Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

Oh, he has a will alright. It is in bondage to sin, and independent of the Spirit it always resists the Spirit. But it sounds like you think this proves wrong those who say free will is not sovereign will. We are all in bondage, either to sin, or to Christ.

The question is whether determinisim or libertarianism harmonizes best with Scripture.

Frequently, Mark, you build your case on an inappropriate starting point, namely you typically start with the sinful nature, and then conclude that such a man is not terribly free. If we start from that point, I certainly agree with you that the conclusion is pretty reasonable and has considerable Scriptural support (although I linked you to a post demonstrating that it's a bit of an oversimplification). Therefore I don't spend much time debating you from that starting point because I can't decisively prove it to be a weak point in your position.

Rather I look to prior points - and to the system as a whole. It's a rather bizarre system. God is supposed to be infinitely good, and yet He intentionally lines up the dominoes in a way that pushes, say, 50% of 100 billion people into hell when He could just as easily have lined them up to push 100% into heaven. Or even He could have abstained from creating anything. Thus when Scripture teaches that He wants 100% to be saved, it seems to be absolutely LYING to us. Had He WANTED all men and angels to be in heaven, clearly He would have lined up the dominoes differently. Clearly, in your view, He WANTED an awful lot of people to goto hell. In my family we often say that actions speak louder than words. God did what He WANTED. In your view He achieved precisely the outcome that He WANTED - nothing more, nothing less.

And He has even His own Son suffering needlessly on the cross - easily preventable by a different domino-arrangement.

You have no proof that God is First Cause in a chain of causality. You're asking us to believe a COMPLETELY BIZARRE system without a shred of proof - a system that seems to self-contradict both our own hope and the basic goodness of God.

On such charges you've replied that God only contradicts MY definitions of virtue. But what else do I have to go on? If I can't find a set of words whose definitions are common to me and God, then effectively Scripture has no legitimate translation. It might as well be written in an angelic tongue that none of us understand - it's a useless document. I realize that we can make exegetical mistakes when trying to discern the definition of a given biblical term. But our only exegetical SIGNNPOST of such errors is apparent contradictions.

You choose to ignore these apparent contradictions. But in doing so - and again, I'm not talking with respect to your preferred starting point - it remains painfully obvious that libertarianism harmonizes with Scripture much better than determinism.

As for starting points, a theologian should be able to explain why Adam DESERVED to be punished. Determinism offers no hope in this regard. And while you might feel that libertarianism isn't 100% clear, at least it offers some EFFORT at, some PROSPECT of, resolving the contradictions.

 

[JAL]

How not? Can you show me how free will is causeless? One way or the other, your choices are caused from the beginning.

In my metaphysics free will isn't caused - neither for us nor for God. But even if free will were something given to us by God, instead of innate, our subsequent choices are arguably free. To deny this would misconstrue God as being sufficiently evil to put people in prison/hell for circumstances beyond their control.

 

[renniks]

How is that faith generated and how is it maintained?

It's surrendering to Christ and trusting what he says is true. We can choose to rely on God and he will strengthen our faith.

 

[renniks]

Do you not believe and then confess? What if you are unable to confess, mute or worse, clinically an idiot?

You could confess by writing or baptism. Yes belief is the important part. Sincere belief leads to salvation.

 

[renniks]

Oh, he has a will alright. It is in bondage to sin, and independent of the Spirit it always resists the Spirit. But it sounds like you think this proves wrong those who say free will is not sovereign will. We are all in bondage, either to sin, or to Christ.

Have you never heard of preveniant grace?

"for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11

 

[renniks]

To the contrary free will is influenced, and so caused.

Influence isn't causation. I might have 100 influences on a decision, but they don't decide for me. I still must choose myself.

 

[renniks]

How not? Can you show me how free will is causeless? One way or the other, your choices are caused from the beginning. Even, as I think you espouse, that God can insert himself, "interrupting the chain of cause-and-effect", he is still first cause of the effects of his insertion. There is no difference --free will is caused.

If you want to say that free will is not caused, but is only a causer, I have seen no evidence of that. To the contrary free will is influenced, and so caused. Furthermore, since you claim to believe Scripture, the will is subject to the law of sin, or the law of Christ.

