What is freewill?

[Grip Docility]

How does this answer the question you were asked, which was "Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?".

What is your answer to that question? Yes or no? You say "for us it's a matter of faith not choice". Don't we have to choose to have faith or not? How can faith that leads to a love of God not involve a choice? Can faith be forced?

If you look at Acts 17 and 18 it talks about Paul going around to different places and preaching in synagogues trying to persuade people to believe the gospel. If faith doesn't involve a choice then why did Paul try to persuade people to believe? Persuasion involves influencing people to change their minds by using reason and appealing to their wills. How else do people change their minds except that they choose to do so, particularly when it comes to the gospel? If faith doesn't come about by choice, then trying to persuade people to believe would be a complete waste of time. But, I don't believe Paul was wasting his time.

You said this with much more clarity than I have been saying it. I fully agree.

It's ever so small. It's but a corrupted mustard seed on our part. It's a tiny widows mite of sorts. BUT, it is what we must give to God for Him to then indwell us and begin His good work, within us.

 

[Grip Docility]

I know you weren't asking me, but I'd like to answer this question. No, it cannot. That is impossible. Is a puppet or robot capable of love? No. Love involves reason and a person's will. It has to be a choice or else what kind of "love" is it? It would be manufactured and forced if there is no choice in the matter. Love can't be manufactured or forced.

Q: Why would God allow the possibility of Rebellion within Creation as His very Good work of his Perfect Hands?

A: Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice? No, it cannot. That is impossible. Is a puppet or robot capable of love? No. Love involves reason and a person's will. It has to be a choice or else what kind of "love" is it? It would be manufactured and forced if there is no choice in the matter. Love can't be manufactured or forced.

Now... I'm adding this, not to you, because I know for a fact that we both understand it.

Some go beyond this to then say... We call this matter of an "Unfettered or Free Will", God's "Permissive Will". That's a bunch of Hooey! It's simple! God imbued Creation with an UNCHAINED WILL... (Period). Any Rebellion against God isn't under this "Mysterious Permissive Will". If that were so, it wouldn't be GENUINE REBELLION. Rebellion against God is Creation trying to pound square pegs into round holes. God facilitating a Universe capable of being indwelled by beings who have the ability to reciprocate the highest form of existence... LOVE leaves absolutely zero Onus of the results of rebellion on God's head.

We are culpable for our stupid decisions! If this weren't true, it would belittle the full meaning of Jesus Christ's work at Golgotha!

 

[childeye 2]

How does this answer the question you were asked, which was "Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?".

What is your answer to that question? Yes or no? You say "for us it's a matter of faith not choice". Don't we have to choose to have faith or not? How can faith that leads to a love of God not involve a choice? Can faith be forced?

I answered in the affirmative when I said God is Love and exists Eternal. That would be a yes God exists apart from my choice. I don't choose for God to exist. I don't choose to feel compassion, I don't choose to feel brotherly Love. I didn't choose to weep when I saw Jesus on the cross.

Here's my testimony: "When God revealed to me that His son allowed himself to be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, scourged, beaten, and nailed to a cross to die in agony so that I who was dead in sin may live; it FORCED me to love him far beyond I could have ever imagined according to my own blind discretion. Hence True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and it is the everlasting goodness of God that led me to a change of mind."

If you look at Acts 17 and 18 it talks about Paul going around to different places and preaching in synagogues trying to persuade people to believe the gospel. If faith doesn't involve a choice then why did Paul try to persuade people to believe? Persuasion involves influencing people to change their minds by using reason and appealing to their wills. How else do people change their minds except that they choose to do so, particularly when it comes to the gospel? If faith doesn't come about by choice, then trying to persuade people to believe would be a complete waste of time. But, I don't believe Paul was wasting his time.

To some people the cross is going to be foolishness and to others it's the power of God unto salvation. Some believe and some don't so as to serve God's purpose.


17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[Grip Docility]

I answered in the affirmative when I said God is Love and exists Eternal. That would be a yes God exists apart from my choice. I don't choose for God to exist. I don't choose to feel compassion, I don't choose to feel brotherly Love. I didn't choose to weep when I saw Jesus on the cross.

Here's my testimony: "When God revealed to me that His son allowed himself to be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, scourged, beaten, and nailed to a cross to die in agony so that I who was dead in sin may live; it FORCED me to love him far beyond I could have ever imagined according to my own blind discretion. Hence True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and it is the everlasting goodness of God that led me to a change of mind."

To some people the cross is going to be foolishness and to others it's the power of God unto salvation. Some believe and some don't so as to serve God's purpose.


17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Child Eye... I get it. You and I are both Constrained by the Love of God in a way that is sure.

I don't like going into detail on this matter of discussion most of the time. I will cease and desist this back and forth with this final statement.

