Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[Cis.jd]

No sir. I am asking what is wrong with God predestining --even designing us, or more accurately, arranging for our fallen state-- when it is God who does this. I do not ask what is wrong with evil. Your last sentence of that paragraph is more accurate --I indeed do ask, what is wrong with God predestining sin/evil.

You just refuted yourself here.

Concerning the Lord's Prayer, you have changed my words, and my (granted it is weak) representation of the facts.
And yes, I call it "free will" too, with tongue in cheek. It is free to operate according to our nature. We oppose God. Thank God for his mercy, providing a substitution for the punishment due our impudence. Christ became SIN for us, Scripture says. The fact is inescapable that on our own we cannot choose God. We do not just somewhat oppose God.

How old are you, Mark? You don't need to give your exact age.. but I would like to know if I am speaking to an adult.

Sorry about the typo re 1 Peter instead of 2 Peter. Is this really a point of contention? Meanwhile, repenting does by no means undo his predestining. In fact, it is done as a result of his regenerating Spirit within us, whereby we are free to choose according to our new nature. And if the Son shall set us free, we shall be free indeed.

Because the verse is a plead. The word wishes/wants is in it, which would be unnecessary if he already predestined our outcome.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But since predestining is certain, the state of evil that the unbeliever is in isn't wrong. He/she is predestined to live in it,so he/she is obeying God by being and doing evil. You yourself said it isn't wrong, with your reasoning against the Adam and Eve problem:"what is wrong with it". What are doing, man? It's like you are confusing even yourself.

There's that strange logic again. You might as well say that the sinner is only being obedient to God. Oh, you DID say it. You are wrong. Whatever God has set in place will indeed happen, and we are how it happens. WE did it. How many ways can I put this? I said it isn't wrong for God to do what he does --predestining. I did not say that it isn't wrong for man to rebel. I may be confusing you, to think I am confusing myself. You keep saying that I said what I didn't say. You interpret what I say to mean what I did not mean.

 

[JAL]

No sir. I am asking what is wrong with God predestining --even designing us, or more accurately, arranging for our fallen state-- when it is God who does this.

Again, you are implying that God can do anything He wants, even if He is acting in ways that we'd call evil, but we have to call it good because He is God. In a nutshell, God isn't constrained to any rules and thus is the quintessential LAWLESS ONE (oh wait a minute, that's the devil's title). Two complaints:

(1) This obviates the cross. If whatever He does is good, why not just put us all in heaven without propitiation?
(2) It deprives the word holiness of all meaning. Holiness, in this framework, means that God is just as lawless as the lawless one, except we have to call it "good" and praise Him for it.

At some point, are you going to awaken to the absolute absurdity of this system?

But his plans are not the same for the elect as they are for the rest. How you can bend that into some framework where predestination is not entirely active and pervasive, or as you put it, "not fully true", I don't know..

Believe me, I feel your pain. The passages adduced for predestination are striking and to me it seems like Arminians might be watering them down a bit. But, as noted earlier, I have developed a theory of God's absolute sovereign election that can and does accept the full force of those passages - without watering them down - but manages to do this without falling into the error of double predestination.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no direct access to Scripture. All I have is exegesis.
Thank you, once again, for conceding my entire epistemological system. Again, you can nitpick the surrounding terminology all you want (no argument there). You apparently don't like the term "authoritative". Fine, how about "obligatory". Feelings of certainty are "obligatory" rather than "authoritative". Is that better terminology in your view? Because I'm fine with it, either way.

Obligatory is obedience to God. Not our supposed exegesis. If we exegete wrongly, i.e. eisegesis, and our conscience thereby misleads us, we have opposed God. And even there, I have to say, we have blinded ourselves. Again, God is greater than our conscience. Thank God he knows we are but dust. I don't see how your thesis is of any consequence. God need not bow to our conscience. If we do wrong, WE do wrong, conscience-following notwithstanding. Are we relegated to following our conscience? --yes, something like as the unredeemed are relegated to following their sinful nature. Pray for light to your path, and walk with Him, instead of according to your fitful conscience.

 

[JAL]

Obligatory is obedience to God. Not our supposed exegesis. If we exegete wrongly, i.e. eisegesis, and our conscience thereby misleads us, we have opposed God. And even there, I have to say, we have blinded ourselves. Again, God is greater than our conscience. Thank God he knows we are but dust. I don't see how your thesis is of any consequence. God need not bow to our conscience. If we do wrong, WE do wrong, conscience-following notwithstanding. Are we relegated to following our conscience? --yes, something like as the unredeemed are relegated to following their sinful nature. Pray for light to your path, and walk with Him, instead of according to your fitful conscience.

