Free Will, Predestination and Time

[Mark Quayle]

Hopefully we can de-escalate the virulence of this conversation. I have no wish to be contentious.

Either the characterization is true or false. It seems to me that your conscience irks you when you are forced to admit that my characterization is true. If you think it is false then you will have to explain why and provide the true characterization.

You said:

"Then you accept my characterization of your view, which says that when God killed millions of innocent Jews in the Shoah he was not committing an evil act? When Hitler did it he committed evil, but when God did it he did not commit evil.

That's correct, is it not? Am I or am I not correctly characterizing your view?"

That characterization of what I believe is not true if you mean (or if it can be taken by another reader to mean) something I do not intend. I thought I had explained the matter well enough, when I answered with something along the lines of, "yes, except..."
After I explained that, you said you considered the matter settled, but now you bring it up again. (Lol, unless I have the sequence of posts, wrong, which I agree is possible. It's not worth it to me to go through it all and find everything to be sure. You were wrong in the following, so I'm guessing you were also wrong in pressing the matter here.) If you are trying a lawyer's trick in a courtroom, it's not going to work, as either "yes" or "no" is not a completely truthful answer. (Like I said, I've had years of not being pinned down by my wife to a false presupposition that she might draw from either a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and you have nowhere near her skill nor force of an immediate answer! (I'm not trying to be mean here, but funny, but yes, there is a point to it. I'm not trying to be contentious —that was her speciality!))

But, again, I admit it is possible you are not referring to the matter you said you considered settled, but to the below. Please let me know which it is.

No, this is false. I pointed out that I had already linked to your quote in the very first post where I quoted it (namely, in post #41). You have continually chosen to ignore the link included in that post. There was no need for you go to searching for the quote I gave in #41. I included the link all along.

Neither in your post #55 which I am answering to here, nor in #41, (which you credit as having the links), do you quote me as I originally wrote, since you wrote combining two things I did say, but you quote them without context. Go to #41; It contains two links, one to #31, which I wrote, and which contains quotes from your post #27, neither of which, again, quote the two phrases as I originally used them. Again, the two phrases you mistakenly combine to mischaracterize what I said, only both show up in the same post in #26, which you did not link to in #41. I had to chase it down to find it, and I see no typo in my explanation, nor can I see how you come up with the notion that you garner by mistakenly combining the two phrases, to wit: 1) that "God is not subject to the laws he obligates us to"; and 2) that "God is not "subject to any principle from outside himself." " The notion you draw of what I believe, is, by your mistakenly combining them, sans context, mistaken.

Besides that, you make another mistake. (Even though you make the mistake of quoting them out of context), you apparently make the logical mistake of claiming that if proposition 1 is true: God is not subject to the laws he gave us; and that if proposition 2 is true: God is not subject to principles from outside himself, that these automatically and necessarily imply conclusion (3) is true: that anything he is not subject to is therefore from outside himself. Bad logic.

Two very important words, "in effect."

But God's will is NOT from outside himself, nor did I claim it was, but you mistakenly concluded that I had claimed it.

You are claiming that I accused you of making God's will "outside himself." What I actually did was connect God's law to God's will, and lump them together as something which is "outside himself." This is the logical conclusion of your theological camp, which is called Voluntarism. For example:

• "Such a response is a clear affirmation that God's law or God's will is a 'principle from outside himself.'" (post #41)

Why did you lump the two together, (when I did not), in order to extrapolate something that I had not at all intended?

How did lumping the two of them together make his law/ his will something which is from 'outside himself'? I can't make sense of your explanations. You seem to jump logical points, thinking something you said necessarily and obviously imply something, that it did not. I have already (above) shown how you use bad logic.

Note that your "bullet point" quote there is of your own derivation, not mine. You are quoting yourself. I hope a passing reader does not become confused at this point. If you have described Voluntarism correctly, then it is not a teaching of Calvinism, or at least it is certainly not what I teach, nor is it a logical implication of what I say Calvinism teaches, nor of what I teach. Again, the phrase, "There is no principle from outside of God, to which God is subject", does not at all imply that his will, nor that his law, is from outside himself.

