Free Will - God's test that all mankind flunks

bling said:

Free will has always been around.

Click to expand...

Free will was not made a theological matter until the 5th century.

Pelagius had something taken from previous correct doctrine, but not all their ideas were right.
I just asked you a question, so we can start with what we agree on. Would it then be just/fair to give some people (Adm and Eve) a huge benefit and not everyone else? I do not consider the Garden a benefit at all.

Click to expand...

"Just/fair" is never my criteria for what Scriputure teaches, and particularly when it is fallen man's notion of what that is.
So "just/fair" won't be a basis of discussion for me.

In fact, my only basis for discussion is what Scripture actually states, understood in the light of, and in agreement with, all Scripture (i.e., the whole counsel of God).

Are you telling me now: Saying now humans can make some free will choices that will change God’s behavior toward them in other words:
some of “God’s actions are contingent on the choices of the people”?

Click to expand...

In more than one place in Scripture, God states "if you do". . ."then I will change my response."

I don't consider that a change, I consider that as God simply carrying out his stated intention.

Nor do I consider God as always stating his intention. He gives commands without stating his intention of acting according to their response.

That is the way I would see it, since sin is not the fault of the person who cannot do otherwise.

Click to expand...

Agreed. . .that is the way fallen man would see it, but that has nothing to do with what Scripture reveals on the matter.

Every mature adult has a God given “faith” (trust/believe), which they can place in idols or in a benevolent Creator.

Click to expand...

No, everyone does not have such a "faith."
Faith does not exist in a vacuum, it must have an object it sees as worthy of it.
That is a matter of perception.
Fallen man is unable to, and cannot, perceive the things of God as the worthy object of faith, they are foolishnes to him and he cannot understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14).
He must be born again before he can perceive them as worthy (John 3:3).
There is no faith until one is born again of the Holy Spirit.

The free will is needed in placing the faith in a hated benevolent Creator who just might provide undeserving charity.

Click to expand...

Pardon me for saying so, but that is such corrupt thinking from the mind of fallen man, due to his not knowing the mind of God as revealed in the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

No, you have now hit up against the limit of man's free will, he cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to believe in the kingdom of God without the enablement of the Holy Spirit because it is foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14).
In this he is a slave to sin (John 8:34; Galatians 3:22), making him spiritually blind and lame, bound over to sin by God so that God is the only solution (Romans 11:32), through his Holy Spirit enabling man (John 6:65).

The Bible makes a lot of God’s actions contingent on the free will choices of humans, some I listed in the post you are addressing, it is their choice.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not deny free will in mankind. It denies a completely free will in fallen mankind, whose free will is limited. . .he cannot choose the things of God without the enablement of the Holy Spirit because they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14). Who chooses what is foolish to himself?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
1. I said, "Autonomy in the creature is logically self-contradictory." Autonomy is something only God, First Cause, the Omnipotent, can have. (That is, unless you are referring to what people mean by such things as, "an autonomous computer program".) 2. To choose uncaused, you have to either (a) be better than someone else to choose better than they, or you (b) must depend on mere chance to cause you to decide what to do. But (a) is contradictory to Scripture. And (b) is contradictory to reason. Chance cannot cause anything.

bling said:

The parable describes the way the Kingdom works, so Jesus does not just get one ending message, but everything is consistent with the Kingdom (God, sinful man, children who think they are good, sin, Love and repentance).

God being outside of time is not “waiting”, but our being in time does give the appearance of God waiting. The Father (God) in the story did lots of stuff and knew what the son would do with the money, but let him go and did not send servants after him to force him back.

Do you see the young son learning something?

Do you see the patience of the father in teaching the young son?

Do you see the young son making a choice (the young son could have stayed been macho and taken the punishment he fully deserved, kept from bothering his wonderful father with further undeserving requests, and not added fuel to his older brother’s contempt).

Click to expand...

Of course we have the appearance of God waiting! In fact, he doesn't seem to mind that we are simple enough to think in terms of time. What he does seem to object to is the notion we take to as logical, that God is not to be credited for every and all good.

But I'm not claiming that other things besides the "moral to the story" can't also be true. I'm claiming you should not build doctrine on them alone, but by where Scripture claims the same thing. For example, (and here was my departure), the father in the story had no power to change his son's will, but former influence in his son's behavior, including perhaps in implied record of love and kindness in his dealing with his servants, for the son to know that at least he would be better off as a servant of his father; but God does have the ability to change his sons' will, and while we (like the son in the story) make our decisions of what to do, God has control of the whole picture. There is no denial of predestination, or claim of uncaused choice in this story, unless you take the parallel too far.

bling said:

Do you believe God is so weak, He does not have the ability to create a being (like himself) which could truly make very limited mental autonomous free will choices? How is such a powerful God logically impossible?

