Given that the vision of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is chock full of symbolic and metaphorical imagery, I think it would be self evident that this wasn't a "screen capture" of a "live event" some unknown thousands of years in the future. It's a dream, it's a prophecy, it's a depiction... but there's nothing that would establish that it has literally "already happened." A prophecy that God guarantees will happen is not the same as it having actually already happened.
You are arguing, I believe, potentiality. God is Infinite which is beyond your and my capacity but DOES, in fact include everything that ever will be.
All things potential must come from the being of God.
Again, it assumes God is constrained in His thoughts as you or I. What we certainly do have is the Apostle traveling to an actual future.
I don't know how you can be that certain. His descriptions are mystical enough in many cases to sound like a dream or vision. While I appreciate the attempts of folks like Tim Lahaye to interpet the passages as closely to the text as possible, I find it weird and other-worldly, suggesting that they aren't meant to be taken at face value, but at prophetic value, if you know what I mean.
Even in Open Theism, God is a Master chess player where nothing at all can possibly happen without Him already at least being aware of the move you might make in life. As I've said, even in Open Theism, the conclusion is that God knows.
If He's aware of one move I might make in life, He could easily be aware of other moves I might make in life, and plan for either eventuality, if His plan is intricate enough that it requires a specific response for each move. In some cases, I expect it is that intricate, but in other cases, not.
Wait, are you going to avoid theology truth because it is unsettling???
Sorry. Couldn't find a tongue-in-cheek smiley. That was mainly a play on words.
I have been in your shoes. The O.T. made me very uncomfortable at times, but I wrestled with the text and who God is. Job 13:15 When you make choices, you've already irrevocably set the past and this doesn't unsettle you. Why? The same reason the future shouldn't bother you: One day at a time. It doesn't matter, imho. Let me entertain it: "I'm a robot with no will or choice of my own." Okay, what am I afraid of if it is true? My imagination? My limited concepts? To me, Jesus Loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, is sufficient. God can hold some answers for me for now.
All it is describing is a temporal action. I'm of exactly the same mind, for instance, regarding convertibles, that I've ever had. Difference: I change because I don't know everything, God does not.
It sounds like you do not agree with the concept of Original Sin, or at least as it was presented earlier in this thread. This isn't an accusation, but this does seem to run counter to AMR's prediction about who would be standing on one side or the other.
I think you're missing the point. All of your proof texts may be compatible with your stated understanding of "outside of time" but they do not require nor necessitate (let alone prove) the "outside of time" interpretation. They can also be more plainly and directly read as meaning that God has always been here and always will.
Er..."before time" lain: I didn't write those scriptures. They were written long ago. There is no 'outside of time interpretation.' It is clearly given and no interpretation is required. I didn't write those scriptures. They were written long ago 'after' time began. They, themselves, prove something.
... I realized that "God is outside of time" (and all that goes with that) wasn't actually a biblical statement nor was it a theory that was required by other scriptures.
▲▲▲
You'll have to unpack it, but 'all that goes with it' was indeed included and most of us believers are not Open Theists and disagree. It is clearly biblical. You might choose your words more carefully or be more astute in your stated disagreements with most of Christianity. That burden is yours. Thankfully, I've few times where I disagree with all of Christendom but me and a few others so am not caught in such a dilemma often, but I certainly have to prepare a lot whenever I am, few times though they be.
I don't need to be able to understand the metaphysics of how God can have "always existed" and be without "beginning of days" but it doesn't require assuming that God exists "outside of time" and the corresponding picture of God in the Gnostic image of an untouchable God unstained by pain or passion. Unless our scripture are written deceptively, there are some things that God doesn't yet know (that cannot yet be known) and this would strongly contradict that particular interpretation of those passages of which we both familiar with.
...inadvertently pointing to His time constraints. God is relational to His creation and close to all who call upon Him, but He very much transcends His creation and is not subject to it, including time, as a given. If someone is going to mistake what I say to an exclusion, I'd rather they know God is not like a man, nor does He think like one, and Isaiah 55:9 Metaphysics does help apprehend the difference, specifically because God is not physical. It requires metaphysical thinking to even grasp that much.
