Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[Zandy12]

Deism is an easy one, demanding little of anyone but submission as a lower being to the level of "not as high a being as God [once was]". Deism allows itself to think of God as more or less irrelevant. In some ways, I consider deism as worse than atheism, because it claims to know of God, but teaches contrary to omnipotence. I've had some very good conversations with certain Atheists, who, while they deny God exists, they admit that IF God exists, he is at least certain things —first cause, omnipotent, and that "in him we live and move and have our being" makes sense— if he exists, he is both transcendent and immanent. But they don't like him very much.

Anyhow, the fact of his position as The Omnipotent, which means also, First Cause, and Self-Existent, necessarily implies that every fact, every detail, is caused, and that there is no cause from outside of him that can influence him, unless he caused it to do so. (Witness, putting Moses "in the gap" between him and the rebellious Children of Israel to reason with him, and turn his wrath aside so that he would not destroy them)*. That is to say, he does not change, while all things he creates do change. Thus also, what he has made is not controlled by anything that did not also come from him by way of causation. Yet, all things are necessarily explicitly caused —none come about by mere chance.

*Note: There is a huge fact, concerning omnipotence, and bearing implications about all sorts of subjects concerning God and his dealings with his creation, that is to me both hilarious (by way of irony) and amazing, to me. Omnipotence does not always behave according to the "shiny lights" and "flash banging" and spectacular power that we children want to see it do. It accomplishes the 'impossible' by the most mundane means, and it "skates so close to disaster" that we want to say God is unjust, and uncaring, and apparently semi-helpless in the face of free will. We are tempted to say, "God is doing this all wrong!" We look for reasons to excuse him from the appearance of evil. The example of Christ dying on the cross is a beautiful picture of this nature of God; Christ living without sin, by dependence on the Father, just as we should, demonstrates that power of God, instead of Christ living by his own power as God himself.

The atheist objects, "Why didn't Omnipotent God just create the finished product at once? Why go through all this 6,000 (or 15 billion, or whatever) years of suffering and pain?" To me, Omnipotent God implies no relation to time passage, so I say, He DID! He spoke it into accomplished fact, though from our point of view, it is taking a long, outrageously hard, time.

I say, "Naturalism posits a universe that behaves exactly as if God had created it."

Very insightful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[zoidar]

Speaking for myself, my attention went from my worries about the sincerity of my repentance and "acceptance of Christ", upon which I thought all eternity hinged, to thankfulness and amazement at the comfort of God's justice, and power and intent, that he would accomplish all he set out to do, and if that included me, then good, but if that did not include me, he is still to be praised and honored for his power and glory and kindness and mercy, and enjoyed for his pleasure in the things he has planned and accomplishes. Also, and this is no minor thing, the Spirit of God witnesses with my spirit, that I am a child of God, one of his own people.

That's a bit different from my experience. When I was saved I was exceedingly thankful Christ had forgiven me, something I knew I didn't deserve. From there I was filled with love for Christ. It was like the woman with the alabaster vial.

"Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.”
— Luke 7:47

I'm a bit confused by your testimony. It's like you have handed over your life to God for Him to do whatever He wants, instead of trusting in the forgiveness through Christ for you personally. The way you describe this is nothing I'm familiar with so I can't really say much about it. To me it was a handing over my whole life to God as a willing servant to live the rest of my life for Him. But the Spirit witnessing to your spirit you are a child of God is of course a good thing and who would I be to contest that?

I wouldn't put much stock in "what Christiansve say", to be honest. They are right, in that sin does identify one as a child of the devil instead of as a child of God, but they have no gauge by which to measure the power and tender mercy of God.

If this is typical of Chrysostom, I don't care for him. But I note, that I agree with him for the most part, until his conjecture —warning?— at the end, but even then, he says, "as if". There is nothing that can separate anyone from the love of God, if they are of those to whom God has chosen to show mercy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

BNR32FAN said:
"Well you said that those God has chosen will remain in Christ. So my question is how can these people who didn’t remain in Christ have been connected to Him in the first place if they were not chosen if the scriptures specifically state that no one can come to Him unless The Father draws them?"