Note that I said "God's law or God's will." Apart from the allusion to Voluntarism, I have focused much more on God's law, and it would seem that the umbrage you are now stirring up over God's will is a red herring which is side-stepping the elephant in the room. Here are the various quotes where I have been making points about God's law:

In post #25 I pointed to a law that St. Paul affirms: <One cannot do evil that good may come>. In post #26 you responded by saying that "God is not subject to the laws he obligates us to," and that God is not "subject to any principle from outside himself," implying that God's law is a principle from outside himself. In that same post you said that the idea that "God is subject to things beyond himself" is blasphemy.

Right. The notion that God is subject to things from beyond himself necessarily implies that he did not cause them, and that denies that he is first cause, which the Bible obviously claims. Therefore, blasphemy. I am not saying that anyone who claims freewill is blaspheming, but that they may not realize the logical implications of what they are saying. After all, I do know that, in general, they depend on the attribute of God's Omnipotence, more strongly than they do that God has given us the sort of free will that is independent of causation.

Again, I think the person who does not follow their own laws is a hypocrite, and since I believe that God is not a hypocrite, I therefore believe God follows his own laws (Matthew 23:13). "Blasphemy" seems to be a very strange and dishonest way to describe the belief that God is not a hypocrite. I am probably the one who ought to be taking umbrage, not you.

God is not "a person" in the sense that we are, a human creature. He is the one and only Omnipotent, Creator. That gives him the logical right of ownership, to command as he tells us, and to do as he will. But besides that, it implies that he is far above us, so that his commands apply to us, but not to him. What is behind those commands, that is, to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself —of course his whole being loves himself, and he has no neighbors. He tells us not to murder, but he has the absolute right to destroy anything he has made, by whatever means he chooses. We know he has chosen old age for most of us, and we die. If he decides to use Hitler for his purposes, he needn't justify it. He used Satan, after all.

Now in that same post, #26, you compared God's law to a parent's bedtime rule, "God is not subject to the laws he obligates us to, any more than parents don't have to be in bed by 8:00." The problem with this is that the transgression we were discussing was the Shoah (Holocaust). So you literally compared Hitler's Holocaust to a parent going to bed after 8:00, which is a remarkable comparison, and honestly, is a deeply immoral comparison.

Your consternation is ill conceived; I did not compare Hitler's Holocaust to a parent going to bed after 8:00. I compared God not being subject to his commands for us, (i.e. God's innate right to tell us one thing while he does another), to parents telling their child to go to bed by 8:00, while they themselves need not go to bed by 8:00. Thus, the notion of God being a hypocrite doesn't even come into question. He has no obligation to do as he commands us.

So, the question of my view of him being the first cause behind all effects, including Hitler's Holocaust, doesn't imply that God is a hypocrite. But I'm glad you think those humans who make laws for us ought to abide by them! Let Congress hear your consternation concerning their hypocrisy!

Calvinists do seem to get angry when their views are accurately characterized and brought into the light. But don't get angry at me. I'm just the messenger or the mirror. I didn't think up Calvinism, and I strongly disagree with it. Your anger is of course perfectly justified, but the proper object of anger is Calvinism itself.

I wouldn't know about Calvinists "getting angry when their views are accurately characterized and brought into the light". I have rarely seen (or heard) their views accurately characterized publicly in any way that angers them. You have been a very distorted 'mirror', but I give you credit for trying, and I applaud you for wanting God vindicated of all charges. But usually, Calvinists are almost inordinately pleased when their views are characterized accurately because Calvinism at its base is about the Gospel of GRACE, and not of any work of man, and it is a very happy and sure Gospel, full of joy at the sovereign power, purity and beauty, and love of God, and his mercy toward his undeserving elect ones.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi there, Mark . . . I just thought I'd stop by and see what you are doing, here

Again, the phrase, "There is no principle from outside of God, to which God is subject", does not at all imply that his will, nor that his law, is from outside himself.

I would say this is clear.

The notion that God is subject to things from beyond himself necessarily implies that he did not cause them, and that denies that he is first cause, which the Bible obviously claims.

Well, I think we could have an interesting discussion about how God "cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt any man." > in James 1:13 < to me, this means God did not cause evil to start; after all, God is good. I personally understand, then, that God who is good did not bring the spirit of evil into existence > Ephesians 2:2. Does John Calvin deal with this?

In any case, I do understand that while God does not cause evil, He does manage which way it will go, on its way to where it will stay. Yes, Isaiah says the LORD says He creates evil, but I understand this means God is creative in how He manages what evil will do and how God will take good advantage of whatever Satan and Satanic people do . . . like with Joseph > Genesis 37-50.