Could a Slave of Sin, who is freed by Jesus Christ... and even went further to place their ear to the door post, then beg for the Awl to be driven through their ear, because the goodness of their MASTER (Father) is so great that they always want to serve Him in His house... then one day forget their Father's goodness and Run out the door forever with Ear Ring in ear and All?

Yes.

But... they would be an idiot being ridiculous beyond comprehension. That's my personal take on the matter. Oh dear... I just remembered a direct example of one of these "Running Bond Servants"!!!! Jonah! One lining additional statement and rewording it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I answered in the affirmative when I said God is Love and exists Eternal. That would be a yes God exists apart from my choice. I don't choose for God to exist. I don't choose to feel compassion, I don't choose to feel brotherly Love. I didn't choose to weep when I saw Jesus on the cross.

Here's my testimony: "When God revealed to me that His son allowed himself to be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, scourged, beaten, and nailed to a cross to die in agony so that I who was dead in sin may live; it FORCED me to love him far beyond I could have ever imagined according to my own blind discretion. Hence True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and it is the everlasting goodness of God that led me to a change of mind."

Could you have chosen not to love Him? Sure, you could have! You're not a robot or a puppet. Human beings are able to reason and have a will. Faith is not something that we can be forced or coerced into. It has to be a willing choice made from the heart or else what kind of "faith" is it? Why do you suppose that scripture says "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)? If we only have faith because God gives it to us, how can we possibly please God with faith? Does He please Himself by making us believe? Or does it please Him when we humble ourselves before Him, acknowledge that we can't save ourselves and put our trust in Him instead?

To some people the cross is going to be foolishness and to others it's the power of God unto salvation. Some believe and some don't so as to serve God's purpose.

You didn't address what I said about persuasion being necessary to convince someone to believe. Why is persuasion necessary if the choice of whether someone believes or not is entirely up to God?

You think it's God's purpose to create people who can't believe and up in hell for eternity? What scripture do you have to back that up?

Scripture teaches that God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) as evidenced by the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). So, with that in mind, why do some people not believe? Because God didn't give them faith? That can't be. He wants them to be saved. Why would He make it so that have no opportunity to be saved? It has to be that God makes them responsible to use their God-given reason and free will to make a choice to believe or not.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

None of this addresses the question of whether people are responsible to choose to believe or not. How do those who see the preaching of the gospel as foolish come to that conclusion? Because God didn't give them faith and they can't help themselves? Or because they chose not to believe it? Their lack of faith results in condemnation and punishment (John 3:17, 2 Thess 1:7-9, Matt 25:41, Rev 20:15). Why would God punish people for not believing if the only way they could believe is if He gave them faith? That makes no sense.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
If that is all 'free will' means —'responsible choice'— then I fully agree. But if it means 'uncaused', I vehemently disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "uncaused" when contrasted with responsible choice. Are you implying "Responsible" becomes an assertion since the opposite of responsible is irresponsible?

Not sure I understand your question. The chooser is certainly responsible for his choice, but he cannot choose without his choice being caused, one way or another, by past events/facts.

Many, maybe most, Arminians and Pelagians, and even some Calvinists to a point, claim that 'free will' and, certainly, 'responsible choice', must imply that God did not cause anyone's own [at least moral] choices. To me that is nonsense. Some even go so far as to say that although everyone's choices are influenced by many things and even influenced by God, they are, nevertheless completely uncaused in the final analysis. Then there are many versions of that same notion I hear, which use words like, 'autonomous' and/or 'limited autonomy', 'libertarian', 'independent', and of course, 'free', (as though "free" necessarily implies that God does not cause), 'self-ruling', self-governing', and even one who insists on the word, 'sovereign'! All these seem to think that responsibility implies capability, and that "the command implies the ability to obey", the "Calvinists" among them using wording like, "the ability to obey is lacking only in the unregenerate, and that for the regenerated, "the command implies the ability to obey", and for the regenerated, the freedom to choose is free indeed, and for the unregenerate, the freedom to choose is free only within sinful choices.", which to them, that freedom is bound within sin, but otherwise (to varying degrees) uncaused by God. These "Calvinists" use the term, "God allowed", rather than, "God caused", for anything negative, as though God's virtue needed defending.

I say all that as background for this —that 'uncaused choice' is logically impossible for any creature. All else but the uncaused causer (God) logically descends, via cause-and-effect, from his creating. Every detail is caused from the beginning by him creating. (As someone once said, "There is no rogue atom".) I contrast "uncaused" with responsible choice only in dealing with both in the same statement. I mean that "uncaused" has no logical validity in the matter of choice by the creature, but responsibility certainly does.

This is a circular argument ----> Question: Why did you do that? Answer: Because I could. Hence Free will = a circular argument.

I'm not sure that's fair, unless arguing from the point of view that "because I could" is all 'free will' means. But it is rather a humorous point! And in the end, it may be true that all their arguments stripped of ambiguity reduce to that inane statement. But then, I suppose, they may claim that my arguments reduce to, "because I did".

