused? And if the Creator knew the choices-to-come when he created, yet created what would result in those choices, how is that not causing those choices, and, in fact, INTENDING those choices?

If the choice is caused by another moral agent, then it's not free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If there are not multiple options there is no choice only the illusion of choice. You're confusing a human model of causation with reality in fact, but that model requires one of the most fundamental experiences of human beings to be mere illusion. Volition in general must violate mechanical causation, so the options before us are either to explain it or explain it away. The problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that your position is inconsistent and uses an unnatural definition of "choice" that doesn't fit the way it typically used.

You are taking "choice" beyond its mere meaning. The verb, choice, denotes nothing more than to chose. The noun, choice, means only what is chosen. Neither one implies that there are actual multiple possibilities —only the perception of multiple possibles is necessary from which to choose.

You say, "The problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that your position is inconsistent and uses an unnatural definition of "choice" that doesn't fit the way it typically used." The fact that a word means something, doesn't mean that the meaning is therefore descriptive of reality. For example, I can mean something abstract by "chance" that in fact is nonsense, and not at all descriptive of reality.

I can say, "it exists" and have only the weakest of comprehension of what I am talking about. The fact that we have a word that means something to us, does not mean that the thing it means to us is actually a real thing.

The fact that we are used to thinking a certain way doesn't mean that the words we use when we think that way, mean what we want them to mean.

CS Lewis, in Til We Have Faces: "...why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the choice is caused by another moral agent, then it's not free will.

Thus, then, your definition of free will. But it is a bogus definition, self-contradictory, or that other "moral agent" that caused your choice is only another "moral agent", and not God.

 

[RDKirk]

Thus, then, your definition of free will. But it is a bogus definition, self-contradictory, or that other "moral agent" that caused your choice is only another "moral agent", and not God.

Philosophically, God is a "moral agent."

Free will is not scriptural. Augustine adopted what had been a pagan philosophical concept to combat accusations that Christianity was deterministic...because deterministic is how scripture depicts it. Augustine's adaptation of "free will" was not, however, how those pagan philosophers defined it. Augustine devised a very special kind of "free will" limited to whether a person choses to believe or not believe.

Christian philosophers, in discussion with secular philosophers, fail to identify that when they say "free will" they're talking about something different from what the secular philosophers mean by "free will."

But ironically, very few, if any, current secular philosophers believe in free will anymore. Most believe in some level of determinism.

 

[Fervent]

You are taking "choice" beyond it's mere meaning. The verb, choice, denotes nothing more than to chose. The noun, choice, means only what is chosen. Neither one implies that there are actual multiple possibilities —only the perception of multiple possibles is necessary from which to choose.

You say, "The problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that your position is inconsistent and uses an unnatural definition of "choice" that doesn't fit the way it typically used." The fact that a word means something, doesn't mean that the meaning is therefore descriptive of reality. For example, I can mean something abstract by "chance" that in fact is nonsense, and not at all descriptive of reality.

I can say, "it exists" and have only the weakest of comprehension of what I am talking about. The fact that we have a word that means something to us, does not mean that the thing it means to us is actually a real thing.

The fact that we are used to thinking a certain way doesn't mean that the words we use when we think that way, mean what we want them to mean.

CS Lewis, in Til We Have Faces: "...why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?"

You're subtling conflating two things, possibilities and possible outcomes. Choice requires that there be multiple possible outcomes, because choosing something that isn't actually possible and then realizing that it is unavailable is a different outcome than selecting something that is possible. If it is not actually possible for agency to affect the outcome, then no choice is made a script is simply followed. No one would say a ball "chooses" the path it rolls down even if there are before hand a perception of multiple possibilities, because it is recognized that such a phenomenon has only one appeciable possible outcome. To put this simply, imagine someone tells you to choose between a red balloon and a white one, and you select the white one only to find out that you could only receive the red one. If the person then insisted that they gave you a choice, would you accept their statement as factual? Or say you program a robot to act in a certain way under certain circumstances, would you then attribute choice to the robot when it behaves in the way that you have programmed it or would you recognize that it had no choice in the matter?

