Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[zoidar]

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

What I wrote was not to your situation specifically. But the idea that we have to go back and see if our "decision" for Christ was genuine, seems to me to indicate that there wasn't much of a change from that moment. Since this happened to you when being 5 years old, it's of course hard to remember exactly what happened. If we have the Holy Spirit we belong to Christ. That we can be sure of.

"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 don't know where this idea comes from that we need to depend fully on God's grace to be saved. To me it's more of a trust in the forgiveness through Christ for my salvation.

One time a lady in church told me to thank God even for the bad things that happens in life. To me that is crazy. Because I don't think God wants bad things happening to us. From my perspective evil is either from the enemy or a consequence of our fallen nature. I don't know where you stand on this matter, since you believe bad things like illnesses are decreed by God.

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.

 

[Clare73]

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?
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.​

No, experience of the physical occurs in the mental brain.

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.

He knew "good" was to obey God, and "evil" was to disobey God, or he would not have been held accountable by God.
Mental knowledge can be with or without physical (experiential) knowledge.

"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.



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!



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.



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.



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).



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).



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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What I wrote was not to your situation specifically. But the idea that we have to go back and see if our "decision" for Christ was genuine, seems to me to indicate that there wasn't much of a change from that moment.

I didn't mean I had to go back and see anything. I was only concerned by my lack of obedience, since that is a measure of the veracity of the conversion. Thus I doubted myself —not God.

Since this happened to you when being 5 years old, it's of course hard to remember exactly what happened. If we have the Holy Spirit we belong to Christ. That we can be sure of.

The Holy Spirit can do what it will, and doesn't need to fit to form. "If we have the Holy Spirit" can mean many things. Even Saul, for a moment was among the prophets.

I don't know where this idea comes from that we need to depend fully on God's grace to be saved. To me it's more of a trust in the forgiveness through Christ for my salvation.

To me it is neither full understanding nor complete dependence that saves. Faith is generated by God, not me. That my salvation fully depends on God, yes, definitely that is true! But that my attention to that faith is subsequently required or even a constant mindset, is not spelled out in Scripture as necessary to maintain our salvation, but that we should pursue that mindset.

One time a lady in church told me to thank God even for the bad things that happens in life. To me that is crazy. Because I don't think God wants bad things happening to us. From my perspective evil is either from the enemy or a consequence of our fallen nature. I don't know where you stand on this matter, since you believe bad things like illnesses are decreed by God.

It is by the bad things that we learn about who God is and what he has done for us. I thank him all the time for what he has taken me through, without which I don't see how I could have learned of his sovereignty as an automatic reaction to the good and bad. Nor would I have learned about God doing things for his own sake, and his pleasure in the works of his hands, and in his plans.

Do you think Job would have come up with his few lines toward the end of the written account, had not God done to him what he did? Do you think God was as precious to Job before his troubles began? What happened to Job was good for him —and for us!

Job 19:
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!

 

[zoidar]

I didn't mean I had to go back and see anything. I was only concerned by my lack of obedience, since that is a measure of the veracity of the conversion. Thus I doubted myself —not God.


The Holy Spirit can do what it will, and doesn't need to fit to form. "If we have the Holy Spirit" can mean many things. Even Saul, for a moment was among the prophets.

I believe Saul was saved.

"Having the Spirit" meaningly having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

To me it is neither full understanding nor complete dependence that saves. Faith is generated by God, not me.

I agree, but not sure we mean the same thing.

That my salvation fully depends on God, yes, definitely that is true! But that my attention to that faith is subsequently required or even a constant mindset, is not spelled out in Scripture as necessary to maintain our salvation, but that we should pursue that mindset.

We should have the mindset that our salvation depends on God, but wouldn't go as far to say that it's all God's doing. I think the choices we make have real importance and like I have said, I believe salvation can be forfeited.

It is by the bad things that we learn about who God is and what he has done for us. I thank him all the time for what he has taken me through, without which I don't see how I could have learned of his sovereignty as an automatic reaction to the good and bad. Nor would I have learned about God doing things for his own sake, and his pleasure in the works of his hands, and in his plans.

Do you think Job would have come up with his few lines toward the end of the written account, had not God done to him what he did? Do you think God was as precious to Job before his troubles began? What happened to Job was good for him —and for us!

