Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[renniks]

No doubt. I did not imply otherwise, though I predicted you would infer it.

If God has predestined one to destruction, for his own sake, just as the potter and clay discourse says, it by no means absolves one of the responsibility for what he himself chose (even willed) to do.

I keep hearing objections to my short interpretations of what the discourse means, but nobody seems able to do more than simply say things that to me, at least, directly contradict it --they don't seem to want to reference it directly.

I did reference it directly. Paul's point was that God could bring about the plan of salvation even through a rebellious people. God gave grace that Israel didn't deserve so that the gospel would reach the whole world. It's an expansion of his Mercy, not a contraction. The lump of clay is Israel.

 

[JAL]

Roman 9 has led to much unwarranted Calvinism. This is why I tell people: Exegesis is difficult. Therefore the exegete's best friends are:
(1) Find a system with overall logical consistency AND
(2) Find a system with overall logical coherence.
Then deal with any problem passages as best you can. If that fails, go back to step 1 and repeat.

 

[renniks]

If God has predestined one to destruction, for his own sake, just as the potter and clay discourse says, it by no means absolves one of the responsibility for what he himself chose (even willed) to do.

Only that isn't what it says. Israel wasn't predestined for destruction, they were disobedient, so God would have been justified in destroying them. But he didn't for the sake of using them to bring the Gospel to all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I said: "You say my God is evil by my definitions. No."
You said: "Yes. You don't pronounce innocent people guilty. And here on earth, you'd never cast your vote in favor of a leader or a judge who did so. If a leader or judge behaved that way, you'd denounce him as evil."

You keep saying that my definitions must apply to God. They need not. Ignoring for the moment your caricature that my God pronounces innocent people guilty, what I am required to live by is not the same as God is required to live by --as if we could even require anything of him-- but worse, you pretend my definitions are valid, since apparently we can do no better than we have done by definitions of a word or use of a concept. Can you not get it through your head that FACT --TRUTH, needs none of our opinions? God is what God is. He need not live up to my opinions in order to be altogether Just, Loving and True. He need not kiss up to my assumption that all humanity deserves his respect as peers of any kind or level --they are NOT.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, God has said that he will lift up the humble. No where does scripture claim God irresistibly implants faith in men. Why is the faith chapter in the Bible? Why does Jesus marvel at a woman's faith? Why are we told to increase our faith? I could go on and on. Your theology is simply unbiblical.

I do not say faith will not be increased. I say it is valid only if it is God's doing in us. This is not done by human effort or integrity. Neither, for that matter, is true humility.

You bring up Jesus marveling at the woman's faith. Do you suppose an envelope surrounding "free will" that he cannot see into, until the "free will" has made its unencumbered choice? If so, you may as well be an Open Theist. At least they are more consistent than an Arminian. Jesus marveled at the woman's faith because he was as are we, human. His inherent power as the 2nd person of the Trinity was put aside. What he did while he was here was done as we should be able to do it, were we to live without sin. Jesus could find out things, learn obedience even, and much more. The woman amazed him because among those who should have had faith, being "the natural branches", he did not find it.

You say that nowhere does it say God irresistibly implants faith in men. (I could go on and on with Hebrews 11 that fits Reformed Theology perfectly. Verse one, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What, is that just a poetic rendering of the facts, to you? FAITH IS...the evidence of things not seen. It doesn't say faith is our reaching out for evidence, nor our assuming there is some evidence. IT IS THE EVIDENCE. This is much bigger than "I believe", "I repent", "I trust in the integrity of my own willpower." You make the Gospel subject to the will of man, when it is wholly the work of God, as he says.) Romans 9, at the beginning of the discourse of the Potter and the Clay, says, "14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion but on God, who has mercy.

--Do you deny that passage?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And yet you continue to conveniently ignore my post 469, despite the fact I just gave you a reminder about it.

Ok, sigh. How do I find post 469? I am not computer savvy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I did reference it directly. Paul's point was that God could bring about the plan of salvation even through a rebellious people. God gave grace that Israel didn't deserve so that the gospel would reach the whole world. It's an expansion of his Mercy, not a contraction. The lump of clay is Israel.

