Do you believe in predestination ?

[Stripe]

You've just blown my Calvinist mind. You know how everyone disagrees with Beloved about God creating sin? You and every other Open Theist that says this is literally telling me that God is the author of Sin (even if somewhat indirectly, still purposefully!)

Do you understand why the rest of us Calvinists say this is heresy? Because it CANNOT (read that 'cannot' again) be that God would 'desire' what is opposite of His own nature. How could you, for instance, possibly do something you 'cannot or would not do' in the first place??? It can't be done! I wish every Open Theist on the planet would read these last couple of sentences. It is impossible for God, without sin/against sin, to make a creature that 'wants' to sin.

This is a challenge to the man who says God predestined everything and man has no will.

I do not claim those things.

The open theist lays the blame for sin on the man who chooses his action. The challenge to the Calvinist is to explain how God is not responsible when He — according to your worldview — created men without a will.

Yes, you have answers to this, but saying open theists call God the author of evil isn't justified.

God didn't create man desiring him/her to fall and no switch was put in. The serpent both created and flipped the switch. The one constant I do not have an answer for, is how the serpent, created by God, could have fallen. It is against holiness and perfection both, for such a creature to even exist in the world.

Why push the conundrum back to Satan?

Why not grant that man might have been created with a will?

A Being who is righteous, perfect, and holy, 'became' holy at some later date after Satan fell. Before that? He'd have been 'good' but not perfect in His goodness. "Darkness" would have existed in God in whom there is "no darkness at all."

Does God have a will?

Is it inherently bad to be able to choose?

At this point, whatever you think, let me hear the scriptures because I've good many behind me right now screaming against such a notion for truthfulness.

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Jonah 3:10 NKJV
​

I appreciate that and you. On the converse, at least look at the traps inherent in the propositions above. Every Open Theist necessarily has to address these when talking to the rest of the Body of Christ (and I believe even among yourselves, these have to be shown, asked, and meaningfully answered).

What's the challenge?

There are too many scriptures that say God doesn't change and "IS" already perfect (Holy, righteous et al )and always has been.

There are many verses that say God changes His mind. :idunno;

Yes, but this still has you owning the details of your own salvation. Can you lose it? How could you know? Where is the point where you know, by faith, your salvation is secure? In your own hands???

...

What if 'you' began to doubt? Would Jesus disown you? How one-way or two-way is our salvation?

The sun remains in the sky whether I believe it or not. When I lose faith, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

 

[Gary K]

@Lon,

I've been reading the back and forth between you and Stripe on this thread and I have a request for you. Could you please explain your view of the sovereignty of God? I know what it means to me, but I'd like to see your explanation of how you view it.

 

[Lon]

The closest I am willing to get to the idea that man was predestined to fall is to say that God figured it was certain that eventually, someone would betray His trust.

This makes His plan — put in place before the foundations of the Earth — sensible.

I think we are still talking about believing in predestination so it'd be a 'yes' for both of us with a difference on the extent.

I would not agree that the Romans passage denies my worldview. I just think it's a more challenging response for you to use against me than the other verses.

It did mean at least a few verse I gave applied, so that's a good thing. How do you read Romans 8 and 9? (a few for consideration):
Romans 8:7 because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
How is it that man can choose God by some percentage (synergism) when he (she, they,we, you, me) cannot be subject to God?
(not meaning you HAVE to be a Calvinist to answer this, but for certain I'm a monergist).


Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers.
Romans 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.
-Doesn't foreknew and predestinated mean what I think it means? Look at the progression.


Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth."
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;
Rom 9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;

Is it uncomfortable for an Open Theist to read "He hardens whom He will"? There is quite a bit more to these verses.

I believe that the woman had a choice to make as Satan spoke to her. The things he promised were lies. She already had everything she needed to spend the rest of eternity in perfect union with her world, her husband and her God — which included a will.

Ask yourself, however, from 'which tree' she ate. It was God's tree, not the serpent's.

The punishment she reaped was justified because of her choice. The mercy she was shown was because of her ignorance and mitigated culpability.

Interesting way to put this. Certainly there was innocense before, but not in the act. What she was promised, was, I believe 'free will' "knowing good from evil." The very thing the Open Theist demands (or craves :idunno: ) in 'choice/freedom' is the very thing denied until the Fall. It just didn't exist before that AND the relationship between God and man WAS intact without that 'choice.' The choice brought death so 1) could not have been something good and 2) cannot have thereby been anything God 'could' give man (the very thing against Him and His nature to possibly do).