Job 19:
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!

Certainly God uses the bad to bring out the good. I think it's more of the enemy doing his worst, and God is outsmarting him, to bring His own plans into fulfilment. We don't learn much from the bad about God, but when God takes us through we understand how forgiving, generous, good and wonderful our God is. Then we learn. But that's basically what you said.

I think the story of Job tells us that it's worth while to wait for God. Job lost a lot of things in his life, but God gave it all back multiplied. But can the death of a child or friend be replaced by a new child or friend? I don't think the story deals with these kinds of questions. The point of the story is that it's well worth it to be faithful to God, even when no one else is and when everything seems to go wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We should have the mindset that our salvation depends on God, but wouldn't go as far to say that it's all God's doing. I think the choices we make have real importance and like I have said, I believe salvation can be forfeited.

I too think our choices have real importance. They are real, with even eternal consequences. But apart from his work in us we can't choose good. "For it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Certainly God uses the bad to bring out the good. I think it's more of the enemy doing his worst, and God is outsmarting him, to bring His own plans into fulfilment. We don't learn much from the bad about God, but when God takes us through we understand how forgiving, generous, good and wonderful our God is. Then we learn. But that's basically what you said.

I think the story of Job tells us that it's worth while to wait for God. Job lost a lot of things in his life, but God gave it all back multiplied. But can the death of a child or friend be replaced by a new child or friend? I don't think the story deals with these kinds of questions. The point of the story is that it's well worth it to be faithful to God, even when no one else is and when everything seems to go wrong.

The story of Job shows not just that God keeps a rein on the devil to restrain him, but does so to direct him. The devil can only do the worst that God allows him to do. But beyond that, the devil finds himself doing what God had planned for him to do all along. Witness the cross.

 

[Kermos]

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.

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.

Well, if you followed the link in the first paragraph that you quoted, then you can see clearly that there is no such thing as free-will, so Adam did not have free-will prior to eating of the tree forbidden as food nor after.

You wrote "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.", so the only way for you to get scripture to say that Adam had a free-will is for you to add to scripture, yet it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6). I expect more from an educated Calvinist.

In your concluding paragraph, you wrote:

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.
​

Again, I expect more from an educated Calvinist. Free-will is the ability to choose good or evil. For example, a person free-will choosing the good of obedience to God in order to please God.

But, I must tell you "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, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:7-8), and Adam was flesh during his whole life, even in the garden, so Adam was evil before he ate of the tree forbidden as food, even without free-will.

 

[zoidar]

I too think our choices have real importance. They are real, with even eternal consequences. But apart from his work in us we can't choose good. "For it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

The story of Job shows not just that God keeps a rein on the devil to restrain him, but does so to direct him. The devil can only do the worst that God allows him to do. But beyond that, the devil finds himself doing what God had planned for him to do all along. Witness the cross.

I think the big difference between us in is that you believe God decreed and planned each step of every being in the universe from the beginning, and that is how God accomplishes His purposes. I on the other hand don't believe God decreed and planned each step of every being in the universe in advance, and despite that God accomplishes His purposes. You have a detailed theory how God does it, I more lean on the fact that God is God, without giving a detailed explanation how.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, if you followed the link in the first paragraph that you quoted, then you can see clearly that there is no such thing as free-will, so Adam did not have free-will prior to eating of the tree forbidden as food nor after.

And yet, strangely enough, you've convinced nobody, no matter how clear you were, that there is no free-will. Also, strangely enough, I agree that IF the definition of 'free-will' is "The ability to choose good or evil" that there is no such thing for the lost.

You wrote "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.", so the only way for you to get scripture to say that Adam had a free-will is for you to add to scripture, yet it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6). I expect more from an educated Calvinist.

Good luck with that!! What makes you think I'm an educated Calvinist? And, by the way, the standard you use will be measured against you. You think I'm adding to his words. Why should I not say the only way for you to say that Adam did not have free-will is by adding to scripture? It doesn't say he didn't have free will —at least not by the usual definition (which is not the one you use).

In your concluding paragraph, you wrote:

​

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.​

​

Again, I expect more from an educated Calvinist. Free-will is the ability to choose good or evil. For example, a person free-will choosing the good of obedience to God in order to please God.