God is not "a person" in the sense that we are, a human creature.

"God is love" > in 1 John 4:8&16. By nature God is love, and I would say this includes being personal in family sharing and communication and caring and compassion. This is not a choice, but how God is.

He is the one and only Omnipotent, Creator. That gives him the logical right of ownership, to command as he tells us, and to do as he will. But besides that, it implies that he is far above us, so that his commands apply to us, but not to him.

I would not say it is a "right", but simply a reality

What is behind those commands, that is, to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself —of course his whole being loves himself, and he has no neighbors.

We have Romans 8:29 which I think shows the overall focus and purpose of all that God does and what is behind His commands.

While He may give us commands, He is doing much more and better than what He tells us to do . . . by the way

He tells us not to murder, but he has the absolute right to destroy anything he has made, by whatever means he chooses. We know he has chosen old age for most of us, and we die. If he decides to use Hitler for his purposes, he needn't justify it. He used Satan, after all.

Well, when a person dies, God then does what is right, with each person. And this can result in what is better than the person had in this life; or a person can reap what is much worse. Either way, what we have sown is what we will reap . . . much more > Galatians 6:7-8.

So, the question of my view of him being the first cause behind all effects, including Hitler's Holocaust, doesn't imply that God is a hypocrite.

I do not think He caused the Holocaust, but He has managed which way evil goes. And all the time,

"God resists the proud" > in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. In all things God is somehow resisting the proud so the proud do not do much more harm and do not get hurt much more.

But usually, Calvinists are almost inordinately pleased when their views are characterized accurately because Calvinism at its base is about the Gospel of GRACE, and not of any work of man, and it is a very happy and sure Gospel, full of joy at the sovereign power, purity and beauty, and love of God, and his mercy toward his undeserving elect ones.

Free will can be an idol of ones who want their idol of independence which isolates them in not really personal loving, at best.

But I would say that in God's love we share as family, in mutual trust and mutual dependence, ministering God's grace to one another > 1 Peter 4:9-10. We deny ourselves and trust God to have us in mutual relating > Ephesians 5:21 > so we are not just protecting ourselves from being taken over by each other. But ones who worship their free wills can be afraid of the free wills of others!

And I think Romans 8:29 gives the main focus of predestination >

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29)

So, first we need to correctly characterize what predestination means to God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, as I think of it, to me the answer to that is very clear: evidently God chose and designed this temporary universe and Earth to give us free will (and thus the ability to love also).

I don't assume you disagree with that by the way.

Of course, here we are not talking only about whether there is free will.

We are into the weeds of speculative ideas about Nature -- what God created -- some aspects of which God in His wisdom (superior to ours) chose not to tell us. (It's obvious to us all I think that the Bible doesn't address relatively unimportant things like Chemistry, Geology, Physics...because this is a temporary world, and He will replace it one day)

But there is a crucial, very key reason God didn't reveal every last bit of how Nature works.

It's because what God wants and requires from us is to have faith!

Not some accomplishment of esoteric knowledge of Nature (God's creation) or theological understandings. Those are beside the point of what God wants from us, because faith is what God requires of us.

We read that we are only saved solely by believing on Christ. (And, as often discussed here on CF, that from real faith and dwelling with Christ (on the Vine, John 15), we are able and given chances to bear good fruits, works that God has prepared for us to do -- Ephesians 2:8-10. -- there's a theological discussion that does matter, because Christ said Matthew 7:24-27, and He is the authority, not anyone else)

So, it's so important to remember when someone disagrees with a view we have in these discussions about the small details of Nature -- what God created -- are only academic, ultimately.

Out on the internet, the reason Genesis 1 is overly discussed (too much, and thus at the expense of diverting attention from the saving Gospel!) is because it's the agenda of a portion of atheists to try to use things in the Old Testament to attempt to destroy Christians.

The fundamental need in life is faith in Christ, not doctrines from church X or church Y.

For example, say you or I don't recognize/agree to the Catholic doctrine X.3.4 (maybe papal supremacy) -- then, praise God, we are not in danger of losing salvation, because salvation does not depend on men's doctrines, and salvation does not depend on even correct interpretations of everything in scripture (example: sabbath keeping, etc.) -- there is only one thing we need, and only one, direct from Christ in the Gospels: we must have faith in Christ.

So, a mentally handicapped person can enter heaven, and some very able, well versed theologians (some) may not.

