• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

What happens if someone dies before they became a believer, is it their fault?

Colo Millz

Active Member
Aug 30, 2025
228
82
55
NYC
✟9,732.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?
In the eleventh article we ask: is it necessary to believe explicitly?

Obj. 1: It seems that it is not, for we should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

Reply Obj. 1: Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).


QDeVer.Q14.A11
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
25,045
9,402
up there
✟392,956.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Adam and Eve were created with sinless and had free will
But free will would eventually allow them to eventually make a self-indulgent choice. It was inevitable, just as telling a child 'hot' means nothing until they come to an understanding.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,891
1,938
✟1,021,498.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was.
That is the same as asking you can you show all "apparent" free will choices could never have gone a different way?
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,362
6,414
69
Pennsylvania
✟972,953.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Mark Quayle said:
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was
That is the same as asking you can you show all "apparent" free will choices could never have gone a different way?
CORRECT enough! That's why I asked it. Can you do it? Can you prove that "apparent" free will choices (or any other choice) could have gone a different way? You will say, "of course!", but you can't do it. You will provide some statement you consider axiomatic, but is not, like, "God would not demand what you cannot obey".

Mark Quayle said:
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.


Can you demonstrate that actual "chance" can determine outcomes? Or do you first need me to demonstrate how your notion of free will implies chance determining outcomes?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
7,581
3,482
45
San jacinto
✟223,880.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mark Quayle said:
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was

CORRECT enough! That's why I asked it. Can you do it? Can you prove that "apparent" free will choices (or any other choice) could have gone a different way? You will say, "of course!", but you can't do it. You will provide some statement you consider axiomatic, but is not, like, "God would not demand what you cannot obey".

Mark Quayle said:
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.


Can you demonstrate that actual "chance" can determine outcomes? Or do you first need me to demonstrate how your notion of free will implies chance determining outcomes?
You seem to completely miss his objection, which is that you are engaged in a special pleading argument by demanding your opponent meet a standard you yourself cannot.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,362
6,414
69
Pennsylvania
✟972,953.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It isn't me for sure, I'll pass that on to Christ since I'm just following His lead. His heart and way of making other people's wrongs, right, and His compassion on me is all you are seeing, because I was a train wreck. I am glad you see I intend well, I will say that.



With incredibly manifest bluntness I can say it sounds as though you have experienced the Christ I quoted in the bottom of my first response to you, the one who has unending kindness and never turned away children, who forgives the worst sinners, who told the adulteress "neither do I condemn you," who said those who are forgiven much.. love much, and even while being outright murdered on a cross cried genuine pleas of mercy and forgiveness for those responsible for Him being brutally tortured for six hours on that cross to His death. That is unimaginable to me the more I contemplate and the longer I know Him, and the emotion you are mentioning sounds like it aligns with knowing this character trait of the Savior who is Christ the King of mercy and the Prince of peace.


This is going to be a doozy, but I'll knuckle under and oblige you since you do seem sincere and well intended in trying to follow what you feel is true, even if you don't like it (I'm assuming here you don't like the idea of babies in Hell). With this assumption in mind, let us consider what kind of person the great Judge, God Almighty, might consider you to be and what the condition of your heart was in if you considered someone who committed no deeds as worthy of Hell as someone who committed many evil deeds.
That's a bit of a stretch. I don't separate, as you do, one's deeds from one's intentions. But you are not alone in that respect. (Even some of my Reformed and Calvinist friends do that, and even to the point of claiming a certain universal aspect to Christ's atonement, as apparently you do too, here, to relieve the unborn or new born of their guilt in being "in sin"). To me, it makes no difference. It is not to their credit that they did not do sinful deeds; if their hearts are at enmity with God, their every thought, feel, and intention is sinful, self-centered, self-important, presumptuous and God-diminishing at the core. I say nobody but Christ has committed no deeds worthy of hell. I only allow that I may be wrong in that it is possible that there is some point at which a fetus is not yet a human being.
Let's also keep in mind, while undergoing this exercise that no person great or small deserves to go to Heaven and be forgiven, which is why it is a "gift" and gifts cannot be earned (Ephesians 2:8 - Ephesians 2:9).

