Jesus could do no deed of power there

[fhansen]

Disposition is (what is) natural to you.

If brain surgery alters my dislike of molasses, and now I like molasses (changes my disposition toward it), I do not experience that as being forced to like molasses. I wake up and I now like molasses. It is now natural to me.

So stop it with the "force" already.
And the same goes for love without faith, right?

So let's not set them against one another, by emphasizing one without the other.

Gotta go feed some horses-back in a bit!

 

[Clare73]

And this is why, historically, the church has taught that faith can exist without love while love encompasses the virtues of both faith and hope; love would not exist apart from faith IOW.

Many people love who do not have faith.

And this also makes sense of James 2:20:
"Even the demons believe—and shudder."

However, if we qualify and define faith to include a hope and trust in God and His promises through the revelation of His Son then, to the extent that we remain in that faith, that we remain in Him, that love will take root and grow and blossom along with even more faith and hope, grace leading to grace as they say. So you're right, at the end of the day it's pretty hard to separate them. Love is the goal, however. It's the authentic motivator for the good were expected to do, the overcoming of sin we're expected to achieve, the purification Jesus will do in us, the washing of our robes, the things done "for the least of these" in Matt 25. It's the opposite of legalism-it's pure grace.

 

[Clare73]

Gotta go feed some horses-back in a bit!

Horsies!!

 

[fhansen]

Disposition is (what is) natural to you.

If brain surgery alters my dislike of molasses, and now I like molasses (changes my disposition toward it), I do not experience that as being forced to like molasses. I wake up and I now like molasses. It is now natural to me.

So stop it with the "force" already.

If I'm caused to have a certain disposition, then I'm forced for all practical purposes. Adam chose a disposition oriented against God, the ultimate goodness-and God did not interfere with his choice, a choice that sent him reeling out of Eden and away from the relationship with his Creator that could've been. He drew away from God rather than nearer to Him, the opposite of the choice set before us now:
“Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” James 4:18

Choice. And yet:
“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

All of this means that it’s not either/or, but both/and, a cooperative effort-impossible to achieve apart from God in any case. He will not cause us to love Him even tho we cannot love Him without His grace. In fact, the love He has in store for us cannot be strictly caused unless accepted and embraced, or it could not even be that love. Love is both a gift, and a human choice.

Adam’s choice set the scene for the entire work of God throughout the following centuries, of patiently drawing man back to the light he walked away from. We’re all here to learn to love that light and not prefer darkness instead, not to continue to follow the family tradition. The will of man is actually the prize, so to speak; it’s what God appeals to. It's the very reason for the cross, the ultimate expression of grace, a grace that seeks to draw us to itself, to its love rather than simply causing us do that, if such were even possible. As Teresa of Avila said, “It's love alone that gives worth to all things”. And so it’s love that gives worth to man, just as it’s the primary glory and goodness of God.

And love is necessarily a choice, and that’s why it’s taken so darn long to make all this happen, to open the doorway to that love as man was being cultivated and taught and primed before the advent of Christ. God is producing something in man. God wants man to be something, and that involves his choice, even if it means baby steps, a weak yes rather than no at first, with God taking our hand and leading us. He reaches down; we only need to respond by reaching up. It's a subtle but critical difference: that man must do his part in order for God's justice to begin to take root in Him even as grace draws and prompts that response.

Anyway, love is the internal change that would make our righteousness easily exceed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, that would cure the Pharisee’s blindness as it makes us clean on the inside first of all-and our motivations pure.

 

[fhansen]

Horsies!!

Ya-not mine tho, my wife's. I'm just a stable boy.

 

[fhansen]

Many people love who do not have faith.

No, not love in the biblical sense, in the sense of the greatest commandments, for example. Love is sort of the goal of faith, as faith establishes communion with the Source of that love.

 

[Clare73]

If I'm caused to have a certain disposition, then I'm forced for all practical purposes. Adam chose a disposition oriented against God,

Adam's disposition was not oriented against God and toward sin, as in the unregenerate person.