You're just spewing out random charges to pretend to impugn a conclusion that you already acknowledged to be true.

Obligatory is obedience to God. Not our supposed exegesis. If we exegete wrongly, i.e. eisegesis, and our conscience thereby misleads us, we have opposed God.

Here you are flatly contradicting yourself. You already admitted the conscience-principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should do B".

Now you are saying that to heed this principle is tantamount to opposing God? Can we cut the nonsense please?

 

[Cis.jd]

There's that strange logic again. You might as well say that the sinner is only being obedient to God. Oh, you DID say it. You are wrong. Whatever God has set in place will indeed happen, and we are how it happens. WE did it. How many ways can I put this? I said it isn't wrong for God to do what he does --predestining. I did not say that it isn't wrong for man to rebel. I may be confusing you, to think I am confusing myself. You keep saying that I said what I didn't say. You interpret what I say to mean what I did not mean.

Your accusation of "strange logic" is you doing self-projection. That is why you see strange logic, because you are seeing your own arguments.

Since you said that whatever God sets in place will indeed happen, and he predestined everything. Then us rebelling against him - committing evil is just us fulfilling his will. How can we rebel if whatever happens is what God sets in place?

-
edit: Mark, before you try to make a response. Please let me know (and be honest) if you are an adult first. If you don't, then I will not respond to you anymore.

 

[JAL]

So if by your hard-heartedness you trust your conscience above God's word, it is not wrong? Take another look, if your conscience denies God's word.

Wrong? How can it be wrong? You already conceded the principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should do B"

Also you're using loaded, misleading language to try to impugn what I'm saying. This is cheap tactics. You said:

So if by your hard-heartedness you trust your conscience above God's word...

How is it hard-hearted to heed conscience? Make up your mind, should I honor that above principle or NOT? And you say, "above" God's word? Again, that's loaded misleading language. Christians believe in the Bible. When they heed their conscience, therefore, it means they have a feeling of certainty that action-B is in fact the best way to HONOR AND COMPLY with God's Word. They are not acting like hard-hearted rebels intent on rejecting God's Word.

Can we please dispense with the loaded, misleading, mirespresentational language? If you have a legitimate question, just ask it. I'm happy to clarify my views.

 

[JAL]

2. If God's definitions are in opposition to YOURS, you are wrong.

(Sigh). That wasn't the argument. It isn't a question as to who is right or wrong. It's the simple pragmatic question, "Can I legitimately claim to have hope if God's beliefs and behavior contradict my definitions of virtues such as kindness and honesty?"

And the clear answer to that question is, No.

C'mon, brother. Time and again, I've couched the argument in the most simpleton terms to demonstrate its blatantly tautological nature. And you just keep dancing around it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You just refuted yourself here.


How old are you, Mark? You don't need to give your exact age.. but I would like to know if I am speaking to an adult.


Because the verse is a plead. The word wishes/wants is in it, which would be unnecessary if he already predestined our outcome.

Ok, insist on your way. I step aside after I quit for tonight. It is late.

How old are you? and how old in the Lord? I have lived almost 64 years, and according to my mother "accepted" the Lord when I was 5. I have tried to walk with the Lord according to conscience and the precepts I was taught, and the frustration of trusting my conscience and my understanding has shown me clearly that my choices, even my obedience, are God's to do in me, though I am (my will is) completely enroiled in it. My foolish, ignorant, even silly, fitful, weak, and self-centered changeable decisions are not capable of accomplishing anything in and of themselves, except frustration and worse. God has led me here, and I didn't even know if was aligned with Reformed Theology (for the most part) until later on.

I begged the Lord, with tears of sorrow, and cries for mercy for years, learning as I go, and so far I have found out, that--

God does what he does, and doesn't consult me for my opinion and wisdom, and he owes me nothing, but gives me grace. It is HE who works all things for good, for his Elect. If it seems he has gone back on his promises, I have had to learn that he does as he pleases, and now it is beautiful to watch, and to live in it, and to find that he has been altogether faithful and true and tenderly merciful, in spite of my "old man". I don't deserve him.

No, man, I don't trust my conscience. I trust the Lord, my lack of obedience not withstanding, it witnessing against me, and I turn to him over and over. I must. I cannot do otherwise.

The only reason I attend to Reformed Theology is because I find much there to say better than I can, what I already think. It does not lead me. It helps me understand what I am learning. Free Indeed, is the work of God. It is not available to the lost until God changes them.

