God took David's child's life - a contradicion in the Bible?
- Thread starter zoidar
- Start date
"Nothing is unexpected for God. He knows everything. But God deals with us in the very moment without considering His all knowing. Like God can tell you tonight to go to your neighbour and share the Gospel, knowing what will happen if you do and have a plan accordingly and at the same time through all knowing see that you won't do it."
I know it sounds illogical. Maybe it's more understandable if I say God has an intention that isn't always fulfilled? Like the example of you going to your neighbour with the Gospel. God has an intention with that, even if you won't do it and God knows it by foreknowledge. His intention isn't canceled by foreknowledge.
The same with the Eden, God had an intention that wasn't fulfilled because of the fall. Yet God had another plan, Christ!
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Maybe the quickest way to deal with this is by calling it really two questions.
First the logic. What do you mean by autonomy, when you refer to limited autonomy? Do you mean,
1. like a computer that operates according to its programming, but independent of other computers and their instructions? Or do you mean
2. a person that is granted a small amount of the ability of absolute first cause?
Well, if God, as Omnipotent First Cause, causes something, the something it causes is an effect, even if that something also causes. And there can be only one First Cause, or else it is subject to external causes too --thus not God. So if 'limited autonomy' means small absolute first cause, it is no different from Godhood, and not little after all. THIS is only what God is --not his creatures.
Even your notion that God can grant, of his omnipotence, a small or momentary ability to first cause action, independent of God, is self-contradictory, for you yourself have just said God caused it. God has no use for self-contradictory notions. He will not entertain questions of whether or not he can make a rock too big for him to pick up --it is foolishness. It is idle words.
3. I will allow that God causing a moral agent (a human) to behave according to its own choice and own will is not quite the same as a computer behaving according to its programming. After all, the computer is incapable of having a will. The computer is incapable of choosing contrary to its programming. So, let's entertain this: A willed individual can do things of its own choice, though always according to what it currently, or even suddenly, wants. The computer cannot want.
Logic again: Experience tells us that only one thing ever happens --whatever happens is all that ever happens. We have no evidence that with each 'possible' choice, all possibilities produce their own subsequent timeline. That is mere speculation built upon the notion that what we esteemed as 'possibility' is absolute. Remember, if God is First Cause, this is ALL effects, except for First Cause himself. Whether for a Deist, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist, logic demands that IF there is First Cause everything is subsequent to that. Everything else is effect, even if it also causes other effects. So God is, by definition, the first cause of all choices anybody (including Lucifer and Adam) makes. (Most who reject the notion that God is First Cause still admit that the chain of causation demands that all our choices are caused. So, I say, if that is admitted, why raise alarm and cry out that God has made us mere puppets, if we consider God as the First Cause of those effects that cause us to make the choices we do?
I hope this explains why God can promise a result contingent on the choice of a nation (or a person). It is no different, for that matter, if the lost is never willing to submit to Christ, because he still wills to reject Christ --if God set that fact up, it is still choice! Likewise, if God has mercy on whomever he chooses to have mercy, and changes their will through his regeneration of them, their choices are still a an effect of First Cause. The lost will pay for his crime against Omnipotent God, but it the lost repents, his crime will be paid by Christ. He is allowed to choose, but never will choose Christ, (and this by God's design) until God transforms his will.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Yes. I try to be as agreeable as I can (at the very least, to prove that I am carefully reading and considering everything you write). However, this falls under what Martin Luther called, "The Bondage of the Will." I perceive you're attempting to make selfish motive into the solution, rather than the entire problem, here.
There is a clear distinction between what is known in the history of the church as "love of attrition" vs. "love of of contrition." If one "repents" due to purely selfish reasons (such as to avoid eternal Hell), then God knows the heart.
If I do good works just because of going to heaven or fear of going to hell, that's an insincere love of God. And since God knows the heart, I'd end up in Hell anyway, because I foolishly thought I could put one over on God.
Attrition vs. contrition is one of the few doctrines Catholics and Protestants agree on. That makes it a huge red flag.
Love of attrition is heresy. And many CHRINOs will learn of this too late. These are the same disciples as in John 6:66.
No. Sinful man cannot make such a choice, because it's a problem of inner motive.
So what I'm hearing is that God is only occasionally surprised. lol.
1. "Free will" is always limited. Thus never truly "free." The length of my reach and ambition can only go so far. That makes "free will" something of a bait & switch.
2. Man's "free will" is also limited in that he, in and of himself, can do nothing righteous. Not even with the extra "oomph" of free will, ". . .for without Me, ye can do nothing." -John 15:5 "No one is good but One, that is, God." - Luke 18:19
3. Appeal to "free will" is a form of bootstrapping. And bootstrapping is itself a closed form of circular reasoning.
4. From our POV, we have the illusion of free will. But nothing is left to chance with God; not the least little detail. Proverbs 16:33, Matthew 10:29
That's what omniscience is. There's nothing human about it.