We just can't discuss disposition, because you just do not Biblically understand it.

the ultimate goodness-and God did not interfere with his choice, a choice that sent him reeling out of Eden and away from the relationship with his Creator that could've been. He drew away from God rather than nearer to Him, the opposite of the choice set before us now:
“Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” James 4:18

Choice. And yet:
“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

All of this means that it’s not either/or, but both/and, a cooperative effort. He will not cause us to love Him even tho we cannot love Him without His grace. In fact, the love He has in store for us cannot be strictly caused unless accepted and embraced, or it could not even be that love. Love is both a gift, and a human choice.

Adam’s choice set the scene for the entire work of God throughout the following centuries, of patiently drawing man back to the light he walked away from. We’re all her to learn to love that light and not prefer darkness instead, not to continue to follow the family tradition. The will of man is actually the prize, so to speak; it’s what God appeals to. It's the very reason for the cross, the ultimate expression of grace, a grace that seeks to draw us to itself, to its love rather than simply causing us do that, if such were even possible. As Teresa of Avila said, “It's love alone that gives worth to all things”. And so it’s love that gives worth to man, just as it’s the primary glory and goodness of God.

And love is necessarily a choice, and that’s why it’s taken so darn long to make all this happen, to open the doorway to that love as man was being cultivated and taught and primed before the advent of Christ. God is producing something in man. God wants man to be something, and that involves his choice, even if it means baby steps, a weak yes rather than no at first, with God taking our hand and leading us. He reaches down; we only need to respond by reaching up. It's a subtle but critical difference: that man must do his part in order for God's justice to begin to take root in Him.

Anyway, love is the internal change that would make our righteousness easily exceed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, that would cure the Pharisee’s blindness as it makes us clean on the inside first of all-and our motivations pure.

 

[fhansen]

Adam's disposition was not oriented against God and toward sin, as in the unregenerate person.

I'm not sure what you mean. Adam certainly wasn't created with a wrong disposition. But he nonetheless ended up with one, being the original source of human "unregeneration", i.e. death.

We just can't discuss disposition, because you just do not Biblically understand it.

Pardon me if I see that as avoiding the question. I'm slow but teachable.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure what you mean. Adam certainly wasn't created with a wrong disposition. But he nonetheless ended up with one, being the original source of human "unregeneration", i.e. death.

Pardon me if I see that as avoiding the question. I'm slow but teachable.

Didn't mean to offend. . .I can relate to that.

It's a huge topic. . .revealed to us in Scripture.

We start with God's view of man, as it differs from man's view of man.

The following is the natural disposition of man before God's grace.
Adam did not have this disposition before the fall.
The disposition of man revealed in the following is the result of the fall.

Genesis 8:21

John 8:34

Romans 3:10-12

Romans 5:10

Romans 5:18-19

Romans 8:7-8

Romans 11:32

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Rescued One]

Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

I sneeze and someone says, "Bless you."

I say, "Thank you!"

Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

People don't claim sickness and thereby receive it. I'm done with your holier than thou attitude. If your faith is so great, you'll never die.

"For it is appointed unto man once to die."
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

Have a nice life.

 

[Saint Steven]

I sneeze and someone says, "Bless you."

I say, "Thank you!"

People don't claim sickness and thereby receive it. I'm done with your holier than thou attitude. If your faith is so great, you'll never die.

"For it is appointed unto man once to die."
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

Have a nice life.

Wow. Why so dismissive? I don't understand why you would react so negatively to me and my post. I was sharing what I believe about the subject. Your accusations seem completely unwarranted. Very surprised.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

 

[Saint Steven]

People don't claim sickness and thereby receive it. I'm done with your holier than thou attitude. If your faith is so great, you'll never die.

"For it is appointed unto man once to die."
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

Have a nice life.

Where do you get a "holier than thou attitude", or "pride" and "haughty spirit" from my post?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

 

[fhansen]

Didn't mean to offend. . .I can relate to that.

It's a huge topic. . .revealed to us in Scripture.

We start with God's view of man, as it differs from man's view of man.