To me accountable implies being subject to explaining why I did to someone else that which I wouldn't want done to me. In other words, being held responsible for my moral/immoral choice = free will. <--- That could be interpreted as finding a reason to justify judgement even though there could be other reasons to justify judgment.

A lot of people I argue with will use the same terminology there, but assume the terms imply libertarian free will; that one's responsibility implies that God had no part in the causing of the choice.

I believe the knowledge of good and evil enabled the judging of one another in mankind, and subsequently to create the occasion to find fault where there wasn't any through vainglory; so, this definition looks a lot to me like the knowledge of good and evil = free will.

It's not a bad definition for it, though I'm not sure how you get there through that sequence of thought; but it doesn't seem to me to answer the definitions that the Pelagian et al insist on. Both of you could use that terminology —you assuming implications they don't, and vice-versa. They might say, "The knowledge of Good and Evil brought responsibility, so of course, 'free will' is necessarily implied, meaning that our choices are independent of God's decisions and plans and causation." While, you might say, "'Free will' is simple. It only implies that we know enough about what is right and wrong to actually make moral choices. It makes no statement concerning causation."

 

[Mark Quayle]

The efficient cause of a decision is what or who is responsible for it. If we have no causal influence on our own decisions, then whatever the actual cause is is responsible for them and not us.

First, the immediate cause is who is responsible for it. It makes no statement as to other impinging, and even responsible, causes. In law, the person who pulled the trigger is the murderer. But the person who hired the murderer to do the killing is also a murderer.

Second, the "efficient" cause of a decision —let's say, the person deciding— is no less responsible for what he does, though God controls every motion of every smallest particle of matter and energy and every detail of every principle beyond our knowledge (if not by his 'immanence', by his having begun all of creation (here I'm referring to cause-and-effect),) —the person deciding is no less responsible, I say— than the God who caused everything and upholds and continues its existence in every detail is responsible. But God is accomplishing his purpose in creating, and is not culpable, but to be credited for everything he has done. We, on the other hand, are subjects under his command, and so by definition are responsible to obey, whether we even can or not! Sin is rebellion.

There is no implied need to consider only one cause to be actual, in responsibility. And God is responsible in different mode and different requirement than we are. God need not "obey" himself. He is unable to rebel against himself. The notion is logically self-defeating. He accomplishes his plan, and our obedience and disobedience is part of that plan —indeed, our every motion is part of that plan.

 

[Fervent]

First, the immediate cause is who is responsible for it. It makes no statement as to other impinging, and even responsible, causes. In law, the person who pulled the trigger is the murderer. But the person who hired the murderer to do the killing is also a murderer.

The person, not the gun or the bullet. Because the person who commits the murder still must choose to commit the murder, being a hired gun doesn't absolve them of that choice. If the person who "hired" the killer stuck a puppet on their hand, the puppet would not then be responsible for the murder.

Second, the "efficient" cause of a decision —let's say, the person deciding— is no less responsible for what he does, though God controls every motion of every smallest particle of matter and energy and every detail of every principle beyond our knowledge (if not by his 'immanence', by his having begun all of creation (here I'm referring to cause-and-effect),) —the person deciding is no less responsible, I say— than the God who caused everything and upholds and continues its existence in every detail is responsible. But God is accomplishing his purpose in creating, and is not culpable, but to be credited for everything he has done. We, on the other hand, are subjects under his command, and so by definition are responsible to obey, whether we even can or not! Sin is rebellion.

"the person deciding"...what, exactly, do you mean by this? Isn't God the one deciding in your scheme, and the person merely experiencing an illusion of choice?

There is no implied need to consider only one cause to be actual, in responsibility. And God is responsible in different mode and different requirement than we are. God need not "obey" himself. He is unable to rebel against himself. The notion is logically self-defeating. He accomplishes his plan, and our obedience and disobedience is part of that plan —indeed, our every motion is part of that plan.

Sure, but you present a moral monster and not the God of the Bible. A being that gets joy out of torturing conscious beings for things that were entirely decided by him, and you think you're somehow glorifying God with this monstrous image.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The idea that it's talking about being granted the opportunity to believe and to suffer for Christ is there in the context. I don't get the sense that you made any effort at all to see if it might be there in the context. No one is made to suffer on behalf of Christ as if they have no choice in the matter just as no one is made to believe in Christ as if they have no choice in the matter. If that was the case, why do we see a scripture like this:

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Why would Paul need to urge people to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice, which can lead to suffering for Christ, if the only way someone will do so is if God makes them do so with them having no choice in the matter? That would make no sense. So, you are wrong that granting the opportunity to suffer for Christ is not in the context of Philippians 1:29. Based on what scripture teaches as a whole, it has to mean that. Saying that faith is a gift and suffering for Christ is a gift that God gives people with them having no choice in the matter contradicts a lot of other scirpture, so why not take that other scripture into account when interpreting Philippians 1:29?