Click to expand...

Do you believe God is so weak, he cannot make a rock too big for him to pick up? It isn't a matter of strength, but of logical self-contradiction of terms. The notion of something or someone, other than Omnipotence, i.e. First Cause himself, behaving uncaused by outside causes, does not logically work, attributed to the creature.

bling said:

Your “a” means humans would have to be greater than God to make an autonomous free will choice. There is no requirement in logic for the choice of the chooser to have to be the very best choice, so there is nothing in logic which makes that requirement.

Click to expand...

That's why I said "a" was not Biblical, (nor logical, for that matter). But yes I get your argument —but the question is not whether the moral or social or other superiority can be by uncaused choice, but simply that if one sees the logical fault in CHANCE causing the choice (i.e. "b"), the only other reason one can make such a better choice, if it is uncaused, is if the one who chooses that better choice, is intrinsically a better person in some way; but Scripture denies any one of us is of oneself better, no?

bling said:

As I just stated: Yes! I do believe God is powerful enough to create beings that can have autonomous free will to the point of being able to make very limited free will choices (be the first cause of that limited choice).

Click to expand...

As I said before, power is not the point here. Absolute logic is in God's purvue, and if something is logically self-contradictory, it does not exist.

Then you reject the logic behind "a" and "b" being the only causes behind uncaused choice, or you have (like Calvinism) a very diminished view of what 'uncaused' means. It is not, after all, quite the "free" that most people think of by 'freewill'. They are thinking self-determination, with God standing aside, hands-off. Calvinism does not deny —in fact, it demands— real choice, complete with real, even eternal, consequences. Or you may have a different concept of "autonomous", such that we do have our own choices to make. I do not deny we do have that. (But that is not the meaning of "autonomous" except, as I said, in such uses as an 'autonomous computer program'.)

Calvinism agrees with the simple logic of cause-and-effect; thus (assuming God is First Cause, (which if you think he is not, I'm done here)), the notion that anything can happen apart from God causing it to happen, is illogical.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
After all your substituting of words the meaning of the passage remains the same. What is your point?

Are you saying Christ was not separated from God with his imputation of our sin on himself?

bling said:

That is one thing.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by, "That is one thing." That it is one thing you believe, that Christ was not separated from God with this imputation of our sin on himself? Or, rather, that it is a separate argument from what you mean to be discussing with me? Or, what?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
No, I am not saying Christ became a sinner. I am saying that "our sin was put on him", as Scriptures show.

Last, you say, "'all' does not include the unborn child." Even if that is true, so what? But you have no evidence it is true. All we have is the fact that the Judge of all the world will do what is right, and that he is full of mercy.

bling said:

If “all” does not include the “unborn child” which most people have an extremely hard time accepting as just, then what is “all” limited to?

The evidence we have for unborn children not being sinners or guilty of sin, is our biblical knowledge of just and God being just.

Click to expand...

The question in Paul's argument is not to whom "all" is limited. The construction and the language of the argument Paul is making has nothing to do with numbers of people who are sinners, but how they became sinners, or why they are counted as sinners, and so, how they are made righteous in Christ, his righteousness being imputed to us.

bling said:

Sin is not some physical or tangible thing, so how was it “put on him”?

Click to expand...

Can you show me where sin was not put on him? Figures of speech are common in Scripture, btw, but the point here is imputation. I could use many other words, and even other concepts, to get across what happened that day. "He was made sin for us"; "He became sin" —does that not give you a sense that the concept of sin, and of imputation, are not quite as simple as we want them to be, and that sin is other than what we want to think it is?

So, would you be happier if I used 'substitution', or, "placed on him", or, "he took our sin", or some other term, instead of 'imputation'? I really don't get where your problem is.

Jamdoc said:

well.. that's not what the bible says.

