God's permissive will?

[bling]

We are repeating ourselves.

Let's try a different tack:

Do you believe in imputation of Adam's sin-guilt upon all his progeny?

No

 

[Mark Quayle]

No

But you do believe that the sin nature was inherited from Adam, yes? And as a result all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[bling]

But you do believe that the sin nature was inherited from Adam, yes? And as a result all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

First off: this is way off subject and you are not addressing my questions like I try to address your questions.

Answer me this: why is it not "self-contradictory" for God to hold us responsible and accountable for seemingly making a bad choice when in actuality God degreed the choice which was made?

Now your question: We did obtain in our heart's knowledge of good and evil (a conscience), but knowledge in and of itself is not bad. We now have tons of ways to sin, while Adam and Eve had only one way to sin, so when we become mature adults, we will sin. These sins will be a burden on our hearts providing a good reason to seek and obtain God's forgiveness, but we can also allow our hearts to be harden to the point of never humbly accepting God's forgiveness.

If this new "nature" is "knowledge of good and evil" than, yes, we got that from Adam and Eve, but if "nature" is referring to some human "weakness", then our weakness is the same as Adam and Eve, since they sinned with the weakness they had and having only one way to sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
But you do believe that the sin nature was inherited from Adam, yes? And as a result all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

First off: this is way off subject and you are not addressing my questions like I try to address your questions.

My questions were to establish common ground in order to show my answers to make sense (hopefully) to you.

Answer me this: why is it not "self-contradictory" for God to hold us responsible and accountable for seemingly making a bad choice when in actuality God degreed the choice which was made?

It is logically necessary that he decrees all things, including our specific choices, whether bad or good, in that he is the Creator, and First Cause, "before" all things, and from which all things logically descend by causation —else, nothing but God would exist, nevermind for that thing to be able to choose. His decree thus ESTABLISHES choices. Whatever else you might say that choice is, it is dependent on God's causing it.

It is logically self-contradictory to say that free will is the ability of anyone, besides first cause, to do anything, to include choosing, uncaused. Strangely enough, it is not usually argued that free will is not governed by the desires/inclinations resulting of natural processes/facts. Yet when you put God at the beginning of all those, the squawking begins.

It is by definition untenable to call it free will if choice is not in some way responsible.​

Responsibility of the human creature is more than obvious in Scripture, endemic to the human's choice.​

Therefore, (for one who believes in Scripture), either it should not be called free will, or it should not be assumed that responsibility is dependent on the human creature's choices being uncaused.​

To your thinking, it is logically untenable that one should be held responsible for something he is "fated" to do. (But this is not fate. It is God's creation. Very much willed to be, precisely, in every detail.)

​

To my thinking, it is illogical to say that anything can happen that is not caused to happen. This necessarily implies that Biblical responsibility for choices is not dependent on uncaused choice.

Some Reformed/Calvinists and others see a logical 'tension' or 'paradox' here. I do not. To me it is obvious that God is above this whole matter, this whole 'envelope' of temporal fact, in which man is responsible for his deeds, which God has established to be so.

Now your question: We did obtain in our heart's knowledge of good and evil (a conscience), but knowledge in and of itself is not bad. We now have tons of ways to sin, while Adam and Eve had only one way to sin, so when we become mature adults, we will sin. These sins will be a burden on our hearts providing a good reason to seek and obtain God's forgiveness, but we can also allow our hearts to be harden to the point of never humbly accepting God's forgiveness.

If this new "nature" is "knowledge of good and evil" than, yes, we got that from Adam and Eve, but if "nature" is referring to some human "weakness", then our weakness is the same as Adam and Eve, since they sinned with the weakness they had and having only one way to sin.

In other words, YES, you do agree that by his sin nature, man sins:

Did man choose to have that nature? No? Then, by the reasoning you display concerning God's decree (which causes man to choose specifically in every way), how is it reasonable to hold man responsible for the sin he chooses to do?​

​

Why the declaration of independence? If it is reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he is by nature a sinner, then it is also reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he by nature does what God has predetermined that he do.​

​

And THIS, is logically shown, without even going into the fact that it is eminently Biblical, and reasonable, that God, by virtue of who he is, has every just right to hold man responsible for what he does, whether his choices were merely natural (as an animal) or not. It also doesn't even go into the fact that God has every "duty" (said from a human POV) to maintain justice and the purity in all his works.

 

[John Mullally]

Mark Quayle said:
But you do believe that the sin nature was inherited from Adam, yes? And as a result all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

My questions were to establish common ground in order to show my answers to make sense (hopefully) to you.

It is logically necessary that he decrees all things, including our specific choices, whether bad or good, in that he is the Creator, and First Cause, "before" all things, and from which all things logically descend by causation —else, nothing but God would exist, nevermind for that thing to be able to choose. His decree thus ESTABLISHES choices. Whatever else you might say that choice is, it is dependent on God's causing it.

It is logically self-contradictory to say that free will is the ability of anyone, besides first cause, to do anything, to include choosing, uncaused. Strangely enough, it is not usually argued that free will is not governed by the desires/inclinations resulting of natural processes/facts. Yet when you put God at the beginning of all those, the squawking begins.

It is by definition untenable to call it free will if choice is not in some way responsible.​

Responsibility of the human creature is more than obvious in Scripture, endemic to the human's choice.​

Therefore, (for one who believes in Scripture), either it should not be called free will, or it should not be assumed that responsibility is dependent on the human creature's choices being uncaused.​

To your thinking, it is logically untenable that one should be held responsible for something he is "fated" to do. (But this is not fate. It is God's creation. Very much willed to be, precisely, in every detail.)