These ideas jive well with the concepts of truth and justice that we call good. If she had been destined to take and eat, that destroys the concepts of truth and justice. Calvinists ease this challenge by declaring God's sovereignty. I think it's much better to just leave the design of Eve's actions where the Bible puts them, ie, with her.

Cut here, cause I want to read the conversation again before responding further.

I think they go with a certain train-of-thought but I hope in some small way, the questions raised at least reveal why they are gaping holes for the rest of Christendom.

This is a challenge to the man who says God predestined everything and man has no will.

Well, no, I'm not saying man has no will. He rather has no 'free' will. He has a culpable will certainly but I see this as the 'result' of sin and sin's condition. So rather, I'm saying when it comes to 1) our original makeup and 2) our position in Christ, that our wills were/are enslaved to Him. Any sense of 'freedom' is associated with 'from God.' Enyart and other Open Theists have maintained that God 'had' to give man freewill in order for relationship to exist. I hope I've demonstrated 'will' isn't necessary for relationship, not that it doesn't (or rather didn't) exist. The man who is in Christ no longer looks to his/her own needs, but looks to God for cues and direction.

I do not claim those things.

So you agree 'freewill' is not a design or 'gift' from God? Otherwise there is a claim that God 'planned' by wiring man with a 'choice' button like other Open Theists insist must have been there for true relationship to exist. Choice isn't necessary. Simply remaining/abiding is enough.

The open theist lays the blame for sin on the man who chooses his action. The challenge to the Calvinist is to explain how God is not responsible when He — according to your worldview — created men without a will.

He had a 'will' but one to ONLY do what God wanted. You'd suggest that's not a will then, but definition or the example of it, but I disagree and I believe it better fits scripture to read Genesis 3 for those cues of when 'free' will happened.

Yes, you have answers to this, but saying open theists call God the author of evil isn't justified.

It is the same accusation, both ways. Either this is understood or it isn't. Some (very few) Calvinists believe God creates or does 'evil.' For both the Open Theist and most of the rest of us, the question of how evil 'can' exist is perplexing. It isn't any more or easier for Open Theists than it is for the Calvinist. It is just the same mystery.

Why push the conundrum back to Satan?

For 2 reasons 1) because I'm not given the value for 'n' and so simplification is the best I believe (at this time) I can do (simplification of a mystery rather than some given value from God) and 2) because scripture itself pits our struggle against him. Romans 16:20

Why not grant that man might have been created with a will?

We are born with it, but I don't believe 'created' with it. The why of it is scripture for me. Matthew 6:24 Jesus says "...one of two masters..." It means 'will' but it means we are ever enslaved and 'freedom' is an illusion. Satan created us in his own image. John 15:5 says 'can do not any one thing without Me.'

Does God have a will?

"Will" is important here for discussion. Will implies an ability to go one's own direction, and 'independence.' The problem is Matthew 6:24 says we are never free. If you mean "a will to do other than good" then the answer is "no." If you mean in the sense that God can do all He desires? "Yes."
As Christians, we are 'free' to do all God wants us to do. We are 'not' free to do whatever we want against Him. The desire to do things against God is not a gift 'from' God.

Is it inherently bad to be able to choose?

Yes. That 'independence' is rather an illusion. When the serpent said 'like God' he meant in a different way. He was talking about 'independence' and 'desire to do something other than what God wanted.' Note with me man had a will, but he could not have chosen the tree without the serpent. If we learn anything from Genesis, I think it is necessary that Genesis 3:1 exists.

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Jonah 3:10 NKJV

Were they saved spiritually, or just physically that day? Is this a good translation? : Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

What's the challenge?

Answering how God can give you a will that can be used, specifically, against Him with that purpose, purposefully in mind. You've agreed God planned Jesus in the 'eventuality.' I don't see it obviously as eventuality, but I think the question with the hypothetical will be meaningful. The challenge is how God is NOT responsible for sin when you and most every other Open Theist insists God put the 'ability' in.