Mark Quayle said:
"Where do you draw the line between remaining in Christ and not remaining in Christ? Only God can do that.
The assurance is simply that those God has chosen for his own will indeed be with him in Heaven. Those that he has not, will not."

Mark Quayle said:
"Point of logic: The statement implies that those who come to Christ were first drawn to him by the Father. It does not imply that all that the Father draws to him become 'in Christ'."

So you’re saying that the Father draws people to Christ who are not elected for salvation. Why?

This is one of the reasons I don't always enjoy interacting with you. You take something I say, (in this case, a point in logic, that those who come to Christ are first drawn by the Father does not imply that the Father does not draw others that do not come to Christ), to imply what I had not implied: That in fact the Father DOES draw some that don't come to Christ. I had not said that. I had only pointed out a logical fault in your earlier statement. You continue to present illogical assumptions here.

I think Luke 13:6-9 provides an interesting perspective on what you’re saying here.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Notice that despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree it’s outcome is still uncertain

No. Its outcome is certain. If you can show me how it is possible for both ends to occur, I'll be very impressed! But only one will happen. I am uncertain which one. But God is not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Kermos said:
Adam could not have had a free-will. As per the reasons outlined in A Will Requires A Host (post 190 in this thread), yet another reason follows here.

The timeline of Adam knowing good and evil

BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew not good and evil

AFTER Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew good and evil

Mark Quayle said:
Having "free will" by any definition we usually argue on this site, does not entail being privy to any particular knowledge, but mere actual choice, real choice, with real consequences, between (in Adam's case, eating or not eating of the fruit).

If you define free will as you seem to here, you are saying he did not have it before his disobedience, but once dead in sin, he did have it, though in bondage to sin, no? That doesn't work. When the lost are presented with a choice, whichever choice they take, it is still sinful choosing, because of the heart opposed to God.

No, in answer to your question.

I would appreciate if you would explain how you came to the conclusion that "you define free will" "once dead in sin, he did have it".

I do not understand you writing that because I repeatedly write that no scripture states that Adam had a free-will.

To begin with, the fact that scripture does not state that Adam had free will does not mean that he did not. The point is moot.

Now, I took you to say that he did not have free-will before the fall, as I quote you to say at the top of this post. And I also take you to believe that we (he and his progeny) do have free will, after the fall, even if not regenerated. (If I am wrong there, then why do you argue that Adam specifically does not have it before the fall —as you argue that he did not know good from evil before the fall? Why not argue that nobody has it until regeneration, or, maybe even then, they don't?)

I did not say that you define free will, "once dead in sin, he did have it". What I said was, "If you define free will as you seem to here, you are saying..." —and there the "you are saying" means "one might draw the conclusion from what you have said" (if it did not mean that, I would not have said it the way I did, but would only have said something like what you tried to make it look like I said).

Anyhow, my point is that your argument doesn't deny Adam had free will, since "free will" is not dependent on information concerning good and evil. I said what I did to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
You say, "'we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now' (Romans 8:22), and the phrase 'until now' is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which memes that all times prior to 'now' are included." This is bad logic. Up "until now" does not denote when the beginning of the period referenced was. It does NOT mean that all times prior to now are included.

Mark Quayle, you illegitimately redefine the definition of words, to be specific, the word "until" which is defined as "up to the time of" (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved).

The phrase "until now" is the exact same thing as "up to the time of now" which includes the entire timespan of Adam's life.

Therefore, based on the Apostle Paul's writing in Romans 8:20-22, Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Your argument depends not on the usual use of "until" (which you correctly expand to mean, "up to the time of now"), but on the notion that up to the time of NOW necessarily includes absolutely all time before NOW —i.e. from the beginning of time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To what "all Scripture", Mark Quayle, do you refer?