The following is the natural disposition of man before God's grace.
Adam did not have this disposition before the fall.
The disposition of man revealed in the following is the result of the fall.

Of course, and that’s the point. Adam chose a disposition in rebellion against God, at odds with His will. Adam, faced with conflicting voices and internal desires, chose not to heed God, preferring himself instead as it’s been put. He, IOW, chose the disposition; it was not simply a punishment or consequence. The fruit looked attractive-and we experience the results and experiment with the same fruit and various temptations ourselves daily in this world. With His plan of salvation God’s been working ever since to bring man back to rectitude, to a right choice, or the proper disposition. Righteousness comes from God, alone, as does our very existence for that matter, but in the case of righteousness or morality we choose whether to accept and embrace this better way, whether or not to choose Him as opposed to Adam’s choice against Him. That choice, itself, that faith, is the basis and essence of man’s justice. And it’s not some one-time choice but rather a series of them born out by the way we live our lives-and whether not we’ll persevere and endure to the end. Anyway, God continuously poses this question, of whether or not we’ll accept His offer, His offer of faith, His offer of grace, of Himself-and continue to accept it.

Genesis 8:21

John 8:34

Romans 3:10-12

Romans 5:10

Romans 5:18-19

Romans 8:7-8

Romans 11:32

The problem is that you’re reading thru a fogged up lens obscured by faulty teachings. We’re made righteous, truly and personally righteous finally, by Christ, something we couldn’t do on our own, apart from Him. The second component is that we must still do our part now that we’ve been given the grace to obtain and maintain and even grow in this righteousness that comes on the basis of faith (Phil 3:9). Reference the Parable of the Talents, for example. And consider the following, looking at Rom 5:18-19 and 8:7-8 that you listed:
“Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

“The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

Soon followed by Rom 8:12-13:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an OBLIGATION—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

Again, this righteousness is real, not just imputed or declared, which is echoed in Rom 2:13:“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

And this theme, that righteousness comes only by grace, not of ourselves, grace that we must participate in living by, is consistent throughout Romans and elsewhere.

1 Corinthians 2:14

“Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.” 1 Cor 2:14

I had to chuckle a bit when I saw this verse on your list. After writing the following in my previous post,

Pardon me if I see that as avoiding the question. I'm slow but teachable.

I wanted to add something later, but didn’t get the time. I intended to say that maybe the problem is that I’m not a member of the exclusive set, the self-assessed “Elect”. But I’ve been around the faith and our Lord long enough to know that that level of assurance isn't much more than self-serving nonsense, however. God, alone, knows with 100% certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life. And nearly everyone claims to have the Spirit of God guiding them, regardless of how varying all the different interpretations may be. Anyway, not wanting to offend either, I avoid using such passages as 1 Cor 2:14, regardless of what I may think of another person’s understanding. Suffice it to say that you misunderstand Paul’s mind on the subject of justification. Grace is not about excusing us from the obligation to be just/righteous, but about finally giving us the means to that very justice, so that we won’t have to die. So we can now understand what Paul truly means in Rom 7:24-25:

“What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

The law, even though holy, spiritual and good, is still just a set of external rules. The law must become internal, only possible by grace, then the outside will be clean as well.

“…just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:21

“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Rom 6:16

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. 1 John 3:5

 

[Clare73]

Of course, and that’s the point. Adam chose a disposition in rebellion against God, at odds with His will. Adam, faced with conflicting voices and internal desires, chose not to heed God, preferring himself instead as it’s been put. He, IOW, chose the disposition; it was not simply a punishment or consequence. The fruit looked attractive-and we experience the results and experiment with the same fruit and various temptations ourselves daily in this world. With His plan of salvation God’s been working ever since to bring man back to rectitude, to a right choice, or the proper disposition. Righteousness comes from God, alone, as does our very existence for that matter, but in the case of righteousness or morality we choose whether to accept and embrace this better way, whether or not to choose Him as opposed to Adam’s choice against Him. That choice, itself, that faith, is the basis and essence of man’s justice. And it’s not some one-time choice but rather a series of them born out by the way we live our lives-and whether not we’ll persevere and endure to the end. Anyway, God continuously poses this question, of whether or not we’ll accept His offer, His offer of faith, His offer of grace, of Himself-and continue to accept it.