Of course! God created time.
Nothing is beyond His control. Correct.
Yes, but never subordinate to it.
Correct.
I hear one this from atheists a lot. It cannot be changed, because this is part of the only perfect plan of God. There is no "Plan B." Backseat driving and criticism is no different from the grumbling of the children of Israel.
"or anyone else for that matter" <-- We're only talking about God here, the one omnipotent being with true free will. There is no choice made by the finite being called man that is truly autonomous, that is to say, where God allows Himself to be surprised in the matter, or where God allows someone to thwart His plan (even for a nanosecond).
I'm reading this as, "Doesn't God have the power to grant the creation at least some limited autonomous control over himself if God desired?"
- Where is this written?
- God must prove His authority by abdicating it? That doesn't make sense.
- Which doesn't follow. One might assume that if God requires something from man, that God would automatically grant the ability to fulfill that requirement. But that is merely an assumption. And an unfounded one at that.
- God fairly and rightly demands that man fulfill righteousness when man is wholly incapable of doing so. Because, in all fairness, man's incapability is not a case of innocent victimhood. It is sin. We entitled only to eternal blame.
- Christ alone, our substitute, fulfills all righteousness on our behalf.
- God does not grade on a curve.
- Predestination based on man's foreseen choice puts man in the driver's seat. Man becomes the final executive decision-maker in salvation, instead of God's predestination.
- This would then make the "earthly objective" fulfilled by man (works righteousness) instead of God's righteousness.
- The change in scripture would be grace itself. Grace means "un-merited favor." Grace and mercy are unearned an undeserved by definition. If man in and of himself earns favor with God, then man has something to boast of and Ephesians 2:8-9 is certainly violated.
"give up and surrender to their hated enemy, while they still hate their enemy" <-- Contradiction noted. A heart that is still motivated to hate God is not a changed heart. It remains a heart of stone; not a heart of flesh. If man changes himself, then man must motivate himself to be genuinely sorry for his sin. To be contrite. That is the goal.
(continued. . .)
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
(continued. . .)
An enemy forced to surrender would feel they themselves deserve no punishment at all. They are surrendering by force.
Then this would be love of attrition, instead of love of contrition (see above).
Who will judge God for John 3:8? Or John 15:16? Or John 6:65? You can't control when you're born. How then can you claim that you can control being born from above?
Who will judge God for loving Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:13)?
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. - Romans 9:14-16
Who are we to JUDGE GOD for literally raising a dead man to life? - Ephesians 2:1
But according to your scenario, we sovereignly allowed God to show love towards us. <-- While still enemies, no less. The terms of unconditional surrender here are downright wacky.
If so, then it is not earned via a free will choice. Simple.
Ephesians 2:9 is always contradicted if the decision of faith is a work in-itself. Faith is not a work. You're saved by God's grace through faith, and that faith being not of yourselves (meaning "not works"), it is the gift of God (meaning "not earned"), and Paul repeats it just so you get it, "NOT WORKS," lest any man should boast.
That's justification. Once you are truly justified by God, you are guaranteed to produce the fruit of good works.
If no works, then it was nothing more than an empty claim, and that professing believer is nothing more than a hypocrite and a liar.
You cannot avoid "through faith." It's not, "For you have been saved by grace, and that not of yourselves. . ." It's "salvation by grace through faith. . ." It's a package deal. And it's unavoidable.
Regardless of that fact, grace is still unmerited. On close analysis, Paul is denoting "not works" up to 5 times in that passage alone.
I'll concede that Adam as the Federal Headship of mankind may have had more capacity for a mutable will, or the option to choose righteousness than any of his progeny. However, the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). Before Adam sinned! Therefore, by extension, Adam's choice was an illusion from his POV exclusively, and at the same time unavoidable from God's POV exclusively.
"Who were willing" can already denote a changed heart. It doesn't say where that will originated. I hope we can safely assume it did not come from an innate self-righteousness. A freewill offering can only be given by someone with a heart that is already conformed to pleasing God. A dead heart cannot do this. Nor can a dead heart bootstrap itself into bringing a sincere freewill offering.
In any case, the “freewill offering” is “free” here because the Law does not require it as it does the other regular and occasional offerings, so the "freedom" here is relative to the Law, and the freedom related to this offering exists only in this sense. The people are “free” to give or not give the offering from a legal or ceremonial perspective. These verses do not address the metaphysical perspective, so that they can neither establish nor refute human freedom in the metaphysical sense.