. Sometimes. Example: Two actions simultaneously do not show that, particularly. Time is a construct associated with God's creation alone, and is constrained and only relates to that which is physical.
Relationally, true. Regarding His nature? He is beyond this physical realm though involved. His Son was in it, but not 'of it,' etc. John 4:24 "...MUST!..." It isn't an option.
"In the beginning, God created..." Even creation of a special realm of time would be an action. Thus, the philosophical conjecture of "God exists outside of time" (as an explanation of prophecy) isn't something that I'm able to take seriously
"Won't?" "Cannot?" Some deficiency that resists education? What? What specifically keeps you from entertaining the thoughts and revelation of God, "seriously?" Was it supposed to be a slam against my mental prowess? What? What and why, specifically, did you say it and this way? I'm not at all bothered by it and am secure in God's doctrines here. All I want to know is why 'you' won't take this seriously. With that, I might need to know what specifically you are passing off as frivolous. Timelessness deals with His 'transcendant' nature and is serious. It deals with His nature as HE reveals it. God not measuring up to your limited understanding or transcending it? I'm have genuine trouble understanding you, your statement, and your motive for such. Again, no stress here on my part, I'm just trying to understand you and your expression at this particular venture.
I don't know how you can be that certain. His descriptions are mystical enough in many cases to sound like a dream or vision. While I appreciate the attempts of folks like Tim Lahaye to interpet the passages as closely to the text as possible, I find it weird and other-worldly, suggesting that they aren't meant to be taken at face value, but at prophetic value, if you know what I mean.
If He's aware of one move I might make in life, He could easily be aware of other moves I might make in life, and plan for either eventuality, if His plan is intricate enough that it requires a specific response for each move. In some cases, I expect it is that intricate, but in other cases, not.
I yet think this is but a knee-jerk human reaction that theology is built off of. If you listen to yourself, you are merely arguing extents of involvement, management vs. micromanagement. Read these four with me again: John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 James 4:14-16
Answer then with me: "what CAN you do without Him?" Name it?
Good insight. It 'was' unsettling. Still, I don't yet understand everything that transpired in the O.T. so still find some of it at least potentially unsettling. In Him -Lon
It sounds like you do not agree with the concept of Original Sin, or at least as it was presented earlier in this thread. This isn't an accusation, but this does seem to run counter to AMR's prediction about who would be standing on one side or the other.
@ Lon, Just found this randomly, seems to do a good job of illustrating some of the items I was trying to tell Lon, including the difference between "eternal" and "timeless" as well as correctly pointing out the (pagan) source of the "outside of time" philosophical influence.
As a disclaimer, I don't know who this person is nor do I necessarily agree with everything he uses to support his points. But it does seem to address much of the reasoning you expressed previously.
@ Lon, Just found this randomly, seems to do a good job of illustrating some of the items I was trying to tell Lon, including the difference between "eternal" and "timeless" as well as correctly pointing out the (pagan) source of the "outside of time" philosophical influence.
As a disclaimer, I don't know who this person is nor do I necessarily agree with everything he uses to support his points. But it does seem to address much of the reasoning you expressed previously.
I am :think:-ing. And what I see is that those verses clearly explain that what John is seeing is symbolic. Just look at the following verses, encapsulated and explained in vs 20. Jesus had to explain to John that he was seeing some that represented the churches--not the churches themselves. If you are suggesting that Chapter 1 of Revelation gives the key to how to interpret the rest of revelation, I agree wholeheartedly--the pictures John saw represent, but are not direct observation of, the events.
[Rev 1:11 KJV] Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[Rev 1:19 KJV] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
[Rev 1:20 KJV] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Now, if they are not direct observation of future events, what are they? I'll be the first to say, "I don't know." John said he was "in the spirit on the Lord's day," which I would also like to know what it means, but I hesitate to conclude. I will at least suggest that John was in a "trance" something similar to Peter in Acts 10:10. If I can correlate the states the two apostles were in, then I can at least suggest that what they saw was of the same category, making John's a "vision" and not a reality. That's not to say it does or does not represent an actuality.