​

To my thinking, it is illogical to say that anything can happen that is not caused to happen. This necessarily implies that Biblical responsibility for choices is not dependent on uncaused choice.

Some Reformed/Calvinists and others see a logical 'tension' or 'paradox' here. I do not. To me it is obvious that God is above this whole matter, this whole 'envelope' of temporal fact, in which man is responsible for his deeds, which God has established to be so.


In other words, YES, you do agree that by his sin nature, man sins:

Did man choose to have that nature? No? Then, by the reasoning you display concerning God's decree (which causes man to choose specifically in every way), how is it reasonable to hold man responsible for the sin he chooses to do?​

​

Why the declaration of independence? If it is reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he is by nature a sinner, then it is also reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he by nature does what God has predetermined that he do.​

​

And THIS, is logically shown, without even going into the fact that it is eminently Biblical, and reasonable, that God, by virtue of who he is, has every just right to hold man responsible for what he does, whether his choices were merely natural (as an animal) or not. It also doesn't even go into the fact that God has every "duty" (said from a human POV) to maintain justice and the purity in all his works.

That is in line with Calvin's reasonings, where he deems God as controlling our will and actions. Although God could do that, scripture does not explicitly support that he does so. And even if He were to control our will and actions, how can a just God judge us for doing that which He decreed or governed for us to do? People are judged for doing evil they could have avoided! And who can avoid what God decreed?

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is in line with Calvin's reasonings, where he deems God as controlling our will and actions. Although God could do that, scripture does not explicitly support that he does so. And even if He were to control our will and actions, how can a just God judge us for doing that which He decreed or governed for us to do? People are judged for doing evil they could have avoided! And who can avoid what God decreed?

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

Your only comment on my question, was not to answer it, but to go to Calvin. Nevermind Calvin. I don't care about Calvin. I'm not asking about Calvinism. I'm asking if, by your reasoning that man should not be held responsible for what he does by God's decree concerning him, then why hold man responsible for what he does by a sin nature inherited that he did not choose to inherit?

 

[John Mullally]

Your only comment on my question, was not to answer it, but to go to Calvin. Nevermind Calvin. I don't care about Calvin. I'm not asking about Calvinism. I'm asking if, by your reasoning that man should not be held responsible for what he does by God's decree concerning him, then why hold man responsible for what he does by a sin nature inherited that he did not choose to inherit?

Your self-proclaimed title under your name says "Reformed Calvinist by reputation". Calvin goes far, far beyond stating that man has a sin nature that he did not choose to inherit, as God decrees that we will and commit our every sin - as we have no recourse. Only Theological Determinists (like Calvinists) believe that God decrees people sin. If God controls our sinful actions to the point of decreeing we will and perform such with no recourse (per Calvin), we are not responsible.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

The title under your name says "Reformed Calvinist by reputation". Calvin goes far, far beyond stating that man has a sin nature that he did not choose to inherit, as God decrees that we will and commit our every sin - as we have no recourse. Only Theological Determists (like Calvinists) believe that God decrees people sin. If God controls our sinful actions to the point of decreeing we will and perform such with no recourse (per Calvin), we are not responsible.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

Side-step. Answer the question.

 

[John Mullally]

Side-step. Answer the question.

I'm asking if, by your reasoning that man should not be held responsible for what he does by God's decree concerning him, then why hold man responsible for what he does by a sin nature inherited that he did not choose to inherit?

While fallen man is indeed in bondage from perfectly keeping God’s Law, that doesn’t mean that we cannot humbly admit our fallen condition and receive God’s outstretched hand of forgiveness. As far as the reason why some receive Him while others do not, non-Calvinists defer to the concept of free-will and self-determination, and hence the reason why one can be held accountable for the ramifications of their own choices.

 

[Mark Quayle]

While fallen man is indeed in bondage from perfectly keeping God’s Law, that doesn’t mean that we cannot humbly admit our fallen condition and receive God’s outstretched hand of forgiveness. As far as the reason why some receive Him while others do not, non-Calvinists defer to the concept of free-will and self-determination, and hence the reason why one can be held accountable for the ramifications of their own choices.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is he accountable for his actions if he did not choose to be in the bondage he inherited? Or are you saying that he is not actually in bondage to sin?

 

[bling]

Mark Quayle said:
But you do believe that the sin nature was inherited from Adam, yes? And as a result all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

My questions were to establish common ground in order to show my answers to make sense (hopefully) to you.

It is logically necessary that he decrees all things, including our specific choices, whether bad or good, in that he is the Creator, and First Cause, "before" all things, and from which all things logically descend by causation —else, nothing but God would exist, nevermind for that thing to be able to choose. His decree thus ESTABLISHES choices. Whatever else you might say that choice is, it is dependent on God's causing it.

It is logically self-contradictory to say that free will is the ability of anyone, besides first cause, to do anything, to include choosing, uncaused. Strangely enough, it is not usually argued that free will is not governed by the desires/inclinations resulting of natural processes/facts. Yet when you put God at the beginning of all those, the squawking begins.

It is by definition untenable to call it free will if choice is not in some way responsible.​

Responsibility of the human creature is more than obvious in Scripture, endemic to the human's choice.​

Therefore, (for one who believes in Scripture), either it should not be called free will, or it should not be assumed that responsibility is dependent on the human creature's choices being uncaused.​

To your thinking, it is logically untenable that one should be held responsible for something he is "fated" to do. (But this is not fate. It is God's creation. Very much willed to be, precisely, in every detail.)