Acts 4:10-12


I mean, I want to believe that God can have some grace for some repentant sinner out there in some uncontacted tribe that could have died centuries before anyone could have reached them with the gospel, or even before Christ was born, I struggle with reading books like Joshua because of the implication of these people being genocided never having a chance to receive the Gospel...

and I want to believe that because even when we use the name Jesus, it's not His real name that the Angel told Joseph to call Him. It's a Greek translation of His Hebrew name, which, I've heard is either Yeshua, Yahsua, Joshua, or even Yehoshua. Hard to 100% say because Ancient Hebrew stopped being spoken and modern Hebrew is an approximation when it comes to pronouncing, and written ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels (so I heard, I'm no linguist).
I want to believe that if a man can realize that he has sinned against his creator, and can humble himself and pray for forgiveness, that Jesus can atone for them even if the man doesn't know his name.
But that's not what the bible says.
so I just have to accept that I am wrong and the bible is right, and that as far as I know, nobody will repent without the gospel.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not say: the person being forgiven has to first say: “Yahsua” correctly in the Greek. “Name” does not have to refer to the verbal pronunciation, but by the authority given Christ can mean “in His name”.

Peter is addressing all of Israel and not everyone ever conceived. There were people saved prior to Christ without any indication they knew the name Jesus?

New thread to check out.

The Trend Toward Atheism

New thread to check out.

The Trend Toward Atheism

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said: ↑
1. I said, "Autonomy in the creature is logically self-contradictory." Autonomy is something only God, First Cause, the Omnipotent, can have. (That is, unless you are referring to what people mean by such things as, "an autonomous computer program".) 2. To choose uncaused, you have to either (a) be better than someone else to choose better than they, or you (b) must depend on mere chance to cause you to decide what to do. But (a) is contradictory to Scripture. And (b) is contradictory to reason. Chance cannot cause anything.

Of course we have the appearance of God waiting! In fact, he doesn't seem to mind that we are simple enough to think in terms of time. What he does seem to object to is the notion we take to as logical, that God is not to be credited for every and all good.

But I'm not claiming that other things besides the "moral to the story" can't also be true. I'm claiming you should not build doctrine on them alone, but by where Scripture claims the same thing. For example, (and here was my departure), the father in the story had no power to change his son's will, but former influence in his son's behavior, including perhaps in implied record of love and kindness in his dealing with his servants, for the son to know that at least he would be better off as a servant of his father; but God does have the ability to change his sons' will, and while we (like the son in the story) make our decisions of what to do, God has control of the whole picture. There is no denial of predestination, or claim of uncaused choice in this story, unless you take the parallel too far.

Click to expand...

First: why do you give credit to God for all the good and not all the bad? Allowing God to do good stuff through you, does not mean you can take credit for the any good He did, since He did it. Can we stop God from doing good through us and can we take credit for stopping God?

Can other things beside the moral of the story be a lie about the Kingdom?

Does just because somethings are predestined have to mean all things are predestined?

The parable gets it right: in the story the Father (God) is not changing the free will of the son, but is heavily influencing him to make the correct decision with the son’s will. God can remove the free will ability of a person after that person has shown they will never accept God’s charity as charity, but the prodigal son had not reached that point, since we find the son changing.

There is nothing in the parable suggesting the father changed the will of the prodigal son (it says “he came to his senses”) and God dos no early on change people’s will.

The son made the choice and there is nothing to suggest his choice was “forced” by the Father or God.

Mark Quayle said:

Do you believe God is so weak, he cannot make a rock too big for him to pick up? It isn't a matter of strength, but of logical self-contradiction of terms. The notion of something or someone, other than Omnipotence, i.e. First Cause himself, behaving uncaused by outside causes, does not logically work, attributed to the creature.

Click to expand...

Science is in need of a single first uncaused cause and can from there explain everything else, but when you introduce Deity there can be lots of first causes happening by Him directly. The issue is, can Deity also have the power to allow other beings to have very limited first causing ability? You are saying “no”, but I see that as being very logically possible, so an all-powerful God could do it. You have not shown how that is logically impossible for God?

Mark Quayle said:

That's why I said "a" was not Biblical, (nor logical, for that matter). But yes I get your argument —but the question is not whether the moral or social or other superiority can be by uncaused choice, but simply that if one sees the logical fault in CHANCE causing the choice (i.e. "b"), the only other reason one can make such a better choice, if it is uncaused, is if the one who chooses that better choice, is intrinsically a better person in some way; but Scripture denies any one of us is of oneself better, no?

Click to expand...

The “better” choice does not have to be made, to be a first cause choice.

Mark Quayle said:

As I said before, power is not the point here. Absolute logic is in God's purvue, and if something is logically self-contradictory, it does not exist

Click to expand...

OK, you believe power is not at issue, so God could provide individuals with limited ability to make first cause choices (a choice that originated within them). There is no issue with “logic” with a being other then God, having the God given power to make a limited truly free will choice.