There are many verses that say God changes His mind. :idunno;

None actually. The word is translated from "To Sigh" and God, a Spirit, does not 'sigh.' So, the translators came up with 'repent' as a translation idea. "God sighed" would always be the 'literal' translated idea. None of us should be building theology on this kind of major scale, based ENTIRELY upon a Hebrew word "to sigh" and demand it mean and ONLY mean 'changed His mind.'
There is literally no Hebrew or Greek that says "God changed His mind." Literally. It doesn't exist. If you want your view to be truly biblical, be sure you aren't building it off of the NIV or any other translation, else you are a slave to the ones who made your preferred translation rather than being a slave to God and His Word. I am very much convinced some of the tenents of Open Theism is based off of translation ideas that weren't there in the original texts. This is certainly one of them and probably the biggest problematic for Open Theists. If you don't know Hebrew or Greek, how could you possibly know? I'm saying I understand why there are Open Theists. Only a scholar would know otherwise.

The sun remains in the sky whether I believe it or not. When I lose faith, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

:up:

Yes, but this still has you owning the details of your own salvation. Can you lose it? How could you know? Where is the point where you know, by faith, your salvation is secure? In your own hands???

It is interesting that even the synergists (believe they partook decisions in their own salvation) believe God keeps them monergistically. :up:

 

[Stripe]

I think we are still talking about believing in predestination so it'd be a 'yes' for both of us with a difference on the extent.

Sure. However, it's important to specify that I simply hold that not everything is predetermined; God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.

And even His plan to send Jesus was likely based on the idea that it was only extremely probable that the fall would happen, not that it was certain in every detail.

It did mean at least a few verse I gave applied, so that's a good thing. How do you read Romans 8 and 9? (a few for consideration):
Romans 8:7 because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
How is it that man can choose God by some percentage (synergism) when he (she, they,we, you, me) cannot be subject to God?
(not meaning you HAVE to be a Calvinist to answer this, but for certain I'm a monergist).

It's speaking of the human condition, not individual election. Men are in a state of emnity and it required God to open the door to salvation; it's all His doing. But like the sun in the sky, I can still refuse to acknowledge its existence.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers.
Romans 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.
-Doesn't foreknew and predestinated mean what I think it means? Look at the progression.

It all means exactly what it says. The question is over who it can apply to.

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth."
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;
Rom 9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;

Is it uncomfortable for an Open Theist to read "He hardens whom He will"? There is quite a bit more to these verses.

It does make it difficult when trying to refute the idea that all things were predestined. However, we only assert that not all things are predetermined and also that men can always choose.

I don't read anywhere in the Exodus account or in Romans that says all things are set in stone and I do read things that say they aren't.

I think this is key: We both have our "proof texts." I have verses saying that God changes His mind and that man can choose. You have verses saying that things are predestined and that God does not change. What we need to do is reconcile those things without letting our Calvinism and open theism get in the way.

I think that the open theist does this better. He can say that your verses mean what they say, although their scope might not be universal. However, the Calvinist has to anthropomorphize his "problem texts."

Ask yourself, however, from 'which tree' she ate. It was God's tree, not the serpent's.

Sure. Is that important?

Interesting way to put this. Certainly there was innocense before, but not in the act. What she was promised, was, I believe 'free will' "knowing good from evil." The very thing the Open Theist demands (or craves :idunno: ) in 'choice/freedom' is the very thing denied until the Fall. It just didn't exist before that AND the relationship between God and man WAS intact without that 'choice.' The choice brought death so 1) could not have been something good and 2) cannot have thereby been anything God 'could' give man (the very thing against Him and His nature to possibly do).

I don't see a lack of a will pre-fall. God asked Adam to name the animals. He sought a relationship, which to our minds implies the need for agency on both sides. Even today, we live our lives like our decisions mean something, not like they were determined.

Well, no, I'm not saying man has no will. He rather has no 'free' will. He has a culpable will certainly but I see this as the 'result' of sin and sin's condition. So rather, I'm saying when it comes to 1) our original makeup and 2) our position in Christ, that our wills were/are enslaved to Him. Any sense of 'freedom' is associated with 'from God.' Enyart and other Open Theists have maintained that God 'had' to give man freewill in order for relationship to exist. I hope I've demonstrated 'will' isn't necessary for relationship, not that it doesn't (or rather didn't) exist. The man who is in Christ no longer looks to his/her own needs, but looks to God for cues and direction.

The open theist makes no distinction between a will and a free will. They are the same thing.