​

To my thinking, it is illogical to say that anything can happen that is not caused to happen. This necessarily implies that Biblical responsibility for choices is not dependent on uncaused choice.

Some Reformed/Calvinists and others see a logical 'tension' or 'paradox' here. I do not. To me it is obvious that God is above this whole matter, this whole 'envelope' of temporal fact, in which man is responsible for his deeds, which God has established to be so.

You say: “It is logically necessary that he decrees all things, including our specific choices, whether bad or good”, but given man’s objective, given by God, where free will is necessary, it is totally Logical an all-powerful God to allow humans to be the uncaused causers for a very limited number of choices.

You seem to handcuff God into having very limited ability in His creation.

Most logical people talk about man having free will or at least allow the possibility if there is an all-powerful God, with only a few, like yourself, who think that is “logically self-contradictory”. Can you quote any logical scholars who would say free will (by my definition) is “logically self-contradictory”?

I am not saying our choices are not impacted by our desires and/or inclinations, but God has miraculously elevated man above animals and given them some ability to override some of their desires and inclinations, to the point they can personally be held accountable for at least that portion of their free will choice.

You say: “it is illogical to say that anything can happen that is not caused to happen”, but that is not what I am proclaiming it was caused, since God has given man the ability to be the cause of some decisions and not Himself, man is the cause.



It all comes down to the simple notion that: God miraculously gave man the ability to be the first cause causer of some choices so he can be held accountable for those choices or God is illogically unloving causing man to sin.

In other words, YES, you do agree that by his sin nature, man sins:

Did man choose to have that nature? No? Then, by the reasoning you display concerning God's decree (which causes man to choose specifically in every way), how is it reasonable to hold man responsible for the sin he chooses to do?​

​

Why the declaration of independence? If it is reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he is by nature a sinner, then it is also reasonable to hold man responsible for his choices, though he by nature does what God has predetermined that he do.​

​

And THIS, is logically shown, without even going into the fact that it is eminently Biblical, and reasonable, that God, by virtue of who he is, has every just right to hold man responsible for what he does, whether his choices were merely natural (as an animal) or not. It also doesn't even go into the fact that God has every "duty" (said from a human POV) to maintain justice and the purity in all his works.

You asked me one very specific question about man’s nature, which I addressed, but did not explain. You have gone off on a tangent with a litany of assumptions from this one response to try and proof: “Since man has to sin and God hold man responsible for sinning, that God eliminate man needing to choose to sin and just cause man to sin and hold man responsible.



Where to begin is my issue?

As I have said before: God’s objective is to do or allow everything to happen that will help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective. The “everything” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell, heaven and even man being able to sin.



Why would God create man in the first place? God’s Love would compel God to make being that could become like He is in that they would be gifted with this Godly type Love, this is all for the sake of those who will become like He is, with this Love.

Unfortunately, for humans to obtain this gift of Love, God will have to make a huge Loving sacrifice. God cannot instinctively place this Love in humans and be like a knee jerk reaction, since that would make it a robotic type love, which is not a Godly type Love. God cannot just force man to accept this Love since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun and the “love” transferred would not be Godly type Love. This Love cannot be taught, developed, learned, deserved or paid back.

There are just somethings God cannot do, that are impossible to do. God cannot create another Christ, since Christ is not a created being and, in our case, God cannot make our choice for us and it be our free will choice.



God makes man and puts him in the Garden. Man has to have a survival instinct to value life and eternal life, but that means self-awareness and value self, which can lead to out right being selfish. The Garden is almost like a heave on earth, but it has an easy way for man to sin and satan.

Adam and Eve are lacking that one thing they will need to obtain while on earth and that is an unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial Love (which is not and cannot be made instinctive to man).

They would have a very powerful instinctive child for wonderful parent type love. They would not look upon all God has given them as pure undeserved charity, since their maker would have responsibilities to His creations who have done nothing wrong. They have no reason the humble themselves to accepting pure undeserved charity, since they are deserving doing everything right and nothing wrong.



Sin has a purpose even though God hates it He does sacrificially allow sin to happen. Remember: man’s objective is not to “never/ever sin”, but it is to become like God, with sin being in that path. It has to be man’s free will choice to sin, so he knows he is guilty/responsible and cannot just blame God. There has to be a huge cost to sinning, because “he that is forgiven much loves much” Luke 7, so the debt of sin is unbelievably huge, so the Love created is unbelievably huge (Godly type Love). Man, just have to humbly accept God’s forgiveness and he will automatically obtain this Godly type Love.



Mature adults today cannot keep from sinning, but any one of those sins they are accountable for, they could have kept from doing, so in that way they are personally responsible for all the sins they committed and are accountable for.

 

[John Mullally]

While fallen man is indeed in bondage from perfectly keeping God’s Law, that doesn’t mean that we cannot humbly admit our fallen condition and receive God’s outstretched hand of forgiveness. As far as the reason why some receive Him while others do not, non-Calvinists defer to the concept of free-will and self-determination, and hence the reason why one can be held accountable for the ramifications of their own choices.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is he accountable for his actions if he did not choose to be in the bondage he inherited? Or are you saying that he is not actually in bondage to sin?

People recognize that they have done wrong when they could have done otherwise - which implies accountability.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You say: “It is logically necessary that he decrees all things, including our specific choices, whether bad or good”, but given man’s objective, given by God, where free will is necessary, it is totally Logical an all-powerful God to allow humans to be the uncaused causers for a very limited number of choices.

You seem to handcuff God into having very limited ability in His creation.

