Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[Mark Quayle]

But one cause doesn't make all choices pre determined, which is what reformed theology assumes if you take it to its logical conclusion.

Ok, let's go with that. If God jumps in now and then, doing miracle, such as lifting a person from death of sin, and giving them life, even giving them free will, how is that not predetermined?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But one cause doesn't make all choices pre determined, which is what reformed theology assumes if you take it to its logical conclusion.

Ok, let's go with that. If God jumps in now and then, doing miracle, such as lifting a person from death of sin, and giving them life, even giving them free will, how is that not predetermined?

 

[renniks]

You say free will is assumed, I say responsible choice is assumed. For everything to be cause-and-effect, even miracles are effect.

So you're starting by assuming determinism and all your interpretation of scripture is biased by that assumption. No one gets there simply by reading the Bible, it is an outside theory that has to be imposed on scripture.

 

[renniks]

Ok, let's go with that. If God jumps in now and then, doing miracle, such as lifting a person from death of sin, and giving them life, even giving them free will, how is that not predetermined?

If God established natural laws and then breaks those laws, it's an interruption in the chain of cause and effect. One interruption, say God becoming man, changes the flow, one free choice changes the parameters. Yes, God knows what will happen, but you can't just assume he causes each action with out proof.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What in the world does consciousness have to do with matter?

Wait. I know the answer. Nothing!!!



Uh, no it's really not like it at all. Not at all. At all.

I was going to address each of your assertions individually, but it's becoming clear to me that you have embraced some sort of neo-Hellenistic philosophy for which I have no sympathy whatsoever. You make so many statements that are diametrically opposed to the Gospel and then you appeal to a certain hermeneutic to prove your point. Why use Scripture at all if, as you say, you are a staunch materialist? My mind is either too large or too small for that to add up. It's not that I mind wasting your time thereby keeping you from serving this stuff up to someone who might buy it, but you need to understand that if you believe God Himself crawled out of some primordial ooze then we've got an infinite way to go to come to some sort of agreement. I don't hold to a radical uber-literalist approach to Scripture but I don't believe that emissions from the nostrils of a materialist form of a Christ have precedence over Scripture, either. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Scripture. The Bible says that 1+1+1=1. You can't materialize that by saying God is like a brain with 3 physical parts because if they're physical they're separate and cannot equal 1. They equal 3. 3 people who work together harmoniously on a project are still 3 people. There are not one as God is One.

As far as your frustration goes, you only have to read my signature to see where I stand. But I can't say I agree with your counterpoint that God and man are exactly the same metaphysically speaking. I don't venture very far into metaphysical questions. I believe that the supernatural is as real as the natural but that also for His providential reasons God has chosen to separate them at least for the time being. I'm encountering Determinism here on CF in a way that is new to me and frankly quite unsettling. The idea that God harbors actual malice for the wicked is completely foreign to me. And if I could accept the view that He created certain people for the explicit purpose of living an unrighteous life and then suffering forever in fervent flames I would probably die of depression.

lol. I hope you are saying then, that God did not make them for that purpose, or certainly not for that purpose in and of itself. The discourse of the clay and the potter is pretty clear that God has a reason for the destruction of the lost --and obviously it is not to satisfy some sadistic urge.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you want to think of the Gospel as plan "b" that is your prerogative as a free-willed agent, but the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world and this sin-filled earth is an anomaly, an outlier in God's perfect and holy universe. If the Gospel was plan "b" then it wasn't pre-determined, either. Earth is in rebellion and under quarantine until the Gospel goes to all the world. Then shall the end come.

What?? Of course. No, I don't think the gospel was plan B. That is not what we were discussing at all.

He had said things to the effect that free will means one can choose "b" just as easily as "a". My point is that the only way the lost can choose "b" is by the action of God, not by man's inherent ability.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God established natural laws and then breaks those laws, it's an interruption in the chain of cause and effect. One interruption, say God becoming man, changes the flow, one free choice changes the parameters. Yes, God knows what will happen, but you can't just assume he causes each action with out proof.

God "breaks" those laws? Why is an interruption in the chain of cause-and-effect, not also cause? Again, you have not shown how "free will" as you claim is real concerning man and is the ability by which he can choose "a" just as easily as "b". Apart from God, according to Scripture, he always chooses "b". If so, only the regenerated can choose "a" because of God's grace. This grace he does not give to the lost. And you have no way to demonstrate that the lost have that innate ability but to try to show that they are not responsible choosers if they don't have that innate ability. You have not shown that --only declared it.

Free will, as you define it, is an effect, not a cause, in spite of your protests. This was all made by God.

 

[Der Alte]

The Gospel is too complicated for the common man to understand. Got it.
Two questions:How "logically consistent" are the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ?Where did the "existing matter" come from?
Here we go. Shall we dance?

Talk about dance. This song and dance sounds familiar. Us common folks can't understand the Bible unless somebody with "special revelation" explains it to them. How many times have I heard this? JW, LDS, UPCI, OP, WWCG, INC etc. etc. etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Talk about dance. This song and dance sounds familiar. Us common folks can't understand the Bible unless somebody with "special revelation" explains it to them. How many times have I heard this? JW, LDS, UPCI, OP, WWCG, INC etc. etc. etc.

