Could God have Created a Different Universe?

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ooh-ooh, pick me! pick me!

Go ahead.

 

[TedT]

Interesting take. I had not quite considered this separation before.

Do you then insist that the sinful will of the unregenerate is accompanied by a separate will, the Free will?

No sir. I suggest that once a sin is chosen the will of that individual is corrupt, not free anymore but every desire and decision is imbued with some degree of evil or anther, controlling coercing their choices. This is why no one is righteous, none, and all their righteousness, ie, their good and loving acts, are as filthy rags. Every thought or act is tainted by the leaven of sin and if not curtailed, it will grow until the person's whole psyche is as evil as Satan's.

That should sit nicely concerning the regenerated, at least, for some Calvinists, though obviously they would agree with me that the lost has no such free will (i.e. uncaused ability to choose without opposition to God)...

Although I stand most vehemently against the Calvinist doctrine of UNconditional election, I agree with the rest of this paragraph.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Go ahead.

I reject the notion of Freewill, as most Christians teach it, as though their choices are not caused, and I can't take TedT's convoluted way of putting things. But you pretty much already know what I think. So choose mine, and resolve your confusion, haha!

But I think you know that I think you need to be convinced by reason, and by the Word of God, as God wills to convince you. Ask Luther.

But so far, it seems your purposes here have more to do with propogating the good news of dissipation and self-determination. You strike me as more of a bitter atheist, than mere atheist. I hope that is wrong. I hope you wish to be convinced.

I do appreciate you though, as you have brought up many inconsistencies between members of Christendom, and inconsistencies within what any one of them claims, for them to deal with and answer. I like that. I like it when you argue some of my points for me!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No sir. I suggest that once a sin is chosen the will of that individual is corrupt, not free anymore but every desire and decision is imbued with some degree of evil or anther, controlling coercing their choices. This is why no one is righteous, none, and all their righteousness, ie, their good and loving acts, are as filthy rags. Every thought or act is tainted by the leaven of sin and if not curtailed, it will grow until the person's whole psyche is as evil as Satan's.

So you completely reject the doctrine of original sin.

Although I stand most vehemently against the Calvinist doctrine of UNconditional election, I agree with the rest of this paragraph.

What do you think the doctrine of Unconditional Election is? Do you think that God chooses on the basis of man's freewill? Or on the basis of some other intrinsic worth? What do you think the word, 'Grace', implies?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I reject the notion of Freewill, as most Christians teach it, as though their choices are not caused, and I can't take TedT's convoluted way of putting things. But you pretty much already know what I think. So choose mine, and resolve your confusion, haha!

But I think you know that I think you need to be convinced by reason, and by the Word of God, as God wills to convince you. Ask Luther.

I am not sure what you mean by reason. I just need sufficient reasons to believe.

But so far, it seems your purposes here have more to do with propogating the good news of dissipation and self-determination. You strike me as more of a bitter atheist, than mere atheist. I hope that is wrong. I hope you wish to be convinced.

Well I don't want to come across as bitter. Almost everyone I interact with on a daily basis are Christians and I get along with them just fine and I am kind of a quiet guy and introverted. It was a freeing choice I made to look for the truth no matter what that truth was. I want to know what is true and what is not true.

What does get me somewhat angry is when people tell me what I believe and think. I have seen the harm firsthand what religious beliefs can cause, I just want people to have good reasons for their beliefs. I would hope all Christians would as well.

I do appreciate you though, as you have brought up many inconsistencies between members of Christendom, and inconsistencies within what any one of them claims, for them to deal with and answer. I like that. I like it when you argue some of my points for me!

Well great. I am glad to be of service.

 

[Halbhh]

Then how can you say, "for love to exist, evil had to be possible."?

If you read all of post #3 carefully, especially the 3rd paragraph, does it become clear? Lemme know if a part isn't clear, or a new aspect is of interest.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you read all of post #3 carefully, especially the 3rd paragraph, does it become clear? Lemme know if a part isn't clear, or a new aspect is of interest.

I suppose it's possible that my mind/ worldview is now so intrinsically wrapped up in my theology that I simply cannot see the rational need for the KIND of liberty of will you espouse.