 

[JAL]

No, man, I don't trust my conscience.

Um...yes you do. In this post you recapped your beliefs, that is, the doctrines that you feel certain about. Heeding your beliefs (feelings of certainty) is precisely what it means to heed conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh). That wasn't the argument. It isn't a question as to who is right or wrong. It's the simple pragmatic question, "Can I legitimately claim to have hope if God's beliefs and behavior contradict my definitions of virtues such as kindness and honesty?"

And the clear answer to that question is, No.

C'mon, brother. Time and again, I've couched the argument in the most simpleton terms to demonstrate its blatantly tautological nature. And you just keep dancing around it.

I CAN have hope, because I KNOW my definitions are unreliable, and that the Judge of all the Earth will do what is right. Even more, I have come to delight in the work of the Lord, and in the knowledge that he is doing this FOR HIS OWN SAKE. I find myself imagining that even if I am wrong with my theology, and find that I have fooled myself that I am in him, and I am condemned for my sin, after death I will still be amazed at his Beauty and Wisdom and Mercy. Rationally, I know it is not so, because none of the ultimately condemned will love him that way. Yet I have hope, and can't help but long with eager expectation for his salvation, when I will finally see HIM as he is. What a GREAT GOD we have!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Um...yes you do. In this post you recapped your beliefs, that is, the doctrines that you feel certain about. Heeding your beliefs (feelings of certainty) is precisely what it means to heed conscience.

Oh, I heed my conscience, to some degree, but Trust? I go with it, or against it as the case may be, and it is usually right, but it is, after all, not entirely reliable.

I am sorry if I miss some of your replies. This back and forth has me getting lost as to which I have read and which I have not. I am sorry my replies are not sufficient for you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your accusation of "strange logic" is you doing self-projection. That is why you see strange logic, because you are seeing your own arguments.

Since you said that whatever God sets in place will indeed happen, and he predestined everything. Then us rebelling against him - committing evil is just us fulfilling his will. How can we rebel if whatever happens is what God sets in place?

-
edit: Mark, before you try to make a response. Please let me know (and be honest) if you are an adult first. If you don't, then I will not respond to you anymore.

Keep reading, and I hope you can agree with me on the great and beautiful God that has made himself known to us. God bless you, brother. And good night.

 

[JAL]

Ok, insist on your way. I step aside after I quit for tonight. It is late.

How old are you? and how old in the Lord? I have lived almost 64 years, and according to my mother "accepted" the Lord when I was 5. I have tried to walk with the Lord according to conscience and the precepts I was taught, and the frustration of trusting my conscience and my understanding has shown me clearly that my choices, even my obedience, are God's to do in me, though I am (my will is) completely enroiled in it. My foolish, ignorant, even silly, fitful, weak, and self-centered changeable decisions are not capable of accomplishing anything in and of themselves, except frustration and worse. God has led me here, and I didn't even know if was aligned with Reformed Theology (for the most part) until later on.

I begged the Lord, with tears of sorrow, and cries for mercy for years, learning as I go, and so far I have found out, that--

God does what he does, and doesn't consult me for my opinion and wisdom, and he owes me nothing, but gives me grace. It is HE who works all things for good, for his Elect. If it seems he has gone back on his promises, I have had to learn that he does as he pleases, and now it is beautiful to watch, and to live in it, and to find that he has been altogether faithful and true and tenderly merciful, in spite of my "old man". I don't deserve him.

No, man, I don't trust my conscience. I trust the Lord, my lack of obedience not withstanding, it witnessing against me, and I turn to him over and over. I must. I cannot do otherwise.

The only reason I attend to Reformed Theology is because I find much there to say better than I can, what I already think. It does not lead me. It helps me understand what I am learning. Free Indeed, is the work of God. It is not available to the lost until God changes them.

You feel that Reformed theology has highlighted some beautiful, magnificent, and comforting aspects of God, to the extent that it brings tears to your eyes. But emotions can be misleading. If you lived in a radical Muslim community - who believe in jihad - you'd see scores of men in the mosques breaking down into tears, their knees buckling under the sheer weight of feeling unworthy of their wonderful God. And yet the God they have in mind is perfectly evil. Similarly, double predestination characterizes our God as pure evil. For His own pleasure and glory, He predestines men to hell.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wrong? How can it be wrong? You already conceded the principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should do B"

Also you're using loaded, misleading language to try to impugn what I'm saying. This is cheap tactics. You said:



How is it hard-hearted to heed conscience? Make up your mind, should I honor that above principle or NOT? And you say, "above" God's word? Again, that's loaded misleading language. Christians believe in the Bible. When they heed their conscience, therefore, it means they have a feeling of certainty that action-B is in fact the best way to HONOR AND COMPLY with God's Word. They are not acting like hard-hearted rebels intent on rejecting God's Word.