Your last paragraph contains zero scripture references, so it is just your thoughts.

A word about your thoughts. It is written, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I suppose, if it would satisfy you, I could quote the very verses you've been using. They demonstrate Adam made a choice. If creation has been subjected to frustration, not willingly, that only shows that creation was subjected to frustration by some other means, not choice. Apparently your logic jumps from that to the notion that they being subjected unwillingly to frustration means that they make no willing choices at all. But even then, you still have not shown that creation has always been subjected to frustration, when the story of the fall seems the turning point of that question.

A word about your noble-sounding use of 'It is written, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"' —it is also written, "...with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." In other words, God's thoughts are above yours, too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm a bit confused by your testimony. It's like you have handed over your life to God for Him to do whatever He wants, instead of trusting in the forgiveness through Christ for you personally. The way you describe this is nothing I'm familiar with so I can't really say much about it. To me it was a handing over my whole life to God as a willing servant to live the rest of my life for Him. But the Spirit witnessing to your spirit you are a child of God is of course a good thing and who would I be to contest that?

Kind of funny to me how the concept seems almost silly —that one even CAN "hand their life over to God". My life has always been in his hands —not mine. If the meaning there is simply, to "yield my will" to him, or to submit to him, and other similar concepts, ok, then, yes, that has been done and continues to be done pretty much on purpose and continuously. It is a way of life, not just that first-time action/choice.

You contrast what you take to be my 'testimony' with yours, but yours is a testimony as to your experience in salvation. I don't remember when I was saved. All I know is the migration of my point of view from self-determination to recognition and dependence on God's Sovereignty and absolute Grace —at least, to some degree. The 'trusting in the forgiveness through Christ for [me] personally', may not be accurately represented that way, but my absolute trust on Him to do what he wishes, is altogether comforting and delightful. And in the end it comes to a very personal trust. As Job says,

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is one of the reasons I don't always enjoy interacting with you. You take something I say, (in this case, a point in logic, that those who come to Christ are first drawn by the Father does not imply that the Father does not draw others that do not come to Christ), to imply what I had not implied: That in fact the Father DOES draw some that don't come to Christ. I had not said that. I had only pointed out a logical fault in your earlier statement. You continue to present illogical assumptions here.

The “?” at the end of my statement indicates that I was trying to clarify if that was your position or not. The purpose was to determine exactly what your position was in order to follow it out to its conclusion. Now you’re saying that The Father DOES draw some that don’t come to Christ but verse 6 says that they didn’t remain in Christ which indicates that they were in Christ. That was the whole point of the question. If you said they weren’t drawn by The Father then they couldn’t have came to Christ and couldn’t have fallen away. If you said that they were drawn by The Father but weren’t in Christ then again you’re still contradicting verse 6 for the same reason. They can’t fail to REMAIN in Him if they were never attached to Him in the first place. The whole discussion in John 15:1-7 is about REMAINING in Christ not coming to Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The “?” at the end of my statement indicates that I was trying to clarify if that was your position or not. The purpose was to determine exactly what your position was in order to follow it out to its conclusion. Now you’re saying that The Father DOES draw some that don’t come to Christ but verse 6 says that they didn’t remain in Christ which indicates that they were in Christ. That was the whole point of the question. If you said they weren’t drawn by The Father then they couldn’t have came to Christ and couldn’t have fallen away. If you said that they were drawn by The Father but weren’t in Christ then again you’re still contradicting verse 6 for the same reason. They can’t fail to REMAIN in Him if they were never attached to Him in the first place. The whole discussion in John 15:1-7 is about REMAINING in Christ not coming to Him.

verse 6 says that they didn’t remain in Christ which indicates that they were in Christ.

You are missing the whole point of the passage, to draw out something by false inference. The point of the passage is that those in Christ must remain in Christ to bear fruit.