When referring to “free will” in the context of divine sovereignty and human freedom, we are talking about whether we are free from God – and this is about metaphysics. We are talking about whether God has complete control over man’s thoughts, actions, and circumstances – he does, and therefore man has no free will, no freedom relative to God. In one instance, we are talking about man’s relationship (of moral obligation) with the Law, in the other, about man’s relationship (of cause and effect) with God. Only the English term happens to be the same, and not even all the time in the English versions, but they are two different subjects of discussion.
So in the end, you're merely equivocating "free will" in the freewill offering.
God's own righteousness warranted the threat. However, God also sovereignly sent Jonah to preach to Nineveh, and even that against the prophet's will! Everything was fore-ordained by God, set in-motion, and even forced upon Jonah to ultimately fulfill God's plan to relent on His own Holy wrath against paganism. That's what mercy is.
IOW, if God had not forced Jonah, against his will, then Ninevah would not be saved by grace (un-earned favor) through faith (trust, "pistis"). Jonah was the gift of God sent against Jonah's will when Nineveh was completely spiritually dead and incapable.
- This assumes that repentance is wholly of one's inner-drive, bootstrapping, self-righteousness, and works.
- God knows the heart. Man does not.
- God's continual intent is always His Holiness, righteousness, and wrath upon sin. It's a given thing. Psalms 7:11 This is only suspended by undeserving mercy and grace (whether Common Grace or Special Grace in salvation).
Because that would make God a contingent being!!!
Either God's will is sovereign, or man's will is sovereign. <-- You can't have it both ways!
- This overlooks John 5:21 <-- Not man's will. The Son gives life to whom He willeth; not to whom man willeth of the Son.
- This overlooks John 5:25. The rejection was based on their own dead and unregenerate hearts. Dead men cannot will themselves to life again. Dead men cannot resurrect themselves.
- One can argue that John 5:39 is itself an immutable fact. Jesus' persecutors could not will themselves out of their unbelief, and Jesus knew their heart. See also John 2:24-25. If Jesus could be surprised by the free will of His persecutors and false disciples, then He would be more open to "commit Himself" to them and the potential of their surprising Him. But He didn't. Because He could not be surprised and He knew their hearts.
"whomsoever" is always in the context of man's finite POV. It is not given for man to know who the elect are.
John 6:64-65
“Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
And not based on some foreseen "free will decision" to come to Christ, because that would be circular reasoning. It is the Father who initiates.
"Others" are never entitled to it. Thus, God is guilty of nothing.
Moreover, if Christ died for absolutely everyone who ever lived, but that atonement only worked for those who chose to save themselves, then Christ died in vain for those who willfully refused to save themselves.
This verse only says what Christ chose to do (as well as what Christ might not have done). No free will of man is implied here. On the contrary, see verse 25. It's all fore-ordained prophesy. See also verse 19b, "but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
Then God is a contingent being. You're creating more problems than solutions here. In fact, you are creating an idol subject to your executive control. God is not mocked.
An enemy forced to surrender would feel they themselves deserve no punishment at all. They are surrendering by force.
Then this would be love of attrition, instead of love of contrition (see above).
Who will judge God for John 3:8? Or John 15:16? Or John 6:65? You can't control when you're born. How then can you claim that you can control being born from above?
Who will judge God for loving Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:13)?
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. - Romans 9:14-16
Who are we to JUDGE GOD for literally raising a dead man to life? - Ephesians 2:1
But according to your scenario, we sovereignly allowed God to show love towards us. <-- While still enemies, no less. The terms of unconditional surrender here are downright wacky.
If so, then it is not earned via a free will choice. Simple.
Ephesians 2:9 is always contradicted if the decision of faith is a work in-itself. Faith is not a work. You're saved by God's grace through faith, and that faith being not of yourselves (meaning "not works"), it is the gift of God (meaning "not earned"), and Paul repeats it just so you get it, "NOT WORKS," lest any man should boast.
That's justification. Once you are truly justified by God, you are guaranteed to produce the fruit of good works.
If no works, then it was nothing more than an empty claim, and that professing believer is nothing more than a hypocrite and a liar.
You cannot avoid "through faith." It's not, "For you have been saved by grace, and that not of yourselves. . ." It's "salvation by grace through faith. . ." It's a package deal. And it's unavoidable.
Regardless of that fact, grace is still unmerited. On close analysis, Paul is denoting "not works" up to 5 times in that passage alone.
I'll concede that Adam as the Federal Headship of mankind may have had more capacity for a mutable will, or the option to choose righteousness than any of his progeny. However, the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). Before Adam sinned! Therefore, by extension, Adam's choice was an illusion from his POV exclusively, and at the same time unavoidable from God's POV exclusively.
