Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[Cis.jd]

, and could even be wrong, yet nobody so far has been able to show me where I was wrong.

You have been shown wrong. You yourself can see the problems your arguments have with the Fall.
It's simple. If God predestined everything, what ever man will do, live and think.. then he predestined the fall. He not only created man but destined him to disobey and get punished for it.

This additional part of my argument has been constantly ignored: I've asked for the Lord's Prayer. So i'll cite it.. In that prayer it says, "Thy WILL BE done on earth AS it is in Heaven".

 

[JAL]

I would like you to show me from scripture...that my conscience is of absolute authority, and that God must stand aside in that regard.

"God must stand aside"? Not sure what you mean by that. I would say that God can't justifiably WANT you to behave contrary to conscience (feelings of certainty). What He CAN do, however, is influence/alter your feelings of certainty, instantaneously. In fact that's precisely the definition of direct revelation.

As I told you, I can provide many biblical examples that illustrate the authority of conscience. Here's one example. Prior to conversion, Paul was convinced, based on exegesis, that the Messiah would arrive as a ruler equipped to liberate captive Israel. Thus, based on exegesis, he concluded that Jesus was neither the Messiah nor God Himself. Then Paul saw a vision and heard a voice on the Road to Damascus. It caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord. This feeling of certainty (conscience) UTTERLY TRUMPED 20 years of exegesis - he threw it all out the window because conscience is authoritative over exegesis. Like I said, that's precisely how direct revelation operates.

Of course it all depends on the DEGREE of certainty. When faced with several choices, your conscience will prompt you to go with the one that you feel MOST certain about.

Does that help?

 

[Cis.jd]

A robot chooses as it is programmed to chose. Two or more options presented to it, it MUST choose as it is programmed. You may call that no choice. I don't much care what you call it.

*sigh why do I even bother.

 

[SkyWriting]

That misses the thrust of the argument. The point is that if you've already drawn a particular conclusion from a passage, and you're confronted with a logically conflicting interpretation....I think my post was clear enough. I'm not going to repeat it here.

You're not supposed to be focused on any particular text. That was the first covenant. The letter of scripture kills. We are to be focused on the person of Jesus, not the letter of the law. The first, flawed covenant is provided to us by God just for historical reference purposes, as I said.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Jeremiah 31
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.

Hebrews 9:15
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Luke 22:20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Hebrews 8:6
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

Hebrews 8:7-8
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

 

[SkyWriting]

Prior to conversion, Paul was convinced, based on exegesis, that the Messiah would arrive as a ruler equipped to liberate captive Israel. Thus, based on exegesis, he concluded that Jesus was neither the Messiah nor God Himself. Then Paul saw a vision and heard a voice on the Road to Damascus. It caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord. This feeling of certainty (conscience) UTTERLY TRUMPED 20 years of exegesis - he threw it all out the window because conscience is authoritative over exegesis. Like I said, that's precisely how direct revelation operates.

But Jesus doesn't blind people, so it was just a story he invented.

John 8:12
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Matthew 5:14
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.

John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Psalm 27:1
Of David. The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

John 1:9
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

 

[JAL]

But Jesus doesn't blind people, so it was just a story he invented.

Never heard of that theory. Is there a name for your stance on hermeneutics? What actually happened, then? Something blinded him, right? I mean, when Ananias healed him, scales fell from his eyes, and later he recounted the story to rulers as part of his witnessing. I don't think he was lying.

Maybe another example would help. Like Paul, Peter possessed exegesis-based beliefs. For one thing, he had a tendency to shun the Gentiles. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice commanding him to preach to Gentiles (Acts 10). This caused him to feel certain that preaching to them was the right thing to do. As a result, he threw his former exegetical conclusions out the window because conscience (feelings of certainty) is authoritative over exegesis. Again, direct revelation always operates in said manner.

Does that help?

 

[JAL]

You're not supposed to be focused on any particular text. That was the first covenant. The letter of scripture kills. We are to be focused on the person of Jesus, not the letter of the law. The first, flawed covenant is provided to us by God just for historical reference purposes, as I said.

I don't see the relevance, since I was discussing epistemology, not covenant-theory. But incidentally I hold to a very strict Covenant Theology. By that I mean I accept no distinctions between OT and NT saints, because all of us are under the same (Abrahamic) Covenant of Grace (Gal 3). But I think that's getting a bit off-topic.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't see the relevance, since I was discussing epistemology, not covenant-theory. But incidentally I hold to a very strict Covenant Theology. By that I mean I accept no distinctions between OT and NT saints, because all of us are under the same (Abrahamic) Covenant of Grace (Gal 3). But I think that's getting a bit off-topic.