So you miss the obvious point, that his mercy depends on his own counsel, not on the choice of the individual person. I give up. Good night, Rennik

 

[Mark Quayle]

Only that isn't what it says. Israel wasn't predestined for destruction, they were disobedient, so God would have been justified in destroying them. But he didn't for the sake of using them to bring the Gospel to all.

Good night, rennik. God bless you.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

The nature of a mad dog is to bite. You cannot blame the person bitten for inciting the dog to bite. The dog is to blame. The dog must be put down, though the dog quite naturally bit. Ok, I hear your protests coming...

People don't put mad dogs down to punish them.

 

[JAL]

So you miss the obvious point, that his mercy depends on his own counsel, not on the choice of the individual person. I give up. Good night, Rennik

Irrelevant. Even if God both predestined and elected unto salvation before the beginning of this world, it still doesn't necessitate double predestination because, since post 131, I've repeatedly referred you to my own theory of election, plus my own theory of Adam. My claim is that "the elect" probably refers to preelected parts of Adam's material soul living within each and every human being and forwarded to the next generation if a man dies unsaved. Thus God can sovereignly and monergistically elect and regenerate ANYONE - thus potentially EVERYONE - to salvation if we move His hand via intercessory prayer. This schema fulfills every single election passage without watering it down and without recourse to double-predestination.

 

[Clete]

↑
Can that not, and most likely mean, "nor did it come into my mind that th
Oops! Looks like something got deleted. Can that not mean, what?

Sorry. Bad punctuation. I meant this: Can that not mean (and does it not most likely mean) that it never entered God's mind to command.... such a thing?

There is no reason to think that. At least there is no grammatical reason. The same passage is repeated again in a later chapter of Jeremiah and none of the major translation translate either passage that way (I checked the KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV & RSV). The only reason to think that would be if the plain reading of it conflicted with your doctrine, which surely isn't how proper translation is done. If the plain reading of the text of scripture conflicts with a doctrine, it's the doctrine that must give way, not the text.

You say: "My point was the God does not "imply choice" as your previous post had stated. He commands us to choose and tells us the consequences of doing so."

I say: It is you, (or maybe I'm confusing you with others here who want to discredit Reformed Theology), that says it is implied all through Scripture. And yes, of course he commands that we choose! I don't see that advancing your point.

Just to be clear, you now concede that God does not merely imply choice. Is that what I am understanding you to say?

If so, then my point is fully advanced. I try to go one step at a time and try to keep things focused.

You say: "As for God causing the choice, that is not logical. It would mean that it was God who made the choice. In other words, you can cause an event but cannot cause a choice. If an event is causally determined then it wasn't chosen except, perhaps, by whomever caused it.

"To say that one has a choice implies (logically) that there are real alternatives from which to choose. Put another way, for me to have a choice I must have the real ability to do OR to do otherwise and that it is me who chooses it. Otherwise, it either wasn't a choice at all or it wasn't me who made it."

So I say: I wish you could hear yourself. You admit that God causing choice means he made the choice. Does that mean that we don't also??

I can fully hear myself. I've been doing this for a very long time.

And yes, of course it means that we don't also make the choice! Your contention is not that it was some sort of collaboration between God and man as though some discussion or debate occurs and when consensus is reached the choice is decided. You believe, unless you are abandoning Reformed theology altogether, that God decided all these things an eternity before a single atom was created, that everything that occurs is predetermined by God. You have somehow managed to preserve in your mind the possibility that this is somehow compatible with our ability to choose but there are all kinds of contradictory things that people believe. Believing them and proving them to be true are two different things. The fact is that the two notions are contradictory. Therefore, one or the other (or both) is false because there can be no such thing as a contradictory truth.

We most certainly do! Not only that, but according to cause-and-effect, his choice precedes ours. And how are there not real alternatives from which to choose? Notice I do not say "possibles", but "alternatives", set before the chooser. There is a difference, based on what is the chooser's consistent choice, just as God ordained. The lost only ever chooses to oppose God. Can you demonstrate (yet again I ask) how, according to the Bible, which says the lost, who only ever lives by the flesh, and therefore only ever are at enmity with God, and therefore only ever chooses what opposes God, indeed it cannot submit to God, that these lost, --again I mention, in bondage to the flesh-- are somehow above all that?

