Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[Mark Quayle]

Just the fact God (or anyone else for that matter) at the end of time knows historically all the choices a person made, does not keep, some of those choices, when they were made, from being autonomous free will choices?

God has the power to provide humans with at least some limited autonomous free will choices if He desired?

If man needed to have some very limited autonomous free will in order to fulfill man’s earthly object, God’s Love for humans would be great enough to provide humans with this very limited free will, virtual miraculous, ability?

There's that "just because" construction again.

Your "limited autonomous" is an oxymoron. The one thing is impossible with the other. "Autonomous" rather literally means "without limitation" and implies "without cause". It is mostly used comparatively as in one state being autonomous (or even sovereign) in relation to the other states, but that is not what we are talking about, I think. However, I will admit to an intellectual "you can do whatever you like, within bounds" as being a sort of "limited autonomy". I do NOT see God withdrawing or withholding any determining factor from our decisions in favor of, or respect to, "free will". To put it a little more plainly, there are no little first causes running around, making decisions. The poetic, "It is the most sovereign thing God can do, to give up some of his sovereignty." is self-contradictory. (Logic must not give way to the human response to art. The fact that "something speaks to your heart" is held supreme is the source of all sorts of error.)

If man needed to have some very limited autonomous free will in order to fulfill man’s earthly object, God’s Love for humans would be great enough to provide humans with this very limited free will, virtual miraculous, ability?

God could certainly predestine to save all humans who fulfilled their earthly objective, if God wanted to without changing anything in scripture?

I don't know what you are talking about here --"fulfill their earthly object"? "earthy objective"? What is that? And what does it have to do with God saving them, presumably as opposed to saving others?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here is what we might not agree with:

The one autonomous free will choice mature adults need to be able to make in order to complete their earthly objective is to humbly accept or reject God’s help (charity/mercy/grace/Love/forgiveness) as pure charity. In other words: sinful humans can choose to hang in there, be macho, pay the piper and take the punishment they fully deserve or they can wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy, while they still hate their enemy (God) they are just willing to humbly accept their enemy’s undeserved pure charity. They still might feel they deserve from their enemy to be severely tortured to death, for their previous war crimes, yet they are willing to take undeserved charity. They are not being righteous, holy, glorious, honorable, worthy and noble in what they are doing, since it is for selfish reasons, they are willing to accept their enemy’s charity.

God is not forcing his charity on the sinner like some kind of shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, since that would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the sinner obtain Godly type Love in that manner. By accepting this Love in the form of forgiveness Jesus has taught us “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…” so humbly accept pure undeserved forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt automatically results in the former sinner receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) and thus fulfill the first part of sinners earthly objective.

So, when does God know who in man’s future will accept His Love, since God at the end of time would know historically who all accepted His Love throughout time? The God at the end of time is also God at the beginning of time, so God at the beginning of time knows who of their own autonomous free will ability accepted His Love as charity.

The easy answer is to say that to "accept Christ", even in the careful terms you use to describe the process, is to please God, which the Bible expressly says is impossible without faith. Simple clear logic rules.

But, into the fray:

Our earthly objective, both elect and non-elect, is not our own salvation, but God's glory. He made all this (and its end result --the Bride of Christ) for his own glory --not ours. The salvation of the elect is part of that. I don't mean that we should decide what will glorify him the most and make that the objective of our lives, as though we had that much wisdom, as opposed to making Christ our own, but that salvation is not the end of our duty here --we are becoming that particular member of the body of Christ that God had in mind for each of us from the beginning.

Your descriptions necessarily include a free will that is not encumbered by sin. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that a person is able to, even for selfish reasons, accept the gift of eternal life. Your construction there is non-scriptural.

Your conclusion really is no different in persuasion from any other who reject the notion that God must change a person's heart (regeneration) before that person can turn to or desire Christ. You want to describe a dead man as being able to reach for a life vest thrown towards him!

But the thing I find most noticeable in the mind of Arminians is the notion that the intellect, will, understanding, integrity etc of man is God-like, in that we have the goods that it takes to even know what we are deciding about and the constancy to stick by our decision! No sir! Only God himself is capable of doing that in us!

 

[childeye 2]

I understand that, as far as it goes, but I don't understand why mention it. How is that relevant to the Free Will question?

There are a couple of reasons I can think of offhand. The first reason that comes to mind is to point out that when free will infers responsibility for one's choice of actions, so as to blame or give credit for righteousness and unrighteous behavior, it is a term that can only apply to a mora/immoral paradigm as opposed to say choosing an apple over an orange. As I said in an earlier post, the term responsible is conflated with culpable. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do is not indicative of proclaiming culpability even though they are responsible for doing it.