Now we can go forth and conquer Revelation together! (Ha!)
I yet think this is but a knee-jerk human reaction that theology is built off of. If you listen to yourself, you are merely arguing extents of involvement, management vs. micromanagement. Read these four with me again: John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 James 4:14-16
Answer then with me: "what CAN you do without Him?" Name it?
What does that have to do with the question about whether what we do is all predetermined? Are you saying we can't have a thought that wasn't originally thought for us by God? That we can't be tempted unless God tempts us? That we can't sin unless God sins through us? How far do you take this? If God made us capable of action without the puppet strings, then there's a least one thing we can do without Him in the sense of His intention, and that's to sin. If the strings are required, then God is a puppet-master to the nth degree, don't you think?
:up: "Unsettling is, however, how some scriptures have set as I've read them. Isaiah 1:18
I'm not sure I'm getting your drift. Are you saying Is 1:18 is unsettling or that Is 1:18 is dealing with a settled view?
Good insight. It 'was' unsettling. Still, I don't yet understand everything that transpired in the O.T. so still find some of it at least potentially unsettling. In Him -Lon
It is an interesting exercise to consider the passages of scripture in light of the open theistic view. Whether that is right or wrong, I've at least found it to make more sense of the old testament in everything I've looked at so far. Is 1:18ff follows that pattern, as it seems to clearly call on the people to choose one thing over another, and if they choose the right, God will wash their sins away.
"in the spirit" = receiving the vision in the spirit, meaning he is not physically experiencing these things, and/or by the Holy Spirit
"on the Lord's Day" = the vision is set in the context of the prophesied Day of the Lord, as per other references to this day
As for other interpretations, I've seen some people say it's about seeing a vision on Sunday, but to me that seems to be out of place given the apocalyptic context, plus missing any other biblical use of the term for that meaning (support for applying that phrase otherwise points to early Christian writings rather than scripture itself.)
"in the spirit" = receiving the vision in the spirit, meaning he is not physically experiencing these things, and/or by the Holy Spirit
"on the Lord's Day" = the vision is set in the context of the prophesied Day of the Lord, as per other references to this day
As for other interpretations, I've seen some people say it's about seeing a vision on Sunday, but to me that seems to be out of place given the apocalyptic context, plus missing any other biblical use of the term for that meaning (support for applying that phrase otherwise points to early Christian writings rather than scripture itself.)
I've always considered it as the vision came to him on a Sunday, but yours is an interesting idea. I'm not a greek grammarian, so I can't say whether the translators did the right thing, but the structure in English is a bit weird for the "day of the Lord" interpretation.
Either way, the vision was of a prophetic nature, which both reveals and hides the actual events, it seems.
I am :think:-ing. And what I see is that those verses clearly explain that what John is seeing is symbolic. Just look at the following verses, encapsulated and explained in vs 20. Jesus had to explain to John that he was seeing some that represented the churches--not the churches themselves. If you are suggesting that Chapter 1 of Revelation gives the key to how to interpret the rest of revelation, I agree wholeheartedly--the pictures John saw represent, but are not direct observation of, the events.
[Rev 1:11 KJV] Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[Rev 1:19 KJV] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
[Rev 1:20 KJV] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Now, if they are not direct observation of future events, what are they? I'll be the first to say, "I don't know." John said he was "in the spirit on the Lord's day," which I would also like to know what it means, but I hesitate to conclude. I will at least suggest that John was in a "trance" something similar to Peter in Acts 10:10. If I can correlate the states the two apostles were in, then I can at least suggest that what they saw was of the same category, making John's a "vision" and not a reality. That's not to say it does or does not represent an actuality.
Now we can go forth and conquer Revelation together! (Ha!)
To me, this looks like "a convenient lost in details" distraction. John was told to write it down and clearly it was the future and clearly John interacted there. If you are of a mind to dismiss such, I've not a lot left. He talked to an elder there, in that future, etc. If it troubles your Open Theism, that'd be a good thing imo because it is clearly one book, why I am not and never can be an open theist.