Just occurred to me you might be the one back a few months ago who misunderstood what "first cause" means. I'm not talking about First Effect (i.e. 'the first thing God caused'), nor am I talking about "Immediate Cause". There can only be one first cause. First cause is by logical necessity uncaused. First cause is by logical necessity the source of all fact —not just all subsequent fact, (thought all fact caused by first cause is subsequent). First Cause is the only self-existent causer.

Maybe you've been thinking all this time that I don't believe that humans are the immediate causes of their choices. Of course they are. This does not make them the first cause of their choices.

Most logical people talk about man having free will or at least allow the possibility if there is an all-powerful God, with only a few, like yourself, who think that is “logically self-contradictory”. Can you quote any logical scholars who would say free will (by my definition) is “logically self-contradictory”?

Ha! Are you asserting there aren't any? Or are you trying to argue by the bandwagon fallacy?

I have even heard of some who admit that Uncaused Free Will is as logically self-contradictory as to say that God can pick up a rock that he made too big to pick up, yet they insist on it anyway, choosing to believe that God can do the logically self-contradictory. I almost prefer their tack to yours. At least it's honest.

Your definition of free will is "uncaused choice", right? Just checking, in case you want to amend your meaning a bit.

But, since you asked nicely: RC Sproul:

and

Here's some fun discussions:

Michio Kaku: Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate | Big Think

I am not saying our choices are not impacted by our desires and/or inclinations, but God has miraculously elevated man above animals and given them some ability to override some of their desires and inclinations, to the point they can personally be held accountable for at least that portion of their free will choice.

11 Why uncaused decisions refute free will RC Sproul also makes the same argument as the guy in this video. Not only are they impacted by your desires and inclinations —they are caused by them. Nobody is saying that you cannot override them at will, but that even when you do, you are still operating by causes. Can you think of a single time where you did not decide according to what you most wanted to do, even if only for that instant of decision?

But the argument is that it is ludicrous to think that a decision is random. It is ALWAYS based on something. Do We Have Free Will?: Ultimately with R.C. Sproul —That argument is stated pretty clearly starting at three minutes.

You say: “it is illogical to say that anything can happen that is not caused to happen”, but that is not what I am proclaiming it was caused, since God has given man the ability to be the cause of some decisions and not Himself, man is the cause.

Indeed man is the cause, and he is a slave to sin, or to Christ, or to whomever (God or the Devil) he submits himself to. And so, thus man causes what he does. It is not random, but directed. And all things on which man bases his decisions are also caused.

It all comes down to the simple notion that: God miraculously gave man the ability to be the first cause causer of some choices so he can be held accountable for those choices or God is illogically unloving causing man to sin.

Illogical use of the term, "first causer". The only way that makes sense is if you mean, "immediate causer".

You asked me one very specific question about man’s nature, which I addressed, but did not explain. You have gone off on a tangent with a litany of assumptions from this one response to try and proof: “Since man has to sin and God hold man responsible for sinning, that God eliminate man needing to choose to sin and just cause man to sin and hold man responsible.

Then, if I took you wrong, and responded to a bad guess as to what you meant, ignore what I said, and proceed with what I did not understand.

Where to begin is my issue?

As I have said before: God’s objective is to do or allow everything to happen that will help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective. The “everything” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell, heaven and even man being able to sin.

Why would God create man in the first place? God’s Love would compel God to make being that could become like He is in that they would be gifted with this Godly type Love, this is all for the sake of those who will become like He is, with this Love.

Unfortunately, for humans to obtain this gift of Love, God will have to make a huge Loving sacrifice. God cannot instinctively place this Love in humans and be like a knee jerk reaction, since that would make it a robotic type love, which is not a Godly type Love. God cannot just force man to accept this Love since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun and the “love” transferred would not be Godly type Love. This Love cannot be taught, developed, learned, deserved or paid back.

You do realize that you are adding a lot of 'self-made philosophy' to a construction, "man's earthly objective", as if that was God's primary purpose for man, no? And this you do, without showing the relevance to the OP, or to our side conversations.

There are just somethings God cannot do, that are impossible to do. God cannot create another Christ, since Christ is not a created being and, in our case, God cannot make our choice for us and it be our free will choice.

If God can't miraculously do something self-contradictory, like create another Christ, then how can he miraculously do something self-contradictory like, to make a bunch of little first causes, or to cause something uncaused, like your notion of choice?

Predetermination does not say that God makes our decisions for us. It says that God has predetermined what our decisions will be.

God makes man and puts him in the Garden. Man has to have a survival instinct to value life and eternal life, but that means self-awareness and value self, which can lead to out right being selfish. The Garden is almost like a heave on earth, but it has an easy way for man to sin and satan.

Adam and Eve are lacking that one thing they will need to obtain while on earth and that is an unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial Love (which is not and cannot be made instinctive to man).

They would have a very powerful instinctive child for wonderful parent type love. They would not look upon all God has given them as pure undeserved charity, since their maker would have responsibilities to His creations who have done nothing wrong. They have no reason the humble themselves to accepting pure undeserved charity, since they are deserving doing everything right and nothing wrong.

Homemade reasoning, there, too. Not Bible.

Sin has a purpose even though God hates it He does sacrificially allow sin to happen. Remember: man’s objective is not to “never/ever sin”, but it is to become like God, with sin being in that path. It has to be man’s free will choice to sin, so he knows he is guilty/responsible and cannot just blame God. There has to be a huge cost to sinning, because “he that is forgiven much loves much” Luke 7, so the debt of sin is unbelievably huge, so the Love created is unbelievably huge (Godly type Love). Man, just have to humbly accept God’s forgiveness and he will automatically obtain this Godly type Love.

