ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

So God didn't atone specifically for Godrulz. According to Open Theism God atoned 'in general' for every sin that had been committed and every sin that might be committed. In effect, Jesus Christ obliterated sin and destroyed death for everyone for all time.

Romans 10:20And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."

Proof-texting at its finest! Nice job of completely ignoring the context. :down:

Paul here quotes Isaiah in order to make the point that God has been made manifest to the Gentiles, which (as a group) have neither seeked after God nor asked for Him. While, on the other hand, God has stretched out His hand toward Israel (as a group) all day long without response. Here's the whole passage which you were apparently scared to quote...

Romans 10:

Israel Rejects the Gospel [Heading given in the NKJV]

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:


“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:


“ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:


“ I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:

“ I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But to Israel he says:

“ All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”​

And who made you a believer?

Interesting that you should ask this question after quoting Romans 10 (which you seemed to have erroneously assumed I was ignorant of, by the way.)
Faith (i.e. belief) comes through hearing the preaching of God's Word. Here it is again in case you missed it above like you did when you went to quote it yourself...

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Interesting that you should ask this question after quoting Romans 10 (which you seemed to have erroneously assumed I was ignorant of, by the way.)
Faith (i.e. belief) comes through hearing the preaching of God's Word. Here it is again in case you missed it above like you did when you went to quote it yourself...

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The point stands. Your faith does not come on your own. It comes from hearing the word of God. Do you create the 'word of God' yourself?

So again I ask, who is responsible for your faith?

Rob

 

[Clete]

The point stands. Your faith does not come on your own. It comes from hearing the word of God. Do you create the 'word of God' yourself?

So again I ask, who is responsible for your faith?

Rob

This is a silly argument. Could I have faith at all if I weren't alive or had never existed? What if Adam and Eve had been killed immediately when they sinned? Then no one would have believed, right? So yes, my faith comes from hearing the word of God and the word of God comes from God, thus the name "Word of God". All good things come from God but that does not mean that God predestined my belief or that He gave me faith arbitrarily. It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ. Further God did not have to come up with a plan of salvation in the first place and so I cannot take credit for my salvation in any way. God is the one who decided to provide a means of salvation and He is the one who decided the conditions under which His grace would be administered, not me. All that was left up to me was whether to believe or not. God offered me a gift and gave me every opportunity to accept it. I deserve no more credit for receiving my salvation than I deserve credit for having accepted my Christmas presents. Do you think that by virtue of the fact that you've accepted gifts from people in the past that you have thereby earned or merited those gifts or were in some way the source of those gifts?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

There is a problem in both of the posts, for they posit something to which all cannot agree always. Euthyphro's Dilemma is the grounding for this entire discussion, and the problem of it is that the Dilemma makes certain presuppositions that should not be made. Firstly, the Greeks placed matter (the physical world) in opposition to the Spiritual (the gods). Thus, inherent to their ideology is a good that stands outside of any of the characters within. The gods did not determine good by their will (for as Socrates points out later in the discussion, the wills of the gods are multitudinous and contradictory). Thus goodness for the Greeks was already held in what was eternal. They presupposed that there is a good (they didn't presuppose God), and then evaluated the gods based on that goodness (eternity). Since matter was fleeting always, matter was evil. And since the pantheon was eternal, it was good. So the question of Euthyphro's Dilemma comes down to whether the gods participated in good are not, and how. From the very beginning good is set up as an eternal and absolute ethical standard that is im-personal and neutral. Only the eternal is good, not the fleeting. And so the gods (if they are good) must participate in this eternity. Both Enyart and Zakath presuppose that there is a good. They don't start with God (for Zakath does not first believe in God) but they start with a neutral and distinct good, only afterwards moving on to talk about God. This is not a Christian world-view, but is grounded in Greek philosophy. And Enyart allows Zakath to make this presupposition to lead the argument on in his own way. Zakath can now talk of ethics (a public good) vs. morality (a private good). Good is the absolute for Zakath but both the secular world and the religious worlds can participate in this universal standard in their own ways. Enyart thinks he has won the battle, when in fact he has lost the war.