My jaw dropped (rather literally), reading this. What makes this turn into "if the only way someone will do so is if God makes them do so with them having no choice in the matter?"??!! It's not the only way suffering will happen. Of course they can choose to suffer! And there are several passages where they are even urged to do so. I don't deny this. Further, to command, or to "urge", under authority of the Spirit of God, does not imply that there is no occasion where the suffering comes without them entering into it by choice.

But in spite of the repeated habit of people I argue with, it still seems strange to me, what I see here— the logic that "opportunity" is implied in Paul's discourse. It seems to me to be assumed, without warrant —a softening of the direct purposes of God— as though what a person chooses to do is never by God's choice and enabling. The notion is vacuous, that God at any time only presents opportunity, without being the cause of us both to will and to do according to his plan. Do you really think you can do something God had not planned on?

Mark Quayle said:
You apparently haven't noticed that @Clare73 doesn't take verses out of context, though she may quote shortened passages, or even give just the references for the sake of brevity. (Compare her post to your 'wall-of-text'. You should be honored if she even took you seriously enough to bother to read it.

LOL. Are you being serious here? Do you think just referencing the verses is enough to prove anything? My 'wall-of-text? LOL. Do you have a short attention span? My so-called 'wall-of-text is really not that long. It takes text to give an explanation of what a verse means. Excuse me for actually backing up my view instead of just posting verse references and thinking that's enough to prove something. Why is it that people don't like to read more than a paragraph nowadays? Maybe I should blame Twitter/X.

The fact I answered your wall-of-text ought to be enough for you to notice that my attention span is not short. I am growing tired of this conversation, however, and fast losing interest in what you have to say, probably because I'm having a bit of trouble taking you seriously. I have other things to do.
Mark Quayle said:
Every one of these she has considered WAS considered in context, and in a simple, logical hermeneutic.

I disagree. I'm not seeing that at all.

The fact that she didn't take the time to demonstrate it to you doesn't mean that it didn't happen before she posted their references. I'm guessing that she supposed you would see in them something that demonstrates what she was saying.

Mark Quayle said:
Your interpretation and use of them, however, consistently takes them, and some parts of their contexts, as only seen through your lens of self-determination. That is, you assume things —that the world revolves around your choices, and other similar, related notions— before bending the text to fit what you believe. Examples of this is demonstrated farther below.*

Absolutely false. I don't believe you have any idea of what you're talking about. None.

Ok. Well, I guess we are done here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How can a "responsible choice" be caused and what does that even mean?

This is short and simple, so I'll try. Are you responsible for your choices? Did you make yourself exist?

No, you did not make yourself —God did. Therefore, your choice was caused by God.

(No, I did not go through the whole long sequence of the chains of causation by which your choice was caused by God, nor did I go through his more immediate causes. I don't know them all. These none of them demand you did not actually choose, nor do the imply that you are a mere puppet.)

 

[childeye 2]

Could you have chosen not to love Him?

You mean Jesus? No, I really truly couldn't.

Sure, you could have! You're not a robot or a puppet. Human beings are able to reason and have a will.

I don't get it. A puppet, or a robot are not capable of feelings; They couldn't love or not love, by definition. I understand Human beings are able to reason and have a will/desire. I am a human being I know what it's like. Isaiah 53:6

When I reason I'm weighing pros and cons, so my reasoning is only as trustworthy as the knowledge I reason upon. Therefore, I see loving Jesus as a result of hearing the Gospel, not the result of my ability to reason.

Faith is not something that we can be forced or coerced into.

That's not my personal experience.

It has to be a willing choice made from the heart or else what kind of "faith" is it?

Well yes that's true, I believed from the heart. I saw a great Light as in a beautiful Love that could only have come down from heaven and I wanted to believe. I just can't say I decided to will to see a beautiful love.

Why do you suppose that scripture says "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)?

I think it's because faith implies God is trustworthy. It makes sense that there's no excuse for not esteeming God as God.

If we only have faith because God gives it to us, how can we possibly please God with faith?

As I said, God's Spirit is Beautiful. Hence scripture says Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God because His Word is His expression of Himself. For example, Jesus said to love others as I have loved you and to Love others as you would want to be loved. Those words bring hope to me, and they inspire me with the courage to pick up my cross and follow him. I would think it pleases Him when I believe in that love and practice it because He said He was well pleased with His son.

Does He please Himself by making us believe?

I think it pleases Him when we believe/trust in His son, and the words and actions of His Christ certainly made me believe/trust.

Or does it please Him when we humble ourselves before Him, acknowledge that we can't save ourselves and put our trust in Him instead?