If man is responsible for his sin, then his choice is not random, but according to man's desires. CAUSED.

Mature adults today cannot keep from sinning, but any one of those sins they are accountable for, they could have kept from doing, so in that way they are personally responsible for all the sins they committed and are accountable for.

They could have chosen otherwise, I suppose you mean? Do a search on the "IS-OUGHT PROBLEM" They indeed SHOULD HAVE chosen different. Whether they could have done differently is immaterial —they never do differently!

Read this short article, kinda enlightening; though the guy is obviously not a believer, he has a point concerning free will. The Dangerous Doctrine of Free Will

 

[Mark Quayle]

People recognize that they have done wrong when they could have done otherwise - which implies accountability.

It makes no difference whether they could have or not. They DID not. They CHOSE to not. It is a moral question, not logistical.

 

[John Mullally]

It makes no difference whether they could have or not. They DID not. They CHOSE to not. It is a moral question, not logistical.

I disagree, if we are incapable of making right choices, we cannot be held guilt for making wrong choices. I see Jesus confirming this in John 9:41.

​

But I understand where Calvin, whom you follow, would insist that people are held accountable for actions that they are constrained to perform. The first quote from Calvin, below, shows that God governs our will and actions - thus we have no real choice in any matters (i.e. we can not will or do other than what God has past tense destined). The second and third quotes shows that people, and not God, are held accountable for those actions. That makes no sense to me as I pay no attention to the demons of fatalism (as R. C. Sproul puts it).

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

​

“Man falls according as God’s providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8)​

​

“First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169)​

Recalling his own conversion to Calvinism, Calvinist scholar R.C. Sproul comments:

“I no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly thought that I was being reduced to a puppet. Now I rejoiced in a gracious Savior who alone was immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God)​

 

[bling]

Just occurred to me you might be the one back a few months ago who misunderstood what "first cause" means. I'm not talking about First Effect (i.e. 'the first thing God caused'), nor am I talking about "Immediate Cause". There can only be one first cause. First cause is by logical necessity uncaused. First cause is by logical necessity the source of all fact —not just all subsequent fact, (thought all fact caused by first cause is subsequent). First Cause is the only self-existent causer.

Maybe you've been thinking all this time that I don't believe that humans are the immediate causes of their choices. Of course they are. This does not make them the first cause of their choices.

I agree: Humans beings do not have to be the first cause of their choices, but to be just, only those choices or the persons part in making a choices, where they are exerting first cause ability can God hold them accountable.



Yes, there is “only one first cause” to any change from the “natural” chain of cause and effect results, but there are many changes from the “natural” chain of cause and effect. The very first cause God made at the beginning of time did not cause all the subsequent changes.

Ha! Are you asserting there aren't any? Or are you trying to argue by the bandwagon fallacy?

I have even heard of some who admit that Uncaused Free Will is as logically self-contradictory as to say that God can pick up a rock that he made too big to pick up, yet they insist on it anyway, choosing to believe that God can do the logically self-contradictory. I almost prefer their tack to yours. At least it's honest.

Your definition of free will is "uncaused choice", right? Just checking, in case you want to amend your meaning a bit.

But, since you asked nicely: RC Sproul:

and

Here's some fun discussions:

Michio Kaku: Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate | Big Think

I did not say you could not find “people” who agree with you. I have heard these fellows before and do not consider them scholars.



Yes I do consider: “free will to be an "uncaused choice", with many human choices not being free will choices”. This would be the only logical, fair and just way for God to hold humans accountable for their choices.

11 Why uncaused decisions refute free will RC Sproul also makes the same argument as the guy in this video. Not only are they impacted by your desires and inclinations —they are caused by them. Nobody is saying that you cannot override them at will, but that even when you do, you are still operating by causes. Can you think of a single time where you did not decide according to what you most wanted to do, even if only for that instant of decision?

RC Sproul says you cannot override your “desires and inclinations” which are given (instinctively given) to you by God, but he is not addressing the fact you can have conflicting inclinations and desires. As an example: The prodigal son in the pigsty has a strong desire to leave and go to his father, but he got himself into the pigsty (made bad choices), so he deserves to be there so he can be macho and stay, he does not want to pester his father further with undeserving requests, he is not qualified to even be a slave for his father, he does not want to fuel his brother’s contempt for him, and has never accepted his father’s Love in the past, so is the father’s love that strong. The Prodigal son has an uncaused choice to make in the pigsty, driven by different conflicting desires and inclinations, so it can go either way. Which ever way it goes, you can say: “he had a stronger desire to choose that way”, but with this choice it could have gone either way.

But the argument is that it is ludicrous to think that a decision is random. It is ALWAYS based on something. Do We Have Free Will?: Ultimately with R.C. Sproul —That argument is stated pretty clearly starting at three minutes.

Just because man is given this miraculous ability to make a truly free will (first cause) choice does not mean it is random. It is not random, but man’s choice, man is deciding among several different conflicting inclinations and desires.

Indeed man is the cause, and he is a slave to sin, or to Christ, or to whomever (God or the Devil) he submits himself to. And so, thus man causes what he does. It is not random, but directed. And all things on which man bases his decisions are also caused.