I'm quite short on time and so I can't go into the detail that I want to go into right now but I will ask a question in response to this.

How is it that Bob is presupposing right rather than God when he has explicitly said that right is defined by a current description of God's character? Wouldn't God's character need to exist before a description could be made? Isn't that which is being described more foundational than the description itself? How could you be presupposing a description of something without presupposing the object of the description?

Secondly, the two presuppose a standard of good that is impersonal. Goodness is an attribute for them, not a reality. Even for the Greeks this was the case. Goodness was held in what was eternal. And that meant there was something other than goodness found in the fleeting reality. Good allowed for the existence of evil; evil allowed for the existence of good. So as we listen to Enyart and Zakath speak about good in their own ways they both at the same time affirm the existence of another reality opposed to good known as evil. They not only speak about light as having ontology, but darkness also has ontology for them. Once again, this is not Christian. For Christians there is but a single reality and that is good. What is good is real. What is not good is a lacking, an absence. To give evil an ontology is to assume that there is another framework of Creation by which something can be sustained (and against which God must act, or it will threaten the true reality). But you see, in the Christian mindset, evil is not a reality that sustains its own life appart from God. Evil is a twisting of the good, so that in the end evil results in destruction. Evil is not an alternative power of Creation; evil is a distortion that only has reality in as much as it is dependant on the good, on the Creation. So murder for the Christian is not an evil act in and of itself, it is a distortion of the true act of life. Murder is not a powerful act; it is a destructive act. So those who murder distort reality by taking life where they have no right to take it. God is the sovereign one over life. God gives life and God takes it away. But the reality of life is held in God, and is the only true reality. Death is not a state, but a lack of a state. Death is chaos. Do once again, Enyart thinks he has won the battle, when he has really lost the war.

One more question.
It seems that presupposition lists are more fond of punching holes in the things Bob Enyart says than they should be. Perhaps I'm missing the point here but this just seems to completely ignore the thrust of Bob's argument and jumps to completely unfounded conclusions about what Bob beleives.
You say that Bob's standard of good (I don't know why you suggest that Zakath has a standard of good) is impersonal.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT???!!!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:

His standard for righteousness is a description of the only personal God that exists! Thus goodness is personal by definition - by Bob's definition no less!

I really don't get it. I'll quickly admit that you are way over my head in regards to your knowledge and understanding of philosophy and so I admit just as quickly that there may very well be something I'm completely missing. Please connect the dots for me!

I wish I had more time! I wanted to start a whole new thread to discuss the prepositionalism thing specifically. Maybe I'll do that in a few days.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Regarding Godrulz's Salvation

Regarding Godrulz's Salvation

It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ. Further God did not have to come up with a plan of salvation in the first place and so I cannot take credit for my salvation in any way. God is the one who decided to provide a means of salvation and He is the one who decided the conditions under which His grace would be administered, not me. All that was left up to me was whether to believe or not. God offered me a gift and gave me every opportunity to accept it. I deserve no more credit for receiving my salvation than I deserve credit for having accepted my Christmas presents.

The following questions come to my mind:

1) If your very act of belief was caused by Him then isn't your will by definition caused by Him and; therefore, according to you not free?

2) If God gives man sufficient grace then why do some not have faith---which means the grace given to them was insufficient?

3) If God gave "me every opportunity to accept it" then why didn't I? Was there absolutely no chance for me from the beginning? How would He know that?

Maybe it's time for you to explain to me how free will escapes causality.

Your Brother in Christ,

Rob

 

[Clete]

Love is not a relationship; God is love.

Peace,
Michael

Love is meaningless outside the context of relationship. God is triune and therefore fundamentally both personal and relational (with or without the creation). Both the existence of realtionship and freedom of the will are necessary conditions for the existence love. Thus since, as you rightly decalare, God is love, we must accept that both are fundamental aspects of God Himself and always have been.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The following questions come to my mind:

1) If your very act of belief was caused by Him then isn't your will by definition caused by Him and; therefore, according to you not free?