As for your discussion of the meaning of words vs reality, you are essentially rendering words meaningless if you argue that the way they are used and understood does not have to correspond to what is true in fact. If the signal does not resemble the signified then the word is without meaning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Philosophically, God is a "moral agent."

Free will is not scriptural. Augustine adopted what had been a pagan philosophical concept to combat accusations that Christianity was deterministic...because deterministic is how scripture depicts it. Augustine's adaptation of "free will" was not, however, how those pagan philosophers defined it. Augustine devised a very special kind of "free will" limited to whether a person choses to believe or not believe.

Christian philosophers, in discussion with secular philosophers, fail to identify that when they say "free will" they're talking about something different from what the secular philosophers mean by "free will."

But ironically, very few, if any, current secular philosophers believe in free will anymore. Most believe in some level of determinism.

Philosophically, God, being like no other, is not "A moral agent". He is not responsible to any authority, nor to anybody's definitions nor concepts. He doesn't choose between right and wrong things to do or think. To call him 'a moral agent' is sillier than calling the ocean 'wet'.

Agreed. I have noticed sometimes the very person who claims to not be at fault for sexual depravity because 'it is how we are made' and 'we are after all just animals, in the end', is acknowledging that in they are not actually in control of their choices, yet, if you suggest they logically place God at the head of causation, like some Christians they immediately squawk.

 

[bling]

Assertion. It is your point of view that sees a contradiction. It is not logical fact that shows a contradiction. You are, in effect, meaning something different by "free" than what I mean (and what the Bible means) by free. In fact, we are all slaves —to sin or to Christ. But if the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

You really have to come up with a strange definition of “man’s free will choice” and have only the one choices, degreed by God, but turn around a call a God degreed choice is actually man’s free will choice.

He either is caused or uncaused. There is logically no middle ground. You might pursue the use of words like, "genuine", but you won't find a word you can use to demonstrate that man/ man's choice/ man's choices is/are uncaused.

There are choices made by man and man is fully being held accountable for making. Yes, it would take a miracle for man to have this ability, but it would be unjust for God to hold man responsible without giving man the miraculous ability to make a uncaused choice. Are you saying God does not have the power to do such a miracle?

Indeed I have! Many times. Apparently it is so logically simple that you dismiss it out-of-hand. EVERYTHING except for First Cause, is caused by First Cause.

God does not have to be the only first causer, that is your pure assumption. Was/is Christ also a first causer?

Even if everything that goes to hell is caused by God to do so, it does not logically lead to the word, "fault", when applied to God. It is to God's credit that everything he decrees comes to pass. There is no fault on his part, as 'fault' implies wrongdoing against God, and logically God cannot act against his own will. Sin, whether caused or not, is the act of the sinner.

You use a nice neutral word like “act” when it is described as being the sinner’s fault. Are you dropping the word “fault” since by your doctrine it is not their fault or God’s fault?

Matthew 18:15“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Hebrews 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Logical fallacy. We ARE personally responsible for our choices, which can ONLY be made if God decrees them. Try to understand just how we exist, and how only in him do we live and move and have our being. The WCF doesn't just say that God ordains all things whatsoever come to pass, and that by doing so he does not violate the will of man nor deny the contingencies of secondary causes —it also says that God's decree ESTABLISHES the will of man and the contingencies of secondary causes. God is not hands-off, in his creation, but is actively upholding very FACT.

Again, you are saying they are not our free will choices, but God degreed choices, so logically, we are not responsible and how would anyone see that as not being logical and consistent with God?

WCF chapter 3: 1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

What is WCF? Give Bible chapter and verses.



Man’s time here on earth is all about man. God is doing or allowing everything to help willing mature humans in their fulfilling of their objective. Jesus came to earth to help humans.



This is not some staged performance.

 

[Fervent]

Even if everything that goes to hell is caused by God to do so, it does not logically lead to the word, "fault", when applied to God. It is to God's credit that everything he decrees comes to pass. There is no fault on his part, as 'fault' implies wrongdoing against God, and logically God cannot act against his own will. Sin, whether caused or not, is the act of the sinner.

