ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF SAVING FAITH

[Mark Quayle]

Are you saying God does not have the power to provide mature adults with the ability to make some truly limited first cause choices out of a miraculous autonomous free will ability?

Power? What does this have to do with God's power or ability?

I think I already dealt with this, no? But let me try to put the idea, "self-contradictory statement from the mind of a pretentious human", into easier to understand words: People assume that there is substance to the "babble they think they mean". It's bad enough when we don't know quite what we are talking about. But it is worse when we don't even make sense. If I was to ask you whether God's creative power was capable of making a rock so big that his omnipotence couldn't pick it up, what would you say? That yes, he could? Or no, he couldn't? Or would you say, like I do, that the question is silly —it assumes substance to a self-contradictory set of words. It is meaningless. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF GOD'S POWER OR OF ABILITY.

'First cause' is first cause. If God causes it, it is not first cause. It is self-contradictory to call anything that 'first cause' (God) causes, "first cause", "second first cause", "limited first cause", or any other kind of first cause. You present a self-contradictory set of words, and think that me telling you it is meaningless implies I think God is not powerful enough or capable of doing it? Again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S POWER OR ABILITY.

This is only “self-contradictory” by your definition have God with the only ability to be a first causer. God making being who can be first causers does not fit your definition.

face-palm —Again, what does "first cause" mean? If it is itself caused to be, how can it be first??? Hello!

The “whoever” in scripture have to be first causers to be held accountable for their choices, for God to be Lovingly just.

*smacks forehead* Let's just say, "mere assertion", and let you demonstrate substance to even the mere notion of it, in order to demonstrate what you are even trying to bring around to discussion here —that to you, man cannot be held accountable without being able to choose, uncaused.

Again, God is a first causer, because what happened originated from within God and nothing previous caused God’s choice. Mature adults need this ability to make some choices within themselves to be held personally accountable for those choices or God alone is accountable for all human choice.

*walks around in frantic circles, mumbling*

Now, we have the problem of how some word in scripture are defined; both “all” and “things”.

Does “all” always mean everything without exception and do “things” include even human thoughts and/or human choices?

Does "all" mean "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4? But if we can't prove anything to each other by Scripture, then let's deal with it logically.

If I said it, obviously, contextually, I mean all, with the exception of first cause himself —as I have said many times. ALL THINGS descend logically from first cause, except first cause himself. Ironically, even the notion that God gives mature humans limited first cause, implies that God CAUSED IT. Thus, not uncaused. Not only that, but every specific thing about things that are caused, are caused by specific causation. Simple logic.

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Yes. Your point?

If God is the source of everything by your definition of everything then He is also the source of temptation.

From 'cause' to 'source'? Ok, I'll play. God is the source of all things, including temptation, in the sense that he caused that it be. It does not mean that he tempts anyone, nor that he is the author of sin. You attempt to bring him down to Satan's level here, or even our own. Check your hierarchy of causation, here.

Is God the source of sin and evil?

Did God cause that they be?

Does satan have free will?

No more than we do.

How are we more than just glorified puppets?

Puppets don't have a will.

 

[bling]

Power? What does this have to do with God's power or ability?

I think I already dealt with this, no? But let me try to put the idea, "self-contradictory statement from the mind of a pretentious human", into easier to understand words: People assume that there is substance to the "babble they think they mean". It's bad enough when we don't know quite what we are talking about. But it is worse when we don't even make sense. If I was to ask you whether God's creative power was capable of making a rock so big that his omnipotence couldn't pick it up, what would you say? That yes, he could? Or no, he couldn't? Or would you say, like I do, that the question is silly —it assumes substance to a self-contradictory set of words. It is meaningless. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF GOD'S POWER OR OF ABILITY.

'First cause' is first cause. If God causes it, it is not first cause. It is self-contradictory to call anything that 'first cause' (God) causes, "first cause", "second first cause", "limited first cause", or any other kind of first cause. You present a self-contradictory set of words, and think that me telling you it is meaningless implies I think God is not powerful enough or capable of doing it? Again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S POWER OR ABILITY.

Philosophers and Scientist talk about a “First Cause” which everything else is derives its cause from, but that is science and philosophy needing just one reason. With just one “first cause” everything else that happen, can be explained by the “first cause”.

Your antidote about “making a rock to big for God to move”, has nothing to do with what we are talking about. God can be the cause of the “first cause” for our universe and the cause of the “first cause” for some other universe where neither interacts with the other. God is the source of these causes and the causer.

What you are presenting is the idea that since, God is the source of the first cause for our universe all human choices have to be the effect of the first cause, which if there is only one intervening at the beginning by God or if all of God’s other intervening are just the effect of God’s first cause, then man does not have any autonomous free will.

I see: God having what it takes to allow mature adults to make some limited autonomous free will choices, so they can become like God Himself, in that we have this Godly type Love.

You define God as: “GOD is the first cause. Everything he makes is an effect of first cause, though by far most of them are also causes of further effects.”

I define a “first cause” as a cause, which is not the result or effect of a previous cause. This cause is coming from within a being, which can totally and completely be held accountable for creating this cause.

My definition is really the same as an autonomous free will choice, but do you see them differently?

face-palm —Again, what does "first cause" mean? If it is itself caused to be, how can it be first??? Hello!

*smacks forehead* Let's just say, "mere assertion", and let you demonstrate substance to even the mere notion of it, in order to demonstrate what you are even trying to bring around to discussion here —that to you, man cannot be held accountable without being able to choose, uncaused.

*walks around in frantic circles, mumbling*

Does "all" mean "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4? But if we can't prove anything to each other by Scripture, then let's deal with it logically.

If I said it, obviously, contextually, I mean all, with the exception of first cause himself —as I have said many times. ALL THINGS descend logically from first cause, except first cause himself. Ironically, even the notion that God gives mature humans limited first cause, implies that God CAUSED IT. Thus, not uncaused. Not only that, but every specific thing about things that are caused, are caused by specific causation. Simple logic.

Do you believe Jesus Christ was derived from the first cause?

Could Jesus also be a first causer?

Am I understanding correctly: Your describing God as the “First Cause”, so every birth (which are all caused by God) are all part of the “first cause” and not really effects of other causes?

So, the “first Cause” (God) is popping up, many time each day.

If you are thinking like that, then there is no big stretch of faith to believe: God could allow humans to participate with Him in doing some “First Cause” activities by making some autonomous free will choices, without having to be God, Himself.

Yes. Your point?

From 'cause' to 'source'? Ok, I'll play. God is the source of all things, including temptation, in the sense that he caused that it be. It does not mean that he tempts anyone, nor that he is the author of sin. You attempt to bring him down to Satan's level here, or even our own. Check your hierarchy of causation, here.

Did God cause that they be?

No more than we do.

Puppets don't have a will.

Will, free will and even my autonomous free will, all have the same definition, so what is your definition of “will”.

What is God’s purpose in creating sin, satan, and evil, since these do not need to exist in a controlled cause and effect environment?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you are presenting is the idea that since, God is the source of the first cause for our universe all human choices have to be the effect of the first cause, which if there is only one intervening at the beginning by God or if all of God’s other intervening are just the effect of God’s first cause, then man does not have any autonomous free will.

No. God IS the first cause. He did not make the first cause, as he did not make himself. He is self-existent.