(As I have said to so many others here, if cause-and-effect demands first cause (which I say it does), and if cause-and-effect, apart from any consideration of God as first cause, demands that all effects, to include our decisions, are caused (which it does), then how does it suddenly become considered robotic for us to have God at the head of the chain of causation?)

So, according to my thinking, anyway, I see no reason to claim, by virtue of the freewill argument, that evil is necessary for true love to flourish.

But that is post 3. The question, "Are you saying that God, before there was evil, was not able to love?", I think still remains unanswered. I think either you didn't express well what you were meaning, or that your reference to post 3 has no relevance to the question. Are you only referring to our love in response to his, when you make your claim concerning the necessity of evil?

 

[TedT]

So you completely reject the doctrine of original sin.

No sir: I completely reject the idea that our original sin originated as someone else's sin. I believe we each had a moment where we chose by our free will to rebel against GOD as GOD or against a command of HIS.

What I most vehemently said was that I totally reject the blasphemous idea of our INHERITED sin, from Adam... The ONLY advantage this absurd idea gives is it reconciles our being sinners by our creation in perfection at our conception or birth at the cost of accusing GOD of being the author of our sin and suffering and being a house divided between good and evil. Without the doctrine of our creation on earth (contra Matt 13:36-39) as sinners as proven by the death of infants, the need for the idea of inherited sin is moot.

Pre-Conception Existence theology contends that every sinner only became sinful by a free will decision to sin by going against GOD's will, not being a victim of HIS will that we be born into a system to suffer as sinners for no choice of our own and judged as evil with no mens rea.

 

[TedT]

What do you think the doctrine of Unconditional Election is? Do you think that God chooses on the basis of man's freewill? Or on the basis of some other intrinsic worth? What do you think the word, 'Grace', implies?

My answer to this is theological and lengthy. It also might be new to some readers who can't understand it because it is outside of their thought patterns...I hope for a prayerful perusal.

Unconditional election refers to the choice or election of some people to be HIS bride for no reason or condition found in them but only because GOD chose them. This also means that there was no reason, no condition found in those who were passed over for election to heaven, which has the same meaning as to be elected to reprobation or hell, except that GOD did not want to marry them. If there was a reason for passing over them for election then there is a reason HE chose the others in that the reason to be passed over for election was not found in them.

This is what 'unconditional' implies. It implies 'no reason', not just an 'unknown reason' because if there was a reason there would be merit by being on the right side of the reason. The quibble that 'unconditional' does NOT mean 'without reason' has led to thousands of pages of theo-babble that only convinces those who are already committed to an unconditional election.

Unconditional election means those passed over were just as acceptable for election as everyone but did not receive it....that is what 'without merit' also means! That does NOT sound like the GOD whose nature is loving, righteous and just at all.

The usual word for "choosing without a reason" is "apropos of nothing," arbitrarily or even "at random." A person who makes eternal choices for others without any reason being applied to that choice could be called capricious, that is, fickle, inconstant, changeable, variable, or even unstable, against the self revelation of GOD's attributes. HIS attribute of being unveryng in purpose and virtue are seriously blasphemed by this doctrine.

IF they were passed over for a evil they did then there is merit to the non-election of those that were passed over but those who did not do that evil got the promise of election!! The evil was the Satanic fall and HS response to our rejection of Satan's definitions of reality (YHWH was a liar and therefore a false god) and our putting our faith in HIM as our GOD and in the Son as our saviour from any future sins was our election to be conformed to the Son, ie saved from all sin and brought into the heavenly state of marriage as HIS Bride.

Either such a reason existed or our GOD did it all for no condition found in them, ie, all was only found in HIMself. Who can trust HIM not go outside of reason, love, righteousness and justice or our free will again at any time and not fulfill HIS promises???

What do you think the word, 'Grace', implies?

Unconditional election seems to be a mixup of our unconditional salvation which is not given on the condition of anything found in or done by the sinner but is said to rest only upon these people being promised to end in heaven at the foundation of the world.