Another is that most dictionaries do not define a choice made out of necessity as a free will choice because it isn't voluntary. It therefore qualifies as a choice under the description of determinism. So when the adjective 'free' is qualified as free from antecedent events the moral/immoral choice is excluded. These two reasons brings forth a question of degrees over how much control we have over our moral/immoral choices. If someone slaps me around, they are dictating a confrontation that I didn't choose to be in.

To cut to the chase, there is a question of who is to blame, God or mankind. This is how the semantics form in free will vs. determinism. This becomes a false premise in any theology that considers the alternative implications, that there are circumstances where no one is to blame but the circumstance itself, which then requires mercy and understanding. When we insist on condemnation in such an incident, it compounds the damage back and forth through a tit for tat response projected through belief in a false premise that someone must be held responsible. This brings to mind the issue of how the Christ was justified in his self sacrifice to pay the debt owed, and how he justified many sinners when they also carried their crosses and forgave the sins of others. After all, this all began by being talked into trying to fix what was not broken in the first place.

 

[Philip_B]

And he did so precisely as God planned.

To suggest that God planned the fall of humankind from grace is difficult to reconcile with the notion that God is loving. Love of course cannot be compelled, it must be free. Adam and Eve were created free be in a loving relationship with God. For that to be free there had to be an out option. I do not believe that God planned Adam and Eve's choices, but rather the option had to be present in order that love might be free, and so meaningful rather than devoid of meaning.

God of course is free, and that freedom is indeed part of the image and likeness we were created to bear. Adam in many ways is an archetype for all of us, for we all make choices freely, some for the good, and some away from the good.

I don't discount determinism, however I don't think it is helpful in showing us how to live. It seems that the options it presents are a resolute hopefulness to the point of indifference, or a tyrannical despondency and the abandonment of all hope.

The offer of salvation is made to all (John 3:17 etc), and we are called to respond to that offer. Mary the Mother of the Lord gives us the clear example of that response, Behold I am the servant of the Lord, let it be to me, according to your word'.

 

[childeye 2]

Love of course cannot be compelled, it must be free.

If I may comment on this. A sincere worship is drawn out by the object of worship. If we don't Love God then we don't know Him.

 

[Philip_B]

If I may comment on this. A sincere worship is drawn out by the object of worship. If we don't Love God then we don't know Him.

Yes, however it is offered, it is not a tax.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, however it is offered, it is not a tax.

Thanks is offered not for God's sake, but for our own sake lest we become vain in un-thankfulness. Caine's offering was rejected because it was done for the sake of his own vanity.

 

[Philip_B]

Caine's offering was rejected because it was done for the sake of his own vanity.

In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

I think it is important not to read more into the text than is there. Cain's offering we are told was not regarded by God. It seems that though Cain was punished for the jealousy that led to his act of fratricide, Cain was still protected by God. I really don't think that the text tells us why Cain's offering was not regarded. It is simply the uncomfortable fact of the account. Numbers of the stories in the Old Testament leave us asking questions. Many of the characters are clearly flawed in some way or other, and it seems to be more of a robust wholeness rather than a perfect holiness that marks much of the narrative.

 

[childeye 2]

I think it is important not to read more into the text than is there. Cain's offering we are told was not regarded by God. It seems that though Cain was punished for the jealousy that led to his act of fratricide, Cain was still protected by God. I really don't think that the text tells us why Cain's offering was not regarded. It is simply the uncomfortable fact of the account. Numbers of the stories in the Old Testament leave us asking questions. Many of the characters are clearly flawed in some way or other, and it seems to be more of a robust wholeness rather than a perfect holiness that marks much of the narrative.

I believe it's clear that Caine killed Abel out of a rage formed of jealousy. Caine took it personally, therefore the reaction was one of carnal vanity. Look at this line from Romans 1:21,

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Ephesian 2:8-9,
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Boasting infers carnal vanity in an un-thankfulness to God).

1 Corinthians 1:26-31,
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

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

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

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. (Again carnal vanity is inferred here).

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

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

The Eucharist literally means "the thanksgiving" for Christ's Spirit presented in a flesh and blood sacrifice displaying God's righteousness for the cause of the forgiveness of sins. When we are unthankful to God for His Spirit by attributing our righteousness to our own freewill rather than to God, then we become vain. Caine took it personally because he believed it was a comparison of who is better than the other. Same with Satan who gradually became vain because he grew enamored with himself rather than being thankful to God for that which God had gifted him with, as if he had earned it or deserved it.