Since we are not saved by having intellectual knowledge. And since only the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone can lead to salvation (as we read in the gospels and other places in the new Testament like Romans 10:17 and more), someone wrong about all sorts of things (or right), won't be helped by getting another detail of doctrinal questions of church X or Y right, but only by hearing the gospel and then responding to the gospel with faith.
----------

halbhh is actually just my name, Hal, followed by some additional letters I picked long ago merely in order to be able to begin my username with my real name somewhere once about 2001 or so.

Well, I love the picture of Andromeda. It is one of my favorite sights I had when I was younger, when my wife bought me a cheap 10" reflector telescope, with a high-quality mirror, cardboard tube, rough wooden mount (you had to keep adjusting it manually) but not a high-power lens, but lots of light gathering (the full moon would near blind you), and both the moon and Andromeda would fill the circle of sight. My eyes don't work well, now, so that's done with.

------------

I am always immediately suspicious when someone doesn't qualify what they mean by 'free will'. And two immediate thoughts accompany that suspicion. Why don't they just say "choice" or "real choice"? Why do they insist on the word, 'free'?

But your words are good, and I think I can trust your heart, regardless of your theological differences with me. What I liked probably most in your post is the thought of the mentally handicapped person entering heaven, but the well-versed theologian not. I have said things to the same effect, several times, on this site (and others). The 'bare bones' of the gospel is does not need to be intellectually understood, to be true. If a person, let's say, newly conceived with a brain just beginning to develop, or a clinical idiot incapable of concept as we know it, deaf, blind, senseless —if such a person knows (feels?) the presence or person of God, and is aware of the huge difference between itself and God, and its own awful need for God, and God reaches for him with love he feels, of course he can be saved! (Contrary to what an atheist would tell you, the default position of the newly born is not atheism). And he perhaps knows the Gospel more fully —certainly more purely— than any of us conscious people, who pervert ALL our facts with our biases, self-interest, self-importance, ignorance, foolishness, presumption and pride.

BUT, this does not at all mean we need not pursue knowledge, particularly knowledge of Christ, and that includes both reason and experience, BOTH guided by the Word of God.

I remember the simple faith of some of the born-again campesinos in the mountains of the South American country where I grew up. These people would not begin to understand our conversations on this platform. I'm guessing many of them would wonder why we even talk about such things. OF COURSE God is in charge! OF COURSE I decide things! There is no conflict in their minds, no tension between one and the other.

But when you say one responds to the Gospel in faith, there are for many, (and for many of my acquaintance (missionary kids, preacher's kids and others) who "lost their faith"), major roadblocks to their intellectual understanding of the Gospel message they have been given, some roadblocks of which just don't measure up to what they experience nor read in the Bible. If I had heard what I call Reformed Theology growing up, I would have had a much earlier understanding of why I am the way I am, and why God is such an intimate part of all things, and would not have had such a hard time. Thankfully, my father must have been a closet calvinist, lol, or at least, he had from his intimate studies (he was an accomplished NT Greek scholar) of Scripture, a better intellectual understanding of the nature of God, than most (if not all) of the Arminian-leaning loud ones I grew up under. They did not differ with any of his words, but he didn't talk like they do. But they prayed like he did! To both, in the end, and to you and me, God is in charge, and we do decide.

 

[Mark Quayle]

These are quibbles, and they probably aren't even true quibbles. Many of your complaints are nothing more than complaints that I have inferred conclusion (3). But you intended conclusion (3), and therefore my inference is certainly not a mischaracterization!

Again I ask, "What principle were you talking about in the blue, if not the very law we were discussing (<One cannot do evil that good may come>)?"

You continue to take me wrong. Your inference was by way of faulty logic. I was referring to: 1) God is not under obligation to the commands he obligates us to live up to. 2) God is not under obligation to any principle from outside himself. 3) The false analysis, conclusion, or whatever it is you came to, by way of combining 1 and 2, in your thinking: Any principle he is not obligated to is therefore from outside himself. Once again, bad logic: 1 and 2 do not prove 3. You take me to be referring to a completely different conversation.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm posting this under Kitchen Sink, because I want those not claiming Christianity to be able to contribute. Within what I say here, I want it understood, though, that I am assuming the meaning of 'God' to be, among other things, the absolute Omnipotent, a person, (i.e. not a mere mechanical fact), the only First Cause (Creator), and under no obligation to nor subject to any cause external to himself. The point of the thread is not to debate those things, but rather to discuss: Assuming those things, then.....