Being strict is just one option.
Your direction seems to be that anyone who
doesn't agree with you is off topic.
This is common for "strict"ers.
I've been there myself, so I remember.

 

[SkyWriting]

Never heard of that theory. Is there a name for your stance on hermeneutics? What actually happened, then? Something blinded him, right? I mean, when Ananias healed him, scales fell from his eyes, and later he recounted the story to rulers as part of his witnessing. I don't think he was lying.

Maybe another example would help. Like Paul, Peter possessed exegesis-based beliefs. For one thing, he had a tendency to shun the Gentiles. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice commanding him to preach to Gentiles (Acts 10). This caused him to feel certain that preaching to them was the right thing to do. As a result, he threw his former exegetical conclusions out the window because conscience (feelings of certainty) is authoritative over exegesis. Again, direct revelation always operates in said manner.

Does that help?

The scales thing is another unique story that has mysteriously
disappeared from our Born Again testimonials. What gives?

Why does Paul get to see Jesus? Why don't we all change our names
to "Prince" or something at conversion? Pastors should hand out scales
to put on our eye's? How about being put in a dark room for three days?
Can we all convert without Faith or Repentance? What ever happened to Free Will? Was Saul's Free Will eliminated?

Is there some reason we don't follow Paul's conversion model?

Nobody does? Nobody ever has?

 

[1Reformedman]

Long on hypothesis. Short on Scripture. Just like always. The Scripture support for Calvin's view of election is too ambiguous and general. So it rarely makes an appearance.

You are one who seemingly knows little about church history. Calvin didn't invent TULIP and your assertion that Calvin's view of election is too ambiguous and general is a bogus and baseless assertion without a bit of convincing evidence to back it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"God must stand aside"? Not sure what you mean by that. I would say that God can't justifiably WANT you to behave contrary to conscience (feelings of certainty). What He CAN do, however, is influence/alter your feelings of certainty, instantaneously. In fact that's precisely the definition of direct revelation.

As I told you, I can provide many biblical examples that illustrate the authority of conscience. Here's one example. Prior to conversion, Paul was convinced, based on exegesis, that the Messiah would arrive as a ruler equipped to liberate captive Israel. Thus, based on exegesis, he concluded that Jesus was neither the Messiah nor God Himself. Then Paul saw a vision and heard a voice on the Road to Damascus. It caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord. This feeling of certainty (conscience) UTTERLY TRUMPED 20 years of exegesis - he threw it all out the window because conscience is authoritative over exegesis. Like I said, that's precisely how direct revelation operates.

Of course it all depends on the DEGREE of certainty. When faced with several choices, your conscience will prompt you to go with the one that you feel MOST certain about.

Does that help?

Not really. Sorry. What you see as conscience trumping exegesis, I see as the Lord overwhelming presumption. Of course his conscience was involved, so because he was converted by the Lord, his conscience was too.

Authority of the Lord.

Back to what God "wants". What do you mean by that? God needn't be justified. He commands and we obey or disobey. I'd like to see his reaction to us blaming our sin on a mistaken conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have been shown wrong. You yourself can see the problems your arguments have with the Fall.
It's simple. If God predestined everything, what ever man will do, live and think.. then he predestined the fall. He not only created man but destined him to disobey and get punished for it.

This additional part of my argument has been constantly ignored: I've asked for the Lord's Prayer. So i'll cite it.. In that prayer it says, "Thy WILL BE done on earth AS it is in Heaven".

I don't disagree that "If God predestined everything, what ever man will do, live and think.. then he predestined the fall. He not only created man but destined him to disobey and get punished for it." You drop it there as if it is a self-defeating claim. Yes he did all that --and what is wrong with him doing all that? Further, when Scripture tells us he did it for his own very good reasons, why leave that out of your claim?

His will will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. What is your problem with that? Are you saying there would be no need to pray for it if it is already predestined? Did you not know that God uses means to accomplish his ends?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, you're saying you have hope without COUNTING on God to conform to the core elements of your virtues. That's contrary to fact, as my last post emphasized.

Again, you are wrong. God needn't conform to me. My conscience is not his guide. You aren't going to be able to show that from Scripture, either.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think it's quite clear that you are the one struggling, just looking at the amount of excuses and copouts you have made ever since you where asked about the fall. What is worse is that you are using God's name and claiming your side is his views as an excuse (or cover up) for your inability to make any sense to your arguments regarding predestination and free will.