Hence a true worship of God is also a sincere thankfulness for His Spirit, which is the source of our wisdom and righteousness and goodness. There is nothing good in the flesh. If we don't Love Him, we don't know Him as the Light/Love/empathy that inhabits our souls and makes us righteous. This is why we should not judge others so as to condemn, since it presumes that they/we could have chosen to do what is righteous by their/our own volition.

 

[dms1972]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

Very much agree with explaining or defining how one is using any key term before discussion. You might find of course that some will not accept your definition. I think though you probably need to say more here to explain what you mean and link your definition to a representative theologian (old reformed).

 

[Running2win]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

I think the dictionary definition works pretty well. That is why there is no true "free will" for any created being. The only one with a total free will is God. His free will is shaped by His character- which is holy and good. If anyone of us had a total free will we could say or will anything and it would be done.

As far as the Bible is concerned, God has made all of creation, knows what will happen- because He is the perfect builder, and oversees and guides all things in the process in accordance to His perfect will. He loves His creation but the creation serves Him and His purposes, not the other way around.

This is a foreign concept to the great Modern Man (homo-I know more than God who made us-us), who thinks he is in control of his destiny- and this always shows up in petty theology arguments about his "rights". He then throws a temper tantrum like a 2 year old cause he don't get his way. God will forgive him for being a 2 year old, but it is a painful process to watch, for sure.

The creation can object to the way He does things because they do have a limited free will in His universe and can make choices, but they cannot thwart His determination. And I really, really, like this!



free will

noun
Definition of free will (Entry 2 of 2)

1: voluntary choice or decisionI do this of my own free will
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Definition of FREEWILL

 

[bling]

Disagreed and disagreed, if I follow what you are saying. Your structure there, "just because", is not well defined in its implications. The fact one thing can be shown to be the result of particular cause, is not the reason the other situations can be shown to also be the result of that same particular cause --that I agree with.

OK that is what I am saying so we agree.

But the fact that First Cause has caused ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE, shows that all things are predestined --at least according to my use of the term "predestined". As for your second "just because", we need to define "free will" to deal with it, though I imagine from your reading of what I just said you have your question answered already.

Science, which leaves God out of equation, might agree with you in that after the “first cause”, everything takes place according to the rule of nature, but this is assuming God does not have the power to allow some humans to have some limited free will ability, so is that what you are saying?

Using the “first cause resulting in all other causes” to proof free will down the road does not exist, since that is an assumption, so it is circular reasoning. If some humans can make even very limited autonomous free will choice, then those choices can be additional causes.

The human “free will” I am talking about is a miraculous gift from God to mature adults, so to say: “The First Cause Principle” eliminates free will means you are not allowing or feel God does not have the power to provide some humans with limited free will.

Agreed all, though I'm not sure what implications you think are necessary by those constructions you have posited. For example, you say "...no before and after in the human universe..." (to which I could, donkey-like, say you have just contradicted yourself, haha) but I'm wondering do you continue then, that ask if with God there is no cause--effect sequence, no causal "before and after"?

There is a cause effect sequencing for the most part, but if God has the power and gave free will ability to some humans then there is another source for causes.

Your first statement I quote here, I wondered what you are getting at, your second, I wondered why you would define his knowledge as "historical". Your third sounds ludicrous to me --"send back to himself"??? Why would he need to do that? He is not encumbered by events and passage of time. From the beginning the Lamb was Slain.

God at the end of time has lots of knowledge, which includes perfect knowledge of all humans’ actions and decisions since it is all unchangeable history for the God at the end of time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

The problem with the Calvinistic version of GOD is that we do not see this kind of GOD described anywhere in Scripture. Maybe Romans 9 at first glance may lead somebody to think the wrong thing at first, but by looking at the context and not isolating verses in a vacuum, we realize that Romans 9 is referring to Israel and how they rejected their Messiah.

Anyways, the problem you should have with Calvinism is that God only saves a few (based on no conditions whatsoever) when He has the power to save them all. This would be wrong or immoral of God to do this because God desires the ultimate good for His creation.

For example: In an alternate universe (and not this universe where nothing traumtic happened to you and your family): Imagine you and your family and some other people (in this alternate universe) are thrown off the boat you were on, and you are stranded in the ocean waters. Now, imagine if a coast guard appeared who seemed like he was going to save you, your children, and five other people and yet he did not save you or your children (and yet he had the power to do so), and only saved the five other people. Would you be like, “Oh, look kids, this coast guard is surely a good man. For he reminds me a lot like God who does what he pleases in regards to saving people.” Is that what you would be saying? Most likely not. You would be throwing a fit how the coast guard chose to save the others but he did not save you, and your family (in this alternate universe).

