Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[mooduck1]

The New Testament never says anything about free will, but it does mention foreknowledge and predestination.

BTW, I dont care about free will so far as it goes with if I am going to wear a green or blue shirt, its in reference to Salvation. The rest of it doesnt really make a differance to me.

If you are arguing in favor of FW to choose to wear flip-flops or boots I dont care, but if you are saying man has a choice about salvation than this is something that we need to discuss further.

Hi,
the whole new testament is about spreading the "Good News" that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Why? To rub it in the face of those who are not predestined? What is the "good news" to them? That they are going to hell and that there is nothing they can do about it? Why spread a Gospel if it does not compell us to make a choice . IF we have choices then we have free will - at least on some level. I realize that comprehending the concept that a All knowing God can give us a choice is befuddling to say the least - a stumbling block to those who would like it to be logical. Never the less, I believe that CHOICE is at the center of the Gospel. Without it, the "Good News" isn't news at all.

Here I stand.

 

[JacobHall86]

Hi,
the whole new testament is about spreading the "Good News" that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Why? To rub it in the face of those who are not predestined? What is the "good news" to them? That they are going to hell and that there is nothing they can do about it? Why spread a Gospel if it does not compell us to make a choice . IF we have choices then we have free will - at least on some level. I realize that comprehending the concept that a All knowing God can give us a choice is befuddling to say the least - a stumbling block to those who would like it to be logical. Never the less, I believe that CHOICE is at the center of the Gospel. Without it, the "Good News" isn't news at all.

Here I stand.

Are we dead in our sins or not before Christ?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Never the less, I believe that CHOICE is at the center of the Gospel. Without it, the "Good News" isn't news at all.

Despite the fact it's not actually in the text of the Gospel?

 

[Gukkor]

Despite the fact it's not actually in the text of the Gospel?

The Trinity is never explicitly referenced in the Gospel either, yet there is enough indirect reference to it for most Christians to accept it as an important part of the Gospel.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi,
the whole new testament is about spreading the "Good News" that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Why? To rub it in the face of those who are not predestined? What is the "good news" to them? That they are going to hell and that there is nothing they can do about it? Why spread a Gospel if it does not compell us to make a choice . IF we have choices then we have free will - at least on some level. I realize that comprehending the concept that a All knowing God can give us a choice is befuddling to say the least - a stumbling block to those who would like it to be logical. Never the less, I believe that CHOICE is at the center of the Gospel. Without it, the "Good News" isn't news at all.

Here I stand.

With all due respect, personal incredulity is a fallacious argument. What you want is not necessarily what your god wants.

 

[JacobHall86]

The Trinity is never explicitly referenced in the Gospel either, yet there is enough indirect reference to it for most Christians to accept it as an important part of the Gospel.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The Trinity is never explicitly referenced in the Gospel either, yet there is enough indirect reference to it for most Christians to accept it as an important part of the Gospel.

The trinity can be inferred from scripture. Changing the command to repent and believe to "choose via autonomous will to repent and believe" is not inferrence, but eisegesis.

 

[Gukkor]

The trinity can be inferred from scripture. Changing the command to repent and believe to "choose via autonomous will to repent and believe" is not inferrence, but eisegesis.

The fact that we are commanded to repent and believe at all implies that we have some degree of choice in the matter. Otherwise, He wouldn't need to say anything at all.

 

[GenemZ]

Are we dead in our sins or not before Christ?

Spiritually dead. That is why the Holy Spirit is needed to make us face spiritual reality before we are saved. What the Holy Spirit does is what we refer to as 'common Grace.' What the Holy Spirit does is substitute for our human spirit, so we can be placed into a position 'enabled' to understand what it is we are offered to believe. What we are offered, is faith.

 

[mooduck1]

The trinity can be inferred from scripture. Changing the command to repent and believe to "choose via autonomous will to repent and believe" is not inferrence, but eisegesis.

You're right! the command is 'repent and believe'. If I do not have free will on some level, then God does not have to 'command' anything, and he definately doesn't have to send missionaries to spread the 'good news'. If I am predestined then I am preprogramed and do not need anyone to tell me that I must repent. If there is no 'choice' there is no Gospel.

 

[JonF]

You're right! the command is 'repent and believe'. If I do not have free will on some level, then God does not have to 'command' anything.

who ever said God “had” to. He chooses too. Also Calvinism doesn’t deny free will, I suggest you look into compatiblism.

He definately doesn't have to send missionaries to spread the 'good news'. If I am predestined then I am preprogramed and do not need anyone to tell me that I must repent. If there is no 'choice' there is no Gospel.

Predestination makes no claim about “programming” other than you will never accept the gospel without God’s enabling you because of your sinful nature. Also, just because we’re predestined doesn’t mean that God ordains a process of believers to come unto salvation. And that process includes spreading the good news.

 

[mooduck1]

With all due respect, personal incredulity is a fallacious argument. What you want is not necessarily what your god wants.