Well this is not only contradictory but is simply your doctrine. The bible doesn't teach this!
Sure, you can quote a few proof texts that speak in general terms and apply them to the specific but the problem you've got is that the bible is full of examples for total unbelievers doing good things and believers doing despicable things. The reason that's relevant is that they stand as counter examples to your INTERPRETATION of a handful of verses that you apply to specifics when they are speaking of generalities.

For example, the statement "Human beings are evil." is a general statement and does not mean that they never do anything that anyone could rightly consider to be a good thing. It doesn't mean that they cannot provide for their families, it doesn't mean that they can't ever help a person in need, it doesn't mean that they cannot refrain from committing any sin that crosses their mind to commit. It just does not mean that. You have to bring your doctrine to the reading of the verses in order to get them to say what you are suggesting.

I have been trying, no doubt weakly, and no doubt often confusing you with the many others who want to defeat Reformed Doctrine, to show you that God (call this antinomy if you wish) is Truth --our reason is not.

"Our reason"?

The point I'm making is that there is no such thing as "our reason" unless by using the term you mean "false reason" which, by definition, is not at all the same thing as sound reason, which we not only can use but are commanded, even forced, to do so. I say forced because no intelligible discourse is possible without it. You can't read the bible, you can't recite a creed, you can't believe a doctrine, you can't say "yes" or "no" without using reason to do it.

Indeed we must use reason the best we can, but to claim that our concept must be so, since we cannot follow another's reasoning, or because it seems bogus to us, does not make them wrong.

Wasn't it you who told another poster that his logic was wrong? I'm pretty sure it was because that's what got me to step into your discussion (which I totally understand can cause confusion about just who has been saying what, by the way. So don't sweat it about getting me mixed up with someone else. I've done the same probably a hundred times.)

So, if someone's logic seeming bogus to us doesn't make them wrong, then on what basis did you declare his logic to be wrong?

See the problem? You just cannot keep from contradicting yourself in this manner. Not because it's you. No one could prevent themselves from such contradiction because you are undermining the very thing that permits you to tell anyone that they are wrong about anything and then telling them that they're wrong.

Where you've missed it is in thinking that errors of logic are matters of opinion. They are not. You can know for a fact whether someone has made a logical error. There are very clear rules for how sound reason works and while it can get quite complex and difficult, errors can be detected and explained. Whether the explanation changes anyone's mind is altogether a different issue.

If your reasoning is more compelling than mine, great. If your powers of persuasion, and of rhetoric, are better than mine, wonderful. But the truth must prevail.

There can be no truth without reason! Reason is truth! The only reason you can call anything true is because it is consistent with reality. In fact, that's what the word "true" means. To say something is true means that it is consistent with something else. If you are laying tile and your tiles are laid true then that means that they are laid in a consistent manner, usually consistent with an adjacent wall (and with themselves). In a philosophical discussion such as we are having, to say something is true is to say that it is real, that it is consistent with reality. This is, in fact, just another way of stating the first law of reason, the Law of Identity, which states simply that what is, is. A is A. This is the fundamental building block of all reason and therefore all knowledge and understanding of anything. It has two corollaries; the Law of Contradiction which states that any two truth claims that contradict cannot both be true, and the Law of Excluded Middle which states that any one truth claim is either true or it is false. This trinity of laws are the pillars upon which everything you know is based. They are not matters of opinion nor can they be refuted in any way whatsoever.

I have tried to to answer your reasoning by showing your premises to fraught with error --particularly when they assume validity to the power of Free Will over God's Choice.

How did I miss that? I mean I thirst day and night for someone to engage me that directly!

Please do so again! Only this time be super specific. Show me my premise and then show me specifically how that premise is faulty.

To me, that is simply ludicrous on its face. Yet everything I hear you saying begins there, if not at a worse place --the dignity of humanity apart from God's purpose for it.