I don't see this as mutually exclusive from the other. Jesus suffered the ultimate shame, and he didn't deserve any of it, yet he forgave it. So, the Gospel does humble me when I think of that, which is why I believe the Gospel can resist the proud.

You didn't address what I said about persuasion being necessary to convince someone to believe. Why is persuasion necessary if the choice of whether someone believes or not is entirely up to God?

I don't believe being convinced or persuaded qualifies as a choice. It's more like when something is shown to you, you either see it or you don't. If I see it, I can't deny that I see it. I believe God is using the Gospel to search for those who worship Him in Truth which also reveals who doesn't. Matthew 13:47-48

You think it's God's purpose to create people who can't believe and up in hell for eternity? What scripture do you have to back that up?

In the parable of the wheat and tares, God planted good seed. His enemy was planting the tares. So, I would articulate it as God has a purpose for hell. Matthew 24:41

Scripture teaches that God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) as evidenced by the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). So, with that in mind, why do some people not believe?

I think God would want all people to bear good fruit. The question should be why don't they bring forth good fruit? Luke 13:7-9. John 15:6.

Because God didn't give them faith? That can't be. He wants them to be saved. Why would He make it so that have no opportunity to be saved? It has to be that God makes them responsible to use their God-given reason and free will to make a choice to believe or not.

I think it's possible that God can desire for everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved but also foreknow that not everyone will submit to that truth. And there are other reasons that could make them unworthy other than they decided to go to hell. Matthew 25:45-46

None of this addresses the question of whether people are responsible to choose to believe or not.

I respectfully disagree. It shows that God can choose to reveal Himself to the weak and lowly over the high and mighty so as to show no man is better than another according to our own wisdom. Similarly, John the Baptist said God could make children of Abraham from stones.

I don't think we choose to believe. We either see it or we don't. See what? The greatest Love that could never be imagined by a creature. Jesus did say that the Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind. So, there is a such thing as a blindness.

How do those who see the preaching of the gospel as foolish come to that conclusion? Because God didn't give them faith and they can't help themselves?

I'd say God reveals Himself. Matthew 11:25 , Matthew 11:27
People are blind and deaf to spiritual things and God can use that to His own ends. Romans 11:25

Or because they chose not to believe it?

I would think that if I am already in unbelief, I would have to be convinced otherwise. Paul as Saul was in unbelief and had to be convinced. It's my understanding a person has to believe from the heart because the Holy Spirit is searching the hearts of people.

Their lack of faith results in condemnation and punishment (John 3:17, 2 Thess 1:7-9, Matt 25:41, Rev 20:15). Why would God punish people for not believing if the only way they could believe is if He gave them faith? That makes no sense.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and He hardens whom He hardens.
2 Corinthians 4:3-7

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[childeye 2]

Divine Determinism is a Theosophical concept that is manmade.

Theosophy: any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations,

What this means is any means of interpreting scripture apart from God or Scripture.

When scripture uses the words 2919. krinó and all variants that draw from this root Greek word, and the Hebrew equivalent 2852. chathak and all variants that draw from this root Hebrew word.... it has absolutely no connection to the theosophical musings of mankind. They are Apples and Oranges.

The Word of God is the energy that created all things to serve His purpose. God said His Word shall not return void. So, when I think of determinism I think of the energy of God's Word as the positive force in the creation.

This said...

Do you deny that Satan had the faculty, facilitated by God's specific design within all creation to Rebel against God of his own personal volition within his initial state of perfection?

I think Satan imagined a vain image of god, that would affect his volition. For scripture states that the heart of Leviathan is harder than the lower millstone. I think God foreknew the creation would be subject to vanity because the creature is not the Creator. It makes sense that God would first create a temporal existence that was corruptible so as to plant the seed that was incorruptible.

 

[Grip Docility]

The Word of God is the energy that created all things to serve His purpose. God said His Word shall not return void. So, when I think of determinism I think of the energy of God's Word as the positive force in the creation.

I respect your words here. Because I don't have your Chapter by Chapter, book by book, scriptural exegesis on this, I can't claim to understand what this especially means to you or how it theologically unpacks, but it is a very well written statement of belief. I don't claim to understand your words as you do, but I do respect your view and how you have worded it here. I'm not feeling the urge to flip tables when I read it, so that's positive.

I will say this one thing. God went out of His Way to demonstrate that He is a Servant Leader. I didn't really see that in here. Not saying that you did or did not imply it, but it's a pretty BIG DEAL.

I think Satan imagined a vain image of god, that would affect his volition. For scripture states that the heart of Leviathan is harder than the lower millstone. I think God foreknew the creation would be subject to vanity because the creature is not the Creator. It makes sense that God would first create a temporal existence that was corruptible so as to plant the seed that was incorruptible.

You say Either, I say "either"... You say "Neither", I say "neither". You say "Tomato", I say "tomato", You say "Potato", I say "Potato".