"Who were willing" can already denote a changed heart. It doesn't say where that will originated. I hope we can safely assume it did not come from an innate self-righteousness. A freewill offering can only be given by someone with a heart that is already conformed to pleasing God. A dead heart cannot do this. Nor can a dead heart bootstrap itself into bringing a sincere freewill offering.
In any case, the “freewill offering” is “free” here because the Law does not require it as it does the other regular and occasional offerings, so the "freedom" here is relative to the Law, and the freedom related to this offering exists only in this sense. The people are “free” to give or not give the offering from a legal or ceremonial perspective. These verses do not address the metaphysical perspective, so that they can neither establish nor refute human freedom in the metaphysical sense.
When referring to “free will” in the context of divine sovereignty and human freedom, we are talking about whether we are free from God – and this is about metaphysics. We are talking about whether God has complete control over man’s thoughts, actions, and circumstances – he does, and therefore man has no free will, no freedom relative to God. In one instance, we are talking about man’s relationship (of moral obligation) with the Law, in the other, about man’s relationship (of cause and effect) with God. Only the English term happens to be the same, and not even all the time in the English versions, but they are two different subjects of discussion.
So in the end, you're merely equivocating "free will" in the freewill offering.
God's own righteousness warranted the threat. However, God also sovereignly sent Jonah to preach to Nineveh, and even that against the prophet's will! Everything was fore-ordained by God, set in-motion, and even forced upon Jonah to ultimately fulfill God's plan to relent on His own Holy wrath against paganism. That's what mercy is.
IOW, if God had not forced Jonah, against his will, then Ninevah would not be saved by grace (un-earned favor) through faith (trust, "pistis"). Jonah was the gift of God sent against Jonah's will when Nineveh was completely spiritually dead and incapable.
- This assumes that repentance is wholly of one's inner-drive, bootstrapping, self-righteousness, and works.
- God knows the heart. Man does not.
- God's continual intent is always His Holiness, righteousness, and wrath upon sin. It's a given thing. Psalms 7:11 This is only suspended by undeserving mercy and grace (whether Common Grace or Special Grace in salvation).
Because that would make God a contingent being!!!
Either God's will is sovereign, or man's will is sovereign. <-- You can't have it both ways!
- This overlooks John 5:21 <-- Not man's will. The Son gives life to whom He willeth; not to whom man willeth of the Son.
- This overlooks John 5:25. The rejection was based on their own dead and unregenerate hearts. Dead men cannot will themselves to life again. Dead men cannot resurrect themselves.
- One can argue that John 5:39 is itself an immutable fact. Jesus' persecutors could not will themselves out of their unbelief, and Jesus knew their heart. See also John 2:24-25. If Jesus could be surprised by the free will of His persecutors and false disciples, then He would be more open to "commit Himself" to them and the potential of their surprising Him. But He didn't. Because He could not be surprised and He knew their hearts.
"whomsoever" is always in the context of man's finite POV. It is not given for man to know who the elect are.
John 6:64-65
“Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
And not based on some foreseen "free will decision" to come to Christ, because that would be circular reasoning. It is the Father who initiates.
"Others" are never entitled to it. Thus, God is guilty of nothing.
Moreover, if Christ died for absolutely everyone who ever lived, but that atonement only worked for those who chose to save themselves, then Christ died in vain for those who willfully refused to save themselves.
This verse only says what Christ chose to do (as well as what Christ might not have done). No free will of man is implied here. On the contrary, see verse 25. It's all fore-ordained prophesy. See also verse 19b, "but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
Then God is a contingent being. You're creating more problems than solutions here. In fact, you are creating an idol subject to your executive control. God is not mocked.
Upvote
0
Your logic is off. God as the first cause of universe to begin does not mean He does not continue to cause stuff to happen. He is still very much involved in being the first cause of lots of things that happened in the last minute: rain, sun shine, births, etc. all would not happen without His direct last minute involvement.
God does not directly “cause” all results, since some results will not happen due to man’s free will choice and others will happen due to man’s free will choice. Where man’s autonomous free will is concerned, there are at least two alternative mental results God allows to happen either way and provides humans with the free will to decide, God is allowing either result to happen by providing man with autonomous free will to choose the result man wills. God can certainly stop the actual actions of man, so the autonomous free will choice a human is making is all mental and may not actually be carried out. Humans wanted to kill Jesus prior to the cross, but they were not allowed to do it, but they thought it and that their sin.
If God is to control every thought of man then we are nothing more then His robots.
You make it sound like God made one first cause action at the beginning of time and that controls all prior actions, but that is not the case. God continues to cause stuff which is not the result of His first cause for the universe. Everything happening today is not an effect of that one first cause, since God is causing a first cause today in the conception of a child which would not happen without God today causing it, so that child is not an effect of the one first cause, but another first cause by the Causer continuing to cause stuff which is not the effect of a previous cause or effect.