Yes, the unbelieving sinful man is a slave to sin, so man cannot do anything righteous, holy, worthy, or honorable, but man can sometime choose which sinfully thing he will do, making man responsible for that sinful choice. The choice sinful man makes is like the choice the prodigal son made: as a soldier of satan he can still wimp out, give up and surrender to your hated enemy (God), while still hating Him. He is just humbly willing to accept pure undeserved charity from his hated enemy for selfish reason (sinful reasons) he just want to continue living. This sinful willingness to accept pure charity, allows God to shower him with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

Illogical use of the term, "first causer". The only way that makes sense is if you mean, "immediate causer".

No, it makes complete sense to think and say God miraculously provides man with limited ability to be the first cause of some choices.

Then, if I took you wrong, and responded to a bad guess as to what you meant, ignore what I said, and proceed with what I did not understand.

You do realize that you are adding a lot of 'self-made philosophy' to a construction, "man's earthly objective", as if that was God's primary purpose for man, no? And this you do, without showing the relevance to the OP, or to our side conversations.

Our “mission statement” is give as two command which override all other subordinate commands, which are: “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”



That is why we need to obtain this gift of Love.

If God can't miraculously do something self-contradictory, like create another Christ, then how can he miraculously do something self-contradictory like, to make a bunch of little first causes, or to cause something uncaused, like your notion of choice?

There is a long list of thinks that are impossible to do, so not even God can do them.

What “self-contradictory” thing are impossible to do?

Are you thinking of things like: God cannot lie, be unjust, or be unloving?

God miraculously empowering man to make a few free will choices is not impossible.

Predetermination does not say that God makes our decisions for us. It says that God has predetermined what our decisions will be.

That is saying the same thing to me and others.

Homemade reasoning, there, too. Not Bible.

It is only logical, supported by the definition of Love, man’s objective, and what happened.

If man is responsible for his sin, then his choice is not random, but according to man's desires. CAUSED.

Again, man has conflicting desires, so the free will choices is between these desires, making man the cause.

They could have chosen otherwise, I suppose you mean? Do a search on the "IS-OUGHT PROBLEM" They indeed SHOULD HAVE chosen different. Whether they could have done differently is immaterial —they never do differently!

Read this short article, kinda enlightening; though the guy is obviously not a believer, he has a point concerning free will. The Dangerous Doctrine of Free Will

Granted, if you take God out of the situation or if you have God just at the beginning of everything, there would be no free will choices made by man. But God is at our elbow, literally, just not visibly. God has the power to empower man with limited free will and does.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I disagree, if we are incapable of making right choices, we cannot be held guilt for making wrong choices. I see Jesus confirming this in John 9:41.

Nicely done! But you didn't explain how Jesus confirms this in John 9:41.

John 9: "39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

But Romans 2:12 shows that those who live by the law will be judged by the law. Jesus is not treating with free will here, but with confidence in self-determination. He doesn't say anything about capability of making right choices.

 

[John Mullally]

Nicely done! But you didn't explain how Jesus confirms this in John 9:41.

John 9: "39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

But Romans 2:12 shows that those who live by the law will be judged by the law. Jesus is not treating with free will here, but with confidence in self-determination. He doesn't say anything about capability of making right choices.

Your argument lies in the fact that you believe that God condemns those who have no capacity to make good choices, which arises from Calvin's reasoning. I argued against that using Jesus's words in the first paragraph of Post 76, but to no surprise, it was not to your satisfaction. From experience, I know you remain unconvinced of what Paul plainly states in 1 Timothy 2:4 per all major english translations - as they all plainly say that God desires for all people to be saved. So why should I spend time explaining scripture to you in detail? In addition, John says that God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) - thus why would our loving God be in the business of planning eternal torment for any of his creation (as Calvin asserts such)?

Again, consider what R. C. Sproul says concerning his conversion to Calvinism as I believe he only had clarity before that conversion. As before that conversion, he rightly recognized he was listening to demons of fatalism (as you are doing) and that Calvinism reduces us all to puppets (as opposed to being created in the image of God).

“I no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly thought that I was being reduced to a puppet. Now I rejoiced in a gracious Savior who alone was immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God)​

In the rest of Post 76 I show that Calvin slanders God's character by asserting that God forces all our actions and unjustly sends many of us to hell for doing what He forces us to do. No! God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) and has not traded places with the devil by plotting against His creation! Who has bewitched you (Galatians 3:1)?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your argument lies in the fact that you believe that God condemns those who have no capacity to make good choices which commonly arises per Calvin's fatalism. I addressed that in the first paragraph of Post 76, but to no surprise, it was not to your satisfaction. From experience, I know nothing from scripture will convince you what Paul plainly states in 1 Timothy 2:4 per all major english translations - as all translations agree with what I state. In addition, John says that God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) - thus why would our loving God be in the business of planning eternal torment for any of his creation (as only Calvin asserts such)?

No doubt you consider Calvinism's "decree" the same thing as "fate". Nevertheless, as I have said many times, it is not. Fatalism is cold and impersonal. Both God's salvation and God's reprobation are very much personal to God. Love and Hate. (And there are several other reasons to a difference, which aren't necessary to go into here.)

On the surface, (i.e. aside from its immediate context), 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wants all people to be saved. Applying the simple principle to it, that God not only can do whatever he wants, but that he does whatever he wants, (Psalm 115:3; Psalm 135:6; Job 23:13; Matthew 20:1-16 is particularly suitable to this conversation, as, of course, is Romans 9:18-20), it seems there must be more to this notion of God wanting, than what you put to it.

You've no doubt heard, more than once, the Reformed view of the passage, where the immediate context demands that the "all" that God to be saved is referring to "all classes of men" and not "absolutely everyone". You don't have a quick defeat of that view, except by outright dismissal and possibly by ad hom, goalpost moving or the like, but if I'm wrong there, by all means, be my guest. Show what's wrong with that look.

