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?
I am not trying to “proof” man has free will from just knowing, “man is made in the image of God”.
I have said, for God to be just/fair by holding man accountable, man would have to have some limited will/free will choices of rebelling against God’s commands for God punish and/or discipline man. You seem to have no problem with having man doing rebellious stuff against God, but do not see the need for it to be man’s free will choice, for God to justly hold man accountable. How is that logical for you?
Man making a choice by his will/free will/autonomous free will is specifically uncaused by God, but man having these very limited choices is controlled by God, so God is over man. Again, we agreed that God has whatever it takes to allow this to happen and I see nothing wrong with God doing this and lots of good reasons for God doing it. What problem do you have with God doing this?
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.")
A full discussion of “Total Depravity” takes a lot of words and is somewhat off the subject, but TILIP is interrelated to man’s will/free will.
We have not finished addressing and defining; will, free will, predestination, why God cannot allow humans to have a will/free will, man’s objective in all this, how God can decree someone to do wrong and still hold them accountable for the wrong they did.
Briefly, as an example: I do not see how it could ever be fair and just for God to hold new born babies responsible for what Adam & Eve did thousands of years ago. I see them being sinless and in a safe condition, until they sin. From my understanding of God these children would go on to heaven without fulfilling their earthly objective which includes obtaining Godly type Love.
As far as Adam & Eve go, from my very limited human nature knowledge, I could have told God beforehand, Adam & Eve would eventually sin under the condition they were in (initially lacking Godly type Love, which they would have to humbly, accept as pure undeserved charity). I do not see God decreeing them to sin, but God allowing them to use their own will (free will/autonomous free will) ability to choose to sin. God did not want them to sin, but their sinning of their own will (free will) allows them to realize, they deserve punishment or severe disciplining and death. This allows Adam & Eve to be humble (up until then they had no reason to be humble, since they had been perfect children). They had a huge reason to want to humbly go before God, desiring His undeserved forgiveness (which would need to be unbelievably huge). God like any wonderful parent was willing and wanting to forgive them, but as a Parent, He also needed to fairly/justly discipline them.
We do not know if Adam and Eve of their own free will humbled themselves to the point of accepting God’s forgiveness as pure undeserved charity and thus obtained Godly type Love (Luke 7, he that is forgiven much Loves much.)
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 planned the cross and had the foreknowledge of Christ going to the cross, but Christ made a free will choice to go to the cross. God did not force Jesus to go to the cross, but did have it all planned out.
If you want to blame anyone for Christ going to the cross, blame me, I need him to do it.
Do you think that Satan can do otherwise than what is his nature to do?
Could God not allow satan to roam the earth?
I do think God might have stripped satan of his free will. Satan roaming the earth is to help us.
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".
The Reformists are against the idea of man doing anything: worthy, honorable, righteous, glorious, or deserving of anything, in obtaining their salvation and I totally agree with them.
I do not see, street people or bagger being deserving, worthy, honorable, righteous, or glorious by accepting the invitation to a banquet and I do not see them feeling by going they deserve to be there. I certainly do not feel worthy of anything, myself.
If the choice was between obeying God or obeying satan, then choosing to “obey God” would be a righteous, holy, worthy of something, action on the chooser’s part, but that is not what I am saying. It is like: the soldier who wimps out, gives up, comes to his senses not wanting to go where he deserves to go, so of his free will, he surrenders to his enemy he hates and is still hating (he is not wanting to join his enemy), but the soldier will humbly accept from his enemy’s pure undeserved charity as charity.
The part we play is selfishly (sinfully) wanting to get something we fully know we do not deserves, but are humbly willing to accept what we do not deserve as pure charity.
If we say man does not even play this part, then salvation would be totally arbitrary on God’s part, which is really unthinkable and not the God I worship.
), and in fact, it denies his being the Creator of all things, in direct contradiction to John 1, verses 3 and 10, and denies God's Sovereignty.