There are millions of first causes happening all the time, which are not the results of a previous first cause, but are the result of autonomous free will God and individuals God has gifted with limited free will ability.
You have God being the blame for everything bad, for everyone going to hell, and humans being nothing but controlled robots of God.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I don't recognize the quote. I recognize the sort of thinking displayed but not the quote. Who was that?
Anyway, in my opinion your paragraph isn't a lot better. How is God's intention ever not fulfilled? When does God really plan something that does not come to pass? We are talking here about God's overall intention, no? -his plan and not his command? We are not talking about his threatened ruin for a Baal-worshiping country who diverts his plan because they repent? I don't see, for example, that God putting a 'road', or trajectory in place for us to follow, and then when we turn away from it that his plan has been in the least avoided. If one really insists that they can change God's plan in any way, they may as well say, (like the Open-Theists, that God has no knowledge of the future until the future happens! Are we going to claim that the very creator of time is unable to know it inside and out?
To me, this is making God subject to his own creation, which implies further self-contradictory notions. God is First Cause, as part of a logical meaning of Omnipotence. First Cause is not under the control of anything else, as it is not caused. God is the ONLY uncaused mover. We can argue all sorts of things, which is what you seem to be doing, and others here are doing, by using terminology like "limited autonomy" (on the part of the creature), and by noting that somebody did thus and such and caused God to become angry, or they resisted his will in this way or that, etc etc.
Is it not obvious that God has all this in mind when he created it all to begin with? He INTENDED for Joseph's brothers to sell Joseph into slavery. In spite of the 'spiritual indigestion' it may cause some people, God never asked us to excuse him from intending the worst, most heinous crimes anyone has committed or suffering anybody has gone through. (Honestly, if ANY of it was unintented, a LOT of it is no more of a proof of unintention.)
And so it is with Autonomy, or its brothers, Sovereignty, Spontaneity, and so on --terms we use loosely but then take seriously, as if it was valid to use them in reference to absolute acts of moral agents. Such Autonomy, limited though we want to call it, is no less than complete Autonomy, if we mean it was absolute in any way. Do we not mean, rather, that man has choice, real choice, made according to his will, and not pure uncaused ability to cause? And are we not asking words to push our minds around until we are convinced we have excused God from Blame?
God causing does not show blame. He is not us. He did not do the deed --WE did. Was not our will wholly involved in what we did? Were we not willing participants in our crime?
You might ask if God or Satan caused Job's suffering. Both did, but God is not to blame. Satan is a fellow creature with Job. God is not. Satan afflicted Job. God afflicted Job through Satan. Satan did the deed, and that, not under command, but under cause. God owes neither Job, nor Satan, nor us, any explanation for what he caused. Job has no right, not as mere creature, nor even as a moral agent, to demand justice of God.
God does what he does. He does not need us to build a structure around him to protect him from the criticism of mere creatures. We need not grant validity to the thinking of those who would criticize God, and try to somehow skirt around their thesis.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Except for your first sentence, that my logic is off, I agree with you here. To God as timeless, speaking something into existence is no different than to sustain its existence throughout. So also, with cause. To me, the very fact of fact itself is his doing. The smallest particle (or cause of the smallest particle) of matter, force, or anything else, is God at work. I did not imply otherwise.
So also with his use of secondary causes, or means, to accomplish his ends.
You see necessity of 'free will', whatever that means. You add in autonomy of the creature, which I have already showed is a bogus concept, to buttress your claim of free will. We will not overrule God's plan. We cannot. Yet you find it necessary to defend God against notions of cruelty or unfairness, as if he needed your help --as if he was altogether as we are, mere creatures. I say you see the necessity of 'free will', not as a Biblical Doctrine, but a simple fact shown throughout Scripture, because you see man choosing, obeying and disobeying, exercising his own will to arrive at his decisions. I completely agree man chooses, and exercises his own will to choose. That does not imply FREE will. In fact, to the contrary, it demonstrates his bondage to his will. Man is unable to choose contrary to his will, be it spur-of-the-moment, (at the very point of decision) or after long consideration of the options and their expected consequences. You may argue the options are real, not just perceived, and I'll allow the point only in that should one have chosen a different option it would be the actual option God had planned all along, just as the one that WAS chosen is the option God had planned all along. Options are not choices. They are perceived possibilities. No one of them is actual, if different from what will happen. Call it what you want --Fate, or like I call it, Predestination. Causation. We obey or disobey his command, but we always do precisely what he has planned.
God's causation is inescapable. But his causation does not preclude will, and its resulting choices. Rather, it confirms them.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
You continue to insist on this thing called "free will" without evidence. Like I said before. You throw it around as-if you knew what it meant, when it is in-fact one of the most controversial subjects in the philosophy of man.