What does that have to do with the question about whether what we do is all predetermined? Are you saying we can't have a thought that wasn't originally thought for us by God? That we can't be tempted unless God tempts us? That we can't sin unless God sins through us? How far do you take this? If God made us capable of action without the puppet strings, then there's a least one thing we can do without Him in the sense of His intention, and that's to sin. If the strings are required, then God is a puppet-master to the nth degree, don't you think?
Why would it have to entail when you sinned? God has no part of that, and it is GRACE alone that doesn't end your life at that moment. God wiped out all of Noah's generation under just such. Colossians 1:17 says you can do nothing, not even sin, without Him. Does that mean God pushed you to sin? :nono: It DOES however, mean you can do absolutely nothing without Him John 15:5 How much of you, do you want left after the day is over and Christ is on the throne? Just a little bit? How much of you must be denied before you take up the cross? More importantly, "WHY!!!??" is sin your question? Where is your Open Theist heart? To be like Jesus or just have enough of Him so your soul is secure and you can do whatever else the heck you want? Sorry to push this a bit, but I just don't get this kind of reasoning and why I get it more from Open Theists at this point. Is there a resistance to His will? A desire to be your own person? :idunno: What else is 'puppet and automaton' other than some fear mongering against Him increasing and me decreasing? Why is there a fear to having our identity in Christ?
Neither. Isaiah 1:18 is about reasoning with God over matters that may trouble us. It is a call from God, for Him to reason with us, including troubling passages.
It is an interesting exercise to consider the passages of scripture in light of the open theistic view. Whether that is right or wrong, I've at least found it to make more sense of the old testament in everything I've looked at so far. Is 1:18ff follows that pattern, as it seems to clearly call on the people to choose one thing over another, and if they choose the right, God will wash their sins away.
Less makes sense to me, specifically because God, in Open Theism, doesn't know either. He is as clueless as you and I at times. I have had several Open Theists tell me God had to literally go look, to find out where Adam was when He was hiding, that God literally had no idea what was happening and had to come down to look several other times. That just doesn't make any kind of logical sense. God stops being "God" at that point.
[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], @Lon: I don't want to hijack your conversation, which seemed to be a good one, but i'd love to be a part of it. Tell me if I'm getting in the way.
To me, this looks like "a convenient lost in details" distraction. John was told to write it down and clearly it was the future and clearly John interacted there. If you are of a mind to dismiss such, I've not a lot left. He talked to an elder there, in that future, etc. If it troubles your Open Theism, that'd be a good thing imo because it is clearly one book, why I am not and never can be an open theist.
I appreciate the point, and don't want to dismiss it, but it seems there are certain aspects of the future missing here. One is clarity. We don't understand what many of the objects and scenes mean, and their face value, as I pointed out before, is less than realistic. This is a normal thing in prophecy. This might be a normal thing in visiting the future, but I don't have the experience of doing that. The one comparison we can make is to look at prophecies from the Old Testament and compare them with their fulfillment. Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream as well as Daniel's dreams are the best I can think of for comparison. They are the most easily recognized in their fulfillment. And the images in the dreams/visions are not realistic. Statues made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, clay which represent future kingdoms; goats and beasts with varying numbers of horns; talking horns; etc. What did Daniel need? he needed spiritual guidance to discern what the visions meant. Can we compare with John's experience?
[Rev 17:1 KJV] And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
[Rev 17:7 KJV] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
[Rev 17:15 KJV] And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
[Rev 17:16 KJV] And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
[Rev 17:17 KJV] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
[Rev 17:18 KJV] And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
I left some out for brevity, but these verses show that what John was seeing, at least in this case, was NOT the actual events of the future, but was a representation of it. The angel had to explain it to him. What's interesting is that even today, there is much confusion and disagreement on what the EXPLANATION means, not to mention that what John saw was only representative.
