Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[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.

Also you're intermixing two different issues indiscriminately.
(1) The authority of conscience
(2) The assumption that God defines virtues such as kindness and honesty the same way that I do.

Let's talk about issue #1:

My conscience is not his guide.

Again, my position is a tautology. It goes like this:

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

I've challenged you numerous times to find an exception to this rule. You can't, because it's tautological. I named this principle "the rule of conscience". To paraphrase it: feelings of certainty are authoritative.

In fact, you have another logical problem - or a least a logistics issue. Without this rule, God has no mechanism to run the church. Why so? Suppose He wants you to do something right now. Must He wait until you happen to reach the same conclusion exegetically, perhaps after 4 years of seminary? No. All He needs to do is give you a feeling of certainty right now, instantaneously, indicating what He wants you to do.

 

[JAL]

Thus, in order to know the will of God from moment to moment, I need to stay in prayer, asking and waiting upon Him for feelings of certainty (direct revelations). This should be top priority. Paul had his priorities straight, "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?


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.

Excuse me? I did not say nor imply that there is nothing wrong with evil. You claim I say evil is present because of God. You leave out that I say evil is present because of us. Each person is responsible for his own sin. Don't pretend I think God did that whole thing. You have stepped beyond what I say, conveniently ignoring certain parts of it, in order to pose your strawman.

You haven't painted the whole picture, perverting the whole thing. Are you saying that I am saying that we are not responsible for our own sin? Do you want me to make it all rosy by saying that God made it all neutral and then left us to our own devices? Have you no concept of the horror of evil? Evil is also the opposition to God. God being omnipresent, you may say it is the absence of God, but our view of such a thing is weak and deceitful. You infer something I did not imply. You are letting words play you according to your own humanology.

Left to my own devices I would NEVER seek him.

It is your logic that says his telling us to pray his "will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" obviously implies "that God doesn't give the same will over the world." While I may agree with the words you place there, it is not obviously implied. Your logic, apparently, is that if God was in control there is no need to pray for such a thing. If we are to pray for his will do be done, does it not occur to you that it may be a means by which we seek his will?

Meanwhile, I agree with the idea that God does not give the same will all over the world. His commands are the same, but his enlightenment concerning them and such things as life and the end of man is not the same.

The 1 Peter 3:9 reference, by the way, is to all the elect, not to absolutely all that are left upon the earth. Your John 18:36, I can only guess at some uncogent thought you might have as to why that applies to this question.

You seem like many Christians, thinking that God does his part, faithfully, no doubt, and you do your part, while he stands back to let you, offering a helping hand when you need it. But you are wrong, if that is how you see things. "Without me, you can do nothing". And as it turns out, that is referring to being "in him" and he being in us. We are not even whole beings without him.

 

[JAL]

Each person is responsible for his own sin.

I agree, but how can YOU make that claim, on Reformed assumptions? Again, if I spiked your food with a drug filling you with an irresistible desire to murder people, who is responsible for the murders? Me? Or you?

I seem to recall I asked you this question before and you did not respond.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Also you're intermixing two different issues indiscriminately.
(1) The authority of conscience
(2) The assumption that God defines virtues such as kindness and honesty the same way that I do.

Oh. You apply one when it fits your thinking and the other when it does, when both are to me faulty individually or together, and both come from your self-important, self-capability mindset. Both eggs are of the same mother. And you are the one who combined them in the same thread.

Again, my position is a tautology. It goes like this:

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

I've challenged you numerous times to find an exception to this rule. You can't, because it's tautological. I named this principle "the rule of conscience". To paraphrase it: feelings of certainty are authoritative.

I have shown you that that ignores the authority of God. If God commands something, and judges one's rebellious heart according to his ignoring of the command, of what worth is the conscience that doesn't even bring up the command? You seem to me, so far, to have misnamed Freedom of Conscience, which has to do with our dealing with earthly authority or opposition. It does not imply nor require that God respect our conscience.

If you feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, you could still be wrong, and be seeing things from a self-important worldview. Further, your apparent descriptions of the choice between one thing and another, or many others, is not always so clearly good vs evil, to the human mind. If you become certain that B is the better of two choices, neither of which is of itself to your mind evil, but your conscience demands your best so you choose whichever is the best, is it not possible you have ignored what God has said?

How does the fact it is tautological prevent me from discrediting the whole thing? Both are wrong. I don't disagree that if you are certain A is evil, and B is good, that you should go with B. My problem with the statement, combined with the fact that you call it authority, implies (and you said as much, though I don't remember how you put it) that God must respect the authority of conscience. I hope that is nearly how you put it --it is how I took your meaning, at least.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree, but how can YOU make that claim, on Reformed assumptions? Again, if I spiked your food with a drug filling you with an irresistible desire to murder people, who is responsible for the murders? Me? Or you?