In fact, "free will" as you know it didn't even exist until 1524. And it was Erasmus the humanist who argued for it; not his opponent Luther. So I'm not even sure if you're someone who accepts the minimum of Protestant theology.
Historically, it even goes further than that, but Arminians are always on the wrong side of church history, since Pelagius also argued for free will over and against Augustine.
I'm pretty certain you're not able to even define "free will" in any clear or consistent manner. Note that I'm not asking for a relative definition as in, "what it means to you," but what it means in any objective sense.
Do we have the power to make choices? Yes, but only according to our wills, which are fundamentally limited. And if limited, then our wills are not truly "free" in any sense. Moreover, our wills are corrupt. Thus, we are even further limited by our dead hearts (total depravity). We then contradict ourselves when we assert the ability to do what we cannot do.
Then you're simply chasing your own tail, because if they were not allowed to actually use their free will, then God was sovereignly in-control the entire time. ". . .because His time had not yet come." - John 7:30. God was in full control and the persecutors of Jesus had no free will in the matter. Obviously. You're just adding to scripture what isn't actually in the text.
The demeaning analogy here is intentionally demeaning to the complexity of God's creation. It also overlooks the fall that we were collectively born into. YES, every child of Adam has a pre-programmed nature as a result of the Fall. We are born into corruption.
- Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
- Genesis 8:21 - the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”
- Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
- John 3:6 - “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”
Question: Why are you a Christian and your unbelieving friends aren’t? Is it because you’re more righteous than they are? Is it because you did the right thing and made the right response?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Edit: my bad. I have bad eyes, and didn't realize I had somehow brought your post down to comment to. I thought it was somebody else's I was responding to.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I mean you no insult by saying you are all over the place with this one. First you set up (again, I don't think you meant it this way --you probably think your questions are honest-- a series of questions, some assuming facts that contradict the ones before it, and pretty much all of them loaded questions, from which you expect answers according to you mindset, including its presuppositions. It doesn't work that way. But you weren't asking me, so I will leave it here.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
What is this earthly objective I keep hearing about? You seem to give it a lot of importance. This life is not about this life.
You say, "or they can wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy, while they still hate their enemy (God) they are just willing to humbly accept their enemy’s undeserved pure charity" --You cite no repentance, no submission. You have assembled a non-cohesive fiction here.
God says, "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
Upvote
0
Thank you for your ideas I have better idea where you are coming from.
I am not talking about the unbelieving sinner being “good” or doing anything good. Luke 18:19
I am not addressing if there is or is not free will, but only criteria for assessing free will.
Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” This is not at all talking about man’s free will to make choices but “luck” (casting lots), I and many others do not believe in “luck”.
Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” Is again not talking about human free will, or God’s forknowledge, but God’s present knowledge.
People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (it is to quit working, trying to do it yourself and start trusting). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.
I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.
Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:
9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)
Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:
(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)
Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:
(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)
"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.
This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This).
You can look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.
I think I am OK with this.
That is not what I said. I am just point out if we know A=B and B=C then A=C, but that does not tell us anything about D since D is not addressed. D might or might not =A.
You are taking “…for without Me, ye can do nothing." In John 15:5 Since Christ is addressing only Christians attached to the vine, which Christians understand. The unbelieving sinner can do stuff just not righteous stuff.
I am not talking about the unbelieving sinner being “good” or doing anything good. Luke 18:19
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs 16:33&version=NKJV
I am not addressing if there is or is not free will, but only criteria for assessing free will.
Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” This is not at all talking about man’s free will to make choices but “luck” (casting lots), I and many others do not believe in “luck”.
Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” Is again not talking about human free will, or God’s forknowledge, but God’s present knowledge.
You are not using the most likely interpretation of Ep. 2:8-9:That's what omniscience is. There's nothing human about it.
Of course! God created time.
Correct.
Yes, but never subordinate to it.
Correct.
I hear one this from atheists a lot. It cannot be changed, because this is part of the only perfect plan of God. There is no "Plan B." Backseat driving and criticism is no different from the grumbling of the children of Israel.
"or anyone else for that matter" <-- We're only talking about God here, the one omnipotent being with true free will. There is no choice made by the finite being called man that is truly autonomous, that is to say, where God allows Himself to be surprised in the matter, or where God allows someone to thwart His plan (even for a nanosecond).
I'm reading this as, "Doesn't God have the power to grant the creation at least some limited autonomous control over himself if God desired?"
- Where is this written?
- God must prove His authority by abdicating it? That doesn't make sense.
- Which doesn't follow. One might assume that if God requires something from man, that God would automatically grant the ability to fulfill that requirement. But that is merely an assumption. And an unfounded one at that.