Look at those verses 15 and 18. The "waters" John saw was really peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. The woman he saw was really a city. If John was actually watching the future events unfold, I can understand that he wouldn't recognize some things from our technology. But that's not the case here. John knew what "people" are, and he knew what a "city" is. There's no reason for him to misunderstand those things. He might not understand which city or which peoples he was seeing, but then the explanation would have been, "The multitudes of people you saw are the nations...", and "The city that you saw is Jerusalem."
If John was seeing actual future events, he was seeing it through very contorted lenses.
Why would it have to entail when you sinned? God has no part of that, and it is GRACE alone that doesn't end your life at that moment. God wiped out all of Noah's generation under just such. Colossians 1:17 says you can do nothing, not even sin, without Him. Does that mean God pushed you to sin? :nono: It DOES however, mean you can do absolutely nothing without Him John 15:5
And I answered that of course God is necessary for us to exist, but after that we are trying to decide what part God plays in our actions. If He is not responsible for our sin, despite His being necessary for us to exist and therefore necessary for sin to exist, then at some point we must recognize free agency. I know the puppet illustration bothers you, but it is supposed to--God isn't just dealing with puppets, trying to get them (us) to do His bidding. You used the "without Him we can do nothing" verses to argue against God knowing what we are going to do in the future (see spoiler). But the argument falls on its face if it the necessity of God is applied that way to our sinful acts. If God is not culpable for our sins, then the argument isn't pertinent.
If He's aware of one move I might make in life, He could easily be aware of other moves I might make in life, and plan for either eventuality, if His plan is intricate enough that it requires a specific response for each move. In some cases, I expect it is that intricate, but in other cases, not.
I yet think this is but a knee-jerk human reaction that theology is built off of. If you listen to yourself, you are merely arguing extents of involvement, management vs. micromanagement. Read these four with me again: John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 James 4:14-16
Answer then with me: "what CAN you do without Him?" Name it?
How much of you, do you want left after the day is over and Christ is on the throne? Just a little bit? How much of you must be denied before you take up the cross? More importantly, "WHY!!!??" is sin your question? Where is your Open Theist heart? To be like Jesus or just have enough of Him so your soul is secure and you can do whatever else the heck you want? Sorry to push this a bit, but I just don't get this kind of reasoning and why I get it more from Open Theists at this point. Is there a resistance to His will? A desire to be your own person? :idunno:
How about a desire to rightly divide the word of God. The whole of the Bible seems to be God's interaction with people that are intent on doing their own thing, and God is helping them understand why that's not a good idea. But His help is not of the form that controls every thought of theirs.
What else is 'puppet and automaton' other than some fear mongering against Him increasing and me decreasing? Why is there a fear to having our identity in Christ?
It's descriptive. But tell me how He can increase in your scenario?
Neither. Isaiah 1:18 is about reasoning with God over matters that may trouble us. It is a call from God, for Him to reason with us, including troubling passages.
I don't understand how this responds to my post. "Less" of what? "Either" of what?
He is as clueless as you and I at times. I have had several Open Theists tell me God had to literally go look, to find out where Adam was when He was hiding, that God literally had no idea what was happening and had to come down to look several other times. That just doesn't make any kind of logical sense. God stops being "God" at that point.
Why is it bad for God to be clueless about something that doesn't exist?
And why do His eyes need to monitor the earth? [2Ch 16:9 NASB] "For the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His. You have acted foolishly in this. Indeed, from now on you will surely have wars." This suggests that He is watching--both for whether His people are devoted to Him and for whether His people are being attacked--not just going by His plan. Just because God doesn't have "eyes" like we do (I presume), doesn't mean that He doesn't do what His word says He does. Or does it? Do you think your view of God is more accurate than the prophet's?
If our hairs are "numbered", does that mean God has planned the number of hairs our heads are going to have, even if we pull some out (or plug some in, nowadays)? Or does it mean that He is aware of how many hairs we have at any point in time? The passage, including the sparrows' deaths, and the disciples' needs, is about current events, not future.
I agree that the Adam thing is over the edge, but is that the main tenet of open theism, that God doesn't even know what is happening in the present, or just someone's ill-conceived defense? I'm sure you would protest my using someone's poor defense of Calvinism to tarnish the whole of Calvinism.