Facts and reason are not opposed to each other, or logic, or God's ways even. The Lord Himself tells us to "reason together" with Him (Isaiah 1:16), and I don't think it is a mild suggestion or that God speaks without purpose using empty or poetic words. Rather, I think He means what He says and expects us to use our heads and follow Him with our hearts both, not be thoughtless and emotionally driven or blind followers of whatever is written in any "holy book" (of which they have many acclaimed these days). God also says to "test Him" (Malachi 3:10)as He can stand up to doubt and prove He is true, and He doesn't have to or need to but He does so like for Gideon, for example, simply because He is (VERY) kind. This is God telling us to be reasonable, and logical, and sensible and to use the faculties He gave us for His will, which is that everyone be saved and that no one perish in Hell (2 Peter 3:9 - John 3:16 - John 3:17[this one is critical, it declares blatantly and bluntly the purpose is not to condemn or destroy but to save anyone and everyone, that is the mission of Christ stated by Him here in John 3:17])
You haven't heard me disagreeing with this, but you will hear me disagreeing that our concepts of right and wrong, and our concepts of God's love, and our representations of fact, are not a basis for extracting doctrine. Scripture alone is. Yes, we reason on it, and I have not said different, but much of what I hear from you is not tempered with the rest of Scripture, and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
Not only this, but God does not intend for us to be ignorant and serve blindly, rather He stated Himself that He tells us what He is doing and why (John 15:15 - Genesis 18:17-18) so we can know and work with the Lord (Mark 16:20) according to His heart and His will and accomplish His wishes without doubting what He desires.
"Apart from me you can do nothing." doesn't imply that we do our part and God does his. The whole business is his part, and we are "in Christ."
So now, with all that established here we go on the next ride, which would be the reason God says literally anyone goes to Hell at all. Christ stated with His own mouth in the flesh and not through a prophet or saint that the only reason anyone is sent to Hell at all has nothing to do with their sins. It has to do with blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is quite literally ignoring God and telling Him to buzz off and searing one's conscience to the point of having no ability to be corrected by God because they have rejected God outright and chosen rebellion (Matthew 12:31). If this is the reasoning God has said is His reason for not forgiving someone, or anyone, and we apply this to the current subject we are on we can see that unborn children and infants haven't even had the opportunity to reject God.. therefore they quite literally have never committed this sin. If God also desires that no one perish and genuinely wishes so strongly to save us all that He would send His only Son to die on a cross (Romans 8:32), then His hearts desire in this particular situation is to save these little ones just like He desires to save me and you. His character is on full display and there is no question that God is good, and at that yes... "all the time."
Another huge stretch. If indeed any sin worthy of Hell, and, as I mentioned above, any sinfulness, is by definition blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the same contextual representation by which Jesus spoke of it, then, agreed, but I don't see that it is the same thing. Your statement implies that all sins not only are forgivable, but that they are forgiven, but for blasphemy of the Spirit of God! Not so!
I am not saying children are born without sin, but that they are born "IN SIN," just like Romans 11:32 states clearly, but in that statement He boldly proclaims the reason for that as well, "that he might have mercy upon all." "All" in this thought from God is easily understood as "all of the humans born in sin", and that would include the unborn, infants, children, and adults as all of those categories fall under "all."
"All" here doesn't imply that God has that particular mercy on all, but that there are none who escape the principle. God is very particular on whom he will show that particular mercy. The "elect" are not a random number from a random group. There is no "pool of possibles", but only those chosen from the foundation of the world.
Also, I would disagree wholeheartedly about God taking your sin more seriously than you. He showed up on Earth for 33 years, was beaten ridiculed and mocked (something UNTHINKABLE for a Holy God) and murdered indescribably to spare you an eternity in Hell. In all of that process He was crushing sin like He stated He would do in Genesis 3:15 and displayed His immense power over sin and His enemies (Colossians 2:15) and He quickly and without a second thought easily forgave people because it is His heart and who He is (to be good and wanting to forgive - 2 Corinthians 5:19).