- God fairly and rightly demands that man fulfill righteousness when man is wholly incapable of doing so. Because, in all fairness, man's incapability is not a case of innocent victimhood. It is sin. We entitled only to eternal blame.
- Christ alone, our substitute, fulfills all righteousness on our behalf.
- God does not grade on a curve.
- Predestination based on man's foreseen choice puts man in the driver's seat. Man becomes the final executive decision-maker in salvation, instead of God's predestination.
- This would then make the "earthly objective" fulfilled by man (works righteousness) instead of God's righteousness.
- The change in scripture would be grace itself. Grace means "un-merited favor." Grace and mercy are unearned an undeserved by definition. If man in and of himself earns favor with God, then man has something to boast of and Ephesians 2:8-9 is certainly violated.
People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (it is to quit working, trying to do it yourself and start trusting). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.
I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.
Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:
9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)
Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:
(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)
Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:
(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)
"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.
This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This).
You can look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.
I am not talking about the soldier "changing". Any soldier in battle fighting a losing battle can wimp out, give up and surrender. He is not joining the other side and he is still hating his superior enemy. He for selfish reason (to possible live) will surrender to his enemy to for the possibility of receiving underserved charity from his enemy. The soldier is giving up and is not captured by his enemy.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
The implication here seems to be what is often claimed by opponents to Reformed Theology --that God regenerating a person quite apart from his cooperation, without consulting him first or even asking his permission, is an assault --is FORCING himself on that person. To me the concept is ludicrous:
Here we have what by default is a will in bondage to sin, unable to choose according to God, but only according to the flesh. Corruption. Death. And we are going to complain because God changes that will?
No, it's even stranger than that! We assume the default is altogether US! As if we in this state are of some dignity or integrity or value in and of ourselves! We know, but ignore the fact that it is by GOD'S OWN PLAN that we are born enslaved to sin.Are we going to claim then, that it is our RIGHT to our own fallen nature, and that God has no right to change our very being to a superior condition without first consulting us? Did he consult us before we were made born sinners? He can do as he pleases with any of us. We are not our own. Forcing???!!!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
It perhaps should be noted here, that corporate Ninevah (not individuals) was not necessarily granted relief from guilt of sin, nor eternal life. There repentance was good, no doubt, and for that God relented, but like Israel, there is no record that Ninevah continued in the Faith, in like kind as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so many others.
In other words, this 'repentance' is not salvific in the sense of redemption and regeneration.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Starting with God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man, which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.
God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective.
So, God allows evil to happen to help humans, but God also allowed Christ to go to the cross to help humans.
There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow, of your own free will, God to help you, which is God’s desire, since God is a huge giver of gifts.
You can take any command given in scripture and have Biblical support for calling it “Man’s objective since God said this is what man is to do, but there is one (more like two) commands all other commands are under.
Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could get?
The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.
The Adam and Eve story helps us understand. Most people go through a time in which they ask: “How could a Loving God allow such a thing”, which means “why does God not start us all out in a Garden type situation without, needy people, limited resources, death, and questions about His existence?”
What we can do is thank Adam and Eve for showing us and them that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.
There are just somethings even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like God cannot make another Christ since Christ is not a created being. The big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)
This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).
This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.
All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burdens them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).
This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and grow Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.
I and it seems other have to have opportunities at our doorstep to respond with Love, if I would just cease the opportunities at some distance there might be fewer opportunities (tragedies) needed for me, so if you want to blame someone for all these tragedies blame me for not ceasing more earlier.
Hell does nothing for the people going to hell, but that was their choice since they kept refusing to accept God’s help (forgiveness, Love, grace, mercy, charity) to the point they will never humbly accept. Hell does help some willing individuals to not put off their acceptance of God’s help.
We are not making some honorable choice to accept God’s forgiveness, since sin burdens us and we just want undeserved relief from our pain and burden.
Very good!
I am talking about that sinful human who cannot submit to God's Law and is hostile to God, being like a soldier who surrenders to his enemy.
Right I am not talking about submission, that comes after the unbelievable wonderful gifts are showered on the sinner. What I am addressing is the difference between the soldier God does not shower with gifts (he hangs in there taking his deserved punishment) and the wimp God showers with gifts.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
It's a simple question: "Do you believe God can be surprised?"
Then the unbelieving sinner cannot choose righteousness. The unbelieving sinner is without Christ, and therefore can do nothing.
Then there is no free will to even choose "good."
Which, of course, assumes the existence of "free will" without proof. I'm really going to need that proof here, or else you don't have a leg to stand on.
Then God is not a slave to random circumstance. If you don't believe in luck, then you agree that the verse is saying God is in-control over every apparently random element in the universe. From God's omnipotent POV, even a king does not have free will. - Proverbs 21:1
Now you're parsing God's knowledge that exists outside of and non-contingent to time! The verse doesn't say "present." That was a deliberate eisegetical insertion on your part, because you would much rather the verse be read that way.