When we consider the philosophical 'necessary attributes of God', such as The Simplicity of God, The Aseity of God, and so on, we may begin to understand such things as, that, for God, to think is to do, and to observe [the future] is to cause [the future].

Today I was reminded elsewhere of a principle to bear in mind, debatable perhaps, but it has merit, that Time is the measure of change, and perhaps only OUR measure of change. Time is a principle by which we operate, and to which we, to a large degree, find ourselves subject; it also seems to be our almost unavoidable point of view in thought and reasoning/speech, even for those of us who have some degree of understanding as to its relativity and its beginning. But it is not a principle to which God is subject, except as he subjects himself to it. Having said that, I still must admit to seeing that whole matter from my time-dependent point of view.

Concerning the Freewill - Predestination debate in which Christians so often and virulently engage, I think it prudent to understand that we do so from the point of view of people under that time envelope —even when we argue such concepts as the timelessness of God. The Bible is written for such people as ourselves, usually in language we, who are bound by time, can understand. (I don't mean that the Bible is then not quite accurate, for that is one of the amazing things I find about the Bible, which I take to be the Word of God, that it is accurate from both points of view, (and often with a precision we don't realize). But the reliability of Scripture is not the point of this post.)

So, when an opponent on a thread claims a scripture reference demonstrates free will, he may be right, depending on what he means by "free". And when I claim that he is wrong, because we are not "free" in the sense that he uses it, both of us are talking about the activity of choice, and other things that happen ('changes') within this temporal 'envelope' we are subject to, and as though the absolute value of our choices was better than zero. But from God's point of view, it is hardly a question: God does — we respond.

Both of us are arguing something that we see as precious, true and necessary, but we are arguing what we don't understand, but what is nevertheless written for us to pursue, to try to understand. People do absolutely choose. And God absolutely did predestine everything that comes to pass. But they only produce a conflict in the mind of those who assume time's point of view to be valid, to the exclusion of God's point of view.

My point, then, is not that 'free will' is wrong, from God's point of view (again, depending on what one means by 'free' in that context, nor even that 'predestination' is right, but that when we argue these things, it is mainly because we see things from this temporal point of view.

The same principle applies to so many things! Even our large Theological arrangements, soteriology, eschatology and so on, are written around our dependence on time, and so our use of Scripture. We see, "this, then that", when God says, "it is done".

Time is not necessarily exclusively on the side of predestination. As I have shown in the past, God can still plan within a free-will system. There is a branch of Artificial Intelligence that does this. It is a branching system, where based upon a random choice a new set of branches are chosen. In God's infinite wisdom and power, he could generally plan an unmovable timeline, and then micromanage branches within that timeline. If life is truly based upon man's choices, and salvation likewise, he could preplan in a way that people are not exposed to any sin that is uncommon to each other, each person could be judged fairly, due to the limits placed on their experiences. God would not plan the "choice of sin", but rather know the person "might sin", and allow plans that, because he is love, will "work together for good" after a neagtive event.

This free will system still allows for God to say he "foreknew", a person. The question that arises now is what is actually "predestined", the person, or method of salvation, faith, and conforming to the nature of God.

The bulk of scripture seems to show us that it is in faith coupled with "conforming to God's image", that we ultimately achieve His favor. As with Cain:

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."​

Genisis shows Cain "could" have been accepted if he chose the right over the evil. This is a common idea:

Job 36:10-12 He openeth also their ear to instruction, And commandeth that they return from iniquity. If they hearken and serve him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they hearken not, they shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.​

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.​

Notice in John 14:23, that there is a response needed from man, to enter God's favor. Even if it is a response of gratitude toward God's free gift of grace, resulting in good works.

If you notice the order of the following scripture:

Rom 8:29-30 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.​

It says God "foreknew", neither a problem for free-will nor predestination. But it then says that God predestined, the saved, to be conformed to His image, this conforming starts with faith. It then says those who were predestined, were called, justified etc. Is this saying God predestined the method, of faith, before time began to result in salvation. Not He chose the individual for salvation before time.

If we go back to Cain, he was not destined for hell. God said,

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?​

If he "willed" to do good, he could have been accepted. Yet we see it was spoken after:

1Jn 3:12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous.​

Cain ended up in judgment, but due to his choice. Judgment comes with "rejecting" the truth.