In this particular quote, I see the same exact point expressed with different words on this matter. Your words are far more eloquent and chalked full of explanation. Me? I'm spiritually gifted to be a bull in a china shop in words, even if I'm exegeting the 23rd Psalm.

 

[childeye 2]

Who's Onus do you place the fate of the UNKNOWN Eternally Damned on? God or the Eternally Damned?

I don't place the onus on anyone. I see a scenario where it's no one's fault that they are who they are. I would therefore think the damned are those that find that unfair.

So, Satan was IGNORANT to his "Iniquity", thus making his Vain act of "Rebellion" and innocent one?

I think Satan wanted to be worshipped above others like God was. That suggests to me he had a vain image of God. He probably saw God as the greatest because God was the Master being served by all those beneath Him. I don't believe Satan comprehended the Light of God as the greatest and lowliest servant of all. 1 Corinthians 2:7-8

Who are the saints? Did at any point, these Saint's Repent of their own volition? Or, do you simply assert that they and they alone were Chosen, just as the Damned, before Creation?

Because of the vain image of god in this world, I don't believe God allows anyone to choose or not choose Him lest we think we chose him of our own volition and become vain. He wants to impute righteousness by grace through faith so that when we receive His Spirit, we are acknowledging that He alone as the Creator is Who makes us Holy. Hence God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and He will harden whom He will harden.

I don't like to talk about it either.

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't bother me to talk about how pondering a vain image of god is not pondering God. Actually, I love to talk about it because it glorifies God.

I keep trying to assert that God waits for us to LOVE HIM BACK, of our own imperfect Love before the fire starts. At some point, we all have to look at the weight of the STONE LAW and decide if we can accomplish it... or Choose God and God alone as our way Home.

I'm familiar with the King James. When I look up "choose" the word turns up 62 times in the Old Testament and 1 time in the New Testament. If I look up "believe" it turns up 43 times in the Old Testament and 237 times in the New Testament. It's as if the mind is in the Old Testament and the heart is in the New Testament, the letter and the Spirit of the Law.

Of coarse deception is part of it. Here's the million dollar question. Satan was the first to "Fall". In his perfect state, he fell. Are you suggesting that Satan's fall was an innocent matter of ignorance and vanity? I'm curious not for a set up rebuttal, which I can be guilty of in discussion, but not this time.

That's kind of the same question as the one at the top of the post. If I think there is a rebuke in order, I must first begin with myself. In other words, I leave it to God to rebuke Satan.

Yet what is sin? Sin is essentially deviation from God's being. We are different than God. We weren't created to take God's place, but instead to experience life and eventually Love and be Loved by God. This begs the question... that you actually answered earlier.

Is it not the accusations of Satan that define sin according to deviations from the perfection of God (The Law)? Does god accuse? No. God leads, guides and corrects... Lovingly.

So, let's start at original sin... How would you describe Satan's ability as a Perfect Creation to have iniquity rise up from within him? Not a loaded question. Theological curiosity motivates this one.

I think we all were made in God's image and the terms Elohim is gods plural. We don't know WHO we are exactly so we're malleable. So, sin can enter in through suggestion and yes, I agree with your definition of sin as a direction or state of being that is in separation from God in some manner of degree.

In the case of Satan, I believe he was probably like a chief protector of God's image on one hand of God, and it started out well, but gradually he began to interject what that image of the other hand should look like.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Spiritual Jew said:
Could you have chosen not to love Him?

You mean Jesus? No, I really truly couldn't.

Haha! I love your direct answers! Beautiful!

Spiritual Jew said:
Faith is not something that we can be forced or coerced into.

That's not my personal experience.

MAN, You make me laugh with this post!

But the way I see it, it is no more "forcing" than we are forced to be the person we are when we are conceived or born. And coercion is indeed a laugh! Coercion implies that one is compelled to choose, when [at least, salvific] faith is rather obviously nothing to do with us choosing, but is a plain gift of God, done by the Holy Spirit upon regenerating us, only subsequently resulting in choice. All glory to God, and none to us for his plan working out!

Wish I had more time to talk about this, but gotta get on down the road...

 

[childeye 2]

Child Eye... I get it. You and I are both Constrained by the Love of God in a way that is sure.

I don't like going into detail on this matter of discussion most of the time. I will cease and desist this back and forth with this final statement.

Could a Slave of Sin, who is freed by Jesus Christ... and even went further to place their ear to the door post, then beg for the Awl to be driven through their ear, because the goodness of their MASTER (Father) is so great that they always want to serve Him in His house... then one day forget their Father's goodness and Run out the door forever with Ear Ring in ear and All?

Yes.

But... they would be an idiot being ridiculous beyond comprehension. That's my personal take on the matter. Oh dear... I just remembered a direct example of one of these "Running Bond Servants"!!!! Jonah! One lining additional statement and rewording it.

