Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[Mark Quayle]

That's the logical conclusion of one denies free will.

Meanwhile, if one claims that "free will" by definition demands the "free agent" is above cause-and-effect, then one has not only ascribed supernatural ability to the "free agent", but has removed God from the equation, which is frankly ludicrous. The one claiming this has put man above God.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

It is impossible that choosing “b” could have happened.

The Gospel is simple enough for the common man to understand. The impossibility of free will is a doctrine that cannot be explained without the most frustrating mental stretching exercises like this one. The fact that "b" wasn't chosen is in no way proof that a person was not free to have chosen "a" instead. This is just so clear in everyday life. If it were not possible for people to make better choices then all punishment of crimes would be unjust. It is an effective diagnosis of hopeless impulsivity on the part of the human race.

 

[Ilikecats]

The Gospel is simple enough for the common man to understand. The impossibility of free will is a doctrine that cannot be explained without the most frustrating mental stretching exercises like this one. The fact that "b" wasn't chosen is in no way proof that a person was not free to have chosen "a" instead. This is just so clear in everyday life. If it were not possible for people to make better choices then all punishment of crimes would be unjust. It is an effective diagnosis of hopeless impulsivity on the part of the human race.

Unless you can see a past where the other choice was made you have no evidence of it even existing. To you it would be unfair that we were not allowed to see the future to determine the best possible choice. Is free will truly the solution the problem you have with God? How is it just that we are only given a partial view of the situation? If we are truly to be held according to our choice then is choice masked by ignorance truly free? How is it just when we are not able to choose the best possible option every single time? Free will solves none of these problems.
The Bible clearly states predestination and also proves the character of God when he sent his one and only son to die for sinners. God is perfectly just in his actions and is a sovereign being.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

I just updated my post to add a point #10. That should get you thinking in the right direction.

I think I'd rather do my "thinking" in the right "right direction":

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalms 33:9

What's a fella to do?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Gospel is simple enough for the common man to understand. The impossibility of free will is a doctrine that cannot be explained without the most frustrating mental stretching exercises like this one. The fact that "b" wasn't chosen is in no way proof that a person was not free to have chosen "a" instead. This is just so clear in everyday life. If it were not possible for people to make better choices then all punishment of crimes would be unjust. It is an effective diagnosis of hopeless impulsivity on the part of the human race.

The fact that "b" is never chosen might, however, be brought to bear. And when scripture tells WHY "b" is never chosen, one may still use the word, "free" to show why "b" is rejected, and why "a" is chosen, but the "freedom" invoked is not the same as what those who deny what God has said is the reason, have invoked.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Unless you can see a past where the other choice was made you have no evidence of it even existing. To you it would be unfair that we were not allowed to see the future to determine the best possible choice. Is free will truly the solution the problem you have with God? How is it just that we are only given a partial view of the situation? If we are truly to be held according to our choice then is choice masked by ignorance truly free? How is it just when we are not able to choose the best possible option every single time? Free will solves none of these problems.
The Bible clearly states predestination and also proves the character of God when he sent his one and only son to die for sinners. God is perfectly just in his actions and is a sovereign being.

Hahaha! You hit very nicely on the sequence I like to speak of, tongue in cheek, yet I can find nothing wrong with it: The only thing that can happen is whatever does happen.

If we extrapolate from the past, we see that from now on, the only thing that will happen is whatever does happen. How, then, can we consider any other possibilities?

 

[Mark Quayle]

In MY metaphysics, both God and man are equally uncaused.

I would like if you can explain that. I hear you saying that you can't see proof that the order of things is different from that, but I don't hear you demonstrating, A. that man is uncaused, or B. That God is reduced to our level in any matter, philosophically, physically, etc, except perhaps as when The Son of God became man.

 

[rnmomof7]

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

The worst sin ever committed was the crucification of Christ.. did not God ordain that sin for His glory ?

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Unless you can see a past where the other choice was made you have no evidence of it even existing.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

To you it would be unfair that we were not allowed to see the future to determine the best possible choice.

Unless you actually meant "It would be unfair to you" instead of the way you stated it which suggests I would complain that it was unfair... I would say:
Baloney. I never even implied such a thing. If you want to do some gun-spiking go right ahead but let's not fancy ourselves mind-readers. God-given reasoning will suffice in trying to make the best decision to my satisfaction. In any case, how could it be unfair if the same rules applied to everyone?

Is free will truly the solution the problem you have with God?

Free will isn't designed to solve any problem. It is simply a characteristic of all created beings with reasoning powers.

And if by "problem" you mean the natural enmity toward God in sinful human nature then Christ and Him crucified would be the solution. Boy oh boy we're really doing some dancing here aren't we?

How is it just that we are only given a partial view of the situation?

Because that's all we need to make the best possible decision under the circumstances.

If we are truly to be held according to our choice then is choice masked by ignorance truly free?

The Bible says God winks at ignorance.

How is it just when we are not able to choose the best possible option every single time?

Because we are only required to make the best possible decision under the circumstances.

Swing your partner. Promenade.

Free will solves none of these problems.

Again, free will is not intended to solve any problems. Especially imaginary ones.

The Bible clearly states predestination

It does no such thing unless the entire Bible is to be read through the lens of an all-or-nothing cognitive distortion of Romans 9.

What the Bible clearly does is to dispute nearly every sentence of your post quoted here.

...and also proves the character of God when he sent his one and only son to die for sinners. God is perfectly just in his actions and is a sovereign being.

No argument there. Amen and Hallelujah, Brother!

So once again the argument in favor of determinism raises more questions than solutions.