Can you show me that free-will is dependent on information concerning good and evil? Your definition runs a bit off to the side. Foul ball.

But, I must tell you "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, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:7-8), and Adam was flesh during his whole life, even in the garden, so Adam was evil before he ate of the tree forbidden as food, even without free-will.

You are 'adding' there too, since Adam was not hostile toward God until he first sinned. —But I will try to be kind, putting "adding" in scare quotes, since what I take you to be doing is not really adding, but misusing the usual sense of "the flesh" in Romans 8. You are starting to sound like gnostics.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think the big difference between us in is that you believe God decreed and planned each step of every being in the universe from the beginning, and that is how God accomplishes His purposes. I on the other hand don't believe God decreed and planned each step of every being in the universe in advance, and despite that God accomplishes His purposes. You have a detailed theory how God does it, I more lean on the fact that God is God, without giving a detailed explanation how.

Then one must conclude that you believe one of the below (my objections in parenthesis):
1. That God planned only certain things, thus some things come about merely by chance. (But causation by chance is self-contradictory)
2. That God planned only certain things, thus everything else comes about by natural sequence of causation, apart SOMEHOW from God's intention, as if he didn't know about them when he created. (Thus also invoking either chance, or a second first cause, which also invokes chance).

My explanation is necessary only in my attempt to convince. It is not necessary for me. And it is a lot more simple than the notion that man is able to in any way behave uncaused. THAT begs explanation, because of its obvious logical failings, and its contradictions to Scriptural Omnipotence and Sovereignty.

 

[zoidar]

Then one must conclude that you believe one of the below (my objections in parenthesis):
1. That God planned only certain things, thus some things come about merely by chance. (But causation by chance is self-contradictory)
2. That God planned only certain things, thus everything else comes about by natural sequence of causation, apart SOMEHOW from God's intention, as if he didn't know about them when he created. (Thus also invoking either chance, or a second first cause, which also invokes chance).

My explanation is necessary only in my attempt to convince. It is not necessary for me. And it is a lot more simple than the notion that man is able to in any way behave uncaused. THAT begs explanation, because of its obvious logical failings, and its contradictions to Scriptural Omnipotence and Sovereignty.

The kind of Omnipotence and Sovereignty you are proponing are beyond what the Scriptures tell us.

 

[Clare73]

The kind of Omnipotence and Sovereignty you are proponing are beyond what the Scriptures tell us.

Do you think it is beyond what the Scriptures tell us in
Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Ex 14:17, Ex 23:27, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20,
2 Sa 24:1, 1 Kgs 22:23, 1 Chr 5:26, Ezr 1:1, Ezr 1:5, Pr 21:1,
Eze 14:9, Dan 1:9, Dan 4:35,
Mt 10:29-30, Jn 6:37, Lk 22:22, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48,
Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, 2 Co 8:16, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1 Pe 1:2 , Rev 17:17 and their implications?

 

[zoidar]

Do you think it is beyond what the Scriptures tell us in
Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Ex 14:17, Ex 23:27, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20,
2 Sa 24:1, 1 Kgs 22:23, 1 Chr 5:26, Ezr 1:1, Ezr 1:5, Pr 21:1,
Eze 14:9, Dan 1:9, Dan 4:35,
Jn 6:37, Lk 22:22, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48,
Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, 2 Co 8:16, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1 Pe 1:2 , Rev 17:17 and their implications?

Choose one and we can discuss. I can't give comments on 20 passages.

 

[Clare73]

Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Ex 14:17, Ex 23:27, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20,
2 Sa 24:1, 1 Kgs 22:23, 1 Chr 5:26, Ezr 1:1, Ezr 1:5, Pr 21:1,
Eze 14:9, Dan 1:9, Dan 4:35,
Mt 10:29-30, Jn 6:37, Lk 22:22, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48,
Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, 2 Co 8:16, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1 Pe 1:2 , Rev 17:17

Choose one and we can discuss. I can't give comments on 20 passages.

Uh . .there's 30 of them.

It's the totality of them that demonstrates how far omnipotence and sovereignty extend.

But you might start with Mt 10:29-30 and Dan 4:35.

