Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's ok, bro. I can talk about this sort of thing all day (and not get done what I should be doing!) I've been hoping to get you (and many others on this site) to see that even without taking God into account as the beginning of the chain of events, our choices are still, necessarily, caused.I don't know if this is the best thing to bring up again. But "willed choice" doesn't make you responsible. It has to be "free will choice", and by free will, I mean uncaused from prior event. You are not responsible just by being able to choose what you will, if what you will has been caused by God.
If you feel we are done discussing this, then no problem. Maybe I shouldn't have opened the lid again...
Agreed. . .Here is my view on the teaching of the spirit of antichrist and what that means. It has to do with the 2 natures in Christ, that He is fully God and remains fully man, in the flesh. I have quoted several renown Greek scholars that concur.
The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist.
I don't see emanation in the opening of John's gospel whereIf we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God.
1 John 1:1-2 - "That (life) which was from the beginning (of the hearing of the gospel proclamation, 2:7, 24) which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the word of Life. The Life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life (5:20), which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard. . ."Jesus is the living Word of God, the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched.
Keeping in mind that logos in Greek is God himself, it does not mean God's utterance.Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John. Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate.
He is the eternal life who became flesh.
He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?
1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7
Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)
Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)
Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)
Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)
Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)
Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)
Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.
Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, eleeluthota "has come
Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun Christon erchomenon en sarki. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have eleeluthota (perfect active participle) in this same construction with homologeoo, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.
Vincent- Is come erchomenon. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood
hope this helps !!!
It's ok, bro. I can talk about this sort of thing all day (and not get done what I should be doing!) I've been hoping to get you (and many others on this site) to see that even without taking God into account as the beginning of the chain of events, our choices are still, necessarily, caused.
Ok, if you are right, how then are we responsible for what we choose?
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If our wills are externally caused, then we don't will anything. Your first point is nothing more than you assuming you're right, therefore God. It gives no real ground for explaining moral accountability, and violates the law of non-contradiction. We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion. And we are only morally responsible for the things that we choose to do(or not do), not the things we have no control over. So unless our wills are to some extent free we bear no responsibility for what they contain. We do not will if our wills are entirely determined, just as computer programs do not will when they carry out their programming and are therefor not morally culpable.I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?
Three ways, off the top of my head —maybe even more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.
Does God love all the souls He cast into Hell?Love is one of the primary and essential attributes which reflect the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love and because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God's love is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.
God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4 tells us.
We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.
God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.
In the monumental work of Calvin’s Institutes , it is interesting for a man with such an attention to detail when it comes to dogma and Scripture that he left out any mention of Gods primary attribute that God is love (1 John 4:8;16) and any biblical reference to those two verses in 1 John regarding God is love. His institutes contain thousands of bible references and over 1500 pages in his Institutes.
Another interesting fact is that in the Shorter Westminster Catechism of Faith, question 4 “What is God “? We read the following regarding Gods attributes and notice what is left out.
“God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. “
Notice like in Calvin’s Institute’s, the WCF leaves out Gods primary attribute that He is love.
Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. There was no Sovereignty for there was no creation to be Sovereign over. Why do you ask about those attributes and that they were not necessary? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.
The true nature of Gods love is at the heart of the gospel message: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in His shall not perish but have everlasting life, John 3:16.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17
Ok, if you are right, how then are we responsible for what we choose?
It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?
Three ways, off the top of my head —probably more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.
Doubling down with another repugnant doctrrine from Augustine.It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?
I was training a dog once, and I found this interesting quote in a trainer's manual.We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If our wills are externally caused, then we don't will anything.
The law of non-contradiction does not impede this in the least. Why can we not choose between what we don't know is illusion, if one of them is the one that was predestined for us to choose? The fact the others are illusion is irrelevant. Likewise for moral accountability —you have not demonstrated your claim at all.It gives no real ground for explaining moral accountability, and violates the law of non-contradiction. We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion.
That we WILFULLY choose, we are responsible for. Yes we are free to choose between options, real or illusion, still options from which to choose.And we are only morally responsible for the things that we choose to do(or not do), not the things we have no control over. So unless our wills are to some extent free we bear no responsibility for what they contain. We do not will if our wills are entirely determined, just as computer programs do not will when they carry out their programming and are therefor not morally culpable.