2Th 2:10-12 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

Salvation then comes in "receiving the truth", Jesus.

 

[zippy2006]

You continue to take me wrong. Your inference was by way of faulty logic. I was referring to: 1) God is not under obligation to the commands he obligates us to live up to. 2) God is not under obligation to any principle from outside himself. 3) The false analysis, conclusion, or whatever it is you came to, by way of combining 1 and 2, in your thinking: Any principle he is not obligated to is therefore from outside himself. Once again, bad logic: 1 and 2 do not prove 3. You take me to be referring to a completely different conversation.

But I never asserted 3, and my points do not require it in any way.

 

[zippy2006]

Hopefully we can de-escalate the virulence of this conversation. I have no wish to be contentious.

Agreed. And shorten it.

You said:

"Then you accept my characterization of your view, which says that when God killed millions of innocent Jews in the Shoah he was not committing an evil act? When Hitler did it he committed evil, but when God did it he did not commit evil.

That's correct, is it not? Am I or am I not correctly characterizing your view?"

That characterization of what I believe is not true if you mean (or if it can be taken by another reader to mean) something I do not intend. I thought I had explained the matter well enough, when I answered with something along the lines of, "yes, except..."
After I explained that, you said you considered the matter settled, but now you bring it up again. (Lol, unless I have the sequence of posts, wrong, which I agree is possible. It's not worth it to me to go through it all and find everything to be sure. You were wrong in the following, so I'm guessing you were also wrong in pressing the matter here.) If you are trying a lawyer's trick in a courtroom, it's not going to work, as either "yes" or "no" is not a completely truthful answer. (Like I said, I've had years of not being pinned down by my wife to a false presupposition that she might draw from either a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and you have nowhere near her skill nor force of an immediate answer! (I'm not trying to be mean here, but funny, but yes, there is a point to it. I'm not trying to be contentious —that was her speciality!))

But, again, I admit it is possible you are not referring to the matter you said you considered settled, but to the below. Please let me know which it is.

You unsettled the settled matter in post #54.

Again, the two phrases you mistakenly combine to mischaracterize what I said, only both show up in the same post in #26, which you did not link to in #41.

For the third time, you are incorrect. I linked to post #26 twice in post #41. Here is the quote itself with the links emphasized:

Sure you do. I said God is bound by his own law, and you responded by saying that God is not bound by his law, because God is not "subject to any principle from outside himself." Such a response is a clear affirmation that God's law or God's will is a "principle from outside himself."

You also apparently think my claim that God is not a hypocrite is "blasphemy." For to say that God does not break the laws he gives others is just to say that God is not a hypocrite.

As I have told you time and time again, those links were in the original post, which is verifiably unedited.

Besides that, you make another mistake. (Even though you make the mistake of quoting them out of context), you apparently make the logical mistake of claiming that if proposition 1 is true: God is not subject to the laws he gave us; and that if proposition 2 is true: God is not subject to principles from outside himself, that these automatically and necessarily imply conclusion (3) is true: that anything he is not subject to is therefore from outside himself. Bad logic.

I never asserted 3, and my points do not require it in any way.

But God's will is NOT from outside himself, nor did I claim it was, but you mistakenly concluded that I had claimed it.

No, "In effect" means, "The logical conclusion/effect of your view is..." I never asserted that you had claimed it. You keep misrepresenting me over and over again.

Why did you lump the two together, (when I did not), in order to extrapolate something that I had not at all intended?

Because I wanted to alert the theologically astute reader to a logical conclusion that you yourself do not perceive.

Let me ask you this: is God bound by the law/principle of keeping his promises? How about the law/principle of telling the truth?

God is not "a person" in the sense that we are, a human creature. He is the one and only Omnipotent, Creator. That gives him the logical right of ownership, to command as he tells us, and to do as he will. But besides that, it implies that he is far above us, so that his commands apply to us, but not to him. What is behind those commands, that is, to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself —of course his whole being loves himself, and he has no neighbors. He tells us not to murder, but he has the absolute right to destroy anything he has made, by whatever means he chooses.

Er, okay. That sounds pretty crazy to me. After all, the Fathers saw the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son as examples of the way that God loves us. What do you make of the verses that speak of the way we ought to imitate God? (Matthew 10:25; Matthew 5:48; John 14:12; 1 John 4:19; John 15:5).

Your consternation is ill conceived; I did not compare Hitler's Holocaust to a parent going to bed after 8:00.