Derf, I don't think we understand Lon well enough to make good discussion progress yet.
For example, I don't know how to anticipate how he would respond to questions such as "How did Adam sin" and "How did the serpent sin" plus that previous responses to how man (or angels) could sin without (before?) they had free will seem somewhat confusing and/or not well enough explained.
Lon, if you could explain what you see there I would like to know (I'm not even sure how to guess.)
Derf, I don't think we understand Lon well enough to make good discussion progress yet.
For example, I don't know how to anticipate how he would respond to questions such as "How did Adam sin" and "How did the serpent sin" plus that previous responses to how man (or angels) could sin without (before?) they had free will seem somewhat confusing and/or not well enough explained.
Lon, if you could explain what you see there I would like to know (I'm not even sure how to guess.)
Freewill is a difficult subject. Most of the time, what people mean, is 'autonomy.' Why? Because they are talking about 'ability' (autonomy) to 'not' love God, obey Him, or serve Him. In addition, it is a 'sense' of self people are talking about thus a lot of the same "autonomy."
It is, indeed how we were born: Ephesians 2:12
That condition, because we are 'used' to it, is treasured, even in Christendom and celebrated as a 'gift' from God. It is also the 'reason' for the Fall specifically because those who are freewill proponents, often enjoy and even cherish such autonomy. "He who would love his/her life, will lose it" always struck against the 'me' id/ego sense of me. I really never grasped it (and still don't, I'm still independent and not quite as 'one' with you or the Savior like John 17 calls for). The call to 'deny self' is and was a huge crisis of 'free - me - will' the day I heard it. Paul simply said this 'flesh' will is not of consequence. 1 Corinthians 3:15
I've found that those things about me, that people love, are 1) via a new nature and 2) Christ. I just didn't have the attention that 'Christ-in-me' gets (and rightly so). The things I do that are in His image ARE His-will and His. It is wholly different than just-me prior to salvation. It may be said there is uniqueness to me, in the way I portray Christ in me 1 Corinthians 12:4-30
Romans 7:18 Paul is quick to distinguish 'in my flesh." When was it that I 'started' having Freewill? It seems it was/is expressly describing my autonomous nature still in the Flesh. Romans 8:8 sells me off as a slave to sin and death, however. Romans 9, develops the theme of the will out further by describing us as 'clay' in the Potter's hands with the accusation "Why have you made me like this!?" Such a question comes from a will that is caught between a nature that recognizes, in this case, sin and a will to sin. "Why have you made me like this?" is a cry against God at that point, not about 'my freewill' but against a will that is held accountable TO that will. IOW, it isn't the 'free' part that is the concern, it is the consequence and a lack of freewill to do the right thing, was the problem.
Whatever condition the will is in, it is drastically different from the man in the flesh and the man who is a 'new' creation, such that 'freewill' is incredibly vague as well as confounds our nature in Christ where we are subsumed in Him and He is our new identity. A 'freewill' thus either means "our will" or "His will" depending on our focus.
Finally, In the Garden, God gave 1) the nature and 2) directives. The 'will' was His creation and He said 'it is good.' The problem came when His Will was no longer followed, thus 'our will' or freewill, to me, is associated specifically, and understood mostly, in regard to the Fall.
Freewill is a difficult subject. Most of the time, what people mean, is 'autonomy.' Why? Because they are talking about 'ability' (autonomy) to 'not' love God, obey Him, or serve Him. In addition, it is a 'sense' of self people are talking about thus a lot of the same "autonomy."
It never thought it was difficult or complicated before. I'm with Stripe so far, living men possess free will. They can choose what they do with their lives, to follow the narrow and the straight or the wide and the broad, to pursue the good or seize hold of the evil. Aligning our will with God's is not the same as no longer having will, it is about aligning our will in a way that is in agreement with his will.