That was his point, I think. He was being sarcastic.

 

[renniks]

Free will, as you define it, is an effect, not a cause, in spite of your protests. This was all made by God.

In order to be free, it has to have effects, not just be an effect. If God creates a being capable of truly free choices, he has opened the can of worms, yes, but he is not controlling the worms.

 

[renniks]

God "breaks" those laws? Why is an interruption in the chain of cause-and-effect, not also cause?

Then you have a situation where either everything is a miracle or nothing is. If everything is simply pre determined cause and effect according to natural laws, that is the atheistic form of determinism. If God is just causing everything, down to which sinful thoughts enter your mind, then you have theistic determinism. Neither one makes sense in light of the scriptures revelation, where God says men can and do oppose his will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In order to be free, it has to have effects, not just be an effect. If God creates a being capable of truly free choices, he has opened the can of worms, yes, but he is not controlling the worms.

Again. why not?

By the way, all along I have maintained that "free will", responsible choice, real choice, actual choice, whatever you want to call it --has effects. If God causes the choice he also causes those effects. If not God, then what? Randomness? Chance?

 

[renniks]

I don't even know for sure what you mean by determinism

"the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

 

[renniks]

Again. why not?

By the way, all along I have maintained that "free will", responsible choice, real choice, actual choice, whatever you want to call it --has effects. If God causes the choice he also causes those effects. If not God, then what? Randomness? Chance?

If not God controlling the will, then obviously, the will has it's own control as is taught in scripture.
"You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"
Acts 7:51
One cannot resist the Spirit if he has no will independent of that Spirit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In order to be free, it has to have effects, not just be an effect. If God creates a being capable of truly free choices, he has opened the can of worms, yes, but he is not controlling the worms.

I see what you are responding to. My bad. Yes, I said it is not a cause. I misspoke. Of course it causes.

It is not only cause, though, nor first cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If not God controlling the will, then obviously, the will has it's own control as is taught in scripture.
"You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"
Acts 7:51
One cannot resist the Spirit if he has no will independent of that Spirit.

It is admirable that one thinks in black and white concepts. The law of non-contradiction is indeed logical. The problem comes in when one thinks his black and white is not from his own biased presumptions.

You may think that you have shown irresistible reason here. I agree to what you say, that IF God is not controlling the will (of a person), then obviously, that person's will has its own control. But that is not the scenario. If (and it is implied that it does) the will of the lost resists the Holy Spirit, you have not only yet to show that that whole matter was not predestined, but that what you seem to wish to imply holds true --that if the Holy Spirit is resisted, then it bowed out in the equation or something.

Either way you want to direct your line of rhetoric, whether, 1. that God is not controlling the will of the lost, or 2. That the will that is not independent of the Spirit cannot resist the Spirit (I think resist can mean at least two different things, but ok), (1) the will God does not control always declares independence from God, (2) the will independent of God always chooses to reject. You can conjecture all the "could have" you want, based on your definition of "free will" but the Bible shows nobody chooses to receive him, but by the work of God, not by human will.

 

[renniks]

You can conjecture all the "could have" you want, based on your definition of "free will" but the Bible shows nobody chooses to receive him, but by the work of God, not by human will.

Not true. What the Bible says is that salvation God's doing. It makes it clear that one must receive Christ before he will save you.


"If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved. For it is by our faith that we are put right with God; it is by our confession that we are saved. "(Romans 10:9-10)

Since you have accepted Christ Jesus as Lord, live in union with him. Keep your roots deep in him, build your lives on him, and become stronger in your faith, as you were taught. And be filled with thanksgiving. (Colossians 2:6-7)

Accepting or rejecting Christ requires an act of the will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not true. What the Bible says is that salvation God's doing. It makes it clear that one must receive Christ before he will save you.


"If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved. For it is by our faith that we are put right with God; it is by our confession that we are saved. "(Romans 10:9-10)

Since you have accepted Christ Jesus as Lord, live in union with him. Keep your roots deep in him, build your lives on him, and become stronger in your faith, as you were taught. And be filled with thanksgiving. (Colossians 2:6-7)

Accepting or rejecting Christ requires an act of the will.

No doubt "Accepting or rejecting Christ requires an act of the will"; however, receiving him does not, though it certainly does compel the will.

"9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Do you take the word "unto" in verse 9 above to only possibly mean that the confession by mouth is what saves? Do you then argue that the confession by mouth is unavoidable, since it is a result of faith? Do you argue free will could make that confession avoidable, negating the salvation? Does one's status concerning salvation depend then, on the status of man's free will?

How do you think a person comes to believe? What do you think faith is? Do you claim that both are independent of the work of the Lord, since you deny God's control of free will?

 

[renniks]

No doubt "Accepting or rejecting Christ requires an act of the will"; however, receiving him does not, though it certainly does compel the will.

Nonsensical.

 

[renniks]

Do you take the word "unto" in verse 9 above to only possibly mean that the confession by mouth is what saves? D

Of course not. What does the verse clearly say? It says the belief in the heart and confessing Christ leads to salvation. Belief is a choice.