 

[bling]

There's that "just because" construction again.

Your "limited autonomous" is an oxymoron. The one thing is impossible with the other. "Autonomous" rather literally means "without limitation" and implies "without cause". It is mostly used comparatively as in one state being autonomous (or even sovereign) in relation to the other states, but that is not what we are talking about, I think. However, I will admit to an intellectual "you can do whatever you like, within bounds" as being a sort of "limited autonomy". I do NOT see God withdrawing or withholding any determining factor from our decisions in favor of, or respect to, "free will". To put it a little more plainly, there are no little first causes running around, making decisions. The poetic, "It is the most sovereign thing God can do, to give up some of his sovereignty." is self-contradictory. (Logic must not give way to the human response to art. The fact that "something speaks to your heart" is held supreme is the source of all sorts of error.)

I am not sure how you are addressing my simple questions: Does God have the ability and power to provide humans with very limited autonomous free will?

You say: “limited autonomous power” is an oxymoron, because “autonomous” means “without limitation”, but I am talking about an autonomy that has limitations, so it does not have the same meaning as “unlimited autonomy” like God has.

Is it possible for God to allow “little first causes to run around” in some humans?

I don't know what you are talking about here --"fulfill their earthly object"? "earthy objective"? What is that? And what does it have to do with God saving them, presumably as opposed to saving others?

Our objective is a huge topic:

Everything is driven by man’s objective, since it appears from scripture, history and the world around us all is happening to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective.

You can take any Biblical command and say: “This is man’s objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, “God commanded this of us”.

Any organization has an objective which should be briefly addressed in a Mission Statement, but we do not find the words “Mission Statement” in scripture but we do find “The Greatest Commandments” which could be our Mission Statement, briefly summarized as:

“Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

The initial objective would thus be to: “obtain this unique all consuming hugely powerful Godly type Love”, so you can Love God and others completely.

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

 

[John Mullally]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

Websters Dictionary says:
freewill
adjective
free·will | \ ˈfrē-ˌwil \
Definition of freewill
(Entry 1 of 2)

: VOLUNTARY, SPONTANEOUS
free will

noun
Definition of free will (Entry 2 of 2)

1: voluntary choice or decision - I do this of my own free will
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

 

[John Mullally]

The problem with the Calvinistic version of GOD is that we do not see this kind of GOD described anywhere in Scripture.

What a great point.

I believe Calvanism is born out of the effort to rectify about a dozen or so tough scripture passages with the rest of the Bible. I disagree with the Calvanist theology because (a) it distorts God's personality as He describes Himself and because (b) I have found no practical application for it. Calvanist theology has to do with how God conducts his business - it should not override or distort the thousands of Biblical directives given to men.

 

[bling]

Our earthly objective, both elect and non-elect, is not our own salvation, but God's glory. He made all this (and its end result --the Bride of Christ) for his own glory --not ours. The salvation of the elect is part of that. I don't mean that we should decide what will glorify him the most and make that the objective of our lives, as though we had that much wisdom, as opposed to making Christ our own, but that salvation is not the end of our duty here --we are becoming that particular member of the body of Christ that God had in mind for each of us from the beginning.

In post above

Your descriptions necessarily include a free will that is not encumbered by sin. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that a person is able to, even for selfish reasons, accept the gift of eternal life. Your construction there is non-scriptural.

Sin plays a huge part in that it is the likely alternative to just humbly accepting God’s help. It is the perceived pleasures of sin which make it a real choice.

Your conclusion really is no different in persuasion from any other who reject the notion that God must change a person's heart (regeneration) before that person can turn to or desire Christ. You want to describe a dead man as being able to reach for a life vest thrown towards him!

Christ can use any words, but only uses the very best words in His parables, so by Christ’s definition of “dead” a person can come to his/her senses and repent since Christ describes the prodigal son twice as being “dead”. Luke 15: 24 “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again…” and Luke 15:32 “…because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again;…”

The Father (representing God) does not say “We thought he was dead” or “was like dead”.

But the thing I find most noticeable in the mind of Arminians is the notion that the intellect, will, understanding, integrity etc of man is God-like, in that we have the goods that it takes to even know what we are deciding about and the constancy to stick by our decision! No sir! Only God himself is capable of doing that in us!

I think you are building a strawman argument here?

The lowliest mature adult on earth can decide to believe in a benevolent creator and only a fool does not believe in a god. You have to be a wimp to not be willing to pay the piper and take the punishment you fully deserve.

 

[Mark Quayle]

OK that is what I am saying so we agree.