The problem is that you’re reading thru a fogged up lens obscured by faulty teachings. We’re made righteous, truly and personally righteous finally, by Christ, something we couldn’t do on our own, apart from Him. The second component is that we must still do our part now that we’ve been given the grace to obtain and maintain and even grow in this righteousness that comes on the basis of faith (Phil 3:9). Reference the Parable of the Talents, for example. And consider the following, looking at Rom 5:18-19 and 8:7-8 that you listed:
“Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

“The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

Soon followed by Rom 8:12-13:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an OBLIGATION—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

Again, this righteousness is real, not just imputed or declared, which is echoed in Rom 2:13:“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

And this theme, that righteousness comes only by grace, not of ourselves, grace that we must participate in living by, is consistent throughout Romans and elsewhere.
“Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.” 1 Cor 2:14

I had to chuckle a bit when I saw this verse on your list. After writing the following in my previous post,I wanted to add something later, but didn’t get the time. I intended to say that maybe the problem is that I’m not a member of the exclusive set, the self-assessed “Elect”. But I’ve been around the faith and our Lord long enough to know that that level of assurance isn't much more than self-serving nonsense, however. God, alone, knows with 100% certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life. And nearly everyone claims to have the Spirit of God guiding them, regardless of how varying all the different interpretations may be. Anyway, not wanting to offend either, I avoid using such passages as 1 Cor 2:14, regardless of what I may think of another person’s understanding. Suffice it to say that you misunderstand Paul’s mind on the subject of justification. Grace is not about excusing us from the obligation to be just/righteous, but about finally giving us the means to that very justice, so that we won’t have to die. So we can now understand what Paul truly means in Rom 7:24-25:

“What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

The law, even though holy, spiritual and good, is still just a set of external rules. The law must become internal, then the outside will be clean as well.

“…just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:21

“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Rom 6:16

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. 1 John 3:5

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to adequately explain to you the meaning of "disposition" as it relates spiritually to man before and after the fall.

But don't give up on me!

 

[fhansen]

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to adequately explain to you the meaning of "disposition" as it relates spiritually to man before and after the fall.

But don't give up on me!

C'mon-shouldn't be that hard. You should be able to put it into your own words-especially if it's based on personal experience. In my experience, yes, words are inadequate at conveying things God has shown me, but I can still use them to paint the picture-that's all we have for that purpose.

 

[Clare73]

C'mon-shouldn't be that hard. You should be able to put it into your own words-especially if it's based on personal experience. In my experience, yes, words are inadequate at conveying things God has shown me, but I can still use them to paint the picture-that's all we have for that purpose.

As long as you see "disposition" related to force, I cannot.

As long as you can relate force to your disposition to like ice cream, I cannot.

 

[Clare73]

C'mon-shouldn't be that hard. You should be able to put it into your own words-especially if it's based on personal experience. In my experience, yes, words are inadequate at conveying things God has shown me, but I can still use them to paint the picture-that's all we have for that purpose.

Okay. . .usually little boys somewhere in their development think girls are "yucky" or whatever.

But that disposition changes from con to pro somewhere along the the way.

And that change is not forced on them in any way, there is no violation of their will in any way.

God changes our disposition in the same way, without force or violation of our free will.

 

[fhansen]

As long as you see "disposition" related to force, I cannot.

As long as you can relate force to your disposition to like ice cream, I cannot.

Okay. . .usually little boys somewhere in their development think girls are "yucky" or whatever.

But that disposition changes from con to pro somewhere along the the way.

And that change is not forced on them in any way, there is no violation of their will in any way.

God changes our disposition in the same way, without force or violation of our free will.