I also find it amusing that the very term free will indicates that the choice isn't caused, and you just ignore the obvious. It can't be both free and in bondage. God would not have told Cain he must master his sinful tendencies if God were causing those tendencies. That would make God irrational or sadistic.

 

[JAL]

As best I can recall, you dismissed post 210, making a big show of writing it off as some kind of misrepresentation. Maybe we got our wires crossed somewhere, but it still seems perfectly valid to me so I'm repeating it here.

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.

Again, you are implying that God can do anything He wants, even if He is acting in ways that we'd call evil, but we have to call it good because He is God. In a nutshell, God isn't constrained to any rules and thus is the quintessential LAWLESS ONE (oh wait a minute, that's the devil's title). Two complaints:

(1) This obviates the cross. If whatever He does is good, why not just put us all in heaven without propitiation?
(2) It deprives the word holiness of all meaning. Holiness, in this framework, means that God is just as lawless as the lawless one, except we have to call it "good" and praise Him for it.

At least with respect to God, the Reformed view distinguishes holiness and evil only nominally, and thus not in any meaningful way. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this leads to two more objections:
(3) This undermines our hope, because there is only a nominal distinction between a cruel God and a kind one, and between a dishonest God and an honest one.
(4) This contradicts the biblical data. According to Scripture the actions of God do NOT IN FACT resemble the actions of evil men and the lawless one. Far from it. His actions move in the exact opposite direction. Thus according to Scripture, the distinction between God's behavior and that of evil people isn't merely nominal.

 

[Clete]

- God planned, executes, and controls the location of each electron in the Cosmos.
- You can choose not to believe that.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
I invite you to make an attempt to establish your claim biblically. It doesn't have to be about electrons. Just establish the notion that God planned, executred and cotroled every macro event that happened in the bible (never mind the whole history of the world).

This illustrates that the two sides are not able to be reconciled.

Except by God.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

This doesn't seem to illustrate anything. What was this even about?

 

[Clete]

I have yet to see what it is you are claiming as "antinomy" on my part. But yes, Merry Christmas to you and yours, too!

You post was effectively dismissing the open contradictions that exist between the notion that God predestined everything before time began and the notion that we can we have a will and can do things like love God and one another. You simply chalk the contradiction up to "human logic" and say "God is transcendant" and leave it at that. This is the text book definition of the word "antimony". You are pefectly comfortable to live with openly blatant contradiction and consider that willingness to be the very definition of faith and piety.

My question to you is what doctrine is immune to such thinking - if one can rightly call it thinking?

If I wanted to tell you that God was a purple horse with two tails, seven legs and a green glittery swastika shaped blaze on his forhead, would you believe me just because I called any objection you might present "human logic" and told you that it's a truth that is spiritually discerned and must be taken on faith?

or

How do you know that David Koresh wasn't the "sinful messiah" he claimed himself to be? How would you counter his claim that whatever arguement you brought against him amounted to "human logic"?

or

Whatever crack-pot insanity that someone might want to tell you is true.

How is this antinomy tactic not a catch all doctrinal trump card by which you (or anyone else) can throw off any argument against any doctrine whatsoever no matter how obviously and outlandishly false it might be?

 

[Clete]

None of this is a problem with God. If God says he predestines, then indeed he does so. He does NOT say he gives us free will, though he does imply choice.

He does not merely imply choice!

There are a great many passages I could quote but for the sake of time I'll quote two. One that states directly that God did not predestine everything and the other that states explicitly that we do have a choice...

Jeremiah 19:5
(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

If Scripture is the authority, above our arguments, then you are on the losing side to say that free will determines his predestination.

Notice how you undermine "our arguments" (i.e. all argumentation) but that you are yourself making an argument!

All such attempts to undermine reason will have the same result. Logic is utterly irrefragable. Any attempt to refute sound reason, uses reason to make the attempt and thus defeats itself before it ever gets to the period at the end of the argument.

He does not "help lead us to the right path". He leads us. Whether we follow (obey) him or not, as a matter of fact. For the elect, he leads in the ways of righteousness, FOR HIS NAME'S SAKE. This is not about us. But ok. enough, Cis.jd. God bless you.