Your antidote about “making a rock to big for God to move”, has nothing to do with what we are talking about. God can be the cause of the “first cause” for our universe and the cause of the “first cause” for some other universe where neither interacts with the other. God is the source of these causes and the causer.

So extrapolating from your notion, if what God does is first cause, and not himself being first cause, then the principles necessary to the definition of first cause do not apply to him and for all we know there are an infinite number of first causes over an infinite number of universes, resulting from an infinite number of Gods.

I define a “first cause” as a cause, which is not the result or effect of a previous cause. This cause is coming from within a being, which can totally and completely be held accountable for creating this cause.

Self-contradictory. What you are attempting to describe is "First Effect". Only the self-existent omnipotent Creator is first cause.

My definition is really the same as an autonomous free will choice, but do you see them differently?

Not much differently. Both are self-contradictory in creatures.

Do you believe Jesus Christ was derived from the first cause?

Could Jesus also be a first causer?

IF (since) Jesus Christ is God, he is first cause. Therefore not derived from first cause.

Am I understanding correctly: Your describing God as the “First Cause”, so every birth (which are all caused by God) are all part of the “first cause” and not really effects of other causes?

All things are caused by God, so how is birth different from anything else within in the 'chain' of cause-and-effect? Is there something special about birth that makes it anymore 'hands-on' for God than for you to draw your next breath? You seem to be describing pantheism, where everything God creates is part of what comprises God.

So, the “first Cause” (God) is popping up, many time each day.

If you are thinking like that, then there is no big stretch of faith to believe: God could allow humans to participate with Him in doing some “First Cause” activities by making some autonomous free will choices, without having to be God, Himself.

In the attribute of Immanence of God we see that he is, in a sense, "in" every particle of matter/ energy/ and principle/fact. But according to the attribute of Simplicity of God, none of the 'Attributes of God' are by themselves, except in our consideration of them. So no, he is not 'popping up many times each day. He is always here. In fact, the chain of causation depends on him for its continuation, just as does the very principle of existence. I don't follow your reasoning anyway, but your premise is wrong.

But why would that have anything to do with a stretch of faith, that God would do a self-contradictory thing? It's just word-play. If we can participate with him in '“First Cause” activities', then you may as well have Angels speaking some of the creation into being. In fact, go bring a bunch of gods from your other universes over to help. Surely they are all friendly together. It's ludicrous, man. FIRST CAUSE cannot be CAUSED. Thus, only GOD can be FIRST CAUSE.

Will, free will and even my autonomous free will, all have the same definition, so what is your definition of “will”.

What is God’s purpose in creating sin, satan, and evil, since these do not need to exist in a controlled cause and effect environment?

At best they only have the same definition as First EFFECT —not first cause.

False premise. What makes you think sin, Satan and evil do not need to exist in a controlled cause and effect environment?

 

[bling]

No. God IS the first cause. He did not make the first cause, as he did not make himself. He is self-existent.

The problem with this definition is how it relates to a human making an autonomous free will choice, If we say that would fit the definition of a “first cause”, then would that mean man is God?

If we say a human could make an autonomous free will choice and since God made them it is not a “first cause”, but a choice made by the individual from several options, any one being the caused by the first cause, but the choice is not selected by the first cause.

So extrapolating from your notion, if what God does is first cause, and not himself being first cause, then the principles necessary to the definition of first cause do not apply to him and for all we know there are an infinite number of first causes over an infinite number of universes, resulting from an infinite number of Gods.

God is the first cause for every universe, but one universe is not the cause of another universe.

Self-contradictory. What you are attempting to describe is "First Effect". Only the self-existent omnipotent Creator is first cause.

I addressed above.

Not much differently. Both are self-contradictory in creatures.

IF (since) Jesus Christ is God, he is first cause. Therefore not derived from first cause.

All things are caused by God, so how is birth different from anything else within in the 'chain' of cause-and-effect? Is there something special about birth that makes it anymore 'hands-on' for God than for you to draw your next breath? You seem to be describing pantheism, where everything God creates is part of what comprises God.

I am not describing pantheism.

Here is a big issue, why does there have to be one “chain of cause and effect” and not many chains starting and/or stop by God (the first cause). How is this self-contradictory?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem with this definition is how it relates to a human making an autonomous free will choice, If we say that would fit the definition of a “first cause”, then would that mean man is God?

Your statement and question aren't making sense to me. Humans don't make autonomous free will choices, and what we do is no indicator to how God does. (I.e. God's autonomy is not necessarily related to our ability to choose.)

If we say a human could make an autonomous free will choice and since God made them it is not a “first cause”, but a choice made by the individual from several options, any one being the caused by the first cause, but the choice is not selected by the first cause.

Need you to rewrite that. I can't even guess what you're trying to say.

God is the first cause for every universe, but one universe is not the cause of another universe.

Ok, so....? I'm thinking that either something you're saying isn't getting across, or something I'm saying isn't getting across.

Here is a big issue, why does there have to be one “chain of cause and effect” and not many chains starting and/or stop by God (the first cause). How is this self-contradictory?

This is a very strange conversation. WHERE or HOW, did I say or imply that there are not many “chains of cause and effect” starting and/or stopped by God? I didn't say that is self-contradictory. What is self-contradictory is the notion that the first effect in any of those chains may be called first cause.

Where did I say different? Maybe I can help mitigate your confusion.

 

[bling]

Your statement and question aren't making sense to me. Humans don't make autonomous free will choices, and what we do is no indicator to how God does. (I.e. God's autonomy is not necessarily related to our ability to choose.)

Need you to rewrite that. I can't even guess what you're trying to say.

Ok, so....? I'm thinking that either something you're saying isn't getting across, or something I'm saying isn't getting across.

This is a very strange conversation. WHERE or HOW, did I say or imply that there are not many “chains of cause and effect” starting and/or stopped by God? I didn't say that is self-contradictory. What is self-contradictory is the notion that the first effect in any of those chains may be called first cause.

Where did I say different? Maybe I can help mitigate your confusion.

I am glad we agree with the concept of God being the cause/start of many “chains of cause and effect”.

You said earlier: “We are not like robots because we have a “will”", but “will”, “free will” and “autonomous free will” all have the same definition, so how are they different for you?

You state above: “Humans don't make autonomous free will choices…”, so that to me, means the same as saying, “humans do not have the will to make choices”, so is that true for you and/or what are the differences?

You say: “God's autonomy is not necessarily related to our ability to choose.” Whatever ability humans have to make choices, was gifted to us by God (the first cause).

Did God gift mature adult humans with the will to make choices they can be held accountable for making?

I would say: God as the first cause is responsible for providing humans with the will to make some choices and God is providing those choices to man, but man himself can be held accountable for choosing a choice of the many choices God has laid before him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You said earlier: “We are not like robots because we have a “will”", but “will”, “free will” and “autonomous free will” all have the same definition, so how are they different for you?

You state above: “Humans don't make autonomous free will choices…”, so that to me, means the same as saying, “humans do not have the will to make choices”, so is that true for you and/or what are the differences?

No, they don't all have the same definition, as we have discussed at length. "Autonomy" is the ability to do, in and of oneself —i.e. uncaused. Only God has that ability.

You say: “God's autonomy is not necessarily related to our ability to choose.” Whatever ability humans have to make choices, was gifted to us by God (the first cause).

Did God gift mature adult humans with the will to make choices they can be held accountable for making?