This is an example of how it is easier for the open theist to describe the human condition and respond to accusations (from third parties) that God is the author of evil.

So you agree 'freewill' is not a design or 'gift' from God?

:idunno:

It's as much a gift as an eye or our spirit is.

There is a claim that God 'planned' by wiring man with a 'choice' button like other Open Theists insist must have been there for true relationship to exist. Choice isn't necessary. Simply remaining/abiding is enough.

How do we do the remaining or abiding without choosing to?

Does He do it all?

He had a 'will' but one to ONLY do what God wanted. You'd suggest that's not a will then, but definition or the example of it, but I disagree and I believe it better fits scripture to read Genesis 3 for those cues of when 'free' will happened.

I'm quite content if you'd concede that we have a will, regardless of the limits God would have on that. If Adam had never sinned, he could have renamed the lions "aslan" of his own volition.

God wouldn't have prompted that.

It is the same accusation, both ways. Either this is understood or it isn't. Some (very few) Calvinists believe God creates or does 'evil.' For both the Open Theist and most of the rest of us, the question of how evil 'can' exist is perplexing. It isn't any more or easier for Open Theists than it is for the Calvinist. It is just the same mystery.

We have a source of evil that does not lead back to God: the will of man.

It means 'will' but it means we are ever enslaved and 'freedom' is an illusion.

If it's not free, it's not a will.

Satan created us in his own image.

:shocked:

You really want to say that?

John 15:5 says 'can do not any one thing without Me.'

Yeah. We can't live without Him. We wouldn't be here without Him.

We would not have a will without Him.

He is our all, our reason. Our saviour. Our Lord.

The desire to do things against God is not a gift 'from' God.

It's a result of Adam's decision to disobey Him. Satan introduced the desire — he set the temptation in from of him. Why Satan came to do this or how his nature arose might be the key to all this. At the end of the day, God created Satan. So it's either like we say — he was made with the capacity to rebel; given a will — or it is as Calvin taught — he was made with no choice.

The challenge is how God is NOT responsible for sin when you and most every other Open Theist insists God put the 'ability' in.

That's an easy one. A will is a good thing. The ability to make decisions is a good thing. God has a will. He is free.

Guns are good things. That they can be used for evil does not change their goodness. That they are necessary in a taken fallen world does not make them bad.

 

[Nang]

This is a challenge to the man who says God predestined everything and man has no will.

I do not claim those things.

Neither do I (as a “Calvinist”).

Neither do I believe that Sovereign God is the author of sin.

The open theist lays the blame for sin on the man who chooses his action. The challenge to the Calvinist is to explain how God is not responsible when He — according to your worldview — created men without a will.

I believe man was created in the image of God possessing a conscious will to make righteous choices and moral decisions according to the righteous and moral laws and order established by His Creator God.

Adam’s failure to so live is Adam ‘s fault. Not God’s.

However, according to the Sovereign will and Wisdom of Creator God, it was predetermined the first “Adam” would so fail and fall, in order that the ordained and saving purpose of the last “Adam” Jesus Christ, might be manifested in time, in His full glory as Savior and King of Kings before all mankind.

Sorry to break into your conversation, but I find both of you
making excellent points that I believe can be reconciled, if
Scripture is closely examined.

 

[Stripe]

Neither do I (as a “Calvinist”).

Neither do I believe that Sovereign God is the author of sin.

If you care to notice, I made sure to say that.

I believe man was created in the image of God possessing a conscious will to make righteous choices and moral decisions according to the righteous and moral laws and order established by His Creator God.

Did God know that Adam would choose the name he did for the lions?

 

[Lon]

Sure. However, it's important to specify that I simply hold that not everything is predetermined; God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.

A precaution: shouldn't you rather say "I don't believe God has exhaustive foreknowledge" instead of "God doesn't have"? What if you are wrong? :think: (Of course I believe He does, and believe scriptures says so from the verses I've given, but I prefer not to try to dictate to God or you what God must or must not have. Scripture is enough).

And even His plan to send Jesus was likely based on the idea that it was only extremely probable that the fall would happen, not that it was certain in every detail.

"Crucified from creation" is fairly certain in my mind. How certain? I think much more than you are acquiescing here. Revelation 13:8 1 Peter 1:18-20 1 Corinthians 2:7-10 John 16:30

It's speaking of the human condition, not individual election. Men are in a state of emnity and it required God to open the door to salvation; it's all His doing. But like the sun in the sky, I can still refuse to acknowledge its existence.