Mark Quayle said:

Then you reject the logic behind "a" and "b" being the only causes behind uncaused choice, or you have (like Calvinism) a very diminished view of what 'uncaused' means. It is not, after all, quite the "free" that most people think of by 'freewill'. They are thinking self-determination, with God standing aside, hands-off. Calvinism does not deny —in fact, it demands— real choice, complete with real, even eternal, consequences. Or you may have a different concept of "autonomous", such that we do have our own choices to make. I do not deny we do have that. (But that is not the meaning of "autonomous" except, as I said, in such uses as an 'autonomous computer program'.)

Calvinism agrees with the simple logic of cause-and-effect; thus (assuming God is First Cause, (which if you think he is not, I'm done here)), the notion that anything can happen apart from God causing it to happen, is illogical.

Click to expand...

Man’s very limited ability to make a truly free will choice was provided by God’s power. God is the first-cause of our universe, but God is making lots of changes in our universe that are not the result of the first cause in starting our universe.

Clare73 said:

Free will was not made a theological matter until the 5th century.
"Just/fair" is never my criteria for what Scriputure teaches, and particularly when it is fallen man's notion of what that is.
So "just/fair" won't be a basis of discussion for me.

Click to expand...

“Freewill” offerings were part of the Old Testament.

Clare73 said:

In fact, my only basis for discussion is what Scripture actually states, understood in the light of, and in agreement with, all Scripture (i.e., the whole counsel of God).

Click to expand...

God is just and Jesus by His words and actions defined just, but the Bible gives us tons of examples of just and unjust behavior.

Clare73 said:

In more than one place in Scripture, God states "if you do". . ."then I will change my response."

I don't consider that a change, I consider that as God simply carrying out his stated intention.

Nor do I consider God as always stating his intention. He gives commands without stating his intention of acting according to their response.

Click to expand...

God’s stated intentions are in these and other cases contingent on man’s choices.

Clare73 said:

Agreed. . .that is the way fallen man would see it, but that has nothing to do with what Scripture reveals on the matter.

Click to expand...

Sin is the fault of the person making a free will choice to sin.

Clare73 said:

No, everyone does not have such a "faith."
Faith does not exist in a vacuum, it must have an object it sees as worthy of it.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

That is a matter of perception.
Fallen man is unable to, and cannot, perceive the things of God as the worthy object of faith, they are foolishnes to him and he cannot understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

He must be born again before he can perceive them as worthy (John 3:3).
There is no faith until one is born again of the Holy Spirit.
Pardon me for saying so, but that is such corrupt thinking from the mind of fallen man, due to his not knowing the mind of God as revealed in the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

Click to expand...

No, people place their faith in idols all the time without the help from the Holy Spirit.
The unbeliever can have faith in lots of stuff.


You can believe (have faith) in the existence of satan without him being worthy of it.

Clare73 said:

No, you have now hit up against the limit of man's free will, he cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to believe in the kingdom of God without the enablement of the Holy Spirit because it is foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Click to expand...

I did not say sinful man has to start out believing in the Kingdom.

Clare73 said:

In this he is a slave to sin (John 8:34; Galatians 3:22), making him spiritually blind and lame, bound over to sin by God so that God is the only solution (Romans 11:32), through his Holy Spirit enabling man (John 6:65).

Click to expand...

Again, not talking about sinful man not sinning, but for sinful reasons (selfish desires), he can place a trust in a benevolent Creator to help him.

Clare73 said:

The Bible does not deny free will in mankind. It denies a completely free will in fallen mankind, whose free will is limited. . .he cannot choose the things of God without the enablement of the Holy Spirit because they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14). Who chooses what is foolish to himself?

Click to expand...

Again, I am not saying sinful man is choosing to join God, be spiritual, righteous and holy (the things foolish to him), but he is will to accept from the God he is hating pure undeserved charity for selfish sinful reasons.

bling said:

“Freewill” offerings were part of the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Indeed. . .did I say they weren't, or deny free will?

God is just and Jesus by His words and actions defined just, but the Bible gives us tons of examples of just and unjust behavior.

Click to expand...

If you wish to make a particular point regarding God's justice or injustice, Biblically demonstrate it and I will address it.

God’s stated intentions are in these and other cases contingent on man’s choices.

Click to expand...

Agreed. . .that is what I said.

Sin is the fault of the person making a free will choice to sin.

Click to expand...

And? . . .are you saying I deny free will?

You can believe (have faith) in the existence of satan without him being worthy of it.

Click to expand...

And that is intellectual assent, not Biblical faith.

I did not say sinful man has to start out believing in the Kingdom.