Yes. It is the "most likely" interpretation according to your presuppositional bias. However, one cannot have salvation by grace through faith. Again: It's a package deal. Once you start dicing the verses up into tiny pieces at that level, we're gonna start having problems. You must necessarily suspend and omit "through faith," at least temporarily, in-order to make it fit your agenda. You essentially need it in-order to make faith a work of the flesh, instead of the entire package included in the gift.
Then that soldier has not been born from above. He still has an unregenerate heart.
What's the motive to give up? Force? If threat of force, then it's nothing more than love of attrition in an analogical war of attrition.
God changes the heart. The dead man does not change his own dead heart.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Thanks for taking the time to develop the answer to my question. I'm not sure if you meant to just go on about Love, or to do so to help explain what "man's earthly objective" means.
I was thinking you were referring to some mission that man is on --for example, as many denominations claim, God has a specific calling for each believer, and it is up to the believer to discover what that is and fulfill it-- or maybe you were referring to --and this seems more like what you meant-- a universal (at least to the redeemed) command to be pursued in obedience, the specific one(s) being to love God with one's whole being, and like it, to love one's neighbor as oneself.
Either way, you seem of the opinion that man's efforts, in accordance to God's command and work in them, but still the effort of man apart from God, also therefore a decision and effort by free will, is how this is accomplished. This is where my major discomfort with the whole structure you proffer shows up. This is why my ears perked up at hearing the term, 'earthly objective', which sounds almost humanistic to me.
We are made by God, for God. Not for ourselves. We are not even complete individuals as such, but are made complete by God in us. During this temporal life, we will never see ourselves as we are in God's sight. Part of HIM. While I don't deny the activity of the human will in deciding (and yes, the decisions are real, with real results --even in the eternal realm-- anything pursued as good, is God's doing it in me --not both of us doing our part. God is doing his part, no doubt, but he is also doing OUR part. We are doing it because he is in us doing it. It is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
One other important objection: You say God does all this for our sake (which I agree with) but not for God's sake (and there I disagree). God is righteous and pure in some things he does not allow for us, specifically even mentioning, pride and self-importance, and therefore jealousy. He will not yield his glory to another. (I have asked myself, Why would he care what Satan thinks of him and his work? (ref Job) Why would mere human creatures, small, weak, stupid, matter to him to the point that he emphasizes repeatedly his majesty, justice, purity, love?). His Glory is the main cause of creation, or the main purpose of creation. He made us for that end, and the end is not so much during this "earthly objective" I don't have the time to develop this for you, but I am sure of it as I am that the Gospel makes no reference to the ability of man to do anything worthy apart from Christ. Hence, I say God has done all this for his own sake, primarily. Our sake takes a far second. (And by that I don't mean that it is our duty to figure out what will glorify God and what will not, and to behave accordingly, though concerning that we must do what is right.) Here's one link that might lend a little insight into the subject, if you are inclined to be curious about it. it. The Primacy of God's Glory
Anyhow, thanks for lending me your time. God bless you.
Edit: I forgot to mention my question whether 'earthly objective' is God's objective concerning us, or is our objective as given to us by God. By your comments, I have to conclude you mean it as our conception (because it is commanded) to be done apart from God's doing --i.e. that you think it is done by free will.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,173
- 5,690
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Right. The fact that faith is not the word directly referred to as the gift does not rule out that it is part of the gift. Bringing back into the mix the bare and painful fact that fallen man is unable to do good, and redeemed man can do nothing apart from Christ, faith then, is also not humanly conceived nor even promoted, though again, our regenerated will is completely embroiled in the activity. We do decide, and that, according to our will. But always according to the work of God IN US. It is God who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hebraic block logic allows separate accounts to be in tension with each other without any problems. This is because the details of the account are there to support a goal and it's not about the conflict or tension it may create with other "blocks", it rather is about what it is trying to support or point to. It's like two people drawing the same picture, both will never look the same even though both may accomplish the same goal. When we take isolated details like this out of accounts then compare them with each other they are going to be conflicts because those details are never meant to act alone. The accounts in 2 Samuel 12 and Ezekiel 18 both have a purpose and context and we need to establish that first before we scrutinize the details as the details do not act alone and are a part of the support for the context.
Western logic is very fact-driven so two separate accounts should have details that perfectly fit together. Eastern logic is not fact-driven but goal drive or honour-driven. The details are there to support the message it is trying to communicate and we need to understand that message and its limits if we are going to isolate the details and try and mix and match them with other accounts. We cannot apply our modern western demands over these accounts and expect they will work.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