You see how your views contradict so many important factors in the christian faith such as the fall, our redemption, and just our relationship with him but you lack any integrity to admit this. Instead "well it just makes sense for God".

You have not yet shown where God's sovereignty, predestination, and intimate attention to every detail contradicts the tenets of our faith. It doesn't even contradict our ability (indeed our responsibility) to choose, nevermind contradicting the fall, redemption and our relationship with him. We are not the free agents upon whom God waits to give him permission to do whatever he has planned (and will accomplish) that we would like to be. If you can show me where his patience is out of respect and esteem for us worthy creatures, instead of out of his great mercy for us unworthy creatures, I'm willing to hear it. You have not.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don't disagree that "If God predestined everything, what ever man will do, live and think.. then he predestined the fall. He not only created man but destined him to disobey and get punished for it." You drop it there as if it is a self-defeating claim. Yes he did all that --and what is wrong with him doing all that? Further, when Scripture tells us he did it for his own very good reasons, why leave that out of your claim?

God created life, decides for life to fall and then gives it an ultimatum of eternal suffering. He is completely responsible for evil, and you are saying there is nothing wrong with that?

His will will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. What is your problem with that? Are you saying there would be no need to pray for it if it is already predestined? Did you not know that God uses means to accomplish his ends?

If God told us to pray for his will to be on earth as it is in heaven, then it is obviously implying that God doesn't give the same will over the world. Hence Evil exists. As he said to Pilot in Jn 18:36: "If my kingdom were of this World ...". Also, in 2 Peter 3:9 it says God wishes we come to repentance. Why when everything that has happened, including the fall was what he willed?

Evil is the absence of God. Yet in your arguments, evil is present because of God and in which you ask "what is wrong with it" and follow it up that it is his good reasons. You've just implied there is nothing wrong with evil.

 

[Cis.jd]

You have not yet shown where God's sovereignty, predestination, and intimate attention to every detail contradicts the tenets of our faith. It doesn't even contradict our ability (indeed our responsibility) to choose, nevermind contradicting the fall, redemption and our relationship with him. We are not the free agents upon whom God waits to give him permission to do whatever he has planned (and will accomplish) that we would like to be. If you can show me where his patience is out of respect and esteem for us worthy creatures, instead of out of his great mercy for us unworthy creatures, I'm willing to hear it. You have not.

Why would we need his mercy and why are we "unworthy" creatures when he already determined our fates? Us being sinners is just us doing what he predestined us to do..

 

[JAL]

Again, you are wrong. God needn't conform to me. My conscience is not his guide. You aren't going to be able to show that from Scripture, either.

(Sigh) Let's paraphrase your silly caricature/strawman version of my argument: "JAL claims that reality, by nature, has some INVIOLABLE LAW, that if God exists, He must conform to men's conceptions. Yet JAL can't prove this from Scripture."

That wasn't the argument. The argument was about logical consistency. Simply put (I can't believe, after all these posts, you're still forcing me to reduce the argument to simpleton terms), the argument goes like:

"I know what I mean by kindness. But if God uses that term to designate the opposite, namely, cruelty, then I definitely don't want HIS type of 'kindness', in fact it means I have no hope."

Sorry - but it was so painfully obvious that was my meaning that I can only assume you're just dancing again.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:20

10-4; over and out.

 

[JAL]

Not really. Sorry. What you see as conscience trumping exegesis, I see as the Lord overwhelming presumption. Of course his conscience was involved, so because he was converted by the Lord, his conscience was too.

You can call it what you want, but that feeling of certainty trumped his exegetical conclusions. This is more dancing. Now you're just CHANGING THE TERMINOLOGY to make it LOOK like you're drawing a different conclusion.

This is why I vacate these forums for long periods. Too much dancing and intellectual dishonesty in the debates.

Back to what God "wants". What do you mean by that? God needn't be justified. He commands and we obey or disobey. I'd like to see his reaction to us blaming our sin on a mistaken conscience.

(Sigh). You're trying to read too much into something I wrote, hoping to find a way to make my posts look bad. Let me paraphrase my words for you, "God prefers that His children not behave like rebellious sinners." K?

 

[JAL]

Again, you are wrong. God needn't conform to me.

Another example of my position, in simpleton terms:

"I know what I mean by honesty. But if God uses that term to designate the opposite, namely dishonesty, then I don't want HIS kind of 'honesty', in fact it means I have no hope."