If I read this right we can draw out three premises:
a)God cannot do wrong because he cannot act against His own will
b)Man cannot act against God's will
c)Sin is action contrary to God's will

So we can only conclude that either man cannot sin because he cannot act contrary to God's will, or God's will is for man to sin and against God's will itself. God is not double-minded, yet yours must be.

A robot programmed to murder is not the guilty party, even if it is the instrument that acts in the murders.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You really have to come up with a strange definition of “man’s free will choice” and have only the one choices, degreed by God, but turn around a call a God degreed choice is actually man’s free will choice.

"Free will" as you and I have now probably for years discussed, is not agreed between us as to meaning. It cannot logically mean "uncaused". But to you, it (apparently) necessarily means uncaused. So your statement there is meaningless to me.

There are choices made by man and man is fully being held accountable for making. Yes, it would take a miracle for man to have this ability, but it would be unjust for God to hold man responsible without giving man the miraculous ability to make a uncaused choice. Are you saying God does not have the power to do such a miracle?

It is not miracle. It is nonsense. Would it be a miracle to make a square circle? No, the question is self-contradictory nonsense. Bogus.

It is no more miraculous for man to be held accountable for his choices, than it would be for God to create man. Those are not bogus claims. Man does not exist in and of himself. GOD is the cause —upholding as well as being the Creator— of all fact. It is a ludicrous notion that man can cause anything, apart from God having decreed it to be so. Man can do nothing uncaused.

God does not have to be the only first causer, that is your pure assumption. Was/is Christ also a first causer?

Actually, yes. Logically there can be only one first cause. And if God is not first cause, then he is not God. I won't deride you by going there.

Oh, and yes, Christ is God. First Cause. Your point?

You use a nice neutral word like “act” when it is described as being the sinner’s fault. Are you dropping the word “fault” since by your doctrine it is not their fault or God’s fault?

Since when have I ever given the implication —nevermind made the direct claim— that the sinner is not at fault? That is YOUR take from what I do claim. The SINNER sins. God does not, but all fact is by God's decree. If it helps, try to understand that we don't operate on God's level.

Matthew 18:15“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Hebrews 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Yes, the people (creatures) and not their creator, are at fault.

Again, you are saying they are not our free will choices, but God degreed choices, so logically, we are not responsible and how would anyone see that as not being logical and consistent with God?

No, your take there is not logical, being dependent on a self-deterministic presumption. God decreed all fact, but that does not relieve anyone of responsibility for their choices. If they exalt themselves against their own Creator, how will they escape justice? The fact that God has decreed that it be so, does not imply that they are not being rebellious.

What is WCF? Give Bible chapter and verses.

WCF is the Westminster Confession of Faith. I don't reference it as an authority, but as a good way to put concepts. If I quote or even paraphrase from it, it is only fair that I give attribution.

Man’s time here on earth is all about man. God is doing or allowing everything to help willing mature humans in their fulfilling of their objective. Jesus came to earth to help humans.

Oh, no no no no! This is about God —not man. Jesus came to earth to finish what God intended and accomplished everything for which God had sent him. The fact that that includes the redemption of those to whom God shows mercy does not mean that this is all about man. Man's objective is to serve God's purposes. We are created to his use of us. For some, that use is to be the Body and Bride of Christ, and the Dwelling Place of God.

This is not some staged performance.

Huh? Oh, maybe you mean to reference the picture some give, that this life is a story told by God, or an imagination of his mind, or a play he wrote. No, those at best are only ways to help back a person away from the trees to see the forest. And, to my mind, not quite suitable to the purpose intended. The human mind is a pretty confused murky place.

One more time. This temporal life is not about us, but about Jesus Christ our God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I read this right we can draw out three premises:
a)God cannot do wrong because he cannot act against His own will
b)Man cannot act against God's will
c)Sin is action contrary to God's will

So we can only conclude that either man cannot sin because he cannot act contrary to God's will, or God's will is for man to sin and against God's will itself. God is not double-minded, yet yours must be.