The difference is that we're speaking of morality, righteousness, that which makes us just enough in the eyes of God in order to be allowed into heaven. Man decides whether or not he'll allow himself to be made righteous by allowing himself to enter communion with God, by faith, a relationship which is the basis of man's righteousness. Ice cream preferences and puppy love don't matter here. We're geared to love and obey God, to obey Him because we love Him, actually, and that's better than any ice cream or dalliance we could imagine and yet we don't even have to believe in Him- let alone hope in, let alone love Him: it's a choice, and Adam effectively committed the first act of unbelief; he literally did not trust or believe God; he allowed other desires and preferences to override the trust and belief that he should've had, that justice demands because creation descends into chaos to the extent that its no longer bound to and under the authority of God's perfect wisdom. Adam, lacking the knowledge-the experience-of good and evil, hadn't quite learned that yet. Presumably he has by now after life in a world where both of those realties are in our face regularly.

But while in Eden Adam probably still loved ice cream and definitely Eve but not God; he despised and rejected God's authority and superiority. He created an anti-God disposition for man. This injustice or disorder, a matter of the will, is what must be rectified, for our own good, and God is enormously gracious and kind and patient in getting us to that point. But just as He allowed Adam to fall, He won't force us to rise. The moment we remove the role of man's will entirely from the process we do violence to the gospel regardless of how we attempt to phrase the concept. God draws us with spiritual ice cream, ice cream that we should develop a hunger for since this type of ice cream is sorely missing in this world, with all the consequences of sin and evil that we experience daily being the result. God is missing in this world, the Master's gone away for all practical purposes and we're here to gain the wisdom and sense to want Him back once He's drawn us to the ice cream stand. But He will not just cause that to happen-He doesn't just overwhelm and enter our lives-all at once with no possibility of our turning back away. He enables us to begin to believe in, hope in, and love Him, but He still will not keep us from refusing Him if we so desire. He knocks on the door; we must allow Him entrance.

If the goal is simply to stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning, without regard to the human will, why not just do that then? Why all the drama? Why all the sin, pain, and suffering down thru the centuries if man is no more than God's puppet anyway? Does God like to see that pain? Does God like to create some for no other purpose then to watch them suffer eternally in hell? If God causes all to be improperly disposed in the beginning, and then later gives some of them a proper disposition so that they'll turn to Him, then He's the only one who can be blamed for good or evil: He'd be the cause of both after all, not man. Man's justice, his righteousness, is intrinsically and inescapably tied to his willing it-even as grace is an essential ingredient in achieving this.

 

[Clare73]

The difference is that we're speaking of morality, righteousness,

Disposition operates the same way in both the natural and spiritual (morality, righteousness) order.

that which makes us just enough in the eyes of God in order to be allowed into heaven. Man decides whether or not he'll allow himself to be made righteous

Seems we agree that man is not righteous, as stated in the Scriptures I gave you.

Man was disposed to God until Adam choose the creature over the Creator, and rebelled against the Creator's command (Law).

Now fallen man is born disposed to self--self-preference, self-autonomy, self-rule, self-benefit, self-truth, self-morality, etc. (Just look around at the culture now to see what I am talking about.) If he were by nature spiritually disposed to God, he would have the power to be sinless, as Adam did. Man does not have the power to be sinless. That is the meaning of the fallen human nature.

In the new birth into eternal life, man's disposition is changed by grace. I've never heard anyone object to that. Universally, it is considered a good thing, a gift, not a violation of free will. With the gift of eternal life (John 10:28), man is more disposed toward God and less disposed toward self, and grows in the family likeness of the sons of God.

But man himself, apart from God's work of grace, is not disposed to make God the center of his life and purpose.

All of that is self-evident.

by allowing himself to enter communion with God, by faith, a relationship which is the basis of man's righteousness. Ice cream preferences and puppy love don't matter here. We're geared to love and obey God, to obey Him because we love Him, actually, and that's better than any ice cream or dalliance we could imagine and yet we don't even have to believe in Him- let alone hope in, let alone love Him: it's a choice, and Adam effectively committed the first act of unbelief; he literally did not trust or believe God; he allowed other desires and preferences to override the trust and belief that he should've had, that justice demands because creation descends into chaos to the extent that its no longer bound to and under the authority of God's perfect wisdom. Adam, lacking the knowledge-the experience-of good and evil, hadn't quite learned that yet. Presumably he has by now after life in a world where both of those realties are in our face regularly.