Begins where, with choice? You have repeatedly insisted that you do not deny choice. My point has been that either such a position is contradictory to the rest of your doctrine or else you've altered the meaning of the word "choice" or perhaps a bit of both.


I appreciate your complete responses, by the way. I know these posts are getting rather long so don't feel obligated to respond to every point. If you skip over something I feel important, I can always bring it back up again.

Clete

 

[JAL]

Ok, sigh. How do I find post 469? I am not computer savvy.

Right now we are on page 25 of the thread. If you don't see the page numbers, maybe you are using an outdated browser. Consider installing a recent version of Chrome browser, Edge browser, or Mozilla Firefox browser.

 

[JAL]

You keep saying that my definitions must apply to God.

(Sigh). That's itself is a caricature of what I'm saying. What I am saying, first and foremost, is that the Bible is a useless document if our definitions of the words never match His. What do you believe about honesty and justice, Mark? Don't tell me in your words because anyone will say almost anything to win debates like this. I don't need your words because your actions speak louder than words. Anyone who monitored your actions for a day would see that you have the same definition of honesty and justice that I do - that we all do - which stands in flat contradiction to the diabolical nature of double predestination. Again, this makes you a walking contradiction in terms.

Ignoring for the moment your caricature that my God pronounces innocent people guilty,

How is that a caricature, Mark? God as First Cause is, by all accounts, a deterministic system that pushes the innocent into a foreordained trap. How is it that every time I point out your contradictions, you suddenly become unwilling to own up to the implications of your assumptions?

you pretend my definitions are valid, since apparently we can do no better than we have done by definitions of a word or use of a concept. Can you not get it through your head that FACT --TRUTH, needs none of our opinions?

Fine. If your definitions are invalid, then your DOCTRINES ARE INVALID. Don't you get that? In that case the proper attitude is to say, "I have no idea whether God's soteriology is deterministic or libertarian.I must abstain from judgment at this point."

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mark. Actions speak louder than words. The daily discrepancy between your actions and double predestination shows that, as yet, your definitions are not in harmony with God's definitions. And until this bridge is gapped, you shouldn't be taking a position on election at all. You should remain silent for fear of casting undue aspersions on the good and holy character of God.

God is what God is. He need not live up to my opinions in order to be altogether Just, Loving and True. He need not kiss up to my assumption that all humanity deserves his respect as peers of any kind or level --they are NOT.

Correct - for the hundredth time. God need not conform to my definitions (as I've repeatedly stated). All we're looking for here is logical consistency. God need not kiss up to my definitions at all. If it turns out that God's definition of holiness allows for behavior that I myself would classify as evil and dishonest, I just need to be honest enough to admit that such undermines hope. And then I ALSO need to figure out how to explain away all the passages that SEEM to offer hope (good luck with that one).

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh). That's itself is a caricature of what I'm saying. What I am saying, first and foremost, is that the Bible is a useless document if our definitions of the words never match His. What do you believe about honesty and justice, Mark? Don't tell me in your words because anyone will say almost anything to win debates like this. I don't need your words because your actions speak louder than words. Anyone who monitored your actions for a day would see that you have the same definition of honesty and justice that I do - that we all do - which stands in flat contradiction to the diabolical nature of double predestination. Again, this makes you a walking contradiction in terms.

How is that a caricature, Mark? God as First Cause is, by all accounts, a deterministic system that pushes the innocent into a foreordained trap. How is it that every time I point out your contradictions, you suddenly become unwilling to own up to the implications of your assumptions?

Fine. If your definitions are invalid, then your DOCTRINES ARE INVALID. Don't you get that? In that case the proper attitude is to say, "I have no idea whether God's soteriology is deterministic or libertarian.I must abstain from judgment at this point."

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mark. Actions speak louder than words. The daily discrepancy between your actions and double predestination shows that, as yet, your definitions are not in harmony with God's definitions. And until this bridge is gapped, you shouldn't be taking a position on election at all. You should remain silent for fear of casting undue aspersions on the good and holy character of God.
Correct - for the hundredth time. God need not conform to my definitions (as I've repeatedly stated). All we're looking for here is logical consistency. God need not kiss up to my definitions at all. If it turns out that God's definition of holiness allows for behavior that I myself would classify as evil and dishonest, I just need to be honest enough to admit that such undermines hope. And then I ALSO need to figure out how to explain away all the passages that SEEM to offer hope (good luck with that one).