I seem to recall I asked you this question before and you did not respond.

What God has done, and what Reformed Theology assumes, does not resemble "God spiked my food with a drug filling me with an irresistible urge to murder". We do say we have a will, we do have choice, and we do have responsibility. Furthermore, our enmity with God is not an urge, but our very nature, apart from God.

Your allegory also fails because God is not like us. You might ask, "if God spiked my food with a drug .....etc", but you didn't ask that. God has the absolute right to do as he wishes, and we have nothing of value to say against it, regardless of what he does (note I did not, by "what he does", say "regardless of any evil he does", nor do I mean to imply some hypothetical thing he does not do). Why would you equate human action to God's?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thus, in order to know the will of God from moment to moment, I need to stay in prayer, asking and waiting upon Him for feelings of certainty (direct revelations). This should be top priority. Paul had his priorities straight, "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

So your "direct revelation" as you have defined it, is the authority, no? You move your conscience to it, not it to your conscience.

 

[Cis.jd]

Excuse me? I did not say nor imply that there is nothing wrong with evil. You claim I say evil is present because of God. You leave out that I say evil is present because of us. Each person is responsible for his own sin. Don't pretend I think God did that whole thing. You have stepped beyond what I say, conveniently ignoring certain parts of it, in order to pose your strawman.

You haven't painted the whole picture, perverting the whole thing. Are you saying that I am saying that we are not responsible for our own sin? Do you want me to make it all rosy by saying that God made it all neutral and then left us to our own devices? Have you no concept of the horror of evil? Evil is also the opposition to God. God being omnipresent, you may say it is the absence of God, but our view of such a thing is weak and deceitful. You infer something I did not imply. You are letting words play you according to your own humanology.

Left to my own devices I would NEVER seek him.

It is your logic that says his telling us to pray his "will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" obviously implies "that God doesn't give the same will over the world." While I may agree with the words you place there, it is not obviously implied. Your logic, apparently, is that if God was in control there is no need to pray for such a thing. If we are to pray for his will do be done, does it not occur to you that it may be a means by which we seek his will?

Meanwhile, I agree with the idea that God does not give the same will all over the world. His commands are the same, but his enlightenment concerning them and such things as life and the end of man is not the same.

The 1 Peter 3:9 reference, by the way, is to all the elect, not to absolutely all that are left upon the earth. Your John 18:36, I can only guess at some uncogent thought you might have as to why that applies to this question.

You seem like many Christians, thinking that God does his part, faithfully, no doubt, and you do your part, while he stands back to let you, offering a helping hand when you need it. But you are wrong, if that is how you see things. "Without me, you can do nothing". And as it turns out, that is referring to being "in him" and he being in us. We are not even whole beings without him.

Because from the question of God predestining us to disobey him (do evil) and then damning us to hell for just doing what he designed us to do – your answer was "what is wrong with that?". In short "what is wrong with God predestining sin/evil?".

Your part about the Lord's prayer has you showing how confused you are about what you are saying: "I agree with your words" and then you go "that isn't what it is implying"? Why would you agree with something you think is incorrect? You then proceed to detail why I am right.

"God does not give the same will all over the world" , so Predestination isn't fully true then? Because this is the sentence i've been telling you since the beginning.

"Evil is also the opposition to God."
Exactly. It's opposing God. With out free will you can't oppose God.

And it's 2 Peter 3:9, not 1st Peter. 2nd Peter 3:9 which shows he wishes/wants people to repent and not perish, which is unnecessary if everything was predestined.

 

[JAL]

choose whichever is the best, is it not possible you have ignored what God has said?

How does the fact it is tautological prevent me from discrediting the whole thing? Both are wrong. I don't disagree that if you are certain A is evil, and B is good, that you should go with B. My problem with the statement, combined with the fact that you call it authority, implies (and you said as much, though I don't remember how you put it) that God must respect the authority of conscience. I hope that is nearly how you put it --it is how I took your meaning, at least.

The words in bold confirm that you conceded the principle. Again, all you're doing in this statement is questioning my choice of words to describe it - YOU'RE JUST QUESTIONING THE TERMINOLOGY. Having CONCEDED my whole system via the words in bold, why does that same paragraph pretend to have refuted it, with these words?

How does the fact it is tautological prevent me from discrediting the whole thing? Both are wrong.

Again, feel free to use whatever terminology that you want. But let's be clear on the significance of that conclusion - it utterly undermines the claim, known as Sola Scriptura, that exegesis is preeminent, i.e., it is the only final rule of faith and practice. On the contrary, that preeminence belongs to feelings of certainty (or what I refer to as "the conscience").