But while in Eden Adam probably still loved ice cream and definitely Eve but not God; he despised and rejected God's authority and superiority. He created an anti-God disposition for man. This injustice or disorder, a matter of the will, is what must be rectified, for our own good, and God is enormously gracious and kind and patient in getting us to that point. But just as He allowed Adam to fall, He won't force us to rise. The moment we remove the role of man's will entirely from the process we do violence to the gospel regardless of how we attempt to phrase the concept. God draws us with spiritual ice cream, ice cream that we should develop a hunger for since this type of ice cream is sorely missing in this world, with all the consequences of sin and evil that we experience daily being the result.

God is missing in this world, the Master's gone away for all practical purposes and we're here to gain the wisdom and sense to want Him back once He's drawn us to the ice cream stand. But He will not just cause that to happen-He doesn't just overwhelm and enter our lives-all at once with no possibility of our turning back away.

There are too many, not all, who can testify that is exactly what he did to them, who had no preference nor desire for God, who loved their sin, and something profound happened to them which they did not seek, they found their hearts mightily turned to God, a great desire for him, and deep and abiding belief in him. Nor was there any inkling in them to refuse that transformation, they drank it up like a desert drinks water, something which only 24 hours earlier you couldn't have run fast enough to hang on them.

And I've never heard or read of any who thought it was a violation of their free will. . .because no one made them do anything they didn't want to do.

He enables us to begin to believe in, hope in, and love Him, but He still will not keep us from refusing Him if we so desire. He knocks on the door; we must allow Him entrance.

If the goal is simply to stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning, without regard to the human will, why not just do that then? Why all the drama? Why all the sin, pain, and suffering down thru the centuries

You need to be familiar with your Bible for answers to those questions.

if man is no more than God's puppet anyway? Does God like to see that pain? Does God like to create some for no other purpose then to watch them suffer eternally in hell?

The omniscience of God does not allow escape from the reality that God creates some people for hell.
For if he knows all things, then he knows who will choose to go to hell, and if he creates them anyway, in effect, he is creating them for hell. With that knowledge of their choice before he creates them, why does he create them at all?

And does that then make him responsible for good and evil, for had he not created them, would there be evil?

If God causes all to be improperly disposed in the beginning, and then later gives some of them a proper disposition so that they'll turn to Him, then He's the only one who can be blamed for good or evil: He'd be the cause of both after all, not man. Man's justice, his righteousness, is intrinsically and inescapably tied to his willing it-even as grace is an essential ingredient in achieving this.

If you intentionally drive right through the rail guard into a ravine, the Highway Dept. is not responsible for your broken leg and arm. If some generous employee over there decides to gift you with the expense of your recovery, does anyone else who intentionally drives through the rail guard also have a claim to that employee's gift? Is not that employee free to decide whom he will gift? Is he unjust for not gifting all who do the same thing? Is he now to blame for all who intentionally drive through the rail guard?

Faulty human reasoning. . .correctly only by Biblical reasoning of the Word of God written.

 

[fhansen]

Disposition operates the same way in both the natural and spiritual (morality, righteousness) order.

Not necessarily. For some reason, and theologians have struggled with understanding this, Adam chose against being disposed to God. At the end of the day Adam simply willed to disobey.

Seems we agree that man is not righteous, as stated in the Scriptures I gave you.

Yes, in his fallen state, as I 've maintained. Man's righteousness comes only to the extent that he's in partnership with God, a relationship we're here to realize-or not. His fallen state consists chiefly of not being in that relationship, of not knowing God to put it another way.

Man was disposed to God until Adam choose the creature over the Creator, and rebelled against the Creator's command (Law).