God usually operates in the most mundane "natural" ways. He causes things to happen, not in opposition to what naturally happens, but by use of what naturally happens. The reason the Elect don't fall away is not because they 'automatically cannot' fall away, but because they 'must remain'. It is a valid warning, not because those who are "in Christ" CAN fall away, but because they MUST REMAIN. The teaching of the passage is not that those who fall away were ever "in Christ". If anything, the implication of that nature is that those who fall away only think themselves "in Christ".

You don't need this passage, if your inference is valid. The Bible is replete with warnings and commands, to which attendees are to comply, yet in the end the chaff is blown away, the tares are weeded out, the goats are separated from the sheep and the stubble is burned, and those who did great deeds in his name are told, "I never knew you."

But if you must call them "in Christ", so be it. They are only falsely so —attendees. THAT is their only attachment. They grow in the same soil, nutrients from the same source, but being of a different nature, they do not bear fruit, and in the end are discarded to the burn pile.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are missing the whole point of the passage, to draw out something by false inference. The point of the passage is that those in Christ must remain in Christ to bear fruit.

That’s not the whole point that’s only part of it. The whole point was to convey to them the importance of abiding in Him not the importance of bearing fruit because if they abide in Him they will bear fruit and if they don’t abide in Him they can’t bear fruit.

“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Bearing fruit is completely and solely contingent upon them abiding in Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That’s not the whole point that’s only part of it. The whole point was to convey to them the importance of abiding in Him not the importance of bearing fruit because if they abide in Him they will bear fruit and if they don’t abide in Him they can’t bear fruit.

“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Bearing fruit is completely and solely contingent upon them abiding in Him.

This is becoming inane. Ok. You said it better than me. Happy now?

Still saying, even by what you claim here that the point is, the point is not that the Elect can lose their salvation. —good now?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are missing the whole point of the passage, to draw out something by false inference. The point of the passage is that those in Christ must remain in Christ to bear fruit.

God usually operates in the most mundane "natural" ways. He causes things to happen, not in opposition to what naturally happens, but by use of what naturally happens. The reason the Elect don't fall away is not because they 'automatically cannot' fall away, but because they 'must remain'. It is a valid warning, not because those who are "in Christ" CAN fall away, but because they MUST REMAIN. The teaching of the passage is not that those who fall away were ever "in Christ". If anything, the implication of that nature is that those who fall away only think themselves "in Christ".

You don't need this passage, if your inference is valid. The Bible is replete with warnings and commands, to which attendees are to comply, yet in the end the chaff is blown away, the tares are weeded out, the goats are separated from the sheep and the stubble is burned, and those who did great deeds in his name are told, "I never knew you."

But if you must call them "in Christ", so be it. They are only falsely so —attendees. THAT is their only attachment. They grow in the same soil, nutrients from the same source, but being of a different nature, they do not bear fruit, and in the end are discarded to the burn pile.

The whole point of the passage is to convey the importance of abiding in Him. You said that “it is a valid warning not because those who are in Christ can fall away but because they must remain”. If they can’t fall away then saying that they “must remain” is a moot point. It’s like telling someone don’t jump out of the atmosphere or you’ll suffocate in space, it’s a completely useless and pointless statement. Everything in this passage points to the implication that these 11 men were perfectly capable of falling away and receiving the consequence of doing so. First He tells them to abide in Him, then He tells them why they must abide in Him, then He tells them the consequences of not abiding in Him, then He tells them what they can expect IF they abide in Him. Every single statement indicates that they are capable of falling away and being thrown into the fire. Furthermore in verse 2 He specifically says that “The Father takes away (cuts off) every branch IN ME that doesn’t bear fruit. The Greek word translated to “takes away” means to remove and in the case of something that is attached to anything it means to cut off. I’m this case the word is used in relation to branches that are attached to the Vine which mandates the definition “to cut off or remove”. That’s another clear indication. Luke 13:6-9 gives a very similar message. Despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree the outcome is still uncertain whether it will bear fruit or be cut down.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The tares and wheat parable does not apply to these messages because these verses only apply to those who are IN CHRIST. No one comes to Christ unless The Father draws them. Tares are planted by “THE ENEMY” not by The Father. Tares are never considered to be in Christ.