A robot programmed to murder is not the guilty party, even if it is the instrument that acts in the murders

a) God cannot do wrong because he cannot act against His own will —Correct, though 'cannot' is a statement concerning the logic of the premise. It is not an inability on God's part, but an inability on the part of the person framing the premise.

b) Man cannot act against God's will —wrong. Man can and does act against God's will. But he cannot undo God's decree, but rather, fulfills it with every motion of his own will.

c) Sin is action contrary to God's will —Correct, but only if by God's will, is meant, God's command, or similar words. Because even sin works in every way, no matter what the creature intends by it, with God's decree.

You seem to turn a blind eye to the several uses of the notion, "God's will", as presented in Scripture. In fact, just lately, one poster I have spoken with claims there are logically 4 different meanings, or uses, of the term "God's will". There certainly are different uses. You probably are familiar with several passages 1) saying "who can oppose his will?", and 2) scripture as to what is God's "good and perfect will". —Two different things.

What has your statement concerning a robot to do with anything? We aren't talking about robots. We are talking about the ability of man to do WHATEVER HE DOES being dependent on the decree of God. God's decree ESTABLISHES man's ability to choose. God spoke this existence into being, and upholds very FACT.

 

[Fervent]

a) God cannot do wrong because he cannot act against His own will —Correct, though 'cannot' is a statement concerning the logic of the premise. It is not an inability on God's part, but an inability on the part of the person framing the premise.

b) Man cannot act against God's will —wrong. Man can and does act against God's will. But he cannot undo God's decree, but rather, fulfills it with every motion of his own will.

c) Sin is action contrary to God's will —Correct, but only if by God's will, is meant, God's command, or similar words. Because even sin works in every way, no matter what the creature intends by it, with God's decree.

You seem to turn a blind eye to the several uses of the notion, "God's will", as presented in Scripture. In fact, just lately, one poster I have spoken with claims there are logically 4 different meanings, or uses, of the term "God's will". There certainly are different uses. You probably are familiar with several passages 1) saying "who can oppose his will?", and 2) scripture as to what is God's "good and perfect will". —Two different things.

What has your statement concerning a robot to do with anything? We aren't talking about robots. We are talking about the ability of man to do WHATEVER HE DOES being dependent on the decree of God. God's decree ESTABLISHES man's ability to choose. God spoke this existence into being, and upholds very FACT.

What is the difference between a decree and a command? And how can man go against God's will if man's will is caused by God's will? Either man's will necessarily follows God's will for him, or God does not cause man's will.

As for "different uses of God's will" that seems to me tail wagging the dog, since the philosophical drives the understanding of "will" in your examples. You assert they are two different things, but that just demostrates the double mindedness of your concept of God.

The robot example is essentially what you are claiming happens vis a vis God and human beings, as if God programs us with desires so that we will act as He demands we act and then we "choose" to carry out our programming. You turn human beings into mere instruments, and then play word games to absolve God of the evil that necessarily follows from your conception. If God causes every human action, and human action is sinful then God is the cause of sin and ultimately bears responnsibility for it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is the difference between a decree and a command? And how can man go against God's will if man's will is caused by God's will? Either man's will necessarily follows God's will for him, or God does not cause man's will.

All the difference in the world! God's command is what is required of man. God's decree is what God will do, which is, everything that comes to pass. Man can go against the command, but no matter how hard he might intend it, he cannot go against God's decree; even man's disobedience of God's command works into God's decree. They are two different things, both called 'will' at different places in Scripture.

As for "different uses of God's will" that seems to me tail wagging the dog, since the philosophical drives the understanding of "will" in your examples. You assert they are two different things, but that just demostrates the double mindedness of your concept of God.

Do you pretend the philosophical doesn't drive everyone's understanding? We all have a philosophy, whether we realize it or not. And it affects our understanding.

I don't know if you think yourself single-minded concerning God, but I keep hearing the self-determinist claim that God is omnipotent, but then turn right around and say there are things God doesn't know, such as what the free-willer will decide.