Yes

Now fallen man is born disposed to self--self-preference, self-autonomy, self-rule, self-benefit, self-truth, self-morality, etc. (Just look around at the culture now to see what I am talking about.) If he were by nature spiritually disposed to God, he would have the power to be sinless, as Adam did. Man does not have the power to be sinless. That is the meaning of the fallen human nature.

Yes, that is one aspect of his "falleness".

In the new birth into eternal life, man's disposition is changed by grace. I've never heard anyone object to that. Universally, it is considered a good thing, a gift, not a violation of free will. With the gift of eternal life (John 10:28), man is more disposed toward God and less disposed toward self, and grows in the family likeness of the sons of God.

Yes, and grace is not a violation of man's will precisely because that grace is resistible; man can still opt out.

But man himself, apart from God's work of grace, is not disposed to make God the center of his life and purpose.

All of that is self-evident.

Yes, except for the fact that man has a "God-shaped hole" in him as some have put it. And that can make him aware of the fact that something is missing, something is wrong; he can at least develop a hunger and thirst for something right. Man was weakened and wounded by the fall; he became lost, but not totally corrupted; the image of God remained buried inside. A teaching I'm familiar with puts it this way, speaking of the state of "original sin":
"It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".

There are too many, not all, who can testify that is exactly what he did to them, who had no preference nor desire for God, who loved their sin, and something profound happened to them which they did not seek, they found their hearts mightily turned to God, a great desire for him, and deep and abiding belief in him. Nor was there any inkling in them to refuse that transformation, they drank it up like a desert drinks water, something which only 24 hours earlier you couldn't have run fast enough to hang on them.

I'm not saying that a person cannot experience it that way. I'm saying that this is not part of the definition of "election". Those same people could've said "no", and still can. We cannot predict our own perseverance. Again, we can say that we're "caused" to like ice cream. We cannot say that we're caused to like God in the same manner, or that we still don't possess whatever resistance to that preference that Adam had to begin with. And this is why we still struggle with sin and doubt at times. We're not yet fully "bound" to God, as another teaching puts it, until we totally love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength, without distraction. There our perfection, our purpose, our teleios would be achieved-and God's creation, us in this case-would exist perfectly in the state of being we are created for. Technically possible here but probably not gonna happen until we see Him "face to face", where we know Him fully.

You need to be familiar with your Bible for answers to those questions.

I am, and that's the point. While I recognize that Scripture is not and was never intended to be some sort of clear and exhaustive catechism the overwhelming ponderance of passages and concepts within its pages support my viewpoint.

The omniscience of God does not allow escape from the reality that God creates some people for hell.
For if he knows all things, then he knows who will choose to go to hell, and if he creates them anyway, in effect, he is creating them for hell. With that knowledge of their choice before he creates them, why does he create them at all?

And does that then make him responsible for good and evil, for had he not created them, would there be evil?

No, and that's the point I've been making, that as long as man's choice, his will, is involved in choosing good over evil, God over no God, heaven over hell, then it's not God's choice that sends him to hell, because the man was not caused to choose that way, which means he's not caused to choose heaven as well. He can taste of the heavenly gift and still reject it. Otherwise there's no reason for the bible to ever command man to make that choice, a command which runs clear through Scripture from beginning to end. There'd be no reason for the bible, or the incarnation, the Word in the flesh, at all for that matter. The decision would be all about God's election anyway, and nothing concerning us.

If you intentionally drive right through the rail guard into a ravine, the Highway Dept. is not responsible for your broken leg and arm. If some generous employee over there decides to gift you with the expense of your recovery, does anyone else who intentionally drives through the rail guard also have a claim to that employee's gift? Is not that employee free to decide whom he will gift? Is he unjust for not gifting all who do the same thing? Is he now to blame for all who intentionally drive through the rail guard?

Faulty human reasoning. . .correctly only by Biblical reasoning of the Word of God written.

The problem with your "non-faulty" reasoning is that, in the case of man's situation in this world, your theology effectively means that God gives him the intention to drive through the guardrail, and no means to do otherwise unless God changes his intention. Puppetry for all practical purposes. This world is actually a place of formation, of the human will.