Of course you did. Go read post #26. Your bedtime example was a direct response to my claim that it would be unjust for God to perpetrate the Shoah.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I think we could have an interesting discussion about how God "cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt any man." > in James 1:13 < to me, this means God did not cause evil to start; after all, God is good. I personally understand, then, that God who is good did not bring the spirit of evil into existence > Ephesians 2:2. Does John Calvin deal with this?

FWIW What Calvin believed is not what has come to be called Calvinism. I don't really care if Calvin dealt with it or not. To me, it is simple logic. Two ways, no! 3 ways: 1) He knew, but created anyway, thus he caused (regardless of how many stages removed). 2) There was no other way for him to create the Bride of Christ, God's Dwelling Place, as he intended her to be. Her very nature necessarily took these many years, and every detail within them, to be acquired or made part of. 3) If God did not cause any certain thing, then he is in some way subject to it, and that cannot be, and he be God.

But for what it is worth, I don't say he brought the Spirit of Evil into existence. He caused it (indirectly, if not directly) to come to pass, if indeed it did so.

In any case, I do understand that while God does not cause evil, He does manage which way it will go, on its way to where it will stay. Yes, Isaiah says the LORD says He creates evil, but I understand this means God is creative in how He manages what evil will do and how God will take good advantage of whatever Satan and Satanic people do . . . like with Joseph > Genesis 37-50.

I take Isaiah there to say God causes catastrophe, not evil as in sin. So it is not, for me, one of my prooftexts for God causing that sin be.

I would not say it is a "right", but simply a reality

Thank you! Exactly! But there are many who say it would be unjust, or unloving, and therefore reject on that basis alone. I claim his right to do as he wishes, so that they understand that he is just to do whatever he pleases.

We have Romans 8:29 which I think shows the overall focus and purpose of all that God does and what is behind His commands.

While He may give us commands, He is doing much more and better than what He tells us to do . . . by the way

Well, when a person dies, God then does what is right, with each person. And this can result in what is better than the person had in this life; or a person can reap what is much worse. Either way, what we have sown is what we will reap . . . much more > Galatians 6:7-8.

In some sense, the redeemed sow what they reap too, as in their works can be burned, yet they be saved, "yet so as by fire". But in the sense of reaping the results of their deeds that would otherwise condemn them eternally, they are forgiven through Christ's substitution on their behalf.

I do not think He caused the Holocaust, but He has managed which way evil goes. And all the time,

As much as I might like to, I cannot escape the logical fact that one way or another, whether directly or through many 'generations' of 'means', God caused it, and that, for a certain purpose. He is first cause, and all else is effect, whether all else is also cause or not. Nothing but God can be first cause, uncaused.

"God resists the proud" > in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. In all things God is somehow resisting the proud so the proud do not do much more harm and do not get hurt much more.

The Reformed generally refer to this as "Common Grace". God is good to everyone, in one way or another, in this life.

Free will can be an idol of ones who want their idol of independence which isolates them in not really personal loving, at best.

But I would say that in God's love we share as family, in mutual trust and mutual dependence, ministering God's grace to one another > 1 Peter 4:9-10. We deny ourselves and trust God to have us in mutual relating > Ephesians 5:21 > so we are not just protecting ourselves from being taken over by each other. But ones who worship their free wills can be afraid of the free wills of others!

Haha! I like that. Specially the last sentence!

And I think Romans 8:29 gives the main focus of predestination >

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29)

So, first we need to correctly characterize what predestination means to God.

As to what God means by a word, is hard to 'correctly characterize', though some parts are easy. We do the best we can. As usual, it is easier to say what it is not, than to say what it is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But I never asserted 3, and my points do not require it in any way.

You asserted that it was the logical result of what you mistakenly combined, calling those two "what [MQ] said", when, while they were direct quotes from what I DID say, they were out of context, and thus, not what I said. Adding to the strangeness of what you reduced to a mistaken conclusion, was the illogic used to do so, even if the quotes HAD been what I had said.

 

[zippy2006]

You asserted that it was the logical result of what you mistakenly combined, calling those two "what [MQ] said", when, while they were direct quotes from what I DID say, they were out of context, and thus, not what I said. Adding to the strangeness of what you reduced to a mistaken conclusion, was the illogic used to do so, even if the quotes HAD been what I had said.

I think you're lying. Quote me, or else stop spreading lies.