Aside from all those, is my simple observation that for God to desire something doesn't always mean the same thing as to plan it —to decree it. God shows agonizing depth to his feelings many times throughout scripture, (as you and your kind have referenced over and over, as if that demonstrates his inability to bring anyone in particular to the salvation he has decreed for the objects of his particular affection.)

Why didn't you address the rest of Post 76 where I show that Calvin slanders God's character by asserting that God forces people to do evil and sends them to hell for doing what they were forced to do. No! God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) and has not traded places with the devil! Oh Calvinists, watch yourself and fear God - as assailing God's character to make it devilish where His designs correspond with the devil's desires is the unpardonable sin (Luke 12:10).

You seem to forget, in your antagonism against Calvinism, that I do not follow Calvin; I have stated repeatedly that I don't know Calvin (it's even in my signature lines below, and has been for a long time), and have found out more about him from people like you quoting him and sometimes (as above, I think, in your use of the word, "force",) misrepresenting what his claims, than from my own reading, and even more than I have heard quoted from Calvinists. It is only by reputation (and apparently by their alignment with what I believe) that I am 'Calvinist'. I call myself "Reformed" only because it more quickly brings on fellowship with like-minded believers and helps to shorten conversations by eliminating posts establishing logistics. But I'm beginning to think the second is not worth it. If there were a way to easily establish my positions on any one subject or even on my worldview —but it isn't; no matter what I say or do, the theoretical self-determinist wiggles and squirms to take anything I say wrong, or to miss it altogether.

Your post #76 doesn't say anything that I haven't already addressed, primary of which is your claim that God ordaining all things necessarily means that man has no choice. I'd dismiss it out of hand, because the notion is wrong as it can be, and ludicrous on the surface, but "I disagree" is not argument. Not only does man obviously choose, and not only is man shown to —and even ordered to— choose, in scripture, but the decree ESTABLISHES both man's ability to choose and the choices he makes. Man would not exist, nevermind to have preferences or to be able to freely choose from among those preferences, were it not for the fact that God created and sustains all fact.

I find the quotes you took from Calvin and RC Sproul as rich and beautiful. If you find that insulting, enjoy your indigestion. But it is your own fault; they do not show that man has no choice— they are only statements that our God is a secure place, and that only God's purposes will stand. I wish you no ill, though I think your doctrinal position implies blasphemous falsehoods concerning God's omnipotence, but you will have to answer for what you teach and say, just as will I, but I do not profess self-determinism nor autonomy, though the "old man" within me declares it.

"Oh Calvinists," you say, "watch yourself and fear God - as assailing God's character to make it devilish where His designs correspond with the devil's desires is the unpardonable sin (Luke 12:10)"

Oh self-determinists, watch yourselves and fear God —as assailing God's character to make it devilish where His designs fall to the the devil's desires is the unpardonable sin (Luke 12:10). The Spirit of God himself is the agent of our freedom.

To claim that God is unable to, and did not, create Lucifer, or anything else, for God's own purposes, which cannot be undone, (and that in fact sin itself is not a tool in God's hands for the construction of the Bride of Christ and her position 'in Christ' (which is the work of the Spirit of God) ), but rather that he only 'opposes' the works of the devil, is to blaspheme the entire God-head.

 

[John Mullally]

No doubt you consider Calvinism's "decree" the same thing as "fate". Nevertheless, as I have said many times, it is not. Fatalism is cold and impersonal. Both God's salvation and God's reprobation are very much personal to God. Love and Hate. (And there are several other reasons to a difference, which aren't necessary to go into here.)

Like it or not, Calvinism is a type of fatalism.

fatalism​

noun​

fa·tal·ism ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm

: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them

On the surface, (i.e. aside from its immediate context), 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wants all people to be saved. Applying the simple principle to it, that God not only can do whatever he wants, but that he does whatever he wants, (Psalm 115:3; Psalm 135:6; Job 23:13; Matthew 20:1-16 is particularly suitable to this conversation, as, of course, is Romans 9:18-20), it seems there must be more to this notion of God wanting, than what you put to it.

Yes, God does whatever He wants and in Psalms 115:16 He gave the earth to man. That could not be said if God puppets our actions as Calvin teaches.

You reject what 1 Timothy 2:4 plainly says based upon a faulty presupposition that if God really wants something, then proof of what He wants is found in what He gets. Have you considered that God leaves some decisions up to people (i.e. free will) which can go against God's desire? So instead of casting away an assumption that contradicts scripture, you reject scripture (I provide more examples later). Calvinists. like yourself, believe if God really wants a certain thing, then He gets a certain thing. However, as a non-Calvinist, I believe that Jesus sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him (also in 1 Timothy 2:4), but just because I don’t believe that He forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. I believe that God wants everyone to be saved freely. Nevertheless, you and other Calvinists assume your own premise, as a fact, in order to reach a Calvinistic conclusion. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first attempt to prove that God always gets what He wants, rather than just assuming that God gets what He wants 100% of the time. Non-Calvinists argue from Ezekiel 18:23 and Matthew 6:10 that God Himself testifies that His will is not presently being done on earth, as it is in Heaven, though one day it will.

You've no doubt heard, more than once, the Reformed view of the passage, where the immediate context demands that the "all" that God to be saved is referring to "all classes of men" and not "absolutely everyone". You don't have a quick defeat of that view, except by outright dismissal and possibly by ad hom, goalpost moving or the like, but if I'm wrong there, by all means, be my guest. Show what's wrong with that look.