Our ability to choose does not quite reflect the nature of God's ability to choose. Does that help explain what I mean? To put it another way, the fact that God is autonomous does not logically indicate that we are. And yes —if 'limit' is absolute— what we may call "a little limited" is completely limited. A little autonomy is complete autonomy, unless you mean like an autonomous computer, that depends on no other computers to do obey its programming. A 'sovereign nation' is only called 'sovereign' in that it has no subservience or legal obligation to other nations. It is not sovereign as relates to God. Only God is truly sovereign.

I would say: God as the first cause is responsible for providing humans with the will to make some choices and God is providing those choices to man, but man himself can be held accountable for choosing a choice of the many choices God has laid before him.

God as first cause is responsible for something? In what way —do you mean he is obligated to do something? Or are you saying we can credit him alone, with what he does? (I can agree with the words you lay out there, but most likely not with what you mean by them, or with why you take them to imply.)

 

[bling]

No, they don't all have the same definition, as we have discussed at length. "Autonomy" is the ability to do, in and of oneself —i.e. uncaused. Only God has that ability.

“Will” is in and of oneself. So how are you defining “will” and where are you finding this definition?

Our ability to choose does not quite reflect the nature of God's ability to choose. Does that help explain what I mean?

No, explain the significant differences when the choice is only a mental decision and nothing more?

To put it another way, the fact that God is autonomous does not logically indicate that we are.

Did not say we had to, but if we are to be like God in that we have some Godly type Love, we need a will of our own, since Godly type Love is not a robotic or instinctive type of love

And yes —if 'limit' is absolute— what we may call "a little limited" is completely limited.
A little autonomy is complete autonomy, unless you mean like an autonomous computer, that depends on no other computers to do obey its programming.

Where is the science or philosophy contradictory behind “limit” having to be completely being limited and a little limited autonomy having to be complete autonomy?

A 'sovereign nation' is only called 'sovereign' in that it has no subservience or legal obligation to other nations. It is not sovereign as relates to God. Only God is truly sovereign.

Yes, God is completely sovereign as far as being totally in control and having no one over Him, but that does not keep God from allowing humans to at least, will some choices.

God as first cause is responsible for something? In what way —do you mean he is obligated to do something? Or are you saying we can credit him alone, with what he does? (I can agree with the words you lay out there, but most likely not with what you mean by them, or with why you take them to imply.)

God might have “obligated” Himself to do a lot of stuff like: be Loving, to not sin, be consistent and allow adult mature humans to make some mental choices using their will to fulfill their earthly objective.

Humans are not overriding God, just doing what He has allowed them to do.

Again, how are you defining the “will” of man and the “will” of God and are there multiply types of “will”, for God and/or man?

 

[Mark Quayle]

“Will” is in and of oneself. So how are you defining “will” and where are you finding this definition?

How do you know that '"will" is in and of oneself'? Is not our will just as given to us as our very life is? It is our very own, just as our lives are, but we are not our own. We all belong in a very real sense, to the Creator, and apart from his sustaining us we are nothing. Furthermore, we are not even yet completely what he spoke into existence —members of the Body of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God. You are declaring that we are in fact, complete, with your assumption that our will is in and of oneself.

Mark Quayle said:
Our ability to choose does not quite reflect the nature of God's ability to choose. Does that help explain what I mean?

No, explain the significant differences when the choice is only a mental decision and nothing more?

While it is true that God himself in Scripture anthropomorphizes in order for us to understand, it is not in our bailiwick to do so. God is not like us. You think his mental decisions are only made after he considers the pros and cons, the possibles and the impossibles, the consequences? When God makes what you term, "a mental decision", it is not only a mental decision. It is a creation. An act, a speaking-into-existence. What makes you think God has to decide at all? What God thinks, he DOES.

Did not say we had to, but if we are to be like God in that we have some Godly type Love, we need a will of our own, since Godly type Love is not a robotic or instinctive type of love

(I would like to see that construction in some passage or other in Scripture.) Our will, as our very lives, is God's to do with as he pleases. I do not hint then, that we are robots, but that he has the right (not to mention the ability) to do as he pleases with us, and to do so with us responsible for our own choices. God is not operating on our level, nor we on his.

But it is more than that. God is the very essence by which man is able to will. Our choices are established by his decree.

Where is the science or philosophy contradictory behind “limit” having to be completely being limited and a little limited autonomy having to be complete autonomy?

The context in which I said that, if you remember, is not just generic "limit", but "limited" uncaused freewill. It is either uncaused, or it is not. It is either free, or it is not. If by 'free', you mean, "uncaused", then it can't be 'sort of' uncaused.

Your autonomy —if you mean nothing but that your decisions are yours, and not some other human's— then you can have limited autonomy, in that it is not independent of God's decree, but if you mean that God is not in control of it, then you have autonomy, or you do not. There is no such autonomy as independent of God's decree.

Yes, God is completely sovereign as far as being totally in control and having no one over Him, but that does not keep God from allowing humans to at least, will some choices.

They will all over the place! I wouldn't describe it as 'some choices'. All our choices are willed, as far as I know. And God doesn't just allow it. He establishes our choices. They are real only because HE is real.

God might have “obligated” Himself to do a lot of stuff like: be Loving, to not sin, be consistent and allow adult mature humans to make some mental choices using their will to fulfill their earthly objective.

Humans are not overriding God, just doing what He has allowed them to do.

That is a false, a human, construction, too. Why would you call it an obligation for him to do what he has already spoken into existence? And would you say that he is obligated to exist, and to be just, and merciful, and pure? Would you say that he is obligated to accomplish what he has decreed? God owes us nothing.

Again, how are you defining the “will” of man and the “will” of God and are there multiply types of “will”, for God and/or man?

Definitely different. In Scripture we see at least two "wills" of God. I usually refer to them as, 1. his command —what we ought to do; and 2. his decree —everything he does (to include what we do and whatever happens), and in a real sense, the completed product that he spoke into existence —his Dwelling Place— (though we see it not as yet complete).

As for OUR will, it is only that, though I speak of his two wills as such so that we can understand, because we too have 1. our plans; and 2. our ways of accomplishing (or failing to accomplish) our plans.

 

[Bearcrossfx]

Here's what can be plainly seen throughout the Bible, Faith, Knowledge, and Action cannot be separated from eachother:

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
Romans 10:17 NIV

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:17 NIV

As believers, we should always follow the examples of Those who were faithful, ask yourself, what makes Abraham faithful?

He carried out God's commands even though he could not understand how God's promise would be fulfilled.

Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
Hebrews 11:19 NIV

Let us always see things through according to God's promises that we may be found faithful according to the Bible.

 

[bling]

How do you know that '"will" is in and of oneself'? Is not our will just as given to us as our very life is? It is our very own, just as our lives are, but we are not our own. We all belong in a very real sense, to the Creator, and apart from his sustaining us we are nothing. Furthermore, we are not even yet completely what he spoke into existence —members of the Body of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God. You are declaring that we are in fact, complete, with your assumption that our will is in and of oneself.

Choices that are not in and of oneself, should not justly carry consequences for the individual. If a person in and of themselves, makes all bad choices they are certainly not “complete”, but if a person did in and of themselves make only good choices (like Christ did) then they might be complete.

Animals have been given life by God, but that does not mean they have a will.

The meaning of will in Christianity from a dictionary, with all other dictionaries I looked at being similar:

Will [N] The created image of God carries with it awesome responsibility and glory. It includes the ability to make meaningful moral choices ( Gen 1:26-27 ; 2:16-17 ). By grace, the freedom to use a created will as a moral agent is one of the key biblical distinctions between humans and the rest of the created order

Where are you finding your definition of human will?