It could be said that God caused the existence of my will but not the actions of it.

2) If God gives man sufficient grace then why do some not have faith---which means the grace given to them was insufficient?

It was sufficient but not coercive.
If you have a friend you lives in another state who wants to come visit you but cannot afford the trip and you decide to purchase the plane ticket and rental car yourself and offer to cover any and all other incurred expenses and even offered to give him a job when he gets there, then you have provided sufficient means by which your friend came come and visit you. That does mean that your friend is forced to get on the plane or even return your phone calls.
In the same way, God's grace is sufficient but we are not required to respond to that grace or even acknowledge its existence.

3) If God gave "me every opportunity to accept it" then why didn't I?

There are many possible reasons why God's offer of salvation might be rejected. For the purposes of this conversation it is sufficient to say "Because they didn't want to accept it."
If you want to ask why didn't he want to then the basic answer is because they are evil; they hate God. Specific answers would be different perhaps for every person on the planet.

Was there absolutely no chance for me from the beginning?

If not, if God sends you to Hell for having not accepted the gift of salvation then He is, by His own standards, unjust .

How would He know that?

He wouldn't. (assuming I understand the question).

Maybe it's time for you to explain to me how free will escapes causality.

I do not know. Nor do I believe that there is enough information available for us to be able to figure it out, although I could be wrong about that. What we can know is that if there is only one possible decision which can come from a given set of circumstances then freedom is an illusion and we are not responsible for our actions but rather the circumstances are.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Excellent questions, by the way.

 

[godrulz]

Freedom of ability is the ability to do ANYTHING. Create a universe, flap your arms and fly to the moon, etc. It's unlimited ability. Only God has that.

Freedom of will is ONE ability, which is to choose from the options that a situation presents. I'm standing at McDonalds, and I am able to choose (without pre-determination or external determination) which sandwich I want to order. Just because I am not able to huff and puff and blow the McDonalds down doesn't mean that I can't freely choose to order a BigMac without onions.

Michael

Are there some things God cannot do? Omnipotence is doing all that is doable (does not mean one does everything they can do). God cannot do logically absurd, contradictory things like create a rock too heavy to lift or create square circles.

 

[themuzicman]

And how does your will 'decide' what is important at the LFW moment? Are there influences and outside causes which make your will what it is?

Rob

I'm going to start by splitting the difference between influence and determining.

Sales people influence. They go in, show your their product, tell you why it's the best value, what it can do for you, buy you lunch, tell you that your kids look cute, and generally schmooze to influence you to buy their product. And don't be fooled, everyone is influenced by everything that happens around them.

But that influence isn't determining, because you can still decide not to buy that salesman's product.

So, to answer your question, there are obviously influences that are all trying to make their way to the top of the priority list. However, the will (an active moral agent), ultimately prioritizes what is most important at any given moment, and makes the choice.

In short, the will determines what it will do, free of pre-determination or external determination, but constantly subject to competing influences, both internal and external.

Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Are there some things God cannot do? Omnipotence is doing all that is doable (does not mean one does everything they can do). God cannot do logically absurd, contradictory things like create a rock too heavy to lift or create square circles.

Well, with God, there's a fine line between 'cannot' and 'will not because of His nature'. God will not sin. Is God able to sin? That's a hard question.

I would say that God has freedom of will and freedom of ability (within the bounds of logical possibility, as you've stated.)

Michael

 

[RobE]

Some of your answers are unresponsive

Some of your answers are unresponsive

This is a silly argument. Could I have faith at all if I weren't alive or had never existed? What if Adam and Eve had been killed immediately when they sinned? Then no one would have believed, right? So yes, my faith comes from hearing the word of God and the word of God comes from God, thus the name "Word of God". All good things come from God but that does not mean that God predestined my belief or that He gave me faith arbitrarily. It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ. Further God did not have to come up with a plan of salvation in the first place and so I cannot take credit for my salvation in any way. God is the one who decided to provide a means of salvation and He is the one who decided the conditions under which His grace would be administered, not me. All that was left up to me was whether to believe or not. God offered me a gift and gave me every opportunity to accept it. I deserve no more credit for receiving my salvation than I deserve credit for having accepted my Christmas presents. Do you think that by virtue of the fact that you've accepted gifts from people in the past that you have thereby earned or merited those gifts or were in some way the source of those gifts?