I'm sorry, I've tried to guess what you are refering to with this statement but I haven't the foggiest. Sorry for being dense. At any rate, no where in my post was I trying to suggest that My God's will has to match my expectations. I was simply pointing out that the whole Idea of sending people out 2 by 2 to spread the Gospel to all the nations seems to me to be a pretty clear indication of the idea that God compels us to make a choice. IE, "Take up your cross and follow me, deny yourself and you'll be free." Don't you agree that verses like this seem to indicate that men have the will to choose whether to follow or not? If not, why do you suspect that Jesus would tell his disciples to do this?

 

[GenemZ]

Despite the fact it's not actually in the text of the Gospel?

Acts 16:30-31 (New International Version)

"He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
​

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."​

It does not say.....

"If you discover yourself believing you will be saved. "
​

They were told to simply believe.



God did not determine (will) that we will believe. What he determined (willed) was, when, and under what circumstances, we would believe.

Acts 17:26 (New International Version)
​

"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."​

If it were God who determines who in the human race are to believe? Then, according to 1 Timothy 2:3-4? All men would believe! And, all would desire sound doctrine!

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (New International Version)
​

" I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."



TRUTH LIVES
​

 

[mooduck1]

who ever said God “had” to. He chooses too. Also Calvinism doesn’t deny free will, I suggest you look into compatiblism.

Predestination makes no claim about “programming” other than you will never accept the gospel without God’s enabling you because of your sinful nature. Also, just because we’re predestined doesn’t mean that God ordains a process of believers to come unto salvation. And that process includes spreading the good news.

If I understand your meaning, you are suggesting that Only God can make it even possible for man to be saved. If so, we agree to that point. What I do not agree with, based on my understanding of the Gospels and their purpose, is the notion that EVERYTHING and every choice is preplanned and preprogrammed by God and that we are presaved and that we cannot become 'unsaved'. We are getting off topic as I have already conceded that my stance is based on my understanding of scripture and not purely on logic. If it were totally about logic the OP might be correct, however since there are so many unknowns about God's nature, the OP could be seen as a rather arrogant argument in that it assumes we have all the facts.

 

[JacobHall86]

Spiritually dead. That is why the Holy Spirit is needed to make us face spiritual reality before we are saved. What the Holy Spirit does is what we refer to as 'common Grace.' What the Holy Spirit does is substitute for our human spirit, so we can be placed into a position 'enabled' to understand what it is we are offered to believe. What we are offered, is faith.

Wow, thats a pretty big stretch from actual truth.

 

[GenemZ]

Wow, thats a pretty big stretch from actual truth.

Where did you go? You were not doing anything constructive except to be critical by doing that.

Did that teach us anything so we can know more of your truth that you claim I need to know? What you said has the appearance of a flame, because it sounded smug. It only offered snideness.



Therefore, if you are going to make a claim that someone has to be wrong? You should at least have the decency back it up with what you claim is the truth.

All you are doing is taking snipes at what is said, and then hiding.

Don't hide. Tell us the truth as you see it.

 

[JonF]

If I understand your meaning, you are suggesting that Only God can make it even possible for man to be saved. If so, we agree to that point.

Calvinist fully believe in saving faith. What we believe is that inorder to come to saving faith that God must enable you.

What I do not agree with, based on my understanding of the Gospels and their purpose, is the notion that EVERYTHING and every choice is preplanned and preprogrammed by God and that

This is fatalism, very few Calvinist hold this view.

we are presaved and that we cannot become 'unsaved'. We are getting off topic as I have already conceded that my stance is based on my understanding of scripture and not purely on logic.

Salvation is something Calvinist hold that is pre-ordained. We don’t base this on purely “logic”. The scriptural evidence is overwhelming, several times whole chapters are dedicated to in the bible: John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1. In my experience denials of pre-destination have always been based on what someone feels is “just” or because that isn’t what their salvation plan would be.

If it were totally about logic the OP might be correct, however since there are so many unknowns about God's nature, the OP could be seen as a rather arrogant argument in that it assumes we have all the facts.

I argued with the OP (successfully I feel) for pages.

 

[JonF]

Where did you go? You were not doing anything constructive except to be critical by doing that.

Did that teach us anything so we can know more of your truth that you claim I need to know? What you said has the appearance of a flame, because it sounded smug. It only offered snideness.



Therefore, if you are going to make a claim that someone has to be wrong? You should at least have the decency back it up with what you claim is the truth.

All you are doing is taking snipes at what is said, and then hiding.

Don't hide. Tell us the truth as you see it.

That wasn’t smug or a flame. He thinks you’re wrong. This is a debate forum, that’s perfectly legitimate. Personally I think you’re wrong too. The burden of evidence is on you; you are making a positive claim - if anyone should back anything up it should be you.

 

[Gukkor]

That wasn’t smug or a flame. He thinks you’re wrong. This is a debate forum, that’s perfectly legitimate. Personally I think you’re wrong too. The burden of evidence is on you; you are making a positive claim - if anyone should back anything up it should be you.

Perhaps, but just saying, "hey, you're wrong" isn't anymore productive in debate than it is anywhere else. You at least explained why you think he's wrong.

 

[JonF]

Perhaps, but just saying, "hey, you're wrong" isn't anymore productive in debate than it is anywhere else./quote]
It's very productive, he is basically saying "support your unsupported claim"