Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

"Likes"? Where do you get that? He does whatever he does for his own purposes, not sadistically.

Ok so if He did it to His own Son "for His own purposes", that would be fine. He can send 100 billion people to hell, and His son as well, and that would be morally upright behavior. That's right. You said that anything God does, we have to call it good, even if He behaves precisely the same as the lawless one.

Meanwhile, like I said, you still haven't shown the logical necessity for real choice to disclude predestination of that very choice.

I've been in a teleconference the last 2 hours while doing these posts, and my head is still spinning. I'm still in the conference and still don't understand what you're asking me here.

 

[JAL]

I think we have been getting to that very thing the whole time. After all, this thread is called Free will, and original sin, which are corollary subjects within the discussion of saving faith, in Arminian-tending Christian Circles.

That's putting the cart before the horse. You just want to leap-frog over to your favorite Calvinistic passages, even though the real problems with the Reformed position precede conversion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok so if He did it to His own Son "for His own purposes", that would be fine. He can send 100 billion people to hell, and His son as well, and that would be morally upright behavior. That's right. You said that anything God does, we have to call it good, even if He behaves precisely the same as the lawless one.
I've been in a teleconference the last 2 hours while doing these posts, and my head is still spinning. I'm still in the conference and still don't understand what you're asking me here.

If he sends a trillion to eternal condemnation, and his son in our place, and he does this for his own sake, for his own purposes, for his own glory, who are we to call that immoral? We are not him. We cannot judge him, nor do we even know all his deeds nor reasons. It seems to me more important to him that we see his immense mercy and love in the face of necessary awful justice, than that we credit free will with any kind of self-existent power.

 

[JAL]

Free choice, if in any way contradicting cause-and-effect, is false. If, on the other hand, it works as a result of it, it is the kind of "free will" I espouse. It cannot operate by simple chance or chaos.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Did you, or did you not, earlier claim that God is a special kind of 'Person' who alone is truly free over His decisions?

 

[JAL]

If he sends a trillion to eternal condemnation, and his son in our place, and he does this for his own sake, for his own purposes, for his own glory, who are we to call that immoral? We are not him. We cannot judge him, nor do we even know all his deeds nor reasons. It seems to me more important to him that we see his immense mercy and love in the face of necessary awful justice, than that we credit free will with any kind of self-existent power.

I've addressed this in numerous ways. For example at post 210.
Then I followed up with this objection: But we are suppose to behave like Him, according to Scripture. So if He puts people in prison/hell for behavior beyond their control, shouldn't we?

Yet another objection was this - Scripture teaches that God does NOT do the sorts of deeds that the lawless one would do.

That's four objections. I don't see any satisfactory answers from you - and you've had scores of opportunities to address them.

 

[renniks]

I wish people would understand that Calvinism (or Reformed Theology) does not deny choice, so that is what I call free will, when I can. But first, in talking to people, it is pretty much always necessary to define terms the best I can. Most people haven't really thought about what it means to say "free will". They just seem to assume God is hands off in our decisions.

It denies real choices. The basis of reformed theology is God ordained everything without foreseeing it. There fore he caused every sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Did you, or did you not, earlier claim that God is a special kind of 'Person' who alone is truly free over His decisions?

God is not an effect. Where is the problem with that? God does not, therefore, operate under the physical and logical laws that we are subject to. We can find out that he can be logical found, and even be found to himself be logical, but not because he must answer to OUR logic. Logic is HIS arrangement.

Again, First Cause by definition is not an effect. He freely decides. No, I did not say he "is truly free over his decisions" --those are your words, interpreting what I said according to your thinking for me. His decisions are freely, in fact sovereignly, made. But even to say it that way is a little bit of humanizing him. God is not like us. We are only made in his image --not him in ours.

 

[JAL]

Again, First Cause by definition is not an effect. He freely decides. No, I did not say he "is truly free over his decisions" --those are your words, interpreting what I said according to your thinking for me. His decisions are freely, in fact sovereignly, made. But even to say it that way is a little bit of humanizing him. God is not like us. We are only made in his image --not him in ours.