That isn't a decision, though, it'd be a delusion. We simply cannot deny the sun is in the sky if dealing in realities God created.
I appreciate your monergistic comment "It's all His doing."

It all means exactly what it says. The question is over who it can apply to.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers.
Romans 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Then you agree 1) He knew beforehand who'd be saved (it says so). And those, He 2) predestined to be conformed to the Image of Christ. In addition 3) He called those whom He 'already knew.'

Agreed?

It does make it difficult when trying to refute the idea that all things were predestined. However, we only assert that not all things are predetermined and also that men can always choose.

That 'men can always choose' is back to synergism and I really would need very explicit scriptures that say 'man can choose his/her salvation.' "Choose ye this day whom you will serve" isn't written about salvation, but regarding obedience of Israel. What other verse do you have in mind?

I don't read anywhere in the Exodus account or in Romans that says all things are set in stone and I do read things that say they aren't.

:think: Exo_10:1-2, Exo_14:17-18

Romans 9:19

I think this is key: We both have our "proof texts." I have verses saying that God changes His mind and that man can choose. You have verses saying that things are predestined and that God does not change. What we need to do is reconcile those things without letting our Calvinism and open theism get in the way.

I often believe our dialogue here is more important than any particular allegiance to one or another theological system. We are all trying to fit the puzzle pieces together and the more we dialogue, I think the better.

I think that the open theist does this better. He can say that your verses mean what they say, although their scope might not be universal. However, the Calvinist has to anthropomorphize his "problem texts."

It would go both ways. There are converse scriptures that have the same constant from the Open position as well. It is best that we look at all them and see where our own has the same or similar trouble.

Sure. Is that important?

Yes. The tree of knowledge of 'good and evil' was God's tree so the serpent wasn't lying. He was saying that they would be able to share in something they had not previously known. The serpent didn't bother to tell them how troubling such was going to be (death). He left that part out, but the point is that I believe the serpent didn't lie, he just omitted telling them the 'bad' parts.

I don't see a lack of a will pre-fall. God asked Adam to name the animals. He sought a relationship, which to our minds implies the need for agency on both sides. Even today, we live our lives like our decisions mean something, not like they were determined.

No, not lack of will but a lack of a completely 'free' will. Man never had it, but the serpent tempted them to know 'a bit more' in their 'like God'-ness. It did give them that, but then created a false sense of 'independence' and separateness that man was never designed for. It is that 'independence' that many mistakenly mean by 'free will' and 'gift from God.' Some Open Theists, as I've shared, believe we 'have to have it' in order for 'true relationship' with God to occur but in my recollection, that was the problem presented by the serpent: Genesis 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Then: Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Was the lie "you will not die" or "you will be like God?" or both?

My disagreement isn't over man having a will, but rather to really dig out 'what kind of will' we actually had pre and post Fall in the face of your next statement:

The open theist makes no distinction between a will and a free will. They are the same thing.

I see this, specifically as problematic. It becomes much too broad for meaning. Again, what kind of will did man have before the Fall? What, if anything changed in man's will after the Fall? For me, the difference is stark and significant such that 'free will' and 'will' cannot mean the same thing because both describe something different from each other before and post sin.

This is an example of how it is easier for the open theist to describe the human condition and respond to accusations (from third parties) that God is the author of evil.

"Easier" isn't necessarily 'better' however. For me, the answers are only moved to a new goal post most of the time. Some will be persuaded who are looking for an 'easier' or more immediate fix, but having looked at many of the scriptures for a long time, I'm finding that Open Theism merely prolongs the inevitable: a need to address exactly the same questions meaningfully.

:idunno:

It's as much a gift as an eye or our spirit is.

This makes sense in light of how we see 'will.' I definitely see it differently pre and post fall. At no time, I don't believe, 'free' has ever really been a good descriptor because there has always been one thing (God) or another ruling our wills. For me it is rather a 'confined' will or a 'restrained/imprisoned' will. What causes these terms? Whatever we value (which is why I'm convinced value is essential for relationship, not 'choice' or 'will'). If I don't like God, I'd be 'imprisoned' to His will. Adam and Eve were deceived on this point. If I hate sin and its corruption, then I'd be 'imprisoned' by it until Christ. For me, this is the only/best way for me to talk about 'will.' Galatians 5:1 says Christ had to set our wills 'free.' Therefore, how could we have it prior???