↑
Mark: You keep saying that my definitions must apply to God.
JAL: (Sigh). That's itself is a caricature of what I'm saying. What I am saying, first and foremost, is that the Bible is a useless document if our definitions of the words never match His. What do you believe about honesty and justice, Mark? Don't tell me in your words because anyone will say almost anything to win debates like this. I don't need your words because your actions speak louder than words. Anyone who monitored your actions for a day would see that you have the same definition of honesty and justice that I do - that we all do - which stands in flat contradiction to the diabolical nature of double predestination. Again, this makes you a walking contradiction in terms.

Me: Not so. It is merely your opinion that double predestination is of a diabolical nature --at least, according to my definition (or should I say, "use") of "double predestination". Your definition does not make me a walking contradiction of terms, unless only in your perception.

Meanwhile, I am trying to figure out what you mean that "the Bible is a useless document if our definitions of the words never match His." Are you talking about matching perfectly? Resemble his? Have some things in common? I'm not saying our definitions of words nor our concepts of what words mean are useless. I'm saying they NEVER reach quite what God means by them. Of course we can use our meanings --indeed, we can't help but use them. But trust them entirely? --no, we need not.

Ignoring your insistence, I will try once again to describe what I mean, concerning what God has done --and no, this is not quite, no doubt, exactly what God has done as concerns what you are calling Double Predestination. (Again, I usually avoid the term, since people like you assume a meaning from it that I don't).

Here: God has determined from the foundation of the world, to make some for the purpose of glorification and others for the purpose of his own glorification by their deserved destruction according to his justice and purity and power. I have tried to make you ok with it, by the mere trustworthy fact that he will not punish anyone more than they deserve. I disagree with you that this means he has afflicted the innocent with unavoidably sinful nature, because no, they are not innocent. Not only are they not innocent, as is shown by the following, but they CHOOSE consistently (to avoid saying "always", which I'm fine with, but apparently you are not) to oppose God. Thus, whether you want to say it is autonomous Free Will from which they consistently choose to rebel, or to say it is God's predestining them to enmity with him, the result is no different, and so they are NOT innocent. Also, while Scripture may sound, to one who assumes autonomy on the part of the creature, like the creature's decisions are entirely autonomous, it does indeed say specifically that God does indeed create one for the purpose of destruction, but that for God's own sake --that is, for his glory.

I used the word "autonomous" there because it invokes sort of a pun. The etymology of it shows "self-law". But you want me to think, "absolutely Free Will". The Bible is clear they are captives to sin. They will indeed behave according to their own nature. They live by their own self-law.

 

[JAL]

↑
Me: Not so. It is merely your opinion that double predestination is of a diabolical nature

I've heard of a serial arsonist burning a house down even though a few people were alive inside. I was APPALLED. In my eyes that's incredibly diabolical.

But you apparently can't relate to this. Your conscience has no compunctions at all. You have no qualms about God engineering things as to dump 50 billion people into the fires of hell. I sure hope you never become an arsonist because, based on what you've been saying, you would be ABSOLUTELY MERCILESS.

I guess I'm wasting my time here. I'm asking a poster devoid of a conscience to revise his theology based on ethical contradictions. What a useless endeavor. I was hoping to at least appeal to the law of non-contradiction (i.e. the undermining of hope) but I see that isn't working either.

 

[JAL]

↑

Here: God has determined from the foundation of the world, to make some for the purpose of glorification and others for the purpose of his own glorification by their deserved destruction according to his justice and purity and power. I have tried to make you ok with it, by the mere trustworthy fact that he will not punish anyone more than they deserve. I disagree with you that this means he has afflicted the innocent with unavoidably sinful nature, because no, they are not innocent. Not only are they not innocent, as is shown by the following, but they CHOOSE consistently (to avoid saying "always", which I'm fine with, but apparently you are not) to oppose God.