Science, which leaves God out of equation, might agree with you in that after the “first cause”, everything takes place according to the rule of nature, but this is assuming God does not have the power to allow some humans to have some limited free will ability, so is that what you are saying?

Using the “first cause resulting in all other causes” to proof free will down the road does not exist, since that is an assumption, so it is circular reasoning. If some humans can make even very limited autonomous free will choice, then those choices can be additional causes.

The human “free will” I am talking about is a miraculous gift from God to mature adults, so to say: “The First Cause Principle” eliminates free will means you are not allowing or feel God does not have the power to provide some humans with limited free will.


There is a cause effect sequencing for the most part, but if God has the power and gave free will ability to some humans then there is another source for causes.

God at the end of time has lots of knowledge, which includes perfect knowledge of all humans’ actions and decisions since it is all unchangeable history for the God at the end of time.

I suppose I should demand your definition of "limited free will" then. If you reference there the notion that they can do anything without limits within certain limits, I call foul. It is not lack of power that stops God from creating logical absurdities, like a rock too big for him to pick up. If, on the other hand, "limited free will" means merely agency to choose unencumbered by certain things they would otherwise be encumbered by (for example, the regenerated are said to have limited free will, in that they no long are under the slavery of their sin nature), that I can agree with. But what seems popular is some kind of halfway between these two ideas, which was the reason for my OP. If man can do a little without cause, it is as illogical as saying he can do a lot without cause; and particular objectionable, if we say man is capable of doing something apart from God's direction or control, whether a little or a lot, we are denying God's sovereignty and immanence.

For your consideration, I would like to bring up the term, "chance". Do you see the logical problem implied by "limited free will" as you seem to me to have described? When it comes down to, for example the choice to "accept Christ" resulting in salvation, it is implied either that some people are inherently more likely to choose Christ than others, (thus some are better than others in that way (and if better, why, then?)), or that absolute chance determined who would choose. Whether we realize it or not, "chance" is a logical non-thing, just a short-cut for the work of finding out real causes, the word means, "I don't know". It is self-contradictory to say that chance can determine anything.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Anyways, the problem you should have with Calvinism is that God only saves a few (based on no conditions whatsoever) when He has the power to save them all. This would be wrong or immoral of God to do this because God desires the ultimate good for His creation.

I keep hearing this, as though one's own judgement of such things trumps scripture. Scripture becomes defined and used according to this preconception. (By the way, your statement assumes "no conditions whatsoever", apparently on the part of the elect, but you did not say so. God certainly has conditions, as in, he made each of us for our particular part as each member of the Body of Christ. He most certainly does have his reasons).

But your statement, "This would wrong or immoral of God to do this...", is false on its face, neverminding the logical disconnect with "because God desires the ultimate good for His creation." It is a false claim because it ignores not only the principle behind "who are you to talk back to God?" but God's reason for creating.

For his own Glory, and for his own pleasure, he has created the Bride of Christ. In my opinion he sees her as in fact already complete, but we who are locked within time do not, and will not until we see Him as He is. This being who has been described as, "almost a fourth person of the Godhead", could not be what she will be (is) without sin, suffering, and the lost.

You propose, (whether you realize it or not, logically extrapolated from what you do say), mere Paradise, and beings as Adam and Eve were, and a supreme being whose heel was not bruised. This is nothing near what we will be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In post above

Sin plays a huge part in that it is the likely alternative to just humbly accepting God’s help. It is the perceived pleasures of sin which make it a real choice.

Christ can use any words, but only uses the very best words in His parables, so by Christ’s definition of “dead” a person can come to his/her senses and repent since Christ describes the prodigal son twice as being “dead”. Luke 15: 24 “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again…” and Luke 15:32 “…because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again;…”

The Father (representing God) does not say “We thought he was dead” or “was like dead”.

I think you are building a strawman argument here?

The lowliest mature adult on earth can decide to believe in a benevolent creator and only a fool does not believe in a god. You have to be a wimp to not be willing to pay the piper and take the punishment you fully deserve.

So then, we come to the definition of faith. You profer a dead man able to believe in a benevolent creator. I profer a dead man made alive by his Creator, who then can't help but believe. Salvific Faith is not merely believing without evidence. It IS the evidence of what is not seen. The Spirit within the born-again is the source of that faith --it could be said the Spirit is the faith itself-- so that it is not of the man, not of his will, not of his emotions, not of his understanding, not of his constancy of devotion, not of his love, not of anything about him, but of God. A merely intellectual and emotional assent is not salvific faith.

The heart of the regenerated will come to his senses, will decide for Christ, will loathe sin and will repent.