Mark Quayle said:
Our ability to choose does not quite reflect the nature of God's ability to choose. Does that help explain what I mean?

While it is true that God himself in Scripture anthropomorphizes in order for us to understand, it is not in our bailiwick to do so. God is not like us. You think his mental decisions are only made after he considers the pros and cons, the possibles and the impossibles, the consequences? When God makes what you term, "a mental decision", it is not only a mental decision. It is a creation. An act, a speaking-into-existence. What makes you think God has to decide at all? What God thinks, he DOES.

I was talking only about humans’ mental decisions and not God’s decisions. The point being like a slave making a mental choice, he might not be able to fulfill that choice, but that does not mean he did not make a choice, yet does something different.

If we are to have “Godly type Love” like God (which is the greatest quality we could have) we have to be somewhat and in some ways like God which includes having some will.

(I would like to see that construction in some passage or other in Scripture.) Our will, as our very lives, is God's to do with as he pleases. I do not hint then, that we are robots, but that he has the right (not to mention the ability) to do as he pleases with us, and to do so with us responsible for our own choices. God is not operating on our level, nor we on his.

But it is more than that. God is the very essence by which man is able to will. Our choices are established by his decree.

There are certainly examples of God “controlling” people, but that does not mean God “decrees” what all people will choose each time all the time. There are but a very few choices that need to be made by the person’s will.

The choices we have are by God’s decree, but the selection of the choice we make is done by our will.

Man having a will puts him above the animals, but it would have to miraculously be placed in humans.

Why would a person’s choice to do evil have to be decreed by God? Yes, God has provided that option.

The context in which I said that, if you remember, is not just generic "limit", but "limited" uncaused freewill. It is either uncaused, or it is not. It is either free, or it is not. If by 'free', you mean, "uncaused", then it can't be 'sort of' uncaused.

OK covered above.

Your autonomy —if you mean nothing but that your decisions are yours, and not some other human's— then you can have limited autonomy, in that it is not independent of God's decree, but if you mean that God is not in control of it, then you have autonomy, or you do not. There is no such autonomy as independent of God's decree.

You said: “There is no such autonomy as independent of God's decree.” Is this because God does not have the miraculous power to provide such autonomy to people?

For the most part God has decreed everything except He did miraculously provide a will to man to make some choices.

They will all over the place! I wouldn't describe it as 'some choices'. All our choices are willed, as far as I know. And God doesn't just allow it. He establishes our choices. They are real only because HE is real.

If God is decreeing our choices, we cannot be held accountable for willing them to happen and so they are not our will.

That is a false, a human, construction, too. Why would you call it an obligation for him to do what he has already spoken into existence? And would you say that he is obligated to exist, and to be just, and merciful, and pure? Would you say that he is obligated to accomplish what he has decreed? God owes us nothing.

God has told us He will do something, so is God obligated to do these things (send Jesus back to earth as an example).

Definitely different. In Scripture we see at least two "wills" of God. I usually refer to them as, 1. his command —what we ought to do; and 2. his decree —everything he does (to include what we do and whatever happens), and in a real sense, the completed product that he spoke into existence —his Dwelling Place— (though we see it not as yet complete).

As for OUR will, it is only that, though I speak of his two wills as such so that we can understand, because we too have 1. our plans; and 2. our ways of accomplishing (or failing to accomplish) our plans.

You say: “As for OUR will, it is only that”, but “only that” makes us responsible for what we do “will”. What God decrees, happens even if it is against our will, but that does not mean God decreed our will to make some choice.

In your “1” you say: “God commands” so it becomes what we “ought to do”, meaning we do not always do what God “willed”. Then you have God decreeing what we do, which can be against His commands “will”. This makes no sense, with God’s will being against His own will. He is telling us to do something, then forcing (decrees) us not to do it. Why can God not allow us to at least desire to do His will?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Choices that are not in and of oneself, should not justly carry consequences for the individual. If a person in and of themselves, makes all bad choices they are certainly not “complete”, but if a person did in and of themselves make only good choices (like Christ did) then they might be complete.

Animals have been given life by God, but that does not mean they have a will.

The completion doesn't happen until we know him as we are known. Not until we see his face. Not until the sons of God are revealed.

Animals have a will and make decisions according to their preferences, and as a matter of fact, so do humans, albeit supposedly with more intelligence, introspection, capacity for abstract thinking, and less instinctively. But animals are not held responsible. They do not rebel against their creator. Their will is not the same as ours. That much I'm sure you can agree with. —But if God was to hold them responsible according to their heart, in the same way as he looks upon our heart to judge our deeds, who could blame him for their wrongdoing, and for his punishment of them? They are only what they are, just as we are only what we are. Not so very much more than a doornail, compared to God's will and God's life. Humans and animals are dependent on God for our very existence. We are not our own.

The meaning of will in Christianity from a dictionary, with all other dictionaries I looked at being similar:

Will [N] The created image of God carries with it awesome responsibility and glory. It includes the ability to make meaningful moral choices ( Gen 1:26-27 ; 2:16-17 ). By grace, the freedom to use a created will as a moral agent is one of the key biblical distinctions between humans and the rest of the created order

That is opinion —theology; in fact, more philosophy than theology— and not authoritative. And it reeks of self-determination impregnated truisms. The poetic prose—oh my!

Where are you finding your definition of human will?

Common sense, if not Bible. But it is evident all through the Bible. We decide according to our inclinations, even if only for that moment of decision.

I was talking only about humans’ mental decisions and not God’s decisions. The point being like a slave making a mental choice, he might not be able to fulfill that choice, but that does not mean he did not make a choice, yet does something different.

If we are to have “Godly type Love” like God (which is the greatest quality we could have) we have to be somewhat and in some ways like God which includes having some will.

I don't deny we have will. In fact, our will is ESTABLISHED by God, as is our very life. "Uncaused" —not even a little bit!

There are certainly examples of God “controlling” people, but that does not mean God “decrees” what all people will choose each time all the time. There are but a very few choices that need to be made by the person’s will.

The choices we have are by God’s decree, but the selection of the choice we make is done by our will.

I expect that you mean something like, "God's decree presents us with options, but doesn't cause our selection." You've got a long way to go to prove that, to include, among other things, to leave out causation by 'Chance', or, the notion that some of us are just inherently better than others.

Man having a will puts him above the animals, but it would have to miraculously be placed in humans.

Why would a person’s choice to do evil have to be decreed by God? Yes, God has provided that option.
OK covered above.

A will is no more miraculous than life itself, or even existence itself. What seems to me miraculous is the ability to rebel against the Creator! Yet, in creating, God also caused that THAT be, during this temporal passage.

You said: “There is no such autonomy as independent of God's decree.” Is this because God does not have the miraculous power to provide such autonomy to people?

No. It is because you pose a self-contradictory notion. God has no interest in performing such tricks.

For the most part God has decreed everything except He did miraculously provide a will to man to make some choices.
If God is decreeing our choices, we cannot be held accountable for willing them to happen and so they are not our will.
God has told us He will do something, so is God obligated to do these things (send Jesus back to earth as an example).
You say: “As for OUR will, it is only that”, but “only that” makes us responsible for what we do “will”. What God decrees, happens even if it is against our will, but that does not mean God decreed our will to make some choice.