This is one of those issues where Calvinists say things that I might be tempted to agree with except that there is meaning packed into the words that isn't obvious to the initiated that renders the whole statement almost meaningless but I'm going to leave this alone because there is too much here to unpack and I don't want to derail the discussion away from the veracity of logic and our ability to understand right doctrine.

Clete

 

[Mark Quayle]

(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

Can that not, and most likely mean, "nor did it come into my mind that th

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Yes. Maybe you haven't read much of what I have posted. I have said more than once, that even mere compliance with God's law has results. I DO NOT DENY REAL CHOICE. Furthermore, logically, to put before humanity (not just Israel) the choice to choose or reject God, does not imply that God does not cause that choice. Where do you get that this verse proves your point?

You post was effectively dismissing the open contradictions that exist between the notion that God predestined everything before time began and the notion that we can we have a will and can do things like love God and one another. You simply chalk the contradiction up to "human logic" and say "God is transcendant" and leave it at that. This is the text book definition of the word "antimony". You are pefectly comfortable to live with openly blatant contradiction and consider that willingness to be the very definition of faith and piety.

My question to you is what doctrine is immune to such thinking - if one can rightly call it thinking?

If I wanted to tell you that God was a purple horse with two tails, seven legs and a green glittery swastika shaped blaze on his forhead, would you believe me just because I called any objection you might present "human logic" and told you that it's a truth that is spiritually discerned and must be taken on faith?

or

How do you know that David Koresh wasn't the "sinful messiah" he claimed himself to be? How would you counter his claim that whatever arguement you brought against him amounted to "human logic"?

or

Whatever crack-pot insanity that someone might want to tell you is true.

How is this antinomy tactic not a catch all doctrinal trump card by which you (or anyone else) can throw off any argument against any doctrine whatsoever no matter how obviously and outlandishly false it might be?

To wax eloquent a few lines down a false tack proves nothing, nor is it logically convincing. Makes me think of a politician or activist speaker making a bald faced lie, then screaming about the blindness of denial.

Notice how you undermine "our arguments" (i.e. all argumentation) but that you are yourself making an argument!

Huh? How do I undermine all argumentation? I undermine your confidence in your reasoning. The fact that two people reason, or argue, does not make both positions equally valid.

All such attempts to undermine reason will have the same result. Logic is utterly irrefragable. Any attempt to refute sound reason, uses reason to make the attempt and thus defeats itself before it ever gets to the period at the end of the argument.

That's very clever. I hear a representative of the FBI pompously declare all the steps of integrity necessary to gain a FISA warrant, as if that is therefore how they did it. You are saying something true, and expecting me to assume therefore that it applies to this situation?

This is one of those issues where Calvinists say things that I might be tempted to agree with except that there is meaning packed into the words that isn't obvious to the initiated that renders the whole statement almost meaningless but I'm going to leave this alone because there is too much here to unpack and I don't want to derail the discussion away from the veracity of logic and our ability to understand right doctrine.

Clete, my man, I don't want to continue down an argument concerning the integrity of one's own understanding. You here answer my protests about such trust in self, with a generic claim that I am wrong because logic is reliable. I am not saying that logic is unreliable. I'm saying that WE are unreliable. You argue that WE is all we have to make logic, but that is useless to say --it does not disagree with me that we are unreliable. You will say I am being disingenuous since I make arguments against yours --so what? --we do the best we can; you have proven nothing but my thesis, by pointing out my hypocrisy.

You sound to me like the Atheists who assume, since I believe in God, that I am opposed to science. Wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As best I can recall, you dismissed post 210, making a big show of writing it off as some kind of misrepresentation. Maybe we got our wires crossed somewhere, but it still seems perfectly valid to me so I'm repeating it here.

Again, you are implying that God can do anything He wants, even if He is acting in ways that we'd call evil, but we have to call it good because He is God. In a nutshell, God isn't constrained to any rules and thus is the quintessential LAWLESS ONE (oh wait a minute, that's the devil's title). Two complaints:

(1) This obviates the cross. If whatever He does is good, why not just put us all in heaven without propitiation?
(2) It deprives the word holiness of all meaning. Holiness, in this framework, means that God is just as lawless as the lawless one, except we have to call it "good" and praise Him for it.