In other words, you disrespect it, and so you don't care to address it.Doubling down with another repugnant doctrrine from Augustine.
Yes, I don't believe in causal closure. While there may be some intuitive appeal to a simple and direct cause and effect model, my experience and reason both tell me that it cannot be the case. And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.So not only do you deny the principle of reasoning we know of as 'cause and effect', but the many dimensions that we experience every day of influences upon our decisions. Yes, I know you will admit to influences, but you will not admit they are causes. Yet, they are, conflicting or agreeing, they do cause. No, not good enough for you. You want little first causes trotting about the planet.
Things cannot be chosen by an external force, and of our will at the same time. If they are chosen for us, they are not willed by us as our "will" is an illusion. A vapor that has no influence on the outcome, but is a result.The law of non-contradiction does not impede this in the least. Why can we not choose between what we don't know is illusion, if one of them is the one that was predestined for us to choose? The fact the others are illusion is irrelevant. Likewise for moral accountability —you have not demonstrated your claim at all.
According to you, we don't willfully choose. Things are chosen for us by forces entirely out of our control. That you claim it is God doing the choosing doesn't change that fact. Willfully doing things requires a will that isn't pre-determined, otherwise wind-up toys and machines would be morally culpable.That we WILFULLY choose, we are responsible for. Yes we are free to choose between options, real or illusion, still options from which to choose.
Yes, I don't believe in causal closure. While there may be some intuitive appeal to a simple and direct cause and effect model, my experience and reason both tell me that it cannot be the case. And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.
Things cannot be chosen by an external force, and of our will at the same time. If they are chosen for us, they are not willed by us as our "will" is an illusion. A vapor that has no influence on the outcome, but is a result.
According to you, we don't willfully choose. Things are chosen for us by forces entirely out of our control. That you claim it is God doing the choosing doesn't change that fact. Willfully doing things requires a will that isn't pre-determined, otherwise wind-up toys and machines would be morally culpable.
I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?
Three ways, off the top of my head —maybe even more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.
It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?
Pardon me, but isn't that a little silly? If I don't know whether you will be persuaded or not, (which is, I hope, one of the causes of your upcoming choices), why should I not continue to try to persuade you? After all, I don't know what your choice is predetermined to be. I'm not God, who uses means to accomplish his ends —means, such as my arguing and yours, to bring about his sure purposes.And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.
Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.
It ultimately comes down to the fact that your position requires a re-definition of "choice" that renders it something altogether different from the ordinary use of the word. By your definition, water droplets could be said to "choose" what direction they flow in whenever there isn't a clear direction beforehand. The issue with your position is that whether I am persuaded or not has no basis in our conversation, as the cause is external to either one of us. The intermediaries that are involved have no bearing on the outcome, only the external cause so to argue as if your argument can be effective is to deny the premise that the choices are determined externally, instead implying that there is an authentic freedom to choose between the alernatives rather than the choice being the product of a mechanical process previously initiated.Pardon me, but isn't that a little silly? If I don't know whether you will be persuaded or not, (which is, I hope, one of the causes of your upcoming choices), why should I not continue to try to persuade you? After all, I don't know what your choice is predetermined to be. I'm not God, who uses means to accomplish his ends —means, such as my arguing and yours, to bring about his sure purposes.
That's a level of cognitive dissonance far beyond my ability to engage in.Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.
My disrespect for it, and my way of addressing of it are related. It's the product of a mind seeking to vindicate himself for his past misconduct so instead of owning responsiblity creates a theological doctrine that absolves him of guilt by blaming Adam. It's repugnant on multiple levels, and its originator based his belief on a mistranslation combined with a faulty assumption about a practice in the church in his day.In other words, you disrespect it, and so you don't care to address it.
A son can inherit his father's house, and in his father's house his character is formed.Adam's sin. Are we logically responsible for Adam's sin? How could we? We were not even there. Again God could hold us responsible for Adam's sin, but would it be just?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?