Resting in Him,
Clete

1) If your very act of belief was caused by Him then isn't your will by definition caused by Him and; therefore, according to you not free?

Clete: It could be said that God caused the existence of my will but not the actions of it.

This isn't what you said here:

All good things come from God but that does not mean that God predestined my belief or that He gave me faith arbitrarily. It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ.​

It seems your saying that God is responsible for you coming to faith. Does this mean that God's responsible for those who don't come to a saving faith?

________________

2) If God gives man sufficient grace then why do some not have faith---which means the grace given to them was insufficient?

Clete: It was sufficient but not coercive.

This doesn't answer the question. Your analogy is insufficient. If someone does not come to a saving faith then the grace was insufficient for that person. Yes or No?

____________________

3) If God gave "me every opportunity to accept it" then why didn't I?


Clete: There are many possible reasons why God's offer of salvation might be rejected. For the purposes of this conversation it is sufficient to say "Because they didn't want to accept it."
If you want to ask why didn't he want to then the basic answer is because they are evil; they hate God. Specific answers would be different perhaps for every person on the planet.

Question: Are you saying that Grace must be specific for every different person. Some require more grace than others, perhaps.

______________
Rob: Maybe it's time for you to explain to me how free will escapes causality.

Clete: I do not know. Nor do I believe that there is enough information available for us to be able to figure it out, although I could be wrong about that.​

I would suggest that you figure it out. Calvinism at its root accepts causality, as has Christianity since its beginning. If Open Theism wants to establish itself then this question must be adressed.

If God gave you the Grace to have faith, your life, and everything in your life then why do some not come to a saving faith when others do?

You might question relationship of Grace, Faith, and Foreknowledge. It simply becomes important with the question of how much grace is required to bring an individual into the Kingdom and where that knowledge comes from. Sufficiency!

Sufficient?
Rob

 

[RobE]

Reply to Michael

Reply to Michael

Originally Posted by Clete

This is a silly argument. Could I have faith at all if I weren't alive or had never existed? What if Adam and Eve had been killed immediately when they sinned? Then no one would have believed, right? So yes, my faith comes from hearing the word of God and the word of God comes from God, thus the name "Word of God". All good things come from God but that does not mean that God predestined my belief or that He gave me faith arbitrarily. It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ. Further God did not have to come up with a plan of salvation in the first place and so I cannot take credit for my salvation in any way. God is the one who decided to provide a means of salvation and He is the one who decided the conditions under which His grace would be administered, not me. All that was left up to me was whether to believe or not. God offered me a gift and gave me every opportunity to accept it. I deserve no more credit for receiving my salvation than I deserve credit for having accepted my Christmas presents. Do you think that by virtue of the fact that you've accepted gifts from people in the past that you have thereby earned or merited those gifts or were in some way the source of those gifts?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Originally Posted by RobE

And how does your will 'decide' what is important at the LFW moment? Are there influences and outside causes which make your will what it is?​

So, to answer your question, there are obviously influences that are all trying to make their way to the top of the priority list. However, the will (an active moral agent), ultimately prioritizes what is most important at any given moment, and makes the choice.

In short, the will determines what it will do, free of pre-determination or external determination, but constantly subject to competing influences, both internal and external.

Michael

But what determines the will? What causes the will is another way to say it. Don't the influences develop your conscience and; therefore, determine your will in any given situation?

An example. Agent X is deciding to do A or B. In the same situation Agent Y would be deciding between A or D and Agent Z would be deciding between A or E or B. Agent W only has outcome A in his choices.