(Sigh). It's not real freedom of choice in a deterministic system where God is First Cause. The only reason you mention "choice" is to try to exonerate your system from blatant ethical contradictions. But it's completely tongue-in-cheek.

Thus, whether you want to say it is autonomous Free Will from which they consistently choose to rebel, or to say it is God's predestining them to enmity with him, the result is no different, and so they are NOT innocent.

No, Mark. Determinism and libertarianism are not the same thing.

Also, while Scripture may sound, to one who assumes autonomy on the part of the creature, like the creature's decisions are entirely autonomous, it does indeed say specifically that God does indeed create one for the purpose of destruction, but that for God's own sake --that is, for his glory.

Sure, as long as an arsonist burns people to death for his own glory, it is morally upright.

I used the word "autonomous" there because it invokes sort of a pun. The etymology of it shows "self-law". But you want me to think, "absolutely Free Will". The Bible is clear they are captives to sin. They will indeed behave according to their own nature. They live by their own self-law.

Again, for the 30-g-zillionth time, I'm not debating on whether people have a sinful nature. The debate is WHY they have a sinful nature, for example did Adam ever have real liberterian freedom? If not - if it was all deterministic - neither Adam nor anyone else DESERVES to have a sinful nature.

 

[Clete]

(Sigh). That's itself is a caricature of what I'm saying. What I am saying, first and foremost, is that the Bible is a useless document if our definitions of the words never match His. What do you believe about honesty and justice, Mark? Don't tell me in your words because anyone will say almost anything to win debates like this. I don't need your words because your actions speak louder than words. Anyone who monitored your actions for a day would see that you have the same definition of honesty and justice that I do - that we all do - which stands in flat contradiction to the diabolical nature of double predestination. Again, this makes you a walking contradiction in terms.

This single point is really where the debate about Calvinism should be primarily focused. Either God is just or Calvinism is true, not both. If Calvinism is true then there is no justice because God, by Calvinism's own standard, is arbitrary and even the Calvinists claim that God is the standard of justice. So either this is false or the word justice has no meaning and if justice is meaningless so is righteousness and love and faith and any other word that has any application to ethics or morality. If such is the case then what's the point of reading the bible, being a Christian or giving a rip about God at all? It makes no sense!

How is it possible for millions of people to believe in a doctrinal system that is falsified by such universally understood concepts as love and justice?

 

[JAL]

This single point is really where the debate about Calvinism should be primarily focused. Either God is just or Calvinism is true, not both. If Calvinism is true then there is no justice because God is arbitrary and even the Calvinists claim that God is the standard of justice. So either this is false or the word justice has no meaning and if justice is meaningless so is righteousness and love and faith and any other word that has any application to ethics or morality. If such is the case then what's the point of reading the bible, being a Christian or giving a rip about God at all? It makes no sense!

How is it possible for millions of people to believe in a doctrinal system that is falsified by such universally understood concepts as love and justice?

Thank you. I myself for one, certainly, could not have summed it up any better, or even nearly as well.

 

[rnmomof7]

Not without foreseeing what man would do. In Calvinist theology, God ordains man's every sin for reasons we can't know. This, he caused sin, and is really the only sinner.

Sin is violating Gods law.. God can never violate His own law because He is the one that determine what is sin ....
If we go with the God only "foresees" theology, who is god in that theology ? Who is the primary actor ? Seems to me that makes man god and God simply a responder

 

[rnmomof7]

This single point is really where the debate about Calvinism should be primarily focused. Either God is just or Calvinism is true, not both. If Calvinism is true then there is no justice because God, by Calvinism's own standard, is arbitrary and even the Calvinists claim that God is the standard of justice. So either this is false or the word justice has no meaning and if justice is meaningless so is righteousness and love and faith and any other word that has any application to ethics or morality. If such is the case then what's the point of reading the bible, being a Christian or giving a rip about God at all? It makes no sense!

How is it possible for millions of people to believe in a doctrinal system that is falsified by such universally understood concepts as love and justice?

Who is it that determine what is "just"?