 

[zoidar]

Kind of funny to me how the concept seems almost silly —that one even CAN "hand their life over to God". My life has always been in his hands —not mine. If the meaning there is simply, to "yield my will" to him, or to submit to him, and other similar concepts, ok, then, yes, that has been done and continues to be done pretty much on purpose and continuously. It is a way of life, not just that first-time action/choice.

If that first-time action/choice doesn't change our life, I doubt there has been a new birth.

You contrast what you take to be my 'testimony' with yours, but yours is a testimony as to your experience in salvation. I don't remember when I was saved. All I know is the migration of my point of view from self-determination to recognition and dependence on God's Sovereignty and absolute Grace —at least, to some degree. The 'trusting in the forgiveness through Christ for [me] personally', may not be accurately represented that way, but my absolute trust on Him to do what he wishes, is altogether comforting and delightful. And in the end it comes to a very personal trust. As Job says,

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

How is this different from another religious person (Jew etc.) that has submitted his whole life to God and depending fully on God's grace?

I would say the real difference is the cross, the forgiveness through Christ. It's not that I think it's wrong to fully trust in God, but if I cannot fully trust in the forgiveness of Christ for me personally, I think something vital is missing. This is one reason I have a problem with limited atonement/particular atonement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The whole point of the passage is to convey the importance of abiding in Him. You said that “it is a valid warning not because those who are in Christ can fall away but because they must remain”. If they can’t fall away then saying that they “must remain” is a moot point. It’s like telling someone don’t jump out of the atmosphere or you’ll suffocate in space, it’s a completely useless and pointless statement. Everything in this passage points to the implication that these 11 men were perfectly capable of falling away and receiving the consequence of doing so. First He tells them to abide in Him, then He tells them why they must abide in Him, then He tells them the consequences of not abiding in Him, then He tells them what they can expect IF they abide in Him. Every single statement indicates that they are capable of falling away and being thrown into the fire. Furthermore in verse 2 He specifically says that “The Father takes away (cuts off) every branch IN ME that doesn’t bear fruit. The Greek word translated to “takes away” means to remove and in the case of something that is attached to anything it means to cut off. I’m this case the word is used in relation to branches that are attached to the Vine which mandates the definition “to cut off or remove”. That’s another clear indication. Luke 13:6-9 gives a very similar message. Despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree the outcome is still uncertain whether it will bear fruit or be cut down.

How is it uncertain whether it will or not, if absolutely any whom God has chosen for Heaven will indeed be in Heaven? Do you suppose that God chose some concerning whom he will be rebuffed from accomplishing their salvation? God's ultimate purposes cannot be undone. You seem to think that God is not particular what building materials he will use to build his Dwelling Place, nor what members will comprise the spotless, perfect Bride of Christ. By definition, what God spoke into being is 'already' accomplished. How many references have you seen debated here that show "accomplished fact, yet we don't see it that way at present"?

You return here to your old worn out line of thinking, that Calvinists/Reformed believe that regeneration, salvation and all the results of them are automatic, if God has ordained them. They are not automatic; the Elect must remain. Every single statement indicates that they MUST remain in him. The Non-Elect must remain. If they do not, they are not Elect. How hard is that to see? Apparently impossible to see for one who is steeped in self-determinism.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The tares and wheat parable does not apply to these messages because these verses only apply to those who are IN CHRIST. No one comes to Christ unless The Father draws them. Tares are planted by “THE ENEMY” not by The Father. Tares are never considered to be in Christ.