 

[JAL]

So your "direct revelation" as you have defined it, is the authority, no? You move your conscience to it, not it to your conscience.

See my last post.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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..

Round we go again. His predestining is certain, yes. It is accomplished, worked out, by our rebellion, or by our living in Him and He indwelling us.

I don't remember if it is you, or JAL who said evil is the absence of God. If that is what you believe, then this should be pretty plain --the unbeliever lives in this state of evil, if that is all evil is, where his "free will" decides within the absence of God. He cannot do good, apart from God. The believer also, is unable (in this structure of "evil being the absence of God) to do good, apart from God, because apart from God he is not a believer.

 

[JAL]

What God has done, and what Reformed Theology assumes, does not resemble "God spiked my food with a drug filling me with an irresistible urge to murder". We do say we have a will, we do have choice, and we do have responsibility. Furthermore, our enmity with God is not an urge, but our very nature, apart from God.

Your allegory also fails because God is not like us. You might ask, "if God spiked my food with a drug .....etc", but you didn't ask that. God has the absolute right to do as he wishes, and we have nothing of value to say against it, regardless of what he does (note I did not, by "what he does", say "regardless of any evil he does", nor do I mean to imply some hypothetical thing he does not do). Why would you equate human action to God's?

Let's summarize what you just implied. You implied that if I spiked your food, it would be obviously evil (that is how evil men behave), but if God did the same thing, we'd have to call it good. Thus no matter what God does, it counts as good. I've already refuted that position in a couple of ways, over the last 100 posts.
(1) Scripture teaches that God does NOT do the things that evil men do. Rather He exemplifies the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of such behavior. Reformed theology has construed God as behaving like your typical evil man who is willing to spike food - as Cis.jd has been pointing out over and over and over again. This indicates that Reformed theology is not scriptural.
(2) If God's definitions are opposite to MY definitions, I have no hope. For example by evil I mean cruelty. If God behaves in such manner, and calls it "good" (and we too have to call it "good" as you suggest), then I don't want HIS type of "good", in fact it means I have no hope.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The words in bold confirm that you conceded the principle. Again, all you're doing in this statement is questioning my choice of words to describe it - YOU'RE JUST QUESTIONING THE TERMINOLOGY. Having CONCEDED my whole system via the words in bold, why does that same paragraph pretend to have refuted it, with these words?

Again, feel free to use whatever terminology that you want. But let's be clear on the significance of that conclusion - it utterly undermines the claim, known as Sola Scriptura, that exegesis is preeminent, i.e., it is the only final rule of faith and practice. On the contrary, that preeminence belongs to feelings of certainty (or what I refer to as "the conscience").

On the contrary, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is preeminent, not exegesis. But it means more than simple vague preeminence. Nobody says, for example, that Scripture trumps God himself. We do the best we can to understand Scripture by exegesis, and though some might go so far as to say that exegesis is not subjective, I disagree --it ought not to be, but bias is always present, and I don't dispute I too am biased. Meanwhile, what you call direct revelation is also subjective, and more easily subjective to the old man within. I don't deny that the Spirit speaks to us, and that in several ways, but if that supposed "direct revelation" contradicts Scripture, it is false. Many a madman has believed that it was God that had told him.

Meanwhile you have me wondering how you arrived at "The words in bold confirm that you have conceded the principle." Exactly what principle have I conceded --and how so? I agree with the fact that we should go with what we think best. That does not give conscience authority above God, nor even above Scripture. God need not respect man's conscience. The only reason we should obey conscience is because we must decide, without having considered all the information. Again --if God says do, or do not, and our conscience doesn't agree with God, or opposes God, the conscience is mistaken and misleading, or worse.

 

[JAL]

On the contrary, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is preeminent, not exegesis.

I have no direct access to Scripture. All I have is exegesis.

Meanwhile you have me wondering how you arrived at "The words in bold confirm that you have conceded the principle." Exactly what principle have I conceded --and how so? I agree with the fact that we should go with what we think best.

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.

 

[Cis.jd]

Round we go again. His predestining is certain, yes. It is accomplished, worked out, by our rebellion, or by our living in Him and He indwelling us.

I don't remember if it is you, or JAL who said evil is the absence of God. If that is what you believe, then this should be pretty plain --the unbeliever lives in this state of evil, if that is all evil is, where his "free will" decides within the absence of God. He cannot do good, apart from God. The believer also, is unable (in this structure of "evil being the absence of God) to do good, apart from God, because apart from God he is not a believer.

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.

 

[JAL]

I don't deny that the Spirit speaks to us, and that in several ways, but if that supposed "direct revelation" contradicts Scripture, it is false. Many a madman has believed that it was God that had told him.