The robot example is essentially what you are claiming happens vis a vis God and human beings, as if God programs us with desires so that we will act as He demands we act and then we "choose" to carry out our programming. You turn human beings into mere instruments, and then play word games to absolve God of the evil that necessarily follows from your conception. If God causes every human action, and human action is sinful then God is the cause of sin and ultimately bears responnsibility for it.

No sir. It is you that must play word games, and invoke preposterous notions, to absolve God of what he never shrinks from to begin with. I am not shy about what God does. I am, however, particular, about how I describe it, because people like you will twist the concepts I try to get across to make them mean what they don't. God does not teach free will of the sort you espouse. If you must think we are robots, it would be better than to think we are morally free agents that don't need God to change us before we want him. My goodness! the constructions I have heard to get around the Biblical fact that we WILL not, and CAN not please God, nor submit to God's law, but instead are at enmity with God until we are regenerated, and that, by the Grace of God!

 

[Fervent]

All the difference in the world! God's command is what is required of man. God's decree is what God will do, which is, everything that comes to pass. Man can go against the command, but no matter how hard he might intend it, he cannot go against God's decree; even man's disobedience of God's command works into God's decree. They are two different things, both called 'will' at different places in Scripture.

Do you pretend the philosophical doesn't drive everyone's understanding? We all have a philosophy, whether we realize it or not. And it affects our understanding.

I don't know if you think yourself single-minded concerning God, but I keep hearing the self-determinist claim that God is omnipotent, but then turn right around and say there are things God doesn't know, such as what the free-willer will decide.

No sir. It is you that must play word games, and invoke preposterous notions, to absolve God of what he never shrinks from to begin with. I am not shy about what God does. I am, however, particular, about how I describe it, because people like you will twist the concepts I try to get across to make them mean what they don't. God does not teach free will of the sort you espouse. If you must think we are robots, it would be better than to think we are morally free agents that don't need God to change us before we want him. My goodness! the constructions I have heard to get around the Biblical fact that we WILL not, and CAN not please God, nor submit to God's law, but instead are at enmity with God until we are regenerated, and that, by the Grace of God!

Decree and command are synonyms, so it seems to me you're using an invention of men. You also remain inconsistent, because you say man is "disobedient" yet it is God who is the one behind man's disobedience, since man only chooses what God has "decreed". I also can't help but notice you railing against an entirely different topic, one we disagree on as well but that's beside the matter, and completely ignoring the necessary order. There is no twist, it's quite straightforward. If all of man's choices are caused by God, and some of man's choices are sinful, then God causes sin. No amount of word games will dissolve that fact, and simply declaring it not to be the case doesn't change it.

 

[bling]

"Free will" as you and I have now probably for years discussed, is not agreed between us as to meaning. It cannot logically mean "uncaused". But to you, it (apparently) necessarily means uncaused. So your statement there is meaningless to me.

No man can make a few uncaused decisions made by his free will choice, but man was given this miracles power by the uncaused God.

Do we agree: God makes free will choices, which are causes by the uncaused God?

It is not miracle. It is nonsense. Would it be a miracle to make a square circle? No, the question is self-contradictory nonsense. Bogus.

We are not talking about the impossible (square circle), but God providing miraculous power to man to make some uncaused decisions, where man is the only cause.

It is no more miraculous for man to be held accountable for his choices, than it would be for God to create man. Those are not bogus claims. Man does not exist in and of himself. GOD is the cause —upholding as well as being the Creator— of all fact. It is a ludicrous notion that man can cause anything, apart from God having decreed it to be so. Man can do nothing uncaused.

I and others believe God can do what you might consider “ludicrous”, to help willing individuals in fulfilling their earthly objective.

I think it is “ludicrous” to think God would hold people accountable for a decision He degreed them to make.

Which is more “Ludicrous”?

Actually, yes. Logically there can be only one first cause. And if God is not first cause, then he is not God. I won't deride you by going there.

We agree God is an uncaused causer and God makes lots of uncaused causes, but that does not mean God has to be the only uncaused causer of every choice. There can be many “first causes”.

Since when have I ever given the implication —nevermind made the direct claim— that the sinner is not at fault? That is YOUR take from what I do claim. The SINNER sins. God does not, but all fact is by God's decree. If it helps, try to understand that we don't operate on God's level.