I don't call them "in Christ", except by mere attendance to precept. That God, even the Holy Spirit, has dealings with them is hardly deniable, particularly if one reads Hebrews 6; and, as it is said, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" John 3 shows the Spirit of God doing as it will, and being unpredictable.

The tares also draw nutrients from the same soil as the wheat. If you want to take the parable as far as you do, then take it here, too: God rather obviously, by many examples and by direct statement in Romans 9, uses sin and the condemned, to shape the Elect. The tares serve a purpose —no kernel of the the wheat is an exact copy of all the rest of it. (Now you will probably say I take the parable too far. Well, who are you to draw the line there? I don't take parables as far as you did, except to demonstrate that some uses of them, such as yours, here, are not valid.)

Does God not use the devil to accomplish God's purposes? Do you think he allowed the devil access to Job, but had no purpose himself in allowing it? Do you not see that he INTENDED it? Of course the enemy planted the tares! Did he do it in spite of God's decree? No! He did it because God decreed it! So how do you know that God did (or did not) draw them, by which action and effect, the devil was able to sow them among the wheat? Do you think the devil knows who is and who is not weeds? He also can only guess!

 

[BNR32FAN]

How is it uncertain whether it will or not, if absolutely any whom God has chosen for Heaven will indeed be in Heaven? Do you suppose that God chose some concerning whom he will be rebuffed from accomplishing their salvation?

I didn’t write Luke 13:6-9, Luke wrote it quoting Jesus’ own words so I don’t see why you’re asking me this.

You return here to your old worn out line of thinking, that Calvinists/Reformed believe that regeneration, salvation and all the results of them are automatic, if God has ordained them. They are not automatic; the Elect must remain. Every single statement indicates that they MUST remain in him. The Non-Elect must remain. If they do not, they are not Elect. How hard is that to see? Apparently impossible to see for one who is steeped in self-determinism.

I’m not steeped in self determinism I’m steeped in synergism. Our salvation is contingent upon our cooperation with God. What you wrote above seems to be describing synergism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If that first-time action/choice doesn't change our life, I doubt there has been a new birth.

I do too. As for me, it was before I remember, but according to my mother there was an immediate change.

How is this different from another religious person (Jew etc.) that has submitted his whole life to God and depending fully on God's grace?

"My sheep know my voice" But as you said above, the conversion, (which I call regeneration), is the only way anyone can "submit his whole life to God and [depend] fully on God's grace." And yes, that can be done within the Elect believer, even if he doesn't think what I do. It is not by the intellectual comprehension of the fulness of the Gospel that anyone is saved, but by Grace through Faith.

I would say the real difference is the cross, the forgiveness through Christ. It's not that I think it's wrong to fully trust in God, but if I cannot fully trust in the forgiveness of Christ for me personally, I think something vital is missing. This is one reason I have a problem with limited atonement/particular atonement.

Something vital is always missing. WE —our intellectual comprehensions— are not the measure of the Gospel. Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone, even if we don't understand that. But do you think Job did not know personal forgiveness? As far as I can tell, and in spite of the amount of arguing and the protesting with which he defended himself, his point was not that he was perfect, but that the reason this was happening to him was not because he deserved it, but because God was doing it (ok, "allowing" Satan to do it, if you insist) for God's own purposes, among which purposes is that heart-rending statement of his, for us to read.

I was saved at 5 years old. Something vital was surely missing —just for one example, I thought that my eternity hinged on the validity of my commitment to Christ— and no doubt something vital will always be missing until I see Him as He is. It is God who saved me when I was 5 and it is God that will see it through to completion.

If Grace must depend on "nothing missing", and the mental comprehensions of the redeemed are somehow worthy, we are all lost and there are NONE saved— and it is not Grace by which we are saved.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn’t write Luke 13:6-9, Luke wrote it quoting Jesus’ own words so I don’t see why you’re asking me this.


I’m not steeped in self determinism I’m steeped in synergism. Our salvation is contingent upon our cooperation with God. What you wrote above seems to be describing synergism.