Click to expand...

Good for you. . .

Again, not talking about sinful man not sinning, but for sinful reasons (selfish desires), he can place a trust in a benevolent Creator to help him.

Click to expand...

Without obedience, you have here the definition of counterfeit faith.

Again, I am not saying sinful man is choosing to join God, be spiritual, righteous and holy (the things foolish to him), but he is will to accept from the God he is hating pure undeserved charity for selfish sinful reasons.

Click to expand...

What things does he consciously accept from the God he hates?

Clare73 said:

Hi, Irish. . .long time no see.

Scripture has a different take on that. . .

". . .for it is God who works in you to will and to do." (Philippians 2:13)

.

Click to expand...

Scripture has a different take on that, too. . .

"Apart from me, you can do nothing," (John 15:5), including obedience

Click to expand...

Not really, as that discusses ability to do something, but one has the free will to choose to do it and attempt to do it. I tentatively make the remark above without having first reviewed the original Greek and without the benefit of researching the meaning of the Greek words in a Bible dictionary and other materials.

Biblical free will is the power to choose/do what one prefers without external force or constraint.

Click to expand...

A meaning consistent with the meaning I provided in my reply to Jiminiz.

It is not philosophical (Aristotle, Cicero) free will, which is the power to make/do all moral choices, for man cannot choose to never sin.

Click to expand...

The wording is confusing. Man does have the free will to make all moral choices. The fact man cannot choose to never sin has to do with ability and not free will. Man has the free will to choose to fly like a bird, and to freely choose to try, but lacks the ability to fly like a bird.

So, man has free will to make all moral choices but lacks the ability to always decide/make/do the moral choice/moral action as opposed to deciding/making/doing the immoral choice/moral action when presented with only those two options.

But it does mean the servant (slave) was owned by the master, and was not free to leave or live in any
other manner than the master allowed. The slave had limited free will.

Click to expand...

You’re using “free” here in an equivocal manner while discussing “free” will. The slave wasn’t “free” to abscond under the law, but the slave had free will to break the law, and to choose to leave and in fact some did leave.

The word “slave” in Greek referred to and was only used to refer to the physical relationship between a person owned (slave) by another person (slaver). There is no evidence the Greek word for slave had anything to do with free will.

Which one was that?
Where do you find "slave" used as an idiom?

Click to expand...

I provided that in my post.

1. metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.”

NotreDame said:

Not really, as that discusses ability to do something, but one has the free will to choose to do it and attempt to do it. I tentatively make the remark above without having first reviewed the original Greek and without the benefit of researching the meaning of the Greek words in a Bible dictionary and other materials.
A meaning consistent with the meaning I provided in my reply to Jiminiz.
The wording is confusing. Man does have the free will to make all moral choices.
The fact man cannot choose to never sin has to do with ability and not free will.

Click to expand...

"Free will" is not in the NT.
In the OT, it simply meant voluntary.
In philosophy, the operative term is "will," i.e., power to accomplish.
Free will is ability/power to do what one voluntarily, without external force or constraint chooses to do.

Man has the free will to choose to fly like a bird, and to freely choose to try, but lacks the ability to fly like a bird.

So, man has free will to make all moral choices but lacks the ability to always decide/make/do the moral choice/moral action as opposed to deciding/making/doing the immoral choice/moral action when presented with only those two options.

Click to expand...

That lack of ability/power is the meaning of limited free will. He simply lacks the power to execute some moral choices. There are also immoral choices that he lacks the power to execute; e.g., to personally push the two-ton boulder off the cliff onto the train full of passengers.

You’re using “free” here in an equivocal manner while discussing “free” will.
The slave wasn’t “free” to abscond under the law, but the slave had free will to break the law, and to choose to leave and in fact some did leave.

Click to expand...

The slave is "free" to leave only if he has the power to do so. He is unequivocally not "free" to leave if he is always fettered.

The word “slave” in Greek referred to and was only used to refer to the physical relationship between a person owned (slave) by another person (slaver). There is no evidence the Greek word for slave had anything to do with free will.

Click to expand...

"Free will" is not about freedom, it is about power to execute the free choice.

I provided that in my post.

1. metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.”

Click to expand...

Metaphors are not idioms. The NT usage of "slave" is not an idiom.
Mankind is a slave to sin (John 8:34) because he does not have the power to execute a choice to be sin free.
The regenerate man is a bond-slave (slave by choice) to righteousness, being enabled by the Holy Spirit to be obedient, but still not sin free, only penalty free because of Jesus. His free will (power to execute) is still limited.