If you are saying man is at “fault” for deciding to sin, yet the decision was not the person’s choice, but the choice was degreed by God, that would make it God’s fault for deciding to have the person sin or no one is at fault?

Yes, the people (creatures) and not their creator, are at fault.

No, your take there is not logical, being dependent on a self-deterministic presumption. God decreed all fact, but that does not relieve anyone of responsibility for their choices. If they exalt themselves against their own Creator, how will they escape justice? The fact that God has decreed that it be so, does not imply that they are not being rebellious.

Yes, it does, it was not as you say “their choice”, since it was God’s degreed choice, it cannot be both. God degreed that the exalt themselves, so they cannot be held accountable for doing so

Oh, no no no no! This is about God —not man. Jesus came to earth to finish what God intended and accomplished everything for which God had sent him. The fact that that includes the redemption of those to whom God shows mercy does not mean that this is all about man. Man's objective is to serve God's purposes. We are created to his use of us. For some, that use is to be the Body and Bride of Christ, and the Dwelling Place of God.

You say: “Man's objective is to serve God's purposes”, but according to your doctrine no man can do anything else than serve God’s purpose. Doe that not make us nothing more than glorified robots, programmed to follow one path?



Do you think God would want a robot for a bride?

God does all He does not to get something from man, but to charitably gift man with unbelievable wonderful gifts, if man will just choose, of his own free will, to humbly accept these gifts as pure undeserved charity.

Do you think so much of yourself, as to think, man could provide anything glorious for God?



If you do provide something pleasing to God, it is certainly not worthy of the price God had to pay.

Huh? Oh, maybe you mean to reference the picture some give, that this life is a story told by God, or an imagination of his mind, or a play he wrote. No, those at best are only ways to help back a person away from the trees to see the forest. And, to my mind, not quite suitable to the purpose intended. The human mind is a pretty confused murky place.

One more time. This temporal life is not about us, but about Jesus Christ our God.

Since God/Christ are the epitome of Love, they would be epitome of charitable givers, doing everything for the sake of others (man) and even their sake would be for the sake of others. God is Love.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Decree and command are synonyms, so it seems to me you're using an invention of men. You also remain inconsistent, because you say man is "disobedient" yet it is God who is the one behind man's disobedience, since man only chooses what God has "decreed". I also can't help but notice you railing against an entirely different topic, one we disagree on as well but that's beside the matter, and completely ignoring the necessary order. There is no twist, it's quite straightforward. If all of man's choices are caused by God, and some of man's choices are sinful, then God causes sin. No amount of word games will dissolve that fact, and simply declaring it not to be the case doesn't change it.

In other words, you are denying that God has plans he will bring to completion? That denies even your construction of the facts!

You believe, I thought, that God did create with a certain end in mind —plans he will, in spite of all actions by his creatures to oppose it, bring to completion— but that he didn't plan all the details, but leaves them up to chance. Thus, a certain meaning for God's "will".

You also believe, I thought, that God does command according to his "will" or his desires. Thus, a second meaning for God's "will". You want the two to be the same?

Try to understand, I am not saying that my structure is the way God sees it. I'm saying the "two will" structure is evident in Scripture, and is the best my mind can come up with to organize some semblance of reason in my head concerning God's ways. I understand that my reason is not the complete view, but I think you should do the same, instead of scorning mine. Mine is only, "a way to look at it."

 

[Mark Quayle]

No man can make a few uncaused decisions made by his free will choice, but man was given this miracles power by the uncaused God.

Do we agree: God makes free will choices, which are causes by the uncaused God?

No. We do not agree, until we agree on a meaning for the "free will" that is part of your query.

We are not talking about the impossible (square circle), but God providing miraculous power to man to make some uncaused decisions, where man is the only cause.

Again, that is not miracle. It is self-contradiction.

I and others believe God can do what you might consider “ludicrous”, to help willing individuals in fulfilling their earthly objective.

I think it is “ludicrous” to think God would hold people accountable for a decision He degreed them to make.

Which is more “Ludicrous”?