The prodigal son left as a proud son who thought he could fare better elsewhere than in his father's house, and he returned with humility to his father's house hoping he could be received as a servant.

 

[Grip Docility]

I don't place the onus on anyone. I see a scenario where it's no one's fault that they are who they are. I would therefore think the damned are those that find that unfair.

1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and defiance is like wickedness and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has rejected you as king.

God speaks of Onus all throughout scripture. Another word for Onus is Culpability. God certainly decided who was culpable for the fall. When He walked this earth, He made it clear that Satan had been judged. He specified that Satan would strike His heal and He would crush His Head (Power) in Ga' Eden and according to Scripture, it will result in Satan's Termination of Existence at some point (Ezekiel 28 isn't shy on the matter). There are two most likely fates for those unknown souls that will be cast into Ga-Hinnom. Eternal Conscious Torment or Destruction of their very soul.

I'm Damned, according to your very words. By my usage of Scriptures interpretation of Judgment, that isn't Just Judgment. God is the 3 witnesses that will Judge, on the final day. Do you think God is going to play duck duck goose with the Eternal Souls of mankind? Does His Judgment have no foundation? Is Culpability not important, by God's own scriptural standards? He specifies that He alone is worthy to properly judge.

Strong's defines the word "8199 Hebrew Shaphat" as A primitive root; to judge, i.e. Pronounce sentence (for or against); by implication, to vindicate or punish; by extenssion, to govern; passively, to litigate (literally or figuratively) -- + avenge, X that condemn, contend, defend, execute (judgment), (be a) judge(-ment), X needs, plead, reason, rule.

1 Samuel 16;7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

When the Lord searches our Hearts, is culpability not present? I'm almost reading that you don't see mankind as having autonomy of being. It's almost a way of saying... we are mere puppets on cosmic strings. I'm confused. Am I misreading you?

Compassion and Culpability are not divergent. Compassion is applied to show mercy, where culpability is found. Grace is the Face that Love wears, when it encounters Brokenness. How can something be Broken, if it is in it's "intended" state? There is a major difference from saying, "I know I'm broken, thank you for Loving me, God", than saying "I'm without responsibility for who I am, Love me.". IMO

I think Satan wanted to be worshipped above others like God was. That suggests to me he had a vain image of God. He probably saw God as the greatest because God was the Master being served by all those beneath Him. I don't believe Satan comprehended the Light of God as the greatest and lowliest servant of all. 1 Corinthians 2:7-8

I agree with you, on this matter. However, there is one issue. God did assign Onus to Satan for this. Satan decided to go that route. What favors does it do to pretend that God Himself didn't rebuke and Judge Satan?

Because of the vain image of god in this world, I don't believe God allows anyone to choose or not choose Him lest we think we chose him of our own volition and become vain. He wants to impute righteousness by grace through faith so that when we receive His Spirit, we are acknowledging that He alone as the Creator is Who makes us Holy. Hence God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and He will harden whom He will harden.

This is the Man Made teaching of Limited atonement, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Irresistible Grace.

It's impossible to miss. I saw this when you misquoted Romans 9, void of the 40 plus chapters of scripture in the Old Testament that are required to properly utilize it. This is saying that God randomly chose the saved and then randomly chose the damned.

This is most egregious in my opinion, because most people that believe in this doctrine insist on ECT. This directly means that God Purposefully created Beings for the sole purpose of Eternal Suffering to Glory Himself. God isn't only throwing this people into ECT, but they wouldn't have existed if God hadn't have created them. It's like saying that a person creates a person to Eternally Torture them. That doesn't align with the revealed Character of God, through Jesus Christ. This teaching is inadvertently saying that God is Love, but also likes to Torture people. It doesn't line up with God's revealed Character of Being, IMO.

You seem to be uncomfortable acknowledging the Culpability of Satan that God Himself assigned, as a supposed act of being "Merciful". Yet, it appears that you have no issue with God bringing into Being Sentient Beings for the Sole purpose of eternal Torture? This is a sharp contrast. One, makes you appear benevolent, the other strips God of His benevolence. There's a severe doctrinal matter here. Am I misunderstanding you?

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't bother me to talk about how pondering a vain image of god is not pondering God. Actually, I love to talk about it because it glorifies God.

God's Heart is Grieved by the possibility of the Wicked never Repenting. He is severely upset and grieved by the matter from Genesis to Revelation. I don't see how discussing something that upsets God is glorying God.

I'm familiar with the King James. When I look up "choose" the word turns up 62 times in the Old Testament and 1 time in the New Testament. If I look up "believe" it turns up 43 times in the Old Testament and 237 times in the New Testament. It's as if the mind is in the Old Testament and the heart is in the New Testament, the letter and the Spirit of the Law.