At least with respect to God, the Reformed view distinguishes holiness and evil only nominally, and thus not in any meaningful way. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this leads to two more objections:
(3) This undermines our hope, because there is only a nominal distinction between a cruel God and a kind one, and between a dishonest God and an honest one.
(4) This contradicts the biblical data. According to Scripture the actions of God do NOT IN FACT resemble the actions of evil men and the lawless one. Far from it. His actions move in the exact opposite direction. Thus according to Scripture, the distinction between God's behavior and that of evil people isn't merely nominal.

But I was right. You misrepresent the facts. The fact that we (or at least those who trust in their own understanding) find themselves representing his deeds or plans as evil doesn't change the truth. If the truth is that his deeds and plans are not evil, nothing you say or think can change what he does. He does not depend on your judgement.

I don't know how many ways I can say the same thing. However, there is an obvious logical leap you make in going from we should "lean not on [our] own understanding" in our judgement of what God does or plans, to God isn't constrained to any rules (notice you don't quote me as saying, "God is not constrained to any of my understanding or use of the rules". You seem to think your understanding IS the rules.), to --WHAT??-- how can God operating from his own sovereign being, without regard to our views, make him the LAWLESS ONE?????

1. If whatever he does is good, HOW does he possibly put us all in Heaven without going through all this mess --are you serious? Have you no concept what he has done? From his point of view, it may well be that he has done exactly that: Spoke and it was complete. The complexity of his intelligence and ability made US go through all this, for the sake of his completed plan. The problem of pain is central to the reason for THIS particular universe --God's glory (see again the potter and the clay discourse, particularly relevant is Romans 9:23 "18 So then, God has mercy on whomever he wants to, but he makes resistant whomever he wants to. 19 So you are going to say to me, "Then why does he still blame people? Who has ever resisted his will?" 20 You are only a human being. Who do you think you are to talk back to God? Does the clay say to the potter, "Why did you make me like this?" 21 Doesn't the potter have the power over the clay to make one pot for special purposes and another for garbage from the same lump of clay? 22 What if God very patiently puts up with pots made for wrath that were designed for destruction, because he wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known? 23 What if he did this to make the wealth of his glory known toward pots made for mercy, which he prepared in advance for glory?")

If we don't like it, it is of no bearing upon the Truth."

2. Here you only restate your premise in calling him the Lawless One, as it would relate to Holiness. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion.

3. You said, "...with respect to God, the Reformed view distinguishes holiness and evil only nominally, and thus not in any meaningful way." I disagree with your premise here and therefore need not even consider your conclusion. You have not supported this premise; therefore, I need not consider your (3).

Nevertheless, I will deal with it: Reformed theology affirms a transcendent God, not a perhaps dishonest or evil one. You sound like the unfaithful servant, telling the master, "I knew you were a hard man, reaping where you have not sown...". But if that is how you want it, Ok. WHAT, in the name of good sense, makes the fact you can't see past your reasoning or opinions, mean that your opinions are all that matter concerning truth? "Who are you, oh man?"

We find God altogether good and just and full of glory. One who does not need our definitions of good and bad. This is our reason for hope: HE is doing this, and that for his own sake. That in itself is altogether beautiful and glorious to us, whom he created for his own sake. We KNOW that he will complete what he has begun. On top of that, this confidence of his completed work does not vacillate according to our whims and weakness. HE will complete it.

You make WAY too much of the human ability to choose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I also find it amusing that the very term free will indicates that the choice isn't caused, and you just ignore the obvious. It can't be both free and in bondage. God would not have told Cain he must master his sinful tendencies if God were causing those tendencies. That would make God irrational or sadistic.

That is why many Reformed believers refuse to use the word "free" in their use of responsible choice. Some say it is only free from within its bondage, and reference the principle that whatever the lost do is still sinful --even when what they do is on the surface good and just.