The one might in your frame of mind appear monstrous, but not self-contradictory. The other IS self-contradictory, not miracle.

We agree God is an uncaused causer and God makes lots of uncaused causes, but that does not mean God has to be the only uncaused causer of every choice. There can be many “first causes”.

You honestly can't see the self-contradiction there? —"God makes....uncaused causes". Is my translation of what you said inaccurate? —that: "God caused uncaused causes"? Self-contradictory.

If you are saying man is at “fault” for deciding to sin, yet the decision was not the person’s choice, but the choice was degreed by God, that would make it God’s fault for deciding to have the person sin or no one is at fault?

I did not say it was not man's choice. The fact it was decreed does not remove the responsibility from man for his own rebellion.

Yes, it does, it was not as you say “their choice”, since it was God’s degreed choice, it cannot be both. God degreed that the exalt themselves, so they cannot be held accountable for doing so

Show me please, where I said it was not by their choice.

But your logic fails. You suppose God to be on our level, or exalt yourself to God's.

You say: “Man's objective is to serve God's purposes”, but according to your doctrine no man can do anything else than serve God’s purpose. Doe that not make us nothing more than glorified robots, programmed to follow one path?



Do you think God would want a robot for a bride?

God does all He does not to get something from man, but to charitably gift man with unbelievable wonderful gifts, if man will just choose, of his own free will, to humbly accept these gifts as pure undeserved charity.

Do you think so much of yourself, as to think, man could provide anything glorious for God?



If you do provide something pleasing to God, it is certainly not worthy of the price God had to pay.

Since God/Christ are the epitome of Love, they would be epitome of charitable givers, doing everything for the sake of others (man) and even their sake would be for the sake of others. God is Love.

I'm going to cut to the chase, and maybe this is something you can agree to, though you will still interpret it to mean that man's choices remain uncaused —that God caused something uncaused.

God is the source and substance of EXISTENCE itself. Within that framework, man does what man wills to do. My friend, THAT is man being caused to do whatever man does.

 

[bling]

No. We do not agree, until we agree on a meaning for the "free will" that is part of your query.

I thought by yours or mine definition of free will, God has free will, so you’re saying “NO”?

Again, that is not miracle. It is self-contradiction.

How is it not a miracle?

The only “self-contradiction” we have talked about is your notion of God making the choice for man and calling it man’s free will choice.

The one might in your frame of mind appear monstrous, but not self-contradictory. The other IS self-contradictory, not miracle.

Yes, God would appear to be a monster under your explanation of God making man’s free will bad choices.

You honestly can't see the self-contradiction there? —"God makes....uncaused causes". Is my translation of what you said inaccurate? —that: "God caused uncaused causes"? Self-contradictory.

There is no “self-contradiction there.

Do you see the self-contradiction in God making the choice causing man to supposedly “sin” and yet holding man responsible, for the choice God made?

I did not say it was not man's choice. The fact it was decreed does not remove the responsibility from man for his own rebellion.

Just because you call it man’s choice, does not make it man’s choice, unless man truly had a free will choice with likely alternative then it would be “man’s choice”. The Bible can call it man’s choice, because it is man’s choice.

You say: “his own rebellion”, but according to you God gave man that rebellious attitude. Should you not say “the rebellion God gave him”?

Show me please, where I said it was not by their choice.

But your logic fails. You suppose God to be on our level, or exalt yourself to God's.

You are redefining “Choice” so it is not a choice, but a God given degree man is forced to only make.



No, I do not. Just because we have the God miraculous free will to make a few limited free will choice making some of them wrong, does not make us equal to God who only makes the very best choices and made us.

I'm going to cut to the chase, and maybe this is something you can agree to, though you will still interpret it to mean that man's choices remain uncaused —that God caused something uncaused.

God is the source and substance of EXISTENCE itself. Within that framework, man does what man wills to do. My friend, THAT is man being caused to do whatever man does.