Israel was "Chosen". They were called THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD. These Chosen people had numbers within them that indeed had a MOST vain image of God that wouldn't allow them to recognize Him as He stood before their very faces, in PERSON. It's very dangerous to tamper with scriptures true meaning of the words "Election" and "Chosen". IMO

That's kind of the same question as the one at the top of the post. If I think there is a rebuke in order, I must first begin with myself. In other words, I leave it to God to rebuke Satan.

Scripture reveals this matter. This isn't actually a personal study of scripture on this matter. This seams like a safe, non answer. Now, if scripture didn't discuss this matter, certainly, this answer would be wise. But, it does. Michael didn't rebuke Satan because Michael isn't the very Presence of God. God, the Presence of God made zero bones about calling Satan and his followers Liars and Murderers. He did. He JUDGED Satan as Culpable for Satan's Active Choice to Rebel. Ask me if I have hope for even Satan? I do. Scripture doesn't reveal that end for Satan, though. I am bound to speak within the framework of scripture and God's revealed Good Character. Would I question God if He had mercy on Satan? NO! Will I question God for ending TRUE Wickedness born of the rebellion of the Wicked, if He so Chooses to do? No.

I think we all were made in God's image and the terms Elohim is gods plural. We don't know WHO we are exactly so we're malleable. So, sin can enter in through suggestion and yes, I agree with your definition of sin as a direction or state of being that is in separation from God in some manner of degree.

Excellent

In the case of Satan, I believe he was probably like a chief protector of God's image on one hand of God, and it started out well, but gradually he began to interject what that image of the other hand should look like.

This is an answer and it is actually one I can't disagree with. It lines up with scripture. Well written.

 

[Grip Docility]

The prodigal son left as a proud son who thought he could fare better elsewhere than in his father's house, and he returned with humility to his father's house hoping he could be received as a servant.

Jonah literally fled from God because he KNEW that God would spare Nineveh. God didn't let Jonah flee. Where should we go from here in doctrine? Is this a nod to the third possibility of final judgment that is super unpopular?

 

[Grip Docility]

This is short and simple, so I'll try. Are you responsible for your choices?

James 1:5 Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without criticizing, and it will be given to him.

This verse wouldn't mean much, but James chapter two is merciless in the matter of DISTINGUISHING ONE PERSON FROM ANOTHER. It is infinitely clear that Partiality shown from those LIBERATED is INSTANT condemnation by all 613 points of the Law.​

​

Galatians 6:7-8: "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows"

​

This statement that we are not responsible for our choices... it is not only scripturally invalidated, but it leads to the summation that God didn't need to die on the cross for any reason whatsoever. This literally turns all of God's struggles with Mankind into nothing more than method acting. It isn't anything like what scripture teaches.

We are freed from our guilt of SIN, because God eradicated the Condemnation of The LAW within His own flesh.

This very direction of Logic states that God is Guilty of ALL evil, because HE created us and thus He died as He should have because He is guilty for the creation of all that Rebelled against Him. That is the only logical conclusion of this reasoning.

Did you make yourself exist?

Should I sue my parents for existing if I am unhappy?

No, you did not make yourself —God did. Therefore, your choice was caused by God.

God is not culpable in any way, shape, fashion or form for any single drop of wickedness that exists within creation. This is why tampering with the Truth that God imbued Creation with a Will that makes Creation FULLY culpable for it's failures is tampering with the ONUS of Wickedness.

It's either (Unfettered Will capable of Genuine Rebellion) or any drop of Divine Decree into the matter, makes God an author of Sin. This isn't a mistake. This is the logical conclusion of Divine Determinism.

If mankind is not "Culpable", then mankind has no need to be forgiven or shown grace. It's not a positive theological conclusion in my opinion.

(No, I did not go through the whole long sequence of the chains of causation by which your choice was caused by God, nor did I go through his more immediate causes. I don't know them all. These none of them demand you did not actually choose, nor do the imply that you are a mere puppet.)

We can step apart from the Puppet analogy. No need to apply human logic to this matter.

If humanity isn't culpable for humanities failings initially caused by Satan's deceit, then what responsibility does humanity have for any and all crimes against one another and especially God?

If culpability isn't a thing... what purpose did Jesus die for?

If Satan isn't culpable for Satan, then did not God JUDGE him unjustly?

If the Goat is not the Goat, and all Goat behavior is on God's very Head, where does the final conclusion arrive in reference to the Spotless Lamb?

 

[Clare73]

How can a "responsible choice" be caused and what does that even mean?

God trumps it all by imputing Adam's sin to all mankind (Ro 5:18)--no choice involved, which is why
1) they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and to charge to them (Ro 5:14), and
2) Adam's sin imputed to us is a pattern (Ro 5:14) of Christ's righteousness imputed to us (Ro 4:1-5) in justification (Ro 3:28).