Featured Good vs Evil 2

The main problem my friend is that you keep trying to reason from Bible that Humans still have real free will, and the plain truth is we all lost that option in the fall!

 

Even when being confronted by the enabling and freeing truth of the gospel appeal sent by God's gracious inspiration?

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

There is NO REASON to suggest that God's appeal for man to be reconciled from their fallen condition cannot be responded to willingly on the basis of that fallen condition. It makes NO SENSE! Why would God hold men responsible for their response to His VERY OWN appeal to be reconciled from their fallen condition when that very fallen condition would keep them unable to respond to that appeal???

 

Just call me Charlie.

 

Where is the other adult?

Luke, if any view is equating us with God it is the Determinist, because it leaves no room for distinction between the will of God and the wills of his creatures, but I doubt you would acknowledge that. I will continue to maintain that God is Holy and distinct from his creation, not the divine puppet master determining their evil desires and actions.

Charlie Brown

 

Because every society seeks to worship a god that must be appeased, it would seem rational that there is some understanding of the need to assuage some deity's wrath. A human rationalization would attempt to show that all humankind must then have some innate ability to "respond willingly" from the fallen condition to the "appeal" made by Scriptures and presentation.

However, the fallen condition does not mean humankind is given ability to seek God as you know the Scriptures state.

It is at this point that you and I would agree.

You and I would also agree that it takes "the enabling and freeing truth of the gospel appeal sent by God's gracious inspiration."

It is the form of "God's gracious inspiration" in which some might find issue.

For instance, I would state that the reason humankind seek god, is a validation that they have no ability to seek God. That unless God does a direct and sure work in that person to "quicken" them, they remain in an unsaved condition.

Would that not fit your question?

Does not the Scriptures state that essential to salvation are the work of the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the presentation?

If no humankind "seeks God" but seeks god, then it follows that humankind have no desire, nor inclination toward God outside of the purposed work of the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the presentation.
The question you ask has been answered in the Scriptures. For example, God placed the decalogue as a demand KNOWING no human could keep every aspect of the law.

Because He is God. His ways, thoughts, .... are far above humankind's ability to make sense.

God did not have to impose some super-naturalism upon pharaoh to harden the heart. Pharaoh's heart was already hardened. He had long turned a deaf ear to the conditions of the Jews. He had often already sought ways to diminish and afflict them. All God had to do was confirm the hardness. In effect saying, "Pharaoh's heart is hard. Yep, it will remain hard."

Was God unfair?

No.

Can God be questioned as to why he chose that specific pharaoh over some other?

No.

Can God be questioned as to why he selected Moses and not Aaron?

No.

What may seem rational and what makes sense to humankind can be seen as foolish and nonsense to God. Look at these examples:

18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

​

The question then is, "Under what structure do those who believe, believe?"

That brings back the Scriptures already alluded:

22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your calling , (Skandelon) brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29so that no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

​

Skandelon, I may have not added to the thread very well, and my train of thought has been interrupted often as I have written this post, but I trust what I have written will help folks to understand.

We both agree that without the intervention of God, no person would be saved.

Why God chooses the foolish, the base, ... I don't know, but he does. It is His choice to make, and not ours to question.

Our job (as you do, do) is to make an appeal, "preach the Word - in and out of season" and trust the "Lord of the harvest." Do the work, the best we can, for the Glory of God.

John has an interesting way to state what I am trying to post:

19We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 20And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

​

When the world lies in the power of the evil one and the worship of god(s), there is no knowledge (understanding) of God.

BUT when God gives understanding, then believers "know Him who is true" (as opposed to the evil one); that believers are "in him who is true" (as opposed to the evil one). That "the true God and eternal life" (as opposed to the evil one).

Isn't it interesting that John ended with, "...keep from idols."

The evil one knows our desires better than we know ourselves.

 

Nope, I've admitted that Compatibilism is possible. You are the one claiming God is not abl to create free creatures on the basis you can't comprehend it.

My statement was to reveal the irony of your accusation of my view making man to be God, when its your view that blurs the line between the will of creator and the created. I'm fully aware that NEITHER of us equate God with man...but then again, I didn't make that accusation, YOU DID.

Nope. Not self existent, but self-determining. Created to exists as morally autonomous creatures...you know, response-able ones who are actually enabled to respond.

But his self is based on and dependent on God's creative ability to create responsible creatures.

Therefore [morally accountable choices] are ultimately based on and dependent on the chooser.

Did you ever provide a definition of 'will' for us?

 

That presumes that being responsible (able to respond) is an "incommunicable attribute of God," which again is question begging...

:sleep:

Tired of it...when you want to engage in a real debate let me know.

 

If beaten means worn out from dealing with immature bullying tactics, circular reasoning, and question begging then considered me beat. Congratulations. Take your lap. :laugh:

 

Huh, ...... How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

 

Since I've never believed that or made that claim you are correct. You have soundly beaten the straw-man you created. Congrats!

huh... We aren't omnipotent. We aren't