If he provided a will in man, then he decreed that will. No, God is not obliged to do anything except to the comprehension of our feeble self-important minds. He is doing what he planned; the promises will happen BY HIS WILL TO DO THEM, not by obligation. He owes us nothing.

In your “1” you say: “God commands” so it becomes what we “ought to do”, meaning we do not always do what God “willed”. Then you have God decreeing what we do, which can be against His commands “will”. This makes no sense, with God’s will being against His own will. He is telling us to do something, then forcing (decrees) us not to do it. Why can God not allow us to at least desire to do His will?

I did say, "two wills", I think. One being his command for us to obey, which we generally don't obey. The other being what he is doing, into which all creation fits perfectly in every detail. Why are you confused? The command is part of how his decree is accomplished. There is no 'against' there.

And, WHERE in the world did you get the idea that I think that God cannot allow us to desire to do his will??? He not only allows it —He CAUSES it!!!

 

[bling]

The completion doesn't happen until we know him as we are known. Not until we see his face. Not until the sons of God are revealed.

We are to be “perfect” like our Father in heaven is “perfect”, but the Greek word “Telious” or “Teleion” can be translated “perfect”, but in the context telious or teleion can mean: mature, all together (a oneness), complete. How does not being complete, keep a person from having their own will to make some decisions?

Animals have a will and make decisions according to their preferences, and as a matter of fact, so do humans, albeit supposedly with more intelligence, introspection, capacity for abstract thinking, and less instinctively. But animals are not held responsible. They do not rebel against their creator. Their will is not the same as ours. That much I'm sure you can agree with. —But if God was to hold them responsible according to their heart, in the same way as he looks upon our heart to judge our deeds, who could blame him for their wrongdoing, and for his punishment of them? They are only what they are, just as we are only what we are. Not so very much more than a doornail, compared to God's will and God's life. Humans and animals are dependent on God for our very existence. We are not our own.

Are you saying: God does not know, cannot see or look into the heart of an animal? God knows the hearts of all animals, which is the reason God does not punish animals and we do not punish animals, since they do not have a “will” or “free will”. When they react poorly it is instinctively and their “love” is also instinctive. God holds mature adult humans responsible for the choices they will (free will) to make.

There are excellent reasons for God giving instinctive reactions to animals, so we do not blame God for animals doing bad stuff instinctively.

If our “will” is no different then animal “will” (if animals had a will) why not punish animals like God punishes humans for their choices?

That is opinion —theology; in fact, more philosophy than theology— and not authoritative. And it reeks of self-determination impregnated truisms. The poetic prose—oh my!

Common sense, if not Bible. But it is evident all through the Bible. We decide according to our inclinations, even if only for that moment of decision.

Is “our inclination” our own non-decreed “will” or instinct like animals have?

Common sense and the Bible would tell us, the decisions we are held accountable for making came from our own, controlled by us, “will” (free will/autonomous free will). To say, God decrees our “will” choices we made, means we cannot be held accountable for making those choices.

If you say: “It was by my will this person was murdered”, we do not give any blame to God for the murder. If the person says: “It was by God’s decree the person was killed”, then can we blame the person for this death?

I don't deny we have will. In fact, our will is ESTABLISHED by God, as is our very life. "Uncaused" —not even a little bit!

God gives us everything, but some of these things truly change ownership, like our will, so they are ours to use positively or abuse badly. I am not saying God cannot take our will back at any time. Are you saying our “will” is still owned by God and/or still a slave to God?

I expect that you mean something like, "God's decree presents us with options, but doesn't cause our selection." You've got a long way to go to prove that, to include, among other things, to leave out causation by 'Chance', or, the notion that some of us are just inherently better than others.

God can cause the selection and can cause the outcome to be different form what our will was wanting (the result being against our will).

If you feel everything that happens has nothing to do with individual willed (free willed/autonomous free willed) choices, then all the evil is only the result of God’s willed choices, by saying: “God decrees our selections.” This is a very unconventional conclusion; you seem to be taking.

By God not decreeing/causing what we select, takes God totally out of the blame for our evil selections, allows God to discipline and punish us for bad choices, gives us a huge difference over other animals (makes us like God Himself), allows us to become like God in that we have Godly type Love, gives reason for our existence on this earth and why we were made. Our having a will gives logical reasons for: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell, heaven, everything that happened, the way thias world is and sin itself.

A will is no more miraculous than life itself, or even existence itself. What seems to me miraculous is the ability to rebel against the Creator! Yet, in creating, God also caused that THAT be, during this temporal passage.

Under your definition of “will”, how can people rebel against God, why would God decide to do that?

No. It is because you pose a self-contradictory notion. God has no interest in performing such tricks.

Great we agree God does have the power!!

How do you know: “God has no interest in performing such tricks.”? There are huge reasons why God would want to perform this “trick”.

Since God can make such beings, some just might of their own free will, accept His undeserved charity as charity and thus obtain a Godly type Love like God Himself (God is Love) and thus be like God. This Love would be an unbelievable huge gift that cannot be obtained without a free will choice.

If he provided a will in man, then he decreed that will. No, God is not obliged to do anything except to the comprehension of our feeble self-important minds. He is doing what he planned; the promises will happen BY HIS WILL TO DO THEM, not by obligation. He owes us nothing.

I did say, "two wills", I think. One being his command for us to obey, which we generally don't obey. The other being what he is doing, into which all creation fits perfectly in every detail. Why are you confused? The command is part of how his decree is accomplished. There is no 'against' there.

And, WHERE in the world did you get the idea that I think that God cannot allow us to desire to do his will??? He not only allows it —He CAUSES it!!!

This is all part of my responses above.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are to be “perfect” like our Father in heaven is “perfect”, but the Greek word “Telious” or “Teleion” can be translated “perfect”, but in the context telious or teleion can mean: mature, all together (a oneness), complete. How does not being complete, keep a person from having their own will to make some decisions?

I just finished telling you that we do have "our own will", just as surely as we each have our own life. But I also said that we are not our own. We belong to God. How much more plain can I make it?

Are you saying: God does not know, cannot see or look into the heart of an animal? God knows the hearts of all animals, which is the reason God does not punish animals and we do not punish animals, since they do not have a “will” or “free will”. When they react poorly it is instinctively and their “love” is also instinctive. God holds mature adult humans responsible for the choices they will (free will) to make.

You have got to be kidding me! God does not punish animals because they do not sin. God looks into the heart of animals to judge their deeds? What??? Why even go there? It is not a question of whether he can or "cannot see or look into the heart of an animal"! It's really getting hard to take you seriously. Animals —even demon-possessed pigs— are not slaves to sin, dead in their sins, headed to hell and in need of the Savior. And they will not be one-with-God. They are not God's Dwelling Place.

There are excellent reasons for God giving instinctive reactions to animals, so we do not blame God for animals doing bad stuff instinctively.

If our “will” is no different then animal “will” (if animals had a will) why not punish animals like God punishes humans for their choices?

Notice in your first sentence there, that your conclusion is drawn on YOUR reasoning. That is NOT why "we do not blame God for animals doing bad stuff instinctively". We don't blame God for anything, because of who he is. If something we do is wrong, it is because WE did it, even if God intended it. (See Joseph and his brothers — Genesis 50:20)

Is “our inclination” our own non-decreed “will” or instinct like animals have?

Are those my only two choices? Be serious. I don't play "GOTCHA".