They all excercise their free will but the choices of that will are different because of the 'influences'.

Look at Clete's quote above. What determines the will and its outcomes? If all their wills were LFW free then they would all be deciding between range A to ATC(all the choices).

Yours,
Rob

 

[Clete]

1) If your very act of belief was caused by Him then isn't your will by definition caused by Him and; therefore, according to you not free?

Clete: It could be said that God caused the existence of my will but not the actions of it.

This isn't what you said here:

All good things come from God but that does not mean that God predestined my belief or that He gave me faith arbitrarily. It does mean that my faith could rightly be considered a gift from God as are all good things because without Him nothing could exist, including myself and anything that was used to bring me to Christ.​

It seems your saying that God is responsible for you coming to faith. Does this mean that God's responsible for those who don't come to a saving faith?

NO! If you offer to help a person across the street does that make you responsible for their getting run over after having refused your help? Of course not!

2) If God gives man sufficient grace then why do some not have faith---which means the grace given to them was insufficient?

Clete: It was sufficient but not coercive.

This doesn't answer the question. Your analogy is insufficient. If someone does not come to a saving faith then the grace was insufficient for that person. Yes or No?[/qutoe]
My anaology was nearly perfect! The grace is sufficient but a person is not forced to accept God's gift. If they accept it then it will be more than enough if they don't then that's on them, not God. I just like the crossing the street example I gave above. You are not responsible for someone getting hurt because they refused your help. Likewise, God is not responsible for your being unable to pay the sin debt you owe because you would let Him pay it for you.

3) If God gave "me every opportunity to accept it" then why didn't I?

Clete: There are many possible reasons why God's offer of salvation might be rejected. For the purposes of this conversation it is sufficient to say "Because they didn't want to accept it."
If you want to ask why didn't he want to then the basic answer is because they are evil; they hate God. Specific answers would be different perhaps for every person on the planet.

Question: Are you saying that Grace must be specific for every different person. Some require more grace than others, perhaps.

What?

You need to tell me what you think the word grace means.

Rob: Maybe it's time for you to explain to me how free will escapes causality.

Clete: I do not know. Nor do I believe that there is enough information available for us to be able to figure it out, although I could be wrong about that.​

I would suggest that you figure it out. Calvinism at its root accepts causality, as has Christianity since its beginning. If Open Theism wants to establish itself then this question must be adressed.

If I didn't think you actually beleived this I would be calling you a liar right now. This is not true. Christianity has not accepted causality from its beginning and an answer to this question isn't any more necessary than a full explanation of the Trinity is necessary. We do not need to explain everything about the way things work in order to know that they do work and that they are true.

If God gave you the Grace to have faith, your life, and everything in your life then why do some not come to a saving faith when others do?

You might question relationship of Grace, Faith, and Foreknowledge. It simply becomes important with the question of how much grace is required to bring an individual into the Kingdom and where that knowledge comes from. Sufficiency!

Sufficient?
Rob

You talk about grace as though it is a substance that God has in cold storage somewhere. Grace is unmerrited favor. God is merciful and shows His mercy to whom He decides and under what conditions. But God is also just and so He cannot be arbitrarily merciful. He can't just wink as sin and say, "It's okay, just don't do it again." That would be unjust. Thus He decided to pay the debt we owe for us by sending His Son to die in our place and has offered to pardon us on the merrit of that sacrifice if and only if we believe. That's grace. That decision God made to make all that possible is what grace is. We deserved death and God's wrath but in spite of what we deserved God chose to provide a way of escape. He showed us unmerrited favor. Thus we are saved by grace THROUGH faith.

I don't mind telling you that it concerns me that I am having to explain this to you. Doesn't it bother you that Calvinistic thinking clouds issues as basic to the Christian faith as what grace is?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Clete: You have swam upstream to rightly accept Open Theism. Perhaps you would consider doing the same in accepting Moral Government Theology (God is the holy, loving, just Moral Governor of the universe). You express similar ideas, but I hope you do not believe the Commercial Transaction/literal payment theory of the atonement (AnseIm's 'satisfaction' ideas)?