God makes man with the ability to become like God is, in that man has Godly type Love. To obtain this Godly type Love requires man to have just a limited amount of free will. If God tried to place this Love in humans it would not be Godly type Love but an instinctive type of love, robotic and/or a knee jerk reaction. If God forces this Love on man, it would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, which would not be “Loving” on God’s part, nor would the love obtained be Godly type Love.



You did not address my questions at all:

You say: “Man's objective is to serve God's purposes”, but according to your doctrine no man can do anything else than serve God’s purpose. Doe that not make us nothing more than glorified robots, programmed to follow one path?

Do you think God would want a robot for a bride?

God does all He does not to get something from man, but to charitably gift man with unbelievable wonderful gifts, if man will just choose, of his own free will, to humbly accept these gifts as pure undeserved charity.

Do you think so much of yourself, as to think, man could provide anything glorious for God?

If you do provide something pleasing to God, Is it worthy of the price God had to pay?

 

[Fervent]

In other words, you are denying that God has plans he will bring to completion? That denies even your construction of the facts!

You believe, I thought, that God did create with a certain end in mind —plans he will, in spite of all actions by his creatures to oppose it, bring to completion— but that he didn't plan all the details, but leaves them up to chance. Thus, a certain meaning for God's "will".

You also believe, I thought, that God does command according to his "will" or his desires. Thus, a second meaning for God's "will". You want the two to be the same?

Try to understand, I am not saying that my structure is the way God sees it. I'm saying the "two will" structure is evident in Scripture, and is the best my mind can come up with to organize some semblance of reason in my head concerning God's ways. I understand that my reason is not the complete view, but I think you should do the same, instead of scorning mine. Mine is only, "a way to look at it."

"Plan" is pretty anthropocentric thinking. God doesn't need to plan, because He is outside of time and all of time is present to Him at once. He certainly brings all things to their appropriate end, but that does not entail Him being the sole start of every causal chain. How He does this is beyond human reasoning, I suspect, and its certainly a paradox but it seems to me that paradox is present in Scripture where God has set the bounds on man's will but He has given power to men to not do His will. What's presented in Scripture is not multiple wills of God, but multiple aspects of a single will. Your framing sets God at odds with God, willing and opposing His own will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I thought by yours or mine definition of free will, God has free will, so you’re saying “NO”?

How is it not a miracle?

The only “self-contradiction” we have talked about is your notion of God making the choice for man and calling it man’s free will choice.

Yes, God would appear to be a monster under your explanation of God making man’s free will bad choices.

There is no “self-contradiction there.

Do you see the self-contradiction in God making the choice causing man to supposedly “sin” and yet holding man responsible, for the choice God made?



Just because you call it man’s choice, does not make it man’s choice, unless man truly had a free will choice with likely alternative then it would be “man’s choice”. The Bible can call it man’s choice, because it is man’s choice.

You say: “his own rebellion”, but according to you God gave man that rebellious attitude. Should you not say “the rebellion God gave him”?

You are redefining “Choice” so it is not a choice, but a God given degree man is forced to only make.



No, I do not. Just because we have the God miraculous free will to make a few limited free will choice making some of them wrong, does not make us equal to God who only makes the very best choices and made us.

God makes man with the ability to become like God is, in that man has Godly type Love. To obtain this Godly type Love requires man to have just a limited amount of free will. If God tried to place this Love in humans it would not be Godly type Love but an instinctive type of love, robotic and/or a knee jerk reaction. If God forces this Love on man, it would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, which would not be “Loving” on God’s part, nor would the love obtained be Godly type Love.



You did not address my questions at all:

You say: “Man's objective is to serve God's purposes”, but according to your doctrine no man can do anything else than serve God’s purpose. Doe that not make us nothing more than glorified robots, programmed to follow one path?

Do you think God would want a robot for a bride?

God does all He does not to get something from man, but to charitably gift man with unbelievable wonderful gifts, if man will just choose, of his own free will, to humbly accept these gifts as pure undeserved charity.

Do you think so much of yourself, as to think, man could provide anything glorious for God?

If you do provide something pleasing to God, Is it worthy of the price God had to pay?

We are repeating ourselves.

Let's try a different tack:

Do you believe in imputation of Adam's sin-guilt upon all his progeny?