Salvation is by grace only as no sinner can earn it nor change himself to be worthy of it. But why do so many assume that these earthly methods due to the special circumstances of sinners MUST APPLY TO pre-sin election ??? except that election in response to our faith in HIM and the Son rests upon our being created before the foundation of the world so we could choose faith and be elected or reject faith in HIM thus being passed over as condemned already, that is, as unable to ever fulfill HIS purpose for their creation by their unforgivable sin.

 

[TedT]

But that is post 3. The question, "Are you saying that God, before there was evil, was not able to love?"

The Divine Persons of the Trinity each have a free will, that is, they each can sin but they choose to never sin but always to choose loving righteousness and justice. It is a choice.

To force someone to love is impossible, love is just not like that. A marriage can be forced but not GOD's marriage because HE has no interest in a Stepford Wife.

So for HIS creation to learn to love and to become HIS Bride, (the culmination of the whole Bible story!) they had to have a free will and accept HIS marriage proposal and HIS love by their free will!

But a free will must also be free to reject HIM and to choose evil. That is why it is often said that to love evil must be possible. Those that say for our maturity to be able to love we must experience evil is bogus, a total misconstruing of the evil must be possible doctrine becasue GOD loves and I'm sure the holy and elect angels also love without ever sinning.

 

[cvanwey]

@TedT 2nd request to address post #130

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Divine Persons of the Trinity each have a free will, that is, they each can sin but they choose to never sin but always to choose loving righteousness and justice. It is a choice.

You have GOT to be kidding me. I hope you mean something besides what you just said. You'd do well to spend some time reading the Word of God instead of deciding how what happens. This is waaay too much.

Have you no concept of who God is, and what sin is???? You aren't getting your information from the Bible.

 

[TedT]

Huh? God proposed marriage to the angels? Where do you get this?

If the heavenly marriage is the culmination of HIS promise of sinners being conformed to the likeness of the Son and the Son, the Lamb, is the bridegroom, then it seems logical that the elect were promised to become the Bride for the Son (and of course, the other Divine Persons also).

Now, in that no real marriage is achieved without a proposal and a free will acceptance of that proposal, I understand the proclamation of the gospel heard by every creature under heaven, Col 1:23, included HIS proposal for a heavenly marriage with the elect (ie, anyone who put their faith in HIS Deity and in the Son as saviour) once all evil is eradicated from this reality.

In that some angels are elect, 1 Timothy 5:21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels... we can easily see that they were included in the election proposal to be HIS bride.

 

[TedT]

You have GOT to be kidding me. I hope you mean something besides what you just said. You'd do well to spend some time reading the Word of God instead of deciding how what happens. This is waaay too much.

Have you no concept of who God is, and what sin is???? You aren't getting your information from the Bible.

Gee, I thought I was...

Well, I guess I'm not getting it from a Reformed commentary, sigh.

I mean, you are arguing strenuously with no verses to support you that GOD has no free will, right? <head shake> <facepalm>

 

[TedT]

You can well believe, that a will changed and built upon God himself, will happily accept the proposal.

You think? Satan would just lie down for that???

GOD WOULD DO THAT FOR SOMEONE WHO SINNED THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN???

 

[TedT]

Furthermore, the 'real love' you speak of cannot be of human origin, but of God. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

Riiiiight, Stepford Wives are still in vogue - you will love me because I created you to love me. I thought only atheists thought this way...sigh.

Your mistake is putting the truth ABOUT SINNERS (who can't do anything without GOD until they are reborn and sanctified) onto non-sinful beings with a free will who are responding to HIS proposal of a marriage based upon love.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You think? Satan would just lie down for that???

GOD WOULD DO THAT FOR SOMEONE WHO SINNED THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN???

Who said anything about Satan lying down? What has the unforgivable sin to do with those God forgave?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Riiiiight, Stepford Wives are still in vogue - you will love me because I created you to love me. I thought only atheists thought this way...sigh.

Your mistake is putting the truth ABOUT SINNERS (who can't do anything without GOD until they are reborn and sanctified) onto non-sinful beings with a free will who are responding to HIS proposal of a marriage based upon love.

Then you have self-determination for your precept.