Common sense and the Bible would tell us, the decisions we are held accountable for making came from our own, controlled by us, “will” (free will/autonomous free will). To say, God decrees our “will” choices we made, means we cannot be held accountable for making those choices.

If you say: “It was by my will this person was murdered”, we do not give any blame to God for the murder. If the person says: “It was by God’s decree the person was killed”, then can we blame the person for this death?

God gives us everything, but some of these things truly change ownership, like our will, so they are ours to use positively or abuse badly. I am not saying God cannot take our will back at any time. Are you saying our “will” is still owned by God and/or still a slave to God?

Does your life change ownership? You need to quit coming up with these bogus philosophical unbiblical narratives/truisms.

God can cause the selection and can cause the outcome to be different form what our will was wanting (the result being against our will

Of course he can. What is your point?

If you feel everything that happens has nothing to do with individual willed (free willed/autonomous free willed) choices, then all the evil is only the result of God’s willed choices, by saying: “God decrees our selections.” This is a very unconventional conclusion; you seem to be taking.

That is your construction —not what I say. Why do you change my words?

And no, my position on this is classic Calvinism/Reformed theology. Not at all unconventional.

By God not decreeing/causing what we select, takes God totally out of the blame for our evil selections, allows God to discipline and punish us for bad choices, gives us a huge difference over other animals (makes us like God Himself), allows us to become like God in that we have Godly type Love, gives reason for our existence on this earth and why we were made. Our having a will gives logical reasons for: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell, heaven, everything that happened, the way thias world is and sin itself.

God by his very superiority is already not to blame. But if that's not good enough for you, consider the principle of 'secondary causes'.

I have many many times said that we have a will, yet you continue to talk as though I did not. Give it up!

Under your definition of “will”, how can people rebel against God, why would God decide to do that?

Which, of the two kinds of God's will, are you referring to? You are conflating the two in order to propose contradiction.
"How can people rebel against God?" Disobedience.
"Why would God decide to do that?" For his own purposes. Does it matter? Who are you, oh man, to question God? Read Romans 9 a few more times. —But if it will help, consider that it was necessary that there be sin in order for Christ to die in our place, and it was necessary for Christ to die in our place so that we can be one with him in Heaven, and it was necessary for there to be sin so that we could learn something about God's justice and purity, that we cannot know by human derivation alone, for the sake of maturity during this life, which is for the sake of becoming the particular members of the Dwelling Place of God that we will be. And each of those things are for the sake of the Glory of God.

Great we agree God does have the power!!

We agree??? The longer we talk the more I see how little we do agree.

But why would you say God does have the power? It is not a question of power. It is a question of reality. It is a logically-self-contradictory notion. A Fantasy in your own mind. A non-workable narrative.

How do you know: “God has no interest in performing such tricks.”? There are huge reasons why God would want to perform this “trick”.

I thought I rather obviously was being facetious. It's not a trick. Again, it's bogus. Self-contradictory fantasy of human derivation. Not a thing. Insubstantial. Not even speculation. —Don't know how many ways I need to put this, to get it across.

Since God can make such beings, some just might of their own free will, accept His undeserved charity as charity and thus obtain a Godly type Love like God Himself (God is Love) and thus be like God. This Love would be an unbelievable huge gift that cannot be obtained without a free will choice.

Philosophical construction for the purpose of propping up your thesis. Not Biblical. Ignores huge portions of scripture.

 

[bling]

I just finished telling you that we do have "our own will", just as surely as we each have our own life. But I also said that we are not our own. We belong to God. How much more plain can I make it?

God is providing us life and mental capacity moment by moment. Our “life” and “will” are both very limited by God and can be taken from us at any time. Yet, there is nothing to suggest they are interconnected, plants have life without a will, by any definition. Our life is physical, but our “will” is not physical and cannot be found by science and remains a huge mystery and it is somewhat magical, since there is nothing to compare it to. Plants and animals have life but they do not have a will. We can program a computer to think like most animals, but programming a computer for humans thinking seems to be unachievable, it has not been found to be in any place in the brain and it may not be in the brain.

Animals have physical bodies like humans, but the “will” of humans does not seem to be found in animals and thus might be like God’s will, making us in the image of God, which animals are not like.

God has to choose not to control some human will, for some humans to obtain Godly type Love.

You have got to be kidding me! God does not punish animals because they do not sin. God looks into the heart of animals to judge their deeds? What??? Why even go there? It is not a question of whether he can or "cannot see or look into the heart of an animal"! It's really getting hard to take you seriously. Animals —even demon-possessed pigs— are not slaves to sin, dead in their sins, headed to hell and in need of the Savior. And they will not be one-with-God. They are not God's Dwelling Place.

I agree, but you said: “Animals have a will and make decisions according to their preferences, and as a matter of fact, so do humans”, so why does God punish humans and not animals? We agree animals are doing what they have been decreed to do by God, so are not punished, but you say, “some humans are doing what God decreed and are punished”, which is totally inconsistent.

Notice in your first sentence there, that your conclusion is drawn on YOUR reasoning. That is NOT why "we do not blame God for animals doing bad stuff instinctively". We don't blame God for anything, because of who he is. If something we do is wrong, it is because WE did it, even if God intended it. (See Joseph and his brothers — Genesis 50:20)

The reason I do not “blame God” for the wrong anyone does, is because God did not decree that they sin, which is logical and consistent.

“Bad stuff”, by human standards, does happen, which God can cause, but it is all part of helping willing humans in fulfilling their earthly objective. Lazarus in the “Rich man and Lazarus” story had a tragic life here on earth, but daily, he was providing the very best opportunity for the rich man (who God also Loved) to experience just a little Godly type Love.

Are those my only two choices? Be serious. I don't play "GOTCHA".

Help understand other “alternatives”: I would describe our personal inclinations to be instinctive (“decreed” by God) or our will (autonomous free will) choice we decided on. We are inclined to sin sometimes (this is the way we are made (we have a needed survival instinct, which results in our self-awareness, self-seeking, and selfishness). If we had Godly type Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit to begin with, we would have the power to not sin, but sin serves a purpose in helping us obtain Godly type Love so God allows it.

Does your life change ownership? You need to quit coming up with these bogus philosophical unbiblical narratives/truisms.

I have not thought about this much, so thank you for bringing it up:

Being given a gift of something, means the ownership has changed which seems to ably to Godly type Love, eternal life, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and limited free will, while we are but steward of our own life. The stuff gifted to you like: Love, eternal life, indwelling Holy Spirit and free will can be discarded, sold or walked away from.

If I do good stuff it is because I allowed God to work through me doing that goof stuff, but when I do bad stuff it is on me I own up to those deeds, they are mine.

Of course he can. What is your point?

From what I understand about your doctrine, God controls our “will”, so how/why would God have us do stuff against His decreed will?

That is your construction —not what I say. Why do you change my words?

And no, my position on this is classic Calvinism/Reformed theology. Not at all unconventional.

I am seeing your doctrine as being Hyper Calvinism. A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.

God by his very superiority is already not to blame. But if that's not good enough for you, consider the principle of 'secondary causes'.

I have many many times said that we have a will, yet you continue to talk as though I did not. Give it up!