 

[renniks]

Miracle is a word we use to describe what defies natural law. I like to point out that if God made all things, it is all miracle, or maybe all natural, since he made what we consider natural. That being said, for the sake of discussion, I would say that miracle is defiance of "usual". We hardly know what is natural anyway, judging on the past. Radio is a miracle, based on 1500's level of knowledge. What makes us so smart that we would know?

What makes us so stupid we wouldn't know? Is there a natural law that accounts for our souls? According to natural laws, we are just our physical beings.

 

[JAL]

I think I'd rather do my "thinking" in the right "right direction":

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalms 33:9

What's a fella to do?

Exegesis isn't easy. An exegete's best friends are these questions:
(1) Is my position clear and coherent?
(2) Is it logically consistent?
Creation ex nihilo violates #1 for starters. Now for the verses you mentioned.

The church still doesn't understand Heb 11. Here's the correct reading. The things unseen become seen by revelatory vision. For example Abraham looked forward to the heavenly city - because he saw the same visions of heaven that all the prophets saw. You can read the book of Revelation for a sample of those visions. Thus Heb 11:3 proves my position - it indicates that God framed the world out of VISIBLE substances.

You mentioned God's voice (Ps 33:9). You do, realize, don't you, that the role of God's voice in Genesis 1 is to form and shape existing matter? Originally there is a lump of raw material known as "the waters". Then His voice proceeds to shape the raw material into dry land and creatures. That's why the International Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), composed by 200 evangelical scholars, finds no clear evidence for creation ex nihilo in Genesis. Instead it looks to Heb 11:3 as you did !!!

Tell you what - forget about exegesis for the moment. It's too difficult for all of us including me. First find some positions that are logically coherent and logically consistent (not many of those). Then try to figure out if any of them are consistent with Scripture. At least that's a better starting point.

We were never supposed to understand Scripture primarily by exegesis. Rather by direct revelation.

 

[renniks]

Meanwhile, if one claims that "free will" by definition demands the "free agent" is above cause-and-effect, then one has not only ascribed supernatural ability to the "free agent", but has removed God from the equation, which is frankly ludicrous. The one claiming this has put man above God.

Nonsense. Can God not give his creation the ability to make uncaused choices? If not, why does God complain that he must strive with men, and that they do not do what he wants?

 

[BarnyFyfe]

The fact that "b" is never chosen might, however, be brought to bear. And when scripture tells WHY "b" is never chosen, one may still use the word, "free" to show why "b" is rejected, and why "a" is chosen, but the "freedom" invoked is not the same as what those who deny what God has said is the reason, have invoked.

Ok so I guess the Gospel isn't simple enough for the common man to understand.
Scripture never says that "b" is never chosen so it doesn't have to explain why.

 

[renniks]

The worst sin ever committed was the crucification of Christ.. did not God ordain that sin for His glory ?

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.

 

[JAL]

I would like if you can explain that. I hear you saying that you can't see proof that the order of things is different from that, but I don't hear you demonstrating, A. that man is uncaused, or B. That God is reduced to our level in any matter, philosophically, physically, etc, except perhaps as when The Son of God became man.

The proof is that all 26 objections can be easily resolved - a feat unaccomplished by the worlds greatest minds for 2,000 years - by simply switching to a different metaphysics that abandons the old dogmatic assumptions. On the other hand, I suppose you're entitled to wait another 2,000 years if you don't mind persisting in contradictions until then.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Exegesis isn't easy. An exegete's best friends are these questions:
(1) Is my position clear and coherent?
(2) Is it logically consistent?
Creation ex nihilo violates #1 for starters. Now for the verses you mentioned.

The church still doesn't understand Heb 11. Here's the correct reading. The things unseen become seen by revelatory vision. For example Abraham looked forward to the heavenly city - because he saw the same visions of heaven that all the prophets saw. You can read the book of Revelation for a sample of those visions. Thus Heb 11:3 proves my position - it indicates that God framed the world out of VISIBLE substances.

You mentioned God's voice (Ps 33:9). You do, realize, don't you, that the role of God's voice in Genesis 1 is to form and shape existing matter? Originally there is a lump of raw material known as "the waters". Then His voice proceeds to shape the raw material into dry land and creatures. That's why the International Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), composed by 200 evangelical scholars, finds no clear evidence for creation ex nihilo in Genesis. Instead it looks to Heb 11:3 as you did !!!

Tell you what - forget about exegesis for the moment. It's too difficult for all of us including me. First find some positions that are logically coherent and logically consistent (not many of those). Then try to figure out if any of them are consistent with Scripture. At least that's a better starting point.

We were never supposed to understand Scripture primarily by exegesis. Rather by direct revelation.

The Gospel is too complicated for the common man to understand. Got it.

Two questions:

1. How "logically consistent" are the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ?
2. Where did the "existing matter" come from?

Here we go. Shall we dance?

 

[JAL]

By the way there is no need for the hypostatic union. The Incarnation is a cinch to explain if we start with a simplistic metaphysics.

 

[JAL]

The Gospel is too complicated for the common man to understand. Got it.

The gospel is apprehended by direct revelation, also known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, this is a virtual consensus among evangelical theologians.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

The Incarnation is a cinch to explain

Here is where I get off.

 

[JAL]

Two questions:

1. How "logically consistent" are the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ?
2. Where did the "existing matter" come from?

Here we go. Shall we dance?

Is the human brain logically consistent? If you believe in the human brain, and have some rough idea of what it does (and I think we all do), then you can comprehend my theory of the Trinity. The Incarnation is even easier. I'll get you a summary.