JIMINZ said:

Not quite as you believe.

Are you sure about that?

Click to expand...

Joh_8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Click to expand...

That verse says nothing about the cause of the person sinning. That verses is compatible with free will as the person freely chooses to sin and chooses to be a servant of sin.

Rom_6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Click to expand...

That verse says nothing about the cause for the decision to yield a particular way. The verse is consistent with free will as freely choosing to yield oneself a particular way.

The phrase “to whom ye yield” can be done by an exercise of free will as one freely chose “to whom ye yield” and is consistent with free will. The Greek word for “yield” is “to stand by” with the phrase of “whom you stand by” or “to whom you place yourself beside.” Such a phrase is consistent with free will, as one can choose to whom they align with.

Eph_1:14
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Act_20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

So we see, you are a Purchased Possession, and the Purchase Price was , His Blood.

Click to expand...

And that is metaphorical language for the fact Christ’s death and resurrection brought us salvation and rendered the believers as belonging to Christ. Those verses do not establish the cause for choosing to believe or negate the idea those in the “flock” had free will to choose the “flock.”

Eph 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Click to expand...

So, we are a “thing made” by God (that’s the Greek meaning of the word for workmanship).

The rest of the verse states God predetermined, or prepared beforehand, what the “good works” are to be for those in Christ. Which is to say from the very beginning, before any human was made, God foreknew salvation through Christ would occur, God foreknew who would be believers, and at that time determined what the “good works” are to be by the believers and foreknew who would “walk in” the good works.

That verse is not inconsistent with free will. God foreknew who would freely choose to “walk in” the “good works” where God had determined long ago what the “good works” are to be.

Being “created” doesn’t mean we are robots. God has the free will and ability to “create” beings, people, with free will. That verse does not negate that point.

bling said:

First: why do you give credit to God for all the good and not all the bad? Allowing God to do good stuff through you, does not mean you can take credit for the any good He did, since He did it. Can we stop God from doing good through us and can we take credit for stopping God?

Click to expand...

Credit? Because what we call evil, or sin, we tend to want to credit as "blame", so I didn't want to put that out there for you to get off track onto. I do not hesitate to claim that God causes all things, including the fact that we (and Satan) sin. But my point didn't need to go there to be made.

bling said:

Can other things beside the moral of the story be a lie about the Kingdom?

Click to expand...

Your question doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that the moral of this story can be a lie about the Kingdom?

bling said:

Does just because somethings are predestined have to mean all things are predestined?

Click to expand...

No. The reason all things are predestined is not because some things are predestined, but because all things proceed by God's causation, whether directly or through a chain of causation.

bling said:

The parable gets it right: in the story the Father (God) is not changing the free will of the son, but is heavily influencing him to make the correct decision with the son’s will. God can remove the free will ability of a person after that person has shown they will never accept God’s charity as charity, but the prodigal son had not reached that point, since we find the son changing.

Click to expand...

So, by your hermeneutics, the story can be used to teach that God has no power or authority to change the will.

bling said:

There is nothing in the parable suggesting the father changed the will of the prodigal son (it says “he came to his senses”) and God dos no early on change people’s will. The son made the choice and there is nothing to suggest his choice was “forced” by the Father or God.

Click to expand...

Of course there isn't. And accordingly then, my point that a parable should not, of itself be used to build doctrine in any way but the point of the main spiritual lesson as meant.

bling said:

Science is in need of a single first uncaused cause and can from there explain everything else, but when you introduce Deity there can be lots of first causes happening by Him directly. The issue is, can Deity also have the power to allow other beings to have very limited first causing ability? You are saying “no”, but I see that as being very logically possible, so an all-powerful God could do it. You have not shown how that is logically impossible for God?

Click to expand...

I have shown it: God doesn't do logically self-contradictory things. I have shown how it is logically contradictory for there to be more than the one uncaused thing. But here is a short version: If anything is uncaused, it is not subject to any principle from outside itself. If two or more things are uncaused, they are subject to a principle from outside themselves, of co-existence, therefore, they are neither/ none first cause.

In fact, and pardon me for saying so, but even in your construction, if God caused something to be uncaused, he still caused it, so how can you call it uncaused? Your claim is self-contradictory even in concept.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
That's why I said "a" was not Biblical, (nor logical, for that matter). But yes I get your argument —but the question is not whether the moral or social or other superiority can be by uncaused choice, but simply that if one sees the logical fault in CHANCE causing the choice (i.e. "b"), the only other reason one can make such a better choice, if it is uncaused, is if the one who chooses that better choice, is intrinsically a better person in some way; but Scripture denies any one of us is of oneself better, no?

bling said:

The “better” choice does not have to be made, to be a first cause choice.