 

[Kermos]

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.


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.

I expect more from an educated Calvinist, Mark Quayle.

You and @Clare73 subtract the phrase "the whole creation" in relation to "until now" in the Apostle Paul's writing of "'we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22).

The whole creation establishes the initiating factor for the concluding factor of "until now" such that "There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day" (Genesis 1:23, the day before Adam was created) is included in the time range proclaimed by the Apostle Paul.

Look there, Mark Quayle, the Apostle Paul's writing establishes that Adam's entire life is included in "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22), so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulting in the creation being subjected to futility!

The Truth (John 14:6) is that "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), and Adam was flesh during his whole life, even in the garden, so Adam was evil before he ate of the tree forbidden as food, even without free-will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I expect more from an educated Calvinist, Mark Quayle.

You and @Clare73 subtract the phrase "the whole creation" in relation to "until now" in the Apostle Paul's writing of "'we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22).

The whole creation establishes the initiating factor for the concluding factor of "until now" such that "There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day" (Genesis 1:23, the day before Adam was created) is included in the time range proclaimed by the Apostle Paul.

So, creation was marred on the, what, 5th day? By your reasoning then, why start at the 5th day? Why not the first? Why not say that your "the whole creation" was at enmity with God from the 1st day til Christ takes us home? There are a LOT of factors impinging on your simplistic notion.

Look there, Mark Quayle, the Apostle Paul's writing establishes that Adam's entire life is included in "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22), so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulting in the creation being subjected to futility!

The Truth (John 14:6) is that "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), and Adam was flesh during his whole life, even in the garden, so Adam was evil before he ate of the tree forbidden as food, even without free-will.

We've already been through this. Not much point in repeating myself, but "the mind set on the flesh" —the same one that is hostile towards God— is the sinful nature. Not Adam's nature before his first disobedience.

 

[zoidar]

Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Ex 14:17, Ex 23:27, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20,
2 Sa 24:1, 1 Kgs 22:23, 1 Chr 5:26, Ezr 1:1, Ezr 1:5, Pr 21:1,
Eze 14:9, Dan 1:9, Dan 4:35,
Mt 10:29-30, Jn 6:37, Lk 22:22, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48,
Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, 2 Co 8:16, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1 Pe 1:2 , Rev 17:17

Uh . .there's 30 of them.

It's the totality of them that demonstrates how far omnipotence and sovereignty extend.

But you might start with Mt 10:29-30 and Dan 4:35.

Matthew 10:29-30 (NIV)
29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. b 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What in particular points to God controlling every atom? The whole creation is in God's care. If God has such great concern for the sparrows, how much bigger concern does He have for His children?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Matthew 10:29-30 (NIV)
29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. b 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What in particular points to God controlling every atom? The whole creation is in God's care. If God has such great concern for the sparrows, how much bigger concern does He have for His children?

I should think Matthew 10:29-30 speaks of his particular attention, rather than the generic "love" and "some goals".

"What in particular point to God controlling every atom" is the simple logic of causation. Even if by way of omniscience: If God is omniscient, then at the very least he knew absolutely every motion of every tiniest particle and energy; yet he created anyway, knowing it would happen as a result —therefore, he intended that it happen.

 

[Clare73]

Matthew 10:29-30 (NIV)
29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. b 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What in particular points to God controlling every atom? The whole creation is in God's care. If God has such great concern for the sparrows, how much bigger concern does He have for His children?

Ordaining the number of hairs on your head is really governing the details.
How could he have said it any better?

 

[zoidar]

I should think Matthew 10:29-30 speaks of his particular attention, rather than the generic "love" and "some goals".

"What in particular point to God controlling every atom" is the simple logic of causation. Even if by way of omniscience: If God is omniscient, then at the very least he knew absolutely every motion of every tiniest particle and energy; yet he created anyway, knowing it would happen as a result —therefore, he intended that it happen.

Is that what Matthew 10:29-30 is about?

 

[zoidar]

Ordaining the number of hairs on your head is really governing the details.
How could he have said it any better?

I don't see the word ordaining in Matthew 10:29-30. God has such a big care for His children, that even the hairs of their heads are numbered. If God has care for such small details, how much more will He take care of His children?