Which, of the two kinds of God's will, are you referring to? You are conflating the two in order to propose contradiction.
"How can people rebel against God?" Disobedience.
"Why would God decide to do that?" For his own purposes. Does it matter? Who are you, oh man, to question God? Read Romans 9 a few more times. —But if it will help, consider that it was necessary that there be sin in order for Christ to die in our place, and it was necessary for Christ to die in our place so that we can be one with him in Heaven, and it was necessary for there to be sin so that we could learn something about God's justice and purity, that we cannot know by human derivation alone, for the sake of maturity during this life, which is for the sake of becoming the particular members of the Dwelling Place of God that we will be. And each of those things are for the sake of the Glory of God.

I have taught adult classes many times Romans 9:

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?



Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

We agree??? The longer we talk the more I see how little we do agree.

But why would you say God does have the power? It is not a question of power. It is a question of reality. It is a logically-self-contradictory notion. A Fantasy in your own mind. A non-workable narrative.

I thought I rather obviously was being facetious. It's not a trick. Again, it's bogus. Self-contradictory fantasy of human derivation. Not a thing. Insubstantial. Not even speculation. —Don't know how many ways I need to put this, to get it across.

Biblical evidence would help.

Philosophical construction for the purpose of propping up your thesis. Not Biblical. Ignores huge portions of scripture.

Again, what verses in context are you talking about

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is providing us life and mental capacity moment by moment. Our “life” and “will” are both very limited by God and can be taken from us at any time. Yet, there is nothing to suggest they are interconnected, plants have life without a will, by any definition. Our life is physical, but our “will” is not physical and cannot be found by science and remains a huge mystery and it is somewhat magical, since there is nothing to compare it to. Plants and animals have life but they do not have a will. We can program a computer to think like most animals, but programming a computer for humans thinking seems to be unachievable, it has not been found to be in any place in the brain and it may not be in the brain.

Did I say they are interconnected? All I said is that they are alike in how they effect within us, and that they are alike in that they are from the same source.

Animals have physical bodies like humans, but the “will” of humans does not seem to be found in animals and thus might be like God’s will, making us in the image of God, which animals are not like.

Might be, and IS, are two different things. Our will is not at all necessarily how we, unlike animals and angels, are made in the image of God.

God has to choose not to control some human will, for some humans to obtain Godly type Love.

God doesn't have to choose anything —in my poor opinion, even his 'choice of the elect' is spoken as such so that we can understand the source of the fact that there are some who will, and some who won't believe and be saved, and so, also, the reason WHY they are some saved, and to what they are saved, and for whose sake they are saved —which fact self-determinists go out of their way to avoid and ignore.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God has to choose not to control some human will, for some humans to obtain Godly type Love.

If I was to think "naturalistically", as atheistic logical scientists would, I would agree that everything we are, think and do, is caused. If I was to think "naturalistically", as a humanist would, I would say that human will is independent of causation, though obviously influenced. The only difference I see here between you and the humanist is that you think God "helps" us, instead of "causes" us. Thus, you, like the humanist, put us at the head of our own little chain of causation. Uncaused.

I agree, but you said: “Animals have a will and make decisions according to their preferences, and as a matter of fact, so do humans”, so why does God punish humans and not animals? We agree animals are doing what they have been decreed to do by God, so are not punished, but you say, “some humans are doing what God decreed and are punished”, which is totally inconsistent.

Because animals are not commanded to do anything, nor are they able to rebel against God.

Once a-many-times-gain, doing what God decreed is not obedience. It is simply being and doing precisely as God planned from the beginning.
Even the devil fits precisely what God decreed from the beginning.

The reason I do not “blame God” for the wrong anyone does, is because God did not decree that they sin, which is logical and consistent.

“Bad stuff”, by human standards, does happen, which God can cause, but it is all part of helping willing humans in fulfilling their earthly objective. Lazarus in the “Rich man and Lazarus” story had a tragic life here on earth, but daily, he was providing the very best opportunity for the rich man (who God also Loved) to experience just a little Godly type Love.

This "earthly objective" thing you keep coming up with, is apparently a structure you provide as a goal for humans to strive after, in your self-determinism. You are in essence a humanist, here. You assume the same things they do, except you have a moral authority above you —er, I take that back; I'm not sure you even have that.

Let me try this, once again. Maybe I can say it in a way that will click, this time: Without God as first cause, having spoken everything into fact, etc etc. you consider yourself to have independent ability to choose, uncaused, in this universe, (or whatever universe). So, did God not speak all that universe of fact, including your 'uncaused' free will, into fact? THUS, it is CAUSED to be, to include EVERY DETAIL within it. Even a Deist would grant that. Consider this universe and everything within it, in a bucket. God both filled the bucket and is carrying it. CAUSED.

As I have said many times, now, that —aside from the fact that 'uncaused' free will of the creature, is itself self-contradictory— if, as you say, God is able to give that uncaused free will to the creature, THERE, too, you have contradicted yourself. If God gives it, God causes it. It is CAUSED.

And I hope here you can get a glimmer of understanding outside your self-deterministic mindset. God is OTHER THAN this struggle we are subjected to. He is not caught up in temporal thinking. He need not 'do' this in order to 'effect' that. They are for him one and the same thing.

bling said:
Is “our inclination” our own non-decreed “will” or instinct like animals have?
Mark Quayle said:
Are those my only two choices? Be serious. I don't play "GOTCHA".

Help understand other “alternatives”: I would describe our personal inclinations to be instinctive (“decreed” by God) or our will (autonomous free will) choice we decided on. We are inclined to sin sometimes (this is the way we are made (we have a needed survival instinct, which results in our self-awareness, self-seeking, and selfishness). If we had Godly type Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit to begin with, we would have the power to not sin, but sin serves a purpose in helping us obtain Godly type Love so God allows it.

But if we are inclined to sin sometimes, as you admit, then how, according to your constructions, are we to blame for that sinning? Our inclinations are not our will, but they are (pretty obviously) how our will operates. Whether they are instinctive or not is irrelevant, as God not only has the right to do with what he made and owns as he pleases, but that he has given us a conscience, and/or commands, whether or not we can obey, and the justice to do with disobedience as it deserves.

(By the way, if our "needed survival instinct results in our self-awareness, self-seeking, and selfishness", how is the same not true for animals? I'm thinking you need to think a little further on that one. Self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness, except for in the rebellious lost.)

Mark Quayle said:
Does your life change ownership? You need to quit coming up with these bogus philosophical unbiblical narratives/truisms.

I have not thought about this much, so thank you for bringing it up:

Being given a gift of something, means the ownership has changed which seems to ably to Godly type Love, eternal life, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and limited free will, while we are but steward of our own life. The stuff gifted to you like: Love, eternal life, indwelling Holy Spirit and free will can be discarded, sold or walked away from.

Well, no. If your definition of free will is something that can be walked away from, it is not free, or you are not after all walking away from it. You are always, still, making "your own" decisions. If you can walk away from eternal life, (and here, I'm not talking about turning your back on it, or rebelling against it, for a time —even intentionally— but to not even have it anymore), it was not eternal life. If you can boot the Holy Spirit out of his home, it wasn't his home.

If I do good stuff it is because I allowed God to work through me doing that goof stuff, but when I do bad stuff it is on me I own up to those deeds, they are mine.

Not that I said otherwise, but I would not put it that *I* allowed it, but that God compelled me. It is God who works in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

From what I understand about your doctrine, God controls our “will”, so how/why would God have us do stuff against His decreed will?

Bogus question. God does not "have us do stuff against His decreed will". Everything we do fits his decree perfectly, to include even our disobedience.