Consider this account of Abraham and Isaac,
Genesis 22:12 KJV
(12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
This account would make little sense if we are anything but creatures that our in possession of our own will. God didn't say "now you know that you fearest God" (although that might also be true) but that now He knows... because of how Abraham responded to this test.
John 15:13 KJV
(13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Consider the implications of Christ's statement in the gospel above... does it demonstrate any love if your life is laid down for you, without your will or decision having any involvement in this? If I sacrifice a young goat does it show that there is no greater love than what the goat has shown? It might represent the love on behalf of whomever gave up his goat, but even then it's still something else's life, and not his own.
I might anticipate someone saying that this was Christ Jesus, that of course he has will... but what did Jesus command in the verse just previous?
John 15:12 KJV
(12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
If Jesus can only lay down his own life willingly (that no man takes it from him) and this is only possible because he has will, and his command is for us to love each other as he loves us, this would be an impossible (absurd) command if we only had the illusion of will. Love requires will, Christ's own command here depends on this basic assumption.
I don't want to get too overboard here at once (we would all do well to be more concise) even though it is so easy to write oceans on this type of theme...
Finally, In the Garden, God gave 1) the nature and 2) directives. The 'will' was His creation and He said 'it is good.' The problem came when His Will was no longer followed, thus 'our will' or freewill, to me, is associated specifically, and understood mostly, in regard to the Fall.
I'm not sure I understand this last part. Maybe I might make some smaller questions?
a) Did God create the serpent with free will?
b) Did God create the man with free will?
c) Was the man "good" and the serpent "perfect" when they were first created?
d) What is sin? (there's a passage in Romans that might be relevant)
e) Did God make man and the serpent in such a way that could act in no other way than to sin?
f) Depending on your answers to A and B, when (and how) were man and serpent changed from non-willed to free-willed?
g) or perhaps the ultimate question, WHY would God have created them without will and then given them will later on?
All of this leading up the the question later, of how is it even possible to sin without free will? I still probably don't have enough questions, but if you can see my line of thinking here maybe you can help me out with some short rapid-fire statements. Please understand why I have to ask, because I've received entirely different answers from Calvinists before, such as "Adam and Eve had free will, but Cain and Abel didn't" so I'm not sure what to expect now.
Derf, I don't think we understand Lon well enough to make good discussion progress yet.
For example, I don't know how to anticipate how he would respond to questions such as "How did Adam sin" and "How did the serpent sin" plus that previous responses to how man (or angels) could sin without (before?) they had free will seem somewhat confusing and/or not well enough explained.
Lon, if you could explain what you see there I would like to know (I'm not even sure how to guess.)
Yes, perhaps that's so, but the attempt, in love between brothers, is greater progress than the resolution of the doctrine.
I'm not in agreement with [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] on this, and he's strong enough (stubborn enough?) not to be swayed much with my feeble explanations. But I've found him willing to explain and expound on his position often, and offer his own commendations back to me.
Yes, perhaps that's so, but the attempt, in love between brothers, is greater progress than the resolution of the doctrine.
I'm not in agreement with @Lon on this, and he's strong enough (stubborn enough?) not to be swayed much with my feeble explanations. But I've found him willing to explain and expound on his position often, and offer his own commendations back to me.
Something lacking from many (most?) discussions (attacks?) in these sorts of forums is the ability of both sides to properly listen to the other. Listening is a form of love also? When both sides know (really know) that they have been listened to and are being questioned fairly, then it might be possible to progress in discussion.
Consider this application: Let's assume that God knows (really knows) what are trials and troubles on earth are like. Did he need to be manifest in the flesh to understand this? If we say no, then consider the next question - what does it take for us to believe that God really knows what our trials and troubles on earth are like? Having an advocate and high priest that suffered in every way like we do is a rather convincing argument, is it not?
So if Christ was willing to be hung from a tree, we should especially strive to listen to one another. It's something that I'm sure we all can work on more (I admit this applies to myself.)
lain: I didn't write those scriptures. They were written long ago. There is no 'outside of time interpretation.' It is clearly given and no interpretation is required. I didn't write those scriptures. They were written long ago 'after' time began. They, themselves, prove something. 