How do we do the remaining or abiding without choosing to?

Just above Galatians 5:1 Romans 8:2

Does He do it all?

Justification, yes. Sanctification, no. (short summation).

I'm quite content if you'd concede that we have a will, regardless of the limits God would have on that. If Adam had never sinned, he could have renamed the lions "aslan" of his own volition.

:up:

God wouldn't have prompted that.

This part needs clarification either for agreement or to show where we might not: God can prompt man's response. Proverbs 16:9 John 15:5, I believe, applies equally to us as it did the Apostles and for me, Colossians 1:17 confirms this.

We have a source of evil that does not lead back to God: the will of man.

If it's not free, it's not a will.

Is this true? I want to be free to fly through the air like a bird. Is this a 'will' to fly? Is it free?
My point; will and 'desire' are the same thing, though you may rightly say that 'will' is a desire that is enacted BUT that would also mean 'enacted will' not 'free will' since I cannot fly like a bird. One day someone may come up with wings that will do exactly that, but my will, at the moment, has no outlet for flying so I don't believe it is 'free' yet, I believe, it is rightly a 'will.'
Will can 'choice' but choice isn't 'free' but 'between.' Will can also mean 'desire' like my wanting to fly like a bird and in that, it is certainly not free. So, if you'll allow, and for importance of where we may agree and differ: I believe 'will' is not always, though sometimes 'may be' the same as 'free.'

:shocked:

You really want to say that?

"Recreated." Thank you for the catch.

Yeah. We can't live without Him. We wouldn't be here without Him.

We would not have a will without Him.

He is our all, our reason. Our saviour. Our Lord.

Beautifully said/written here.

It's a result of Adam's decision to disobey Him. Satan introduced the desire — he set the temptation in from of him. Why Satan came to do this or how his nature arose might be the key to all this. At the end of the day, God created Satan. So it's either like we say — he was made with the capacity to rebel; given a will — or it is as Calvin taught — he was made with no choice.

I don't think it is that cut and dry: What I mean is, I can't say one way or the other. I'm still missing pieces and don't a this time 1) see indication in scripture or 2) am just missing where it is given there. Yours is an 'either this or that' which I appreciate for the logic of it, but I've been trying to leave off that sort of theology from influencing the rest of my theology too towardly. It leaves some of my theology in proverbial limbo, I know

That's an easy one. A will is a good thing. The ability to make decisions is a good thing. God has a will. He is free.

Yes, but as I said, it is a will knowing good and evil, but never doing evil. Man didn't have that knowledge so never 'could' have chosen evil without the serpent's 'help/deception.'

Guns are good things. That they can be used for evil does not change their goodness. That they are necessary in a taken fallen world does not make them bad.

Understood by comparison but for this, I need to point back up to the way we see 'will' and why I see 'free' as not necessarily synonymous. In Him (thank you again for meaningful discussion) -Lon

 

[Nang]

Did God know that Adam would choose the name he did for the lions?

Yes, of course. God supplied Adam with the gift of language and linguistics in order for him to properly identify all the species already in existence according to the original and Divine creational powers.

Naming the animals was an honor gifted to Adam by God, but the honor did not equate with the miracle of their very creation that accorded with the first words of God.

Do you insinuate that God depended upon Adam identifying the animals in order for God to gain knowledge of all the species?

Hardly . . :nono:

(Please read my signature quotations!)

 

[Stripe]

A precaution: shouldn't you rather say "I don't believe God has exhaustive foreknowledge" instead of "God doesn't have"?

I put in my statement the condition that it was only my opinion.

What if you are wrong?

It's happened before, as far as I can remember.

I'm sure I'll get over it.

"Crucified from creation" is fairly certain in my mind. How certain? I think much more than you are acquiescing here.

I think it's fine to leave open that God might have hoped things wouldn't turn out the way they did.

That isn't a decision, though, it'd be a delusion.

It can't be both?

I appreciate your monergistic comment "It's all His doing."

That's not a fair analysis. "It's all His doing" is a reference to the work done, not to the process by which men enter salvation.

Then you agree 1) He knew beforehand who'd be saved (it says so).

Corporately, not individually.