I am seeing your doctrine as being Hyper Calvinism. A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.

I don't even call myself a Calvinist, and barely even Reformed. But, Hyper-Calvinism, as I understand the term, is drawn on word-play and ridiculous notions like roboticism and no will of the Creature. But neither Calvinism nor Reformed Theology are anything to me expect that I find like-minds to my own there, and things better said that I can say them. I also find within their proponents, often, things arminianistic that reek of self-determination.

By the way, one cannot over-emphasize God's sovereignty, but the Hyper-Calvinist takes it to mean things it doesn't mean. To take 'God's Sovereignty' to mean what it does not, is not over-emphasizing it. It is caricaturing it. And the same goes for 'free will'.

I have taught adult classes many times Romans 9

Yes, I can imagine that you have. But you need to read it, let's say, without your filters on.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

As you and yours demand of Calvinists, I ask you now, to look at the several places in Romans 9, "simply", "as read", without imposing your filters onto it. God has the right to form his clay into whatever vessels he wishes, and to use them in whatever way he pleases. And the clay has nothing to say about it, (but to thank him, at best, for making them for his purposes, and to enjoy his use of them). The 'will' of the clay is part of their form.

Recognize, too, if you can, that your exegesis doesn't mean that the Reformed exegesis is not correct. Reformed exegesis takes all that's true and good, of what you looked at, into account, and more. I leave it to you to look at what steps you jumped and why you did so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Being given a gift of something, means the ownership has changed which seems to ably to Godly type Love, eternal life, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and limited free will, while we are but steward of our own life. The stuff gifted to you like: Love, eternal life, indwelling Holy Spirit and free will can be discarded, sold or walked away from.

Well, no. If your definition of free will is something that can be walked away from, it is not free, or you are not after all walking away from it. You are always, still, making "your own" decisions. If you can walk away from eternal life, (and here, I'm not talking about turning your back on it, or rebelling against it, for a time —even intentionally— but to not even have it anymore), it was not eternal life. If you can boot the Holy Spirit out of his home, it wasn't his home.

2 Corinthians 5:5 "Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Doesn't sound to me like something that can be discarded.

 

[bling]

Might be, and IS, are two different things. Our will is not at all necessarily how we, unlike animals and angels, are made in the image of God.

The issues is: You say man has a “will”, but not a “free will”, but in the English language “will and “free will” are the same. If you want to convey a different meaning than “will”, you need to call it something other than “will” or at least explain your differences. You say: Human “will” is like animal “will”, but I cannot find anyone believing animals have a “will”, so again, another word needs to be used or the definition of animal “will” needs to be explained?

In the context of “made in the image of God” humans are being contrasted to animals, since humans have a “will” and animals do not, “will” would be a huge contrast and would make humans like God.

God doesn't have to choose anything —in my poor opinion, even his 'choice of the elect' is spoken as such so that we can understand the source of the fact that there are some who will, and some who won't believe and be saved, and so, also, the reason WHY they are some saved, and to what they are saved, and for whose sake they are saved —which fact self-determinists go out of their way to avoid and ignore.

God chooses most of the time to allow humans to sin and not stop them from sinning.

God allowed Christ to go to the cross.

God allows satan to roam the earth.

Our part is with accepting and rejecting the invitation. Will the older son in the Parable of the “Prodigal Son” accept or reject the invitation. The older son does not have to go to the party, does not deserve to go to the party, knows (has faith in) his father’s Love to understand what is happening, but might not like his father’s Love, want that type of Love, and be happy at the party.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The issues is: You say man has a “will”, but not a “free will”, but in the English language “will and “free will” are the same. If you want to convey a different meaning than “will”, you need to call it something other than “will” or at least explain your differences. You say: Human “will” is like animal “will”, but I cannot find anyone believing animals have a “will”, so again, another word needs to be used or the definition of animal “will” needs to be explained?

In the context of “made in the image of God” humans are being contrasted to animals, since humans have a “will” and animals do not, “will” would be a huge contrast and would make humans like God.

You said, bling said:
"Animals have physical bodies like humans, but the “will” of humans does not seem to be found in animals and thus might be like God’s will, making us in the image of God, which animals are not like."

—to which I responded, Mark Quayle said:
"Might be, and IS, are two different things. Our will is not at all necessarily how we, unlike animals and angels, are made in the image of God."

—to which you responded with the above, sidestepping what I said, that our will is not at all necessarily how we are made in the image of God, (neither denying it nor affirming it, and certainly not providing support for your assertion).

The issue is: You say man has free will, by which you mean limited potency (unlike God's will), but uncaused, under no obligation or influence from outside itself (like God's will). You claim that this is (at least partly) what it means to be made in the image of God. Well, sir, that last —that man's will is part of what it means to be made in the image of God— is conjecture, and as such does nothing to prove your point that man's will is 'free' in the sense of not being hindered nor influenced in any way to choose any particular option.

Now if upon reading what I think you are claiming, by uncaused, or libertarian, freewill, you object to what I think you mean, by all means, PLEASE, amend it. I hate to argue against a false impression. Do you not really mean, "uncaused" choice?

God chooses most of the time to allow humans to sin and not stop them from sinning.

In part this claim demonstrates the difference we have in the pervasiveness of sin. While it is certainly true that God restrains them from sinking as far into depravity as they would go without his 'common graces', he does not stop them from sinning as though they are capable of some good in and of themselves.

In other words, bling, to go this route you're going to have to prove the notion true that man is not Totally Depraved, according to God's establishment of them as "spiritually-living" post-Adamic beings.

But if, on the other hand, you are referring to the fact that man is indeed Totally Depraved, and so sins continually, but for God's regenerating them, you should not call it "allowing" except in terms of not stopping them from doing what they naturally do according to their will.

But further, to use the term, "allowing", you must show that God does not also cause all things to come to pass, and you must show specifically that fallen man's choice of sin was not according to God's decree. (No, I did not say, "according to God's command.")

God allowed Christ to go to the cross.

Allowed?? Caused!! According to Acts 2:22, 23, "Jesus of Nazareth ... was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you ... put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

God allows satan to roam the earth.

Do you think that Satan can do otherwise than what is his nature to do?

Our part is with accepting and rejecting the invitation. Will the older son in the Parable of the “Prodigal Son” accept or reject the invitation. The older son does not have to go to the party, does not deserve to go to the party, knows (has faith in) his father’s Love to understand what is happening, but might not like his father’s Love, want that type of Love, and be happy at the party.

It's rather amazing to me that one uses the Parable of the "Prodigal Son" to make the points I have heard through the years, as though in every detail (except perhaps the most absurd) it is demonstrative of Salvation, and thus to be drawn on for our Soteriology. But to add speculation beyond what even the parable says, just as you are doing here, is, well, let's just say, spurious.

You assert, "Our part is with accepting and rejecting the invitation." But as no doubt you have heard, concerning the Reformed and the Calvinist, fallen man will ALWAYS reject the invitation. And as, I think, some of the many passages (that you have heard and rejected) to that effect, I will only mention one, here, that the natural man is at enmity to God, will not submit to God's law, nor indeed can submit to God's law, and cannot please God. Romans 8:5-8. Apart from being born again, man is unable to accept the invitation. Furthermore, once man is born again, his mind, his will, his heart, is changed, and he WILL accept the invitation.

Therefore, I reject the notion that "it is our part" to accept or reject, or more precisely, that our salvation depends on "our part".