Click to expand...

That's not the "a" argument: it was that if a person makes a better choice than somebody else that person must be in some way better than another person. The only alternative, that I can see, that that person's choice is not caused, is by "b", (concerning chance, which is also logically self-contradictory.)

But I'll back off to let you explain:

IF someone by uncaused freewill, chooses God, that person chooses better than one who chooses against God.

Both choices, do in fact happen.

How do they happen?

Clare73 said:

The NT usage of "slave" is not an idiom.
Mankind is a slave to sin (John 8:34) because he does not have the power to execute a choice to be sin free.
The regenerate man is a bond-slave (slave by choice) to righteousness, being enabled by the Holy Spirit to be obedient, but still not sin free, only penalty free because of Jesus. His free will (power to execute) is still limited.

Click to expand...

The philosophical meaning of of free will is ability/power to do.

Click to expand...

I’m not engaging in the futile exercise of this is or isn’t philosophical free will. I personally could not care less. My argument doesn’t rest upon your argument of what is or isn’t an appropriate label. My argument rests upon the substance of what I’ve said, and my substantive argument doesn’t make any point or argument as to what is or isn’t philosophical free will or an appropriate label of free will.

That lack of ability/power is the meaning of limited free will.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing labels. I do not see the logic of “limited free will” as distinguished from “free will” because the former is rationally encapsulated by the latter but that is an argument for a philosophy thread. I’m not arguing the rationality or the proper applicability of labels.

The slave is "free" to leave only if he has the power to do so. He is not "free" to leave if he is always fettered.
"Free will" is not about freedom, it is about power to execute the free choice.

Click to expand...

Free will is not about “power to execute” as that goes to ability. Free will is, as I said before, the cause for a choice or action is the person and no external factor or external entity or external thing caused the person to act or to decide.

As I said, a person doesn’t have the “power to execute” to fly like a bird, but he has the free will to choose to do so and try, which is to say he had the free will to climb to the top of a building, the free will to jump off and flap his arms like a bird. The fact he will plummet to the ground rather than fly like a bird, which is to say the fact he doesn’t have the power to execute flying like a bird, doesn’t change the fact he used free will to climb to the top of a building, free will to jump off the building, and free will to flap his arms like a bird consistent with his choice to fly like a bird.

Another example is the Bride freely (free will) decides to kill Bill. She freely chooses to go to Bill’s house, armed with a sword, freely chooses to sneak inside the home, and with her sword stabs Bill through the heart with her sword. The only problem is Bill was already dead when she arrived. The Bride lacked the ability to kill Bill.

But the fact the Bride lacked the ability to kill Bill doesn’t change the fact she freely chose to kill him, she freely decided to kill Bill, and then freely chose to take the series of steps to kill Bill.

The “fettered” slave has the free will to choose to run away and the free will to try consistent with his free will choice to run away. The fact a slave, shackled to a wall, may not in fact have the ability to render himself free of those chains to abscond doesn’t change the fact he freely (free will) chooses to run away and freely chooses to enage in conduct to break himself free from the chains to run away.

The fact Nat Turner lacked the ability to lead a slave rebellion that abolished slavery doesn’t negate the fact he freely (free will) chose to lead a slave rebellion to do so.

The NT usage of "slave" is not an idiom.

Click to expand...

The above is not the point, message, theme, claim, conclusion, or idea that I addressed when I addressed a specific verse, making a different kind of point than the one above. The generalized statement above is not and never has been a statement I addressed.

Clare73 said:

The philosophical meaning of of free will is ability/power to do.
That lack of ability/power is the meaning of limited free will. He simply lacks the power to execute some moral choices. There are also immoral choices that he lacks the power to execute; e.g., to personally push the two-ton boulder off the cliff onto the train full of passengers.
The slave is "free" to leave only if he has the power to do so. He is unequivocally not "free" to leave if he is always fettered.
"Free will" is not about freedom, it is about power to execute the free choice.

The NT usage of "slave" is not an idiom.
Mankind is a slave to sin (John 8:34) because he does not have the power to execute a choice to be sin free.
The regenerate man is a bond-slave (slave by choice) to righteousness, being enabled by the Holy Spirit to be obedient, but still not sin free, only penalty free because of Jesus. His free will (power to execute) is still limited.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Nothing about lack of causation (true autonomy) even needing to be considered here.