 

[Clete]

Clete: You have swam upstream to rightly accept Open Theism. Perhaps you would consider doing the same in accepting Moral Government Theology (God is the holy, loving, just Moral Governor of the universe). You express similar ideas, but I hope you do not believe the Commercial Transaction/literal payment theory of the atonement (AnseIm's 'satisfaction' ideas)?

I don't know what either of those things are. All I know is that Jesus died in order to satisfy justice and that what He did is credited to my account (God uses the payment analogy before I did) if and only if I believe (Romans 10:9-10).

Which camp does that put me in?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

But what determines the will? What causes the will is another way to say it. Don't the influences develop your conscience and; therefore, determine your will in any given situation?​

No. The nature of a free will is that it is free from determining forces. The will is not caused.

An example. Agent X is deciding to do A or B. In the same situation Agent Y would be deciding between A or D and Agent Z would be deciding between A or E or B. Agent W only has outcome A in his choices.

Well, agent W isn't free, because A and ~A are always options in any LFW decision.

They all excercise their free will but the choices of that will are different because of the 'influences'.

No, if the only difference is influence, then all of the options are availble to each agent. If there is another limiting factor (ability, knowledge), then one possibility may not be available (i.e. we're both at McDonalds, but I didn't know that I could order a banana shake, but you did know, then you would have more options than me because of my ignorance), but that's not a knock against free will. I am still free to choose from the options available to me. But influences do not preclude choices.

Look at Clete's quote above. What determines the will and its outcomes? If all their wills were LFW free then they would all be deciding between range A to ATC(all the choices).

You're hedging back over into ability rather than will. A quadrapelegic cannot jump. That doesn't mean that they don't have free will. It just means that jumping isn't an option.

Michael​

 

[godrulz]

I don't know what either of those things are. All I know is that Jesus died in order to satisfy justice and that what He did is credited to my account (God uses the payment analogy before I did) if and only if I believe (Romans 10:9-10).

Which camp does that put me in?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Technically, a literal payment view leads to universalism. I think you are closer to the truth to call it an analogy, as you did (I would suggest it is one of several metaphors for salvation that conveys truth, but is not meant to be a wooden literalism). I suppose it also would fit with your OSAS views.

Jesus did die as a substitute for the penalty of sin (death). It does allow mercy and justice to 'kiss' at the cross. God freely wants to extend forgiveness, but there are governmental issues (public vs retributive/personal justice).

I agree that His objective provision must be subjectively appropriated through faith (grace is the grounds; faith is the condition).

Impartation or crediting to account is another can of worms with several possible views.

Some criticize open theism for its view of the atonement. I am not familiar with what the view is and suspect that proponents have traditional or varying views on it (OT is not a fully developed systematic theology). It would be more free will theism vs Calvinism (elect/non-elect; TULIP).

Regardless, back on track, we should go.

 

[RobE]

No. The nature of a free will is that it is free from determining forces. The will is not caused.

Would you prefer the term 'developed'.

No, if the only difference is influence, then all of the options are availble to each agent. If there is another limiting factor (ability, knowledge), then one possibility may not be available (i.e. we're both at McDonalds, but I didn't know that I could order a banana shake, but you did know, then you would have more options than me because of my ignorance), but that's not a knock against free will. I am still free to choose from the options available to me. But influences do not preclude choices.

Do the influences develop your will and preclude you from making some choices that are available to you? Isn't it true that in many cases even though you are able to do A or B, your own will precludes you from doing B in all cases?

You're hedging back over into ability rather than will. A quadrapelegic cannot jump. That doesn't mean that they don't have free will. It just means that jumping isn't an option.

Clete's definition of free will: The ability to do or to do otherwise.

Ability to decide is present no matter what we do. Knowledge of what we're going to do doesn't eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise, does it?

Respectfully,
Rob

 

[RobE]

NO! If you offer to help a person across the street does that make you responsible for their getting run over after having refused your help? Of course not!