Can we please dispense with the loaded, misleading, mirespresentational language? If you have a legitimate question, just ask it. I'm happy to clarify my views.

I have tried; and it's enough for tonight. God bless you, brother. Good night.

 

[Cis.jd]

Ok, insist on your way. I step aside after I quit for tonight. It is late.

How old are you? and how old in the Lord? I have lived almost 64 years, and according to my mother "accepted" the Lord when I was 5. snip

I admire your love for God, and hope you continue to grow or remain with what makes you happy in your faith

My reason to have come against predestination is because just based on our discussion here and in the other thread, it looks like a doctrine that glorifies satan. It makes God the real usher of evil and is just some deity tyrant trickster who made life a deception.

I do like what you've shared and how God helps/works in you.

 

[JAL]

Oh, I heed my conscience, to some degree, but Trust?

To some degree? There are no exceptions to the rule, so let's not talk about degrees.

I go with [conscience] or against it as the case may be

Against it? Again, there are no exceptions to the rule.

And it is usually right, but it is, after all, not entirely reliable.

What do you mean by reliable? You are OBLIGATED to rely on it, even when it is mistaken, because there are no exceptions to the rule.

I think I can clear up your confusion. The system works like this:
(1) When faced with several choices, I must go with the one belief that I currently feel MOST certain about.
(2) Even so, if my certainty is less than 100%, I recognize that this one belief might be a misconception (albeit still obligatory due to #1).
(3) Which means I have an ongoing obligation to keep seeking more direct revelation from God, concerning that belief, until I reach 100% certainty.

To summarize: I'm not ignoring the implications of a corrupt or confused conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You feel that Reformed theology has highlighted some beautiful, magnificent, and comforting aspects of God, to the extent that it brings tears to your eyes. But emotions can be misleading. If you lived in a radical Muslim community - who believe in jihad - you'd see scores of men in the mosques breaking down into tears, their knees buckling under the sheer weight of feeling unworthy of their wonderful God. And yet the God they have in mind is perfectly evil. Similarly, double predestination characterizes our God as pure evil. For His own pleasure and glory, He predestines men to hell.

I intended to stop for the night. But I am compelled to answer this. I agree emotions are misleading. After 50 or 60 years of fighting the "old man", this is where I have come to. I'm sorry for how I have represented it, since I can't seem to get my pov through to you.

God does not condemn for his pleasure and glory, except as in it shows his power and justice to the whole of humanity, and even to the angels. He did not create the ultimately lost, predestining them to the eternal perdition just for that, but as part of what it took produce his special creation. When you say he predestines them to die and is happy about it, you need to finish the sentence. There is much more to it than that.

Comfort yourself too, (besides all his other promises about justice being exact, etc) that those who ultimately pay their debt to him will hardly resemble what we see now. Some go so far as to say they are no longer even human. Mere wraiths, of ungodliness, only what remains when God withdraws completely from any grace towards them, a horror of proportions perhaps inverse from the glorification visible when the Sons of God are revealed. Our state of being even above the Angels, I imagine them as worse than even the devil, who was bound over to rebellion as the Angels are apparently unable anymore to choose to be unfaithful to God. They love him, but will never know him as we will.

Good night, brother. God bless you.

 

[JAL]

He did not create the ultimately lost, predestining them to the eternal perdition just for that, but as part of what it took produce his special creation. When you say he predestines them to die and is happy about it, you need to finish the sentence. There is much more to it than that.

Actually I'm not sure that "There is much more to it than that." Either way, what you described is perfectly evil and dishonest behavior (at least according to my definition) and thus could only serve to undermine my Christian hope. To classify the innocent as guilty (innocent by my definition) is blatant dishonesty (by my definition).

 

[JAL]

I CAN have hope, because I KNOW my definitions are unreliable, and that the Judge of all the Earth will do what is right.

This has been refuted a hundred times. You wouldn't have hope if you really believed that God defines kindness contrary to your definition, and thus as cruelty.

In fact once you start distorting the definitions, it's not even clear what HUMAN righteousness entails. When the Bible tells me to be kind as God is kind, does that mean I should be - capriciously cruel?

The whole Reformed system is absolute nonsense!