Calvinists twist scripture to conform to their presuppositions. There are many NT scriptures that reference terms translated as "world", "everyone", "all men", "all people", and "all" where the plain meaning is "all people without exception". Here are some underlined examples in the NIV, where Calvinists commonly do not accept those terms to mean "all people without exception". In some of these examples where I cite all multiple times in the passage, Calvinists will commonly cling to an "all men without exception" for the first use, but not in subsequent uses (See 1 Timothy 2:1-6, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 11:32, and Romans 5:18) - even though the same greek words are repeated - you can't have it both ways. These are the examples I found, there are probably others.

1. 1 Timothy 4:10 God is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
2. 1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
3. 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
4. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
5. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
6. John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
7. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
8. Romans 11:32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
9. Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
10. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.,
11. Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Aside from all those, is my simple observation that for God to desire something doesn't always mean the same thing as to plan it —to decree it. God shows agonizing depth to his feelings many times throughout scripture, (as you and your kind have referenced over and over, as if that demonstrates his inability to bring anyone in particular to the salvation he has decreed for the objects of his particular affection.)

You repeatedly push that God forces everything that ever happens per your "first cause" philosophic argument. There is no scripture that states that God decreed the eternal destiny of all individuals (heaven or hell). Concerning predestination: Scripture says that those who believe on Jesus (i.e. In Jesus) are predestined to adoption as sons (Ephesians 1).

You seem to forget, in your antagonism against Calvinism, that I do not follow Calvin; I have stated repeatedly that I don't know Calvin (it's even in my signature lines below

Given your hundreds of posts on this forum that coincide with Calvin's doctrine, it is well past time that you and your posse (@Clare73) become conversant on the roots of the Calvinism you preach. If it walks, quacks, swims, and flies like a duck, its a duck.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't know Calvin (it's even in my signature lines below, and has been for a long time), and have found out more about him from people like you quoting him and sometimes (as above, I think, in your use of the word, "force",) misrepresenting what his claims, than from my own reading, and even more than I have heard quoted from Calvinists. It is only by reputation (and apparently by their alignment with what I believe) that I am 'Calvinist'. I call myself "Reformed" only because it more quickly brings on fellowship with like-minded believers and helps to shorten conversations by eliminating posts establishing logistics. But I'm beginning to think the second is not worth it. If there were a way to easily establish my positions on any one subject or even on my worldview —but it isn't; no matter what I say or do, the theoretical self-determinist wiggles and squirms to take anything I say wrong, or to miss it altogether.

Calvin states that God governs our will and our movements. And although we have an impression that we make our own choices - if indeed God, who is omnipotent, is governing our will and movements, then our actions are indeed forced by God!

You state you do not follow Calvin and yet amazingly your preaching lines up with such. Here you are posting hundreds of times on Theological forums preaching doctrine that lines up with Calvin's, stating your empathy with Calvin, all the while pleading ignorance as to his doctrine. And yet you tell us you have no curiosity as to what the Reformed and Calvin teaches even as you continue to post in their favor.

Your post #76 doesn't say anything that I haven't already addressed, primary of which is your claim that God ordaining all things necessarily means that man has no choice. I'd dismiss it out of hand, because the notion is wrong as it can be, and ludicrous on the surface, but "I disagree" is not argument. Not only does man obviously choose, and not only is man shown to —and even ordered to— choose, in scripture, but the decree ESTABLISHES both man's ability to choose and the choices he makes. Man would not exist, nevermind to have preferences or to be able to freely choose from among those preferences, were it not for the fact that God created and sustains all fact.

Either we are in charge of our decisions or someone else is. If God is ordaining all things, then God, not us, is in charge of our decisions. No one can make a decision that contradicts what God ordains for us to do. If people do not have the ability to choose between two or more options (due to what God ordained), then only God has the ability to make our choices.

I find the quotes you took from Calvin and RC Sproul as rich and beautiful. If you find that insulting, enjoy your indigestion. But it is your own fault; they do not show that man has no choice— they are only statements that our God is a secure place, and that only God's purposes will stand. I wish you no ill, though I think your doctrinal position implies blasphemous falsehoods concerning God's omnipotence, but you will have to answer for what you teach and say, just as will I, but I do not profess self-determinism nor autonomy, though the "old man" within me declares it.

That reminds of this from R. C. Sproul- where he appears to be half joking. He should have listened to his intuition (underlined).

“I no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly thought that I was being reduced to a puppet. Now I rejoiced in a gracious Savior who alone was immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God)​

Seriously, you find the quotes of Calvin that demonstrate that God predestines some people to hell before they are born in order to gain glory to be rich and comforting. I find that contrary to God's nature which is love, mercy, and justice. My doctrinal position relies on what the Bible says. Jesus came to give life. God who is the savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10) cannot be the savior of all men if he is also in the business of predestining anyone to hell.

FYI: Sadly, not all men are saved because many of their free-will reject God's offered salvation.

To claim that God is unable to, and did not, create Lucifer, or anything else, for God's own purposes, which cannot be undone, (and that in fact sin itself is not a tool in God's hands for the construction of the Bride of Christ and her position 'in Christ' (which is the work of the Spirit of God) ), but rather that he only 'opposes' the works of the devil, is to blaspheme the entire God-head.

No scripture says that God created Satan in order to rebel - that was on Satan as God tempts no one (James 1:13). Calvinists believe everything that happens is because God caused it by His design - that's not Bible - that's fatalism.