That 'men can always choose' is back to synergism.

Wiki says: "Synergism is the position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom."

I reject this as much as I reject monergism. Salvation is entirely because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The will of man enters into the discussion only over how they respond to reality.

I really would need very explicit scriptures that say 'man can choose his/her salvation.'

There aren't any.

However, this request implies that men can choose in other areas. If men can choose, my worldview is justified.

"Choose ye this day whom you will serve" might not be about salvation (although I would say it is part of the picture, it's not really here or there when it comes to settling our difference), but it certainly says that men can choose.

I often believe our dialogue here is more important than any particular allegiance to one or another theological system. We are all trying to fit the puzzle pieces together and the more we dialogue, I think the better.

:up:

The tree of knowledge of 'good and evil' was God's tree so the serpent wasn't lying. He was saying that they would be able to share in something they had not previously known. The serpent didn't bother to tell them how troubling such was going to be (death). He left that part out, but the point is that I believe the serpent didn't lie, he just omitted telling them the 'bad' parts.

It doesn't read that way at all to me. But the bigger problem might be that I don't quite understand why this is important to our discussion.

Satan's words were: "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
"You will not surely die" was a lie. "You will be like God" was a lie.

Jesus' name for Satan was Liar.

Was the lie "you will not die" or "you will be like God?" or both?

Both.

My disagreement isn't over man having a will, but rather to really dig out 'what kind of will' we actually had pre and post Fall in the face of your next statement:

A will is just the ability to choose. Men have that, unless everything we know about everyday life is an illusion.

I consider the extra definitions of will to be useful only to the Calvinist, who needs them to address challenges to his theology. I don't see any serious problems with my theology if we don't make distictions between types of will. Also, it hurts my brain trying to separate what people mean when they talk about "will," "free will" and "libertarian free will" as if they were different things.

I see this, specifically as problematic. It becomes much too broad for meaning. Again, what kind of will did man have before the Fall? What, if anything changed in man's will after the Fall? For me, the difference is stark and significant such that 'free will' and 'will' cannot mean the same thing because both describe something different from each other before and post sin.

Can you unpack what you're thinking? I don't see a problem.

What is wrong with defining a will as a man's ability to choose and leaving it at that? Why do we need a "will" for post-fall and a "free will" beforehand?

"Easier" isn't necessarily 'better' however.

Fair. But it is better until I see good reason that the more complicated version is necessary.

This makes sense in light of how we see 'will.' I definitely see it differently pre and post fall. At no time, I don't believe, 'free' has ever really been a good descriptor because there has always been one thing (God) or another ruling our wills. For me it is rather a 'confined' will or a 'restrained/imprisoned' will. What causes these terms? Whatever we value (which is why I'm convinced value is essential for relationship, not 'choice' or 'will'). If I don't like God, I'd be 'imprisoned' to His will. Adam and Eve were deceived on this point. If I hate sin and its corruption, then I'd be 'imprisoned' by it until Christ. For me, this is the only/best way for me to talk about 'will.' Galatians 5:1 says Christ had to set our wills 'free.' Therefore, how could we have it prior???

A restrained, or perhaps you mean "limited" will, is not a challenge to me. It is fine to say that man's will is limited. As long as he has one, my position is justified. He can choose. Not everything has been predestined.

Galatians 5:1

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.​

There does not seem to be an explicit or even implicit denial of a will in an unsaved man there. In fact, there is strong implication that a choice is required: "Do not be entangled again." Paul gives instructions. Are we to believe there is not choice required to follow those instructions?

This part needs clarification either for agreement or to show where we might not: God can prompt man's response. Proverbs 16:9 John 15:5, I believe, applies equally to us as it did the Apostles and for me, Colossians 1:17 confirms this.

God prompting a response does not deny that a man has the ability to choose.

The only thing I insist on is that no matter the situation, people have a choice to make (regardless of how limited, manipulated or predictable it might be.)

Is this true? I want to be free to fly through the air like a bird. Is this a 'will' to fly? Is it free?

It's a desire. A choice would be to jump off a building. Reality is the pavement.