Synergism vs Monergism is, in spite of my protestations to my Reformed/Calvinist brethren, about regeneration. (While I recognize the difference between regeneration in the matter of the will's work to effect regeneration, I'm guessing that you too have seen, (but ignore?), that any good you do, any virtue, any obedience, is the work of God in you. That you are involved? —I insist that you are involved, as is anyone.)

Synergism insists on self-determinism.

 

[Kermos]

None of which excludes experiential awareness.

I'd like to ask you a very simple question, are you excluding the mental awareness aspect of "knowledge" in Genesis 2:16-17 and in Genesis 3:7 and in Genesis 3:22?

There is no knowledge of the physical experiential without knowledge of the mental. Experiencing is an operation of the (mental) brain.

Look, you answered my above question to you.

Let me paraphrase your writing:

For a given individual, "knowledge of the mental" must exist for "knowledge of the physical" to exist.
​

The opposite is false, as in "knowledge of the physical" must exist for "knowledge of the mental" to exist because such a false premise negates faith because faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Clare73, as per your own writing, "mental awareness" must be present in "knowledge" in Genesis 2:16-17, in Genesis 3:7, and in Genesis 3:22; however,

In Truth (John 14:6), Adam had no knowledge ("mental awareness") of good and evil when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the Word of God announces in Genesis 3:22.

Is God physical?

"God is Spirit" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 4:24).

And God thinks (Isaiah 55:8-9). Christ is wisdom for us Christians (1 Corinthians 1:24). That is a whole lot outside of the physical knowledge realm, but in the Spiritual knowledge realm.

Previously addressed. . .you're confusing Gr. choikos (earthy) with Gr. sarx (flesh).

You are disintegrating the Apostle Paul's clear good message in:

So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
(1 Corinthians 15:45-49, NASB)
​

The natural man is flesh (carnal), earthy, just as Paul wrote

a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised
(1 Corinthians 2:14).
​

And again, even adding to the intensity:

the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God
(The Apostle Paul, Romans 8:7-8).
​

Adam's flesh was formed from the earth, and we know Adam was flesh for of the Woman, "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh'" (Genesis 2:23).

ADAM SAID "MY FLESH" (GENESIS 2:23) AND THE APOSTLE PAUL DECLARED "FLESH IS HOSTILE TOWARD GOD" (ROMANS 8:7); THEREFORE, ADAM WAS EVIL BEFORE HE ATE OF THE TREE FORBIDDEN AS FOOD AND ADAM DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD NOR EVIL WHEN ADAM ATE OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.

Paul teaches orthodox Christianity, but you try to dismantle and disintegrate Paul's instruction!

"Host" is not a concept in the philosophy of free will, and philosophy is the subject I presented.
In philosophy, free will is a matter of moral agency, not "hosting."

In deference to you, let me just switch out "host" for "person".

A Will Requires A Person​

The definition of free-will must be considered.

Free will: an autonomous will, an isolated willpower, detached volition, independent moral agency.

Next, considering "will", a will exists not in a vacuum; in other words, a will must be part of a person.

Respecting an unsaved person - the default first condition of every person, since a person is required for a will, then the person's will is part of the person's self, so the person's will is self-will because the person'a will is attached to the self-same person; on the other hand, the person's will is not free floating detached from the person, so the person's will is not free-will.

The Apostle proclaims a person's will is either one of but not both of:

1. a person's will is controlled by God with "God having purified your souls in the obedience of the Truth through the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:21-22) and "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
2. a person's will is controlled by man with "the Lord knows how" "to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority, daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10).