To this kind of stateemnt, I earlier retorted a five-point objection for which you still have no satisfactory answers.

If God transcends human understanding, if He is not LIKE us, then Reformed theologians should abstain from doctrine. If we say we can't understand Him - that at most we have is an anthropomorphism - we forfeit the right to insist that God is free, or not free, sovereign, or not sovereign, good, or evil.

Logic is HIS arrangement.

If he is not bound by the law of non-contradiction as I understand it, I have no hope. He could well tell me that He plans to be kind to me forever, but He might have in mind the contradiction of kindness, which is cruelty.

You have had 250 posts worth of opportunities with me to resolve these objections. You can't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've addressed this in numerous ways. For example at post 210.
Then I followed up with this objection: But we are suppose to behave like Him, according to Scripture. So if He puts people in prison/hell for behavior beyond their control, shouldn't we?

Yet another objection was this - Scripture teaches that God does NOT do the sorts of deeds that the lawless one would do.

That's four objections. I don't see any satisfactory answers from you - and you've had scores of opportunities to address them.

Already answered. NO, we are not told we have the authority or duty to punish our peers for sin. He, on the other hand, as their creator, is just and does exactly that to OUR peers --not his (he has none). The lawless one, like the lost humans, are corrupt at the core. The lost humans may have love for a child, compassion for the hurting, generosity for the needy, and so on, but that does not make their erstwhile good deeds non-rebellious. Nor is compliance with the law, obedience. The devil does what he does for his own sake -not for God's sake. God does what he does for his own sake, as Creator and Lord.

You say "this means" when it means no such thing. You act like the doings that Scripture attributes to God are necessarily evil so therefore God can't be doing that. You don't get to define ANYTHING about God according to YOUR definitions, if those definitions, either directly or by logical extrapolation, contradict the very word of God. I know you would say the same thing, thinking you had not done so, so for now, I've had enough.


I just began rereading 210, and no, I'm sorry, but your presumptions, logic leaping and misrepresentations I don't care to deal with again. Good night.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It denies real choices. The basis of reformed theology is God ordained everything without foreseeing it. There fore he caused every sin.

Do you not claim real choice in the face of all the influences that result in that choice? Do you deny the absolute logical and scientific rule of cause-and-effect, resulting in you making the choices you do? How is considering God as First Cause making that any different?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God transcends human understanding, if He is not LIKE us, then Reformed theologians should abstain from doctrine. If we say we can't understand Him - that at most we have is an anthropomorphism - we forfeit the right to insist that God is free, or not free, sovereign, or not sovereign, good, or evil.

I have already said that is illogical. Reformed theology does not say he cannot be understood to some degree. In fact we happily claim we are driven to search and find out. You take the sound of words you don't like and restate them in some ludicrous posture. Would you say his Immutability means he behaves like a stone? Good night.

 

[JAL]

If you are willing to answer this, which I've asked now several times, I am willing to continue with this. If not, I'll drop it.

If we who believe in choice (even to whatever degree, call if Free Will or whatever) agree that choice is real, yet also admit do such things as genetic and upbringing's predispositions, and the influence of our circumstances. and to the logical rule of the chain of Cause-and-effect, what difference does it make to consider God as the First Cause of that chain of cause-and-effect? Why should that suddenly logically change the whole picture? Are we somehow now MORE controlled by cause-and-effect?

I still don't get your point. My latest theory is that you are saying, "God COULD have used ordinary/mechanical cause-effect to ordain all things" and then you add, "Why should that suddenly logically change the whole picture? Why should that suddenly logically change the whole picture? Are we somehow now MORE controlled by cause-and-effect?."

No. I agree. Regardless whether He ordains the outcome via:
(1) Mechanical domino-like cause-effect
(2) Designing us with passions that deterministically LEAD to the same behavior
either way the net effect is the same. He ends up being a liar for pronouncing people guilty, and unjust for punishing them.

Does that answer your question?

 

[JAL]

I have already said that is illogical. Reformed theology does not say he cannot be understood to some degree. In fact we happily claim we are driven to search and find out. You take the sound of words you don't like and restate them in some ludicrous posture. Would you say his Immutability means he behaves like a stone? Good night.