NotreDame said:

I’m not engaging in the futile exercise of this is or isn’t philosophical free will. I personally could not care less. My argument doesn’t rest upon your argument of what is or isn’t an appropriate label. My argument rests upon the substance of what I’ve said, and my substantive argument doesn’t make any point or argument as to what is or isn’t philosophical free will or an appropriate label of free will.



Great. I’m not arguing labels. I do not see the logic of “limited free will” as distinguished from “free will” because the former is rationally encapsulated by the latter but that is an argument for a philosophy thread. I’m not arguing the rationality or the proper applicability of labels.



Nope. Free will is not about “power to execute” as that goes to ability. As I said, a person doesn’t have the “power to execute” to fly like a bird, but he has the free will to choose to do so and try, which is to say he had the free will to climb to the top of a building, the free will to jump off and flap his arms like a bird. The fact he will plummet to the ground rather than fly like a bird, which is to say the fact he doesn’t have the power to execute flying like a bird, doesn’t change the fact he used free will to climb to the top of a building, free will to jump off the building, and free will to flap his arms like a bird consistent with his choice to fly like a bird.

Another example is the Bride freely decides to kill Bill. She freely chooses to go to Bill’s house, armed with a sword, freely chooses to sneak inside the home, and with her sword stabs Bill through the heart with her sword. The only problem is Bill was already dead when she arrived. The Bride lacked the ability to kill Bill.

But the fact the Bride lacked the ability to kill Bill doesn’t change the fact she freely chose to kill him, she freely decided to kill Bill, and then freely chose to take the series of steps to kill Bill.

So, again, you are equivocating “free” and “free will.” The “fettered” slave has the free will to choose to run away and the free will to try consistent with his free will choice of choosing to run away. The fact a slave, in shackled to a wall may not in fact have the ability to render himself free of those chains to absond doesn’t change the fact he freely chooses to run away and the freely chooses to break himself free from the chains to run away.

The fact Nat Turner lacked the ability to lead a slave rebellion that abolished slavery doesn’t negate the fact he freely chose to lead a slave rebellion to do so.



The above is not the point, message, theme, claim, conclusion, or idea that I addressed when I addressed a specific verse, making a different kind of point than the one above. The generalized statement above is not and never has been a statement I addressed.

Click to expand...

Great! To substance then: How does one who makes the freewill choice to accept God, do so, (i.e. actually accept God), if Romans says he cannot submit to God's law, and cannot choose God, and that the natural man, the flesh, is at enmity with God?

Mark Quayle said:

Great! To substance then: How does one who makes the freewill choice to accept God, do so, (i.e. actually accept God), if Romans says he cannot submit to God's law, and cannot choose God, and that the natural man, the flesh, is at enmity with God?

Click to expand...

Because Romans doesn’t say the above. That simple. But go ahead, cite to the chapter(s) and verde(s) you perceive as stating there isn’t free will.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Great! To substance then: How does one who makes the freewill choice to accept God, do so, (i.e. actually accept God), if Romans says he cannot submit to God's law, and cannot choose God, and that the natural man, the flesh, is at enmity with God?

NotreDame said:

Because Romans doesn’t say the above. That simple. But go ahead, cite to the chapter(s) and verde(s) you perceive as stating there isn’t free will.

Click to expand...

Romans 8:

BSB "7 because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God."

KJV "7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

But, maybe you can show how the carnal mind is not necessarily an unbeliever, or how choosing God does not please God.

After you are done, maybe you can answer my question: "How does one who makes the freewill choice to accept God, do so, (i.e. actually accept God)..."

Clare73 said:

Indeed. . .did I say they weren't, or deny free will?

Click to expand...

You said: “Free will was not made a theological matter until the 5th century.”

Yet “freewill” offerings was part of the Old Jewish Law theology.

Clare73 said:

And? . . .are you saying I deny free will?

Click to expand...

You said: “Free will was not made a theological matter until the 5th century.”

Yet “freewill” offerings was part of the Old Jewish Law theology.

Clare73 said:

And that is intellectual assent, not Biblical faith.

Click to expand...

Biblical “faith” can just be “believing in”, trusting, relying on, and worshipping, so it does not always refer to a saving faith.

Clare73 said:

Without obedience, you have here the definition of counterfeit faith.

Click to expand...

True obedience comes with “Love” and not just faith.

Clare73 said:

What things does he consciously accept from the God he hates?

Click to expand...

Sinful man has not yet “accepted” anything, since he does not know what is being offered but, he is just willing to accept some undeserved pure charity from the God, he is hating.