How about if you create the car, the person, the environment, and all factors leading up to the 'getting run over' part?

2) If God gives man sufficient grace then why do some not have faith---which means the grace given to them was insufficient?

Clete: It was sufficient but not coercive.

Rob: This doesn't answer the question. Your analogy is insufficient.

Clete: My anaology was nearly perfect! The grace is sufficient but a person is not forced to accept God's gift. If they accept it then it will be more than enough if they don't then that's on them, not God. I just like the crossing the street example I gave above. You are not responsible for someone getting hurt because they refused your help. Likewise, God is not responsible for your being unable to pay the sin debt you owe because you would let Him pay it for you.

I know you understand the question:

If someone does not come to a saving faith then the grace was insufficient for that person. Yes or No?

Clete,
Think about the 'good' thief and the 'bad' thief. Why was God's grace to the 'good' thief sufficient for faith and the grace to the 'bad' thief insufficient for faith to occur?

Or maybe Peter and Judas.​

You talk about grace as though it is a substance that God has in cold storage somewhere. Grace is unmerrited favor. God is merciful and shows His mercy to whom He decides and under what conditions. But God is also just and so He cannot be arbitrarily merciful. He can't just wink as sin and say, "It's okay, just don't do it again." That would be unjust. Thus He decided to pay the debt we owe for us by sending His Son to die in our place and has offered to pardon us on the merrit of that sacrifice if and only if we believe. That's grace. That decision God made to make all that possible is what grace is. We deserved death and God's wrath but in spite of what we deserved God chose to provide a way of escape. He showed us unmerrited favor. Thus we are saved by grace THROUGH faith.

I don't mind telling you that it concerns me that I am having to explain this to you. Doesn't it bother you that Calvinistic thinking clouds issues as basic to the Christian faith as what grace is?

I can see where you might misunderstand that I'm saying grace is a substance. Thomas, the apostle, required putting his hand in Jesus' wounds to believe; whereas, John didn't need that proof. The Grace(gift) that Jesus gave to Thomas was uneccessary for John to believe. That's what I mean by sufficient. Sufficiency requires that adequate proofs are provided to all for a 'saving' faith to be obtained by all; so all might be saved as is His will. The question comes in where sufficiency is asked about those who don't believe.

I believe, as you do, that those who don't believe rejected the Grace offered them. Hilston, and Calvin, would say that God didn't give sufficient Grace to the non-elect because that was His pleasure.

If God gave you the Grace to have faith, your life, and everything in your life then why do some not come to a saving faith when others do?

You might question relationship of Grace, Faith, and Foreknowledge. It simply becomes important with the question of how much grace is required to bring an individual into the Kingdom and where that knowledge comes from. Sufficiency!

Sufficient?
Rob

My problem with an indeterminate future is this:

How does God guarantee sufficiency when He doesn't know what number of graces will be required of you to obtain faith and how does God know something won't happen to you before those graces are given?

Is that clearer?
Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Would you prefer the term 'developed'.

You seem to want to make the will act like it's subject to the laws of nature, like a ball dropped into the game mousetrap. If you follow the levers and such, you figure out what makes the mousetrap click. The will is a cause, not an effect.

Do the influences develop your will and preclude you from making some choices that are available to you? Isn't it true that in many cases even though you are able to do A or B, your own will precludes you from doing B in all cases?

No. The development of our experience may influence the will to lower the priority of certain choices, but that does not preclude that choice from being made altogether.

Clete's definition of free will: The ability to do or to do otherwise.

I prefer to add an LFW agent in an LFW moment.

Ability to decide is present no matter what we do. Knowledge of what we're going to do doesn't eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise, does it?

If you're talking about knowledge of what you intend to do, then no.

If you're talking about making a true propositional statement about what will happen, such that it is certain knowledge (which is what a true proposition is), then that eliminates all possibilities besides the one that is known, and that decision is no longer free because when the decision moment comes, the agent is only able to do what the true propsition dictates.


Michael