Makes no difference whether it's false. Even if the "direct revelation" came from the devil himself, it is still obligatory if it is now driving your feelings of certainty. Again, there are no exceptions to the rule:

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

Many a madman has believed that it was God that had told him.

Many a mad man - picture various cults - acted upon conclusions drawn from exegesis.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because from the question of God predestining us to disobey him (do evil) and then damning us to hell for just doing what he designed us to do – your answer was "what is wrong with that?". In short "what is wrong with God predestining sin/evil?".

Your part about the Lord's prayer has you showing how confused you are about what you are saying: "I agree with your words" and then you go "that isn't what it is implying"? Why would you agree with something you think is incorrect? You then proceed to detail why I am right.

"God does not give the same will all over the world" , so Predestination isn't fully true then? Because this is the sentence i've been telling you since the beginning.

"Evil is also the opposition to God."
Exactly. It's opposing God. With out free will you can't oppose God.

And it's 2 Peter 3:9, not 1st Peter. 2nd Peter 3:9 which shows he wishes/wants people to repent and not perish, which is unnecessary if everything was predestined.

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. And I ask it again. You seem to me to be answering with the same logic as always --I commend you on your consistency, at least-- "if it is predestined, there is no choice." Your logic is wrong. It is predestined that we choose as we do, and we do choose it, and indeed do so of our own (so you call it) "free will".

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.

The Reformed generally describe two kinds of will of God. There is (among other words) the hidden and the revealed will. His commandments are universal. 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.

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.

 

[JAL]

if that supposed "direct revelation" contradicts Scripture, it is false.

All Christians goto heaven via Christ's blood, but He will ALSO evaluate our efforts, right? Question for you. Do you want God to say, "Well done, good and faithful servant?" Or rebuke you with, "You lazy servant!" Surely the former, right? Fine. But on what criteria should He evaluate our efforts? Two options:
(1) He evaluates us on whether we obeyed to the best of our knowledge (i.e. we heeded our conscience).
(2) He evaluates our actions by their fidelity to Scripture. This means that if I make an exegetical mistake, He can fault me for it - in fact even in this life He can levy an earthly judgment on me for it. (For example suppose He wanted me goto to university-A but, not realizing that, I picked unversity-B).

Which criterion do you want your efforts to be evaluated on? Surely 1, right? That being the case, your statement is irrelevant.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let's summarize what you just implied. You implied that if I spiked your food, it would be obviously evil (that is how evil men behave), but if God did the same thing, we'd have to call it good. Thus no matter what God does, it counts as good. I've already refuted that position in a couple of ways, over the last 100 posts.
(1) Scripture teaches that God does NOT do the things that evil men do. Rather He exemplifies the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of such behavior. Reformed theology has construed God as behaving like your typical evil man who is willing to spike food - as Cis.jd has been pointing out over and over and over again. This indicates that Reformed theology is not scriptural.
(2) If God's definitions are opposite to MY definitions, I have no hope. For example by evil I mean cruelty. If God behaves in such manner, and calls it "good" (and we too have to call it "good" as you suggest), then I don't want HIS type of "good", in fact it means I have no hope.

1. Again, God has the absolute right over his creation, and if you want to call that evil, have at it, and be measured by your standard. God does indeed predestine --Scripture says so, (as does logic concerning First Cause, which hasn't been dealt with much in our back and forth), your use of Scripture notwithstanding. The fact you want to compare his actions with ours is faulty as you do it. He is not like us, and doesn't answer to us. He has, from the beginning, predestined for EVERYTHING to come to pass exactly as it has. And we are the means by which it happens. Yes, he can blame us --we chose-- and don't pretend we are the victims here. We are totally in lock step with our sin, willfully.

2. If God's definitions are in opposition to YOURS, you are wrong. You may have hope because if you are among the Elect, he does give light concerning the facts, and comfort. You also can have hope --even expectation-- because we KNOW that the Judge of all the Earth will do what is right. Again, he will only precisely deal with each individual according to their deeds, but thoroughly so, too. If he has bound them over to sin, and it is not (as you suppose) therefore their fault, then he will deal with them precisely according to their transgression (which you suppose in this structure to be non-existent). But you are wrong that it is not their fault --they do indeed oppose him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Makes no difference whether it's false. Even if the "direct revelation" came from the devil himself, it is still obligatory if it is now driving your feelings of certainty. Again, there are no exceptions to the rule:

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

Many a mad man - picture various cults - acted upon conclusions drawn from exegesis.

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.

Exegesis, that is, pure exegesis, (which, granted, none of us have), does not make madmen. The purer, the better. I argue that madmen are not by any means exegeting purely. They all pick and choose, ignoring both immediate context to their own purposes, and the whole of Scripture. That is eisegesis.