Concerning Cain, I think you should, again, reference the potter vs clay discourse. Notice what I put in bold, in vs 18. Romans 9: "18 So then, God has mercy on whomever he wants to, but he makes resistant whomever he wants to. 19 So you are going to say to me, "Then why does he still blame people? Who has ever resisted his will?" 20 You are only a human being. Who do you think you are to talk back to God? Does the clay say to the potter, "Why did you make me like this?" 21 Doesn't the potter have the power over the clay to make one pot for special purposes and another for garbage from the same lump of clay? 22 What if God very patiently puts up with pots made for wrath that were designed for destruction, because he wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known? 23 What if he did this to make the wealth of his glory known toward pots made for mercy, which he prepared in advance for glory?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

I also find it amusing that the very term free will indicates that the choice isn't caused, and you just ignore the obvious. It can't be both free and in bondage. God would not have told Cain he must master his sinful tendencies if God were causing those tendencies. That would make God irrational or sadistic.

Good. Then abandon the term. God does whatever he chooses to do. He doesn't confer with us.

Romans 9: 18 So then, God has mercy on whomever he wants to, but he makes resistant whomever he wants to. 19 So you are going to say to me, "Then why does he still blame people? Who has ever resisted his will?" 20 You are only a human being. Who do you think you are to talk back to God? Does the clay say to the potter, "Why did you make me like this?" 21 Doesn't the potter have the power over the clay to make one pot for special purposes and another for garbage from the same lump of clay? 22 What if God very patiently puts up with pots made for wrath that were designed for destruction, because he wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known? 23 What if he did this to make the wealth of his glory known toward pots made for mercy, which he prepared in advance for glory?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Have you never heard of preveniant grace?

"for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11

Of course. So what is your point? Do you say this is the same grace as the Spirit of God being placed in the hearts of the elect? God has graced his creation in many way --the most obvious being the restraint of evil.

Notice also, that this too, leaves man without excuse.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's a rather bizarre system. God is supposed to be infinitely good, and yet He intentionally lines up the dominoes in a way that pushes, say, 50% of 100 billion people into hell when He could just as easily have lined them up to push 100% into heaven. Or even He could have abstained from creating anything. Thus when Scripture teaches that He wants 100% to be saved, it seems to be absolutely LYING to us. Had He WANTED all men and angels to be in heaven, clearly He would have lined up the dominoes differently. Clearly, in your view, He WANTED an awful lot of people to goto hell. In my family we often say that actions speak louder than words. God did what He WANTED. In your view He achieved precisely the outcome that He WANTED - nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I do not say he made them for the purpose of destruction alone. He had a better reason, and will complete it by use of their destruction --the means of his judgement and their condemnation. His justice and anger, holiness and power is altogether glorious.

Again, the discourse of the clay and potter does away with your protests. Romans 9, my bold font: 18 So then, God has mercy on whomever he wants to, but he makes resistant whomever he wants to. 19 So you are going to say to me, "Then why does he still blame people? Who has ever resisted his will?" 20 You are only a human being. Who do you think you are to talk back to God? Does the clay say to the potter, "Why did you make me like this?" 21 Doesn't the potter have the power over the clay to make one pot for special purposes and another for garbage from the same lump of clay? 22 What if God very patiently puts up with pots made for wrath that were designed for destruction, because he wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known? 23 What if he did this to make the wealth of his glory known toward pots made for mercy, which he prepared in advance for glory?"

By the way, the only place I find in scripture that to me sound like he wanted them all to be saved, either sound like, "it would be nice, but...." or it is referring to the elect alone. It certainly does not defeat the points within the discourse of the potter and clay. Worse, if you take it to do so, you need to answer for your impudence. I hope you can justify your Free Will by changing the meaning of Romans 9 to something it does not reason on its face.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's surrendering to Christ and trusting what he says is true. We can choose to rely on God and he will strengthen our faith.

So to you, faith is of the integrity of the man, not of God?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But even if free will were something given to us by God, instead of innate, our subsequent choices are arguably free. To deny this would misconstrue God as being sufficiently evil to put people in prison/hell for circumstances beyond their control.

Very good. Have I been saying different? (of course, this depends on what you mean by "free" in "arguably free". You have not, in this, denied cause).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Influence isn't causation. I might have 100 influences on a decision, but they don't decide for me. I still must choose myself.

Now here is the crux of the matter then. You deny influences cause. I do not. Among these influences is the person's own nature, which scripture shows to be pervasive.

The nature of a mad dog is to bite. You cannot blame the person bitten for inciting the dog to bite. The dog is to blame. The dog must be put down, though the dog quite naturally bit. Ok, I hear your protests coming...