A person's will is dependent upon God (Christimage-will (bond-will), Romans 8:29), or a person's will is dependent upon man (self-will). No other will exists for a person; moreover, free-will is an illusion as conveyed by the Apostle Paul with "I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

While the unrighteous unbelievers daringly revel in their own glory founded in their self-willed "I chose Jesus" (2 Peter 2:9-10) thus their hearts steal God's glory, on the other hand, we righteousness of God in Christ believers worship the Glorious One (2 Corinthians 5:21) who sovereignly chose us (John 15:16, John 15:19 includes salvation).

Thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8), yet the free-willians try to steal God's exclusive glory in the salvation of man.

SCRIPTURALLY, NO SUCH THING AS A FREE-WILL EXISTS.

Scripturally, according to the Word of God, the word "host" is satisfactory to represent a person as in Genesis 2:1.

Previously addressed; i.e., demonstrates nothing, for no Scripture states God imparted a nose, two eyes and two ears to man, but he imparted them, nevertheless.

You should be ashamed of yourself with all the the Word of God "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Matthew 11:15) and "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, YHWH has made both of them" (Proverbs 20:12) and "fragrant incense" (2 Chronicles 2:4).

We know that which comprises a human, Clare73, because God is Creator even of that which is today.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT MAN WAS IMPARTED A FREE-WILL.

Not in the Greek, where kata hekousios = "willingly, voluntarily". . .nor in the RSV, KJV, NIV, and others.

Previously addressed. . .

In philosophy (for the Bible does not address "free will"),

You are substituting the definition of the Greek word θέλημα (Strong's 2307, will (BibleHub.com link)) illegitimately for the Greek word ἑκούσιον (Strong's 1595, of free will (BibleHub.com link)) in Philemon 1:14, and this is the only appearance of ἑκούσιον in the New Testament.

In a language of about 20,000 words, specifically the Greek language of the New Testament era, a multitude of duplicate definition words destroys communication, yet words off by degree aid communication. The Greek word θέλημα (Strong's 2307, will) is not defined the same as the Greek word ἑκούσιον (Strong's 1595, of free will) so these two words are off by degree, one word being straight "will" and the other word being straight "free-will".

You are incorrect because the Bible does address free-will because the Greek reads κατὰ ἑκούσιον which is "according to free-will"; therefore, Paul refers to free-will as an illusory in "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

free agency is the ability (power) to make some moral choices, but not all, as in the choice to be sinless in thought, word and deed at all times, while free will is the ability (power) to make all moral choices, and which power the Bible denies (Ro 8:7-8).

Clare73, you convey that you can "make some" good "moral choices" apart from Christ (see your word "make" as in manufacture), yet Lord Jesus Christ says "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

Praise Lord Christ, Provider of everything we Christians need! The loving Christ of us Christians says we can do absolutely nothing good apart from God working in us with "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

We Christians are bound with Christ in Christ by Christ unto good for Christ.

Free agency is NOT "the ability (power) to make some moral choices" - as in being good or doing good. Free agency is a person separated from God, and such a person only does evil (Romans 8:7-8).

Previously addressed. . .

You continue to repeat much that has been addressed with no Biblical demonstration of any error in my responses thereto, but only assertions (opinions) thereto.
You're just repeatedly going in the same circle.

This post demonstrates, in Scripture, error in your writings.

In effect, you preach that God imparted free agency to be good into man, yet no Scripture states God imparted free agency to be good into man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Synergism vs Monergism is, in spite of my protestations to my Reformed/Calvinist brethren, about regeneration. (While I recognize the difference between regeneration in the matter of the will's work to effect regeneration, I'm guessing that you too have seen, (but ignore?), that any good you do, any virtue, any obedience, is the work of God in you. That you are involved? —I insist that you are involved, as is anyone.)

Synergism insists on self-determinism.

Self determinism removes God’s will from the equation all together. So no synergism is not self determinism

 

[Mark Quayle]

Self determinism removes God’s will from the equation all together. So no synergism is not self determinism

And so....once again, as with 'limited spontaneity' and 'limited carnality', 'limited self-determinism' is still self-determinism. Synergism insists on it and your argument depends on it.