You just keep vacillating, as predicted. You claim to understand God when it's convenient for you, otherwise not.

 

[renniks]

Do you not claim real choice in the face of all the influences that result in that choice? Do you deny the absolute logical and scientific rule of cause-and-effect, resulting in you making the choices you do? How is considering God as First Cause making that any different?

Yes. Precisely because I believe the Bible to be true, I reject that cause and effect are absolutes. If we are made in God's image, we certainly are more than the sum of our genes. Determinism is a notion taken from non Christian sources.

 

[JAL]

Do you not claim real choice in the face of all the influences that result in that choice? Do you deny the absolute logical and scientific rule of cause-and-effect, resulting in you making the choices you do? How is considering God as First Cause making that any different?

Mark, why do you talk as though the notion of First Cause necessarily implies 100% determinism? Why can't reality be a mixture of cause-effect in some scenarios, and libertarian freedom in others, and a mixture of the two in still others?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You just keep vacillating, as predicted. You claim to understand God when it's convenient for you, otherwise not.

I claim to understand a little about him. And to be ignorant of a lot about him. You pretend I am saying I understand all about him and that he is beyond anybody's ability to be at least in part understood. You exaggerate.

 

[JAL]

Already answered. NO, we are not told we have the authority or duty to punish our peers for sin.

(Sigh) That was never an answer. You're still dancing. All governments put people in prison and WE, as Christian members of those governments and societies, cast our vote and contribute our input. YOU have to cast votes for and against leaders with beliefs. Also we have to practice justice with our kids. And it's not only justice, it's the question of what defines honesty. Is it honest to call someone guilty for decisions beyond their control?

Basically every time I show you a scenario that contradicts your whole position, you pretend that the scenario isn't valid and doesn't apply to you. Even when it's just a hypothetical, you pretend that the essence of the hypothetical doesn't apply.

For example I asked you about surgery on Jesus. Your response was basically, 'Current doctors aren't skilled to do that kind of surgery.' Dodging the question. Then I asked, 'Ok so what if God the Father does the surgery' - and I still don't get a straight answer!

Whatever I say, you just dance and dodge.

I just began rereading 210, and no, I'm sorry, but your presumptions, logic leaping and misrepresentations I don't care to deal with again. Good night.

So sad. All this intellectual dishonesty - and you're only hurting God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, why do you talk as though the notion of First Cause necessarily implies 100% determinism? Why can't reality be a mixture of cause-effect in some scenarios, and libertarian freedom in others, and a mixture of the two in still others?

Three reasons:

1 Because your kind of libertarian freedom, that is your logic concerning it, depends on chance, in one way or another, which logically has no determining power --it is self-contradictory.

2 Because logically First Cause, whether you want to call it God or whatever, and whether you want to say it is possessing of personhood and intent or is mere mechanical fact, or something in between, and whether you want to say it does so by "the seeds of the universe" by beginning things, then leaving it alone, or whether you want to say it interjects itself into its creation, or whether you want to say it inhabits and upholds every motion and force of its creation--indeed its very existence-- --it causes ALL \things,

3 And as for the Gospel, it denies God as the one who does the whole work of grace.

 

[JAL]

I claim to understand a little about him. And to be ignorant of a lot about him. You pretend I am saying I understand all about him and that he is beyond anybody's ability to be at least in part understood. You exaggerate.

Not at all. Whenever I make an assertion about God that you don't like, you say, "You have no right to that conclusion because you don't understand God. He is beyond your understanding."

Meanwhile you deny my conclusion! Thus you insinuate the right to the OPPOSITE of my assertion!

But it's the same category! If I don't understand God with respect to that category, then neither do you!

How is that an exaggeration? It's a fact of this whole discussion - it's one of your favorite ways of dancing!

 

[JAL]

Three reasons:

1 Because your kind of libertarian freedom, that is your logic concerning it, depends on chance, in one way or another, which logically has no determining power --it is self-contradictory.

But you admitted that God is free!