My point; will and 'desire' are the same thing, though you may rightly say that 'will' is a desire that is enacted BUT that would also mean 'enacted will' not 'free will' since I cannot fly like a bird. One day someone may come up with wings that will do exactly that, but my will, at the moment, has no outlet for flying so I don't believe it is 'free' yet, I believe, it is rightly a 'will.'
Will can 'choice' but choice isn't 'free' but 'between.' Will can also mean 'desire' like my wanting to fly like a bird and in that, it is certainly not free. So, if you'll allow, and for importance of where we may agree and differ: I believe 'will' is not always, though sometimes 'may be' the same as 'free.'

Sure, but that's not contradictory to my position.

I don't think it is that cut and dry: What I mean is, I can't say one way or the other. I'm still missing pieces and don't a this time 1) see indication in scripture or 2) am just missing where it is given there. Yours is an 'either this or that' which I appreciate for the logic of it, but I've been trying to leave off that sort of theology from influencing the rest of my theology too towardly. It leaves some of my theology in proverbial limbo, I know

It was presented as a dichotomy; there are only two possibilities. Either Satan was created with a will and he chose for himself to rebel, or God made him with no choice but to go down that road. There is no third option.

A will [is] knowing good and evil, but never doing evil.

I cannot get onboard with such a definition. It does not comport with everyday life and seems to be in place solely to serve a particular theological viewpoint.

Man didn't have that knowledge so never 'could' have chosen evil without the serpent's 'help/deception.'

And I think the challenge you face is the rollback to where Satan got the choice from. Did he get it from God, or from himself. We cannot say God, but if you say it was from Satan's will, then I ask: Why can't man have that same ability?

Thank you again for meaningful discussion.

It beats trying to convince Barbarian to engage sensibly.

Jokes aside: Likewise. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Yes, of course.

Did God predetermine that you would respond like this?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did God predetermine that you would respond like this?

[MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION] won't answer that, because the answer opens a can of worms that he (or she) would rather leave shut. I can think of one problem off the top of my head if the question is answered in the affirmative which would make Nang's position blasphemous.

Which is a clear indicator that the position is untenable and should be discarded.

 

[Nang]

Did God predetermine that you would respond like this?

Yes, of course.

 

[Nang]

[MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION] won't answer that, because the answer opens a can of worms that he (or she) would rather leave shut. I can think of one problem off the top of my head if the question is answered in the affirmative which would make Nang's position blasphemous.

How so?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How so?

Observe:

Yes, of course.

When did God predetermine that you would respond how you are currently responding?

Did He always know you would?

Or was it at some point in history prior to or after the creation of the universe?

 

[Gary K]

How so?

Since Lon hasn't answered my question about the sovereignty of God, would you? How do you view God's sovereignty? What does it mean to you?

 

[Nang]

Observe:When did God predetermine that you would respond how you are currently responding?

Did He always know you would?

Or was it at some point in history prior to or after the creation of the universe?

Since He says He has always known me, I would say my beliefs, responses, and subsequent witnessing were all predetermined before creation.

 

[Nang]

Since Lon hasn't answered my question about the sovereignty of God, would you? How do you view God's sovereignty? What does it mean to you?

Check out this thread & see if your questions are satisfied:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122698-The-Sovereignty-of-God&highlight=

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since He says He has always known me, I would say my beliefs, responses, and subsequent witnessing were all predetermined before creation.

So, at what point did He know you before creation?

A hundred years?
A thousand?
A Million?
34,018,564,430,274,884,000,764,638,287,953,290,642 years?

Or, alternatively, was there ever a time when God DID NOT know about you?
(for clarity's sake
A. Yes, there was a time when God did not know about me.
B. No, there was never a time when God did not know about me.

 

[Nang]

So, at what point did He know you before creation?

A hundred years?
A thousand?
A Million?
34,018,564,430,274,884,000,764,638,287,953,290,642 years?

There was no time or years before creation.

Or, alternatively, was there ever a time when God DID NOT know about you?
(for clarity's sake
A. Yes, there was a time when God did not know about me.
B. No, there was never a time when God did not know about me.

No, there was never a time when God did not know about me.

Why?

Because I am known by God in Jesus Christ, who is eterally known and one with the Father. John 17:20-26

 

[JudgeRightly]

There was no time or years before creation.

https://kgov.com/time

... but that's for another thread.

No, there was never a time when God did not know about me.

Ok, we'll come back to that in a moment.

One more question:

Is God's omniscience (knowing everything, past, present, and future, including your (future) existence) required for Him to be God?

In other words, is omniscience one of His attributes?