Was He taking the sin more seriously, when His purpose was to destroy it? Or was He taking YOU more seriously, when His entire purpose was to save you? I think it be the latter my dear friend, and I could not emphasize this enough. We are lost Sons and Daughters Christ came to redeem to the Father (Galatians 3:26 - Luke 15:20), with Christ being the first.. the "first fruits" who we are meant to become (Romans 8:29) like in Spirit and this Spirit is a nature of goodness that emanates from the Father who is all good and no evil, all light and no dark (1 John 1:5). No no, I think He is taking you very seriously, and as seriously as any parent takes their child at the edge of the water (Hell) where the crocodiles are (demons) and who jumps in to save their child and gets nearly torn apart and covered in scars (Christ) because He takes that child far more seriously than that crocodile that He will kill without a second thought.
I will just put this down to category error, or maybe, a categorical misunderstanding of what I am saying. My decisions are not the big deal that I make of them. I am but a child to God. A child may, in fit of rage, say to their parent that they hate them, but the parent knows more than to take that child seriously. It is being a child. When I was 5, I gave my heart to the Lord. Also when I was 6, and 7 and 8 and so on. My 'big' "decision for Christ" was only emotional yielding. It did not save me. My consequent unfaithfulness makes that obvious. God saved me.

But sin is the one thing for which Christ's sacrifice and substitution was necessary, or God would not have it even begun, nor would he have created Lucifer for that purpose, nor Adam, nor the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is amazing enough that there can exist something besides God in his Aseity, but for that something to be able to oppose and rebel and live as though his very Creator is a liar is monstrous beyond description. It is "cosmic treason". It is a gash in the universe, a rift in the geography of reality. It is only by the power of God that it remains under control all these thousands of years.
It isn't so much the "facts" themselves, or the reasoning, or thinking, or logic, that ultimately sails my ship to the shore I'm on right now with this conclusion I hold so tightly to. Instead, it is the fact that (as you have also) I have known Him and tasted (experienced) His goodness and His heart and WHO HE REALLY IS and just like I know when I was a child my parents would have taken on a crocodile, or a strange man attacking me, or whatever deathly situation may have been facing them and put their own life in the way of a bullet or attacker, Christ has done that for us, and not just me, but all of us who would repent. If God put us all under sin so that He could have mercy on us all (Romans 11:32), then the infant and unborn are by His own words more safe and secure than we who have WILLFULLY and deliberately sinned multiples of times even after hearing the commandments and understanding (somewhat) right and wrong, good and evil, loving and unloving.
I easily grant that they are "more safe and secure" but it is by his mercy than any of them are. That is, as David said, it is better to depend on God's mercy than to be thrown on any other means of resolution. Our reasoning is not dependable here. We love to say that God is Love, and he is indeed Love. But we don't yet know what love is. Our concepts are about as valid as 1, or one trillion, if you so esteem it, compares to infinity. There is plenty in Scripture to demonstrate the reason to FEAR God, but that is ignored for the most part, instead of being taken into account.
If His Spirit lives in me, in you, in us believers and we know God would not want us to allow a child to die, or be tortured, or for us to withhold forgiveness from them.. why would we think God would put His justice before His mercy (Hosea 6:6 - Matthew 9:13 - 1 Corinthians 6:19)? Mercy always triumphs over judgment with God brother (James 2:13), and God said this and showed this in action throughout the four Gospels in the life of Christ more than anywhere.
I have not intimated that God puts justice before mercy. But the two do not oppose, except in OUR minds. Mercy does not squelch justice. Justice will be done. But not all is mercy.

Further, by your statements, it is implied that there must be a reason for mercy. Thus, even the unborn and newborn, for whom we feel such tenderness and care, are deserving of death, and, but for the mercy of God IN CHRIST, they will be judged.
We are here for His purpose, and His purpose is and was to save the lost (John 3:16-17). These are His words, not mine.
Is that his only purpose? And do you have evidence it is only a universal statement? Do you consider "election" to be unparticular?
If God says in John 3:17 He did not come here to condemn but to save, then His entire mission and objective is to save, and if Romans 11:32 says that He put us all under sin so that He could save "all" then infants and unborn and "all" are in that category. These are all His declarations and His plans and His goals and His love and His mercies.
Right. I can even mis-use that verse to claim universalism. The statement does not imply that he is here in some general capacity, as though it is entirely up to the lost to take advantage of his offer. But, again, the "all" is a categorical statement indicating that all are under that principle, and none can be saved any other way.
The pattern here is so profound toward mercy that to think such evil of Christ
Whoa there, buddy!
is something Satan loves to giggle about. While Satan is demanding child sacrifice in the OT (2 Kings 17:17), He is accusing God of everything evil in the world and trying to defame God's Holy character and unparalleled kindness, and selflessness, and overwhelming love.

There are not infants burning in Hell my brother. God is the one who had to stop His own people from offering their children (born in sin!) to Molech (Leviticus 18:21)in the fire, and does not tell them to offer their children to Him (Yahweh).

God is speaking through His behavior AND His words about this, not just one or the other. He doesn't condemn those He can save, He saves even those He could rightly condemn (that being all of us who are saved), how much more will He save those little ones who we sinful fallen people would die for to save ourselves?
Do you think there are some whom he cannot save? Do they have power over God, to undo his intentions?

I will leave the discussion here as your doctrine follows your feeling, and not as though you intend any diminishing of the power of God; I have no wish to further our already noticeable contention. Admittedly, like you, I am not fully representing God's nature, nor can I fit the facts of his immensity into my head, so I will leave it here.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,592
12,049
Georgia
✟1,118,077.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But free will would eventually allow them to eventually make a self-indulgent choice. It was inevitable, just as telling a child 'hot' means nothing until they come to an understanding.
If not being chained to God, chained to the Bible, forced to obey, means that all God's children would go into rebellion, even those born sinless, then it is all a failure, God's gospel is mere arbitrary-selection.

It means God was totally unjust to condemn Adam for sinning... after all even sinless Adam would have no other choice , than rebellion if given enough time to think about it. God should have chosen to "Force Adam to obey" sooner. In fact God should have "forced Lucifer to always obey and saved himself from having to die on the cross for each one of our sins".

That is not what the Bible teaches.

For example in the book of Job Satan is the one making that case. Satan says Job only serves God out of bribery and compulsion and that if left to make his own choice in the fact of stern opposition Job will "Curse God".

Turns out... that is not a true statement about how the New Birth works at all.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,592
12,049
Georgia
✟1,118,077.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
A question I had for a while, what’s the point of gaining wisdom, if in the end we’re just gonna grow old and die, never really having a chance to use that wisdom. But I think that whatever gain we earn here, such as coming to repentance, will be embedded in the energies of our soul and brought with us.
Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha was not resurrected "in a state of amnesia".

Jesus remembered His disciples even after being resurrected.

none of the people resurrected in the NT are said to have forgotten what they knew.

Even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not depict the rich man as having amnesia.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
25,045
9,402
up there
✟392,956.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
That is not what the Bible teaches.
It teaches not to put our will ahead of the Will of God. Both elohim and man failed to obey. To force either to have done so would have eliminated our usefulness as servants if we no longer had the freedom to be creative in fulfilling our appointed tasks. For instance Adam would have named everything the same name, not having the ability to think beyond instinct.

God did give us a choice in the matter when it came to the tree of knowledge, yet scripture just says don't or else, rather than give understanding as to why. This, no doubt, was because man in their state of mind at the time without the knowledge could not comprehend the reasons for being told not to eat of the wrong tree anyway. Now we can, not only having the knowledge, but also the results of failure to do so in the entire Bible, and are again given a choice to repent or not, this time having an understanding why putting our will ahead of the Will of God will lead to death..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
25,045
9,402
up there
✟392,956.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not depict the rich man as having amnesia.
Good news for those with Alzheimer's. The processor may be broken but our data is still in the cloud
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,563
2,955
PA
✟345,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?
The bare minimum is the Sacrament of Baptism. If he ran out of time, too bad for him.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,891
1,938
✟1,021,498.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Neither Lucifer nor Adam "needed" a sinful nature to make a bad choice.

So if sinless beings without a sinful nature can make bad choices... how much more those WITH a sinful nature.

So much so that Rom 8 says

" For those who are according to the flesh (those who are not born again) set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, (those born again) the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Good Bob, but Adam and Eve did sin with only one way to sin, did they not also have a "sinful nature" if you want to call it that? They were made "very good" but that is not perfect like Christ is perfect. Selfishly wanting something you did not need nor would help them at the time, sounds pretty fleshly. Yes, all mature adults do sin with tons of ways to sin, so we like Adam and Eve need something more.
Rom 3 "All have sinned and fallen short of God's righteous standard"

It is a bent toward sin.
A predisposition to rebellion that Adam did not have.
Yes, we all sin, but what makes you think Eve on her own ability did not also have a predisposition to sin, because she did sin?
Yes in terms of category, no in terms of the detail mechanism. In other words "Jesus was not a crack baby", Was not born addicted to Cocaine. Yet he was tempted as we are, in fact even beyond what we are.

They had no "bent" toward rebellion against God, no bias in favor of sin or evil or rebellion

The New Creation of 2 Cor 5.

Adam and Eve were created with sinless natures and had free will
If Adam and Eve were created with this "sinless nature", why did they sin with only one way to sin?
Christ had free will, so that is not the cause, and I see Christ being born with the same "nature" as us, but not sinning.

To stop sinning we need something more than what we were created with (including Adam and Eve) which Christ as an uncreated being always had.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,891
1,938
✟1,021,498.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mark Quayle said:
Can you demonstrate that anything can happen besides what does happen? Can you demonstrate the actual possibility of other options? Or is that only in our thinking? When God demands that we choose, do we not always only choose the one option? Was God not aware of those decisions before creating, but went ahead and created anyway? Well, then! He INTENDED it to be decided the way it was

CORRECT enough! That's why I asked it. Can you do it? Can you prove that "apparent" free will choices (or any other choice) could have gone a different way? You will say, "of course!", but you can't do it. You will provide some statement you consider axiomatic, but is not, like, "God would not demand what you cannot obey".

Mark Quayle said:
Otherwise, you need to demonstrate that {actual "chance" can determine outcomes}. The notion is by definition self-contradictory. But your whole construction depends on it.

You are defining justice according to the creature's ability to do what he is commanded to do. Sorry, but the command does not imply the ability to obey— it only implies the responsibility to obey. God is not unjust to create beings who will pay for their rebellion, as intended. He is making use of them for his Glory, to demonstrate his love and mercy to the objects of his mercy—us.


Can you demonstrate that actual "chance" can determine outcomes? Or do you first need me to demonstrate how your notion of free will implies chance determining outcomes?
Sorry Mark, but my computer or CF website was having problems when I posted and posted just one line.
Everything can be understood by man's earthly objective which should drive everything for humans.
As far as God having perfect knowledge of our free will choice before, in our time frame, our making those choices we need an understanding of time.


Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.

For over 100 years now scientists have been trying to disproof the relativity of time and have only shown time to be relative. Since science is also saying: space, time and matter came into exist, something outside of space, time and matter had to create them.

If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time and not limited by time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans shows why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide thatinformation to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).

The free will choice to humbly accept God's Love as pure undeserved charity and complete the transaction is need or we are nothing more hen robots programmed to accept charity and be charitable, without it being our choice.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,362
6,414
69
Pennsylvania
✟972,953.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Sorry Mark, but my computer or CF website was having problems when I posted and posted just one line.
Everything can be understood by man's earthly objective which should drive everything for humans.
As far as God having perfect knowledge of our free will choice before, in our time frame, our making those choices we need an understanding of time.


Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.

For over 100 years now scientists have been trying to disproof the relativity of time and have only shown time to be relative. Since science is also saying: space, time and matter came into exist, something outside of space, time and matter had to create them.

If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time and not limited by time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans shows why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide thatinformation to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).

The free will choice to humbly accept God's Love as pure undeserved charity and complete the transaction is need or we are nothing more hen robots programmed to accept charity and be charitable, without it being our choice.
If I take this as an answer to my question, then you do indeed depend on CHANCE to cause things. Your notion of Free Will depends on it. And it is self-contradictory. Chance can cause nothing.

But, maybe you think that man is a 'little' first cause. That too is self-contradictory, if God, THE First Cause, created man and the universe in which man lives.

Further, your notion of Free Will puts God as a reactor to fact, and not the beginning of fact.

Further, or to say what I have already said, but differently, your notion of Free Will diminishes God's Sovereignty and Omnipotence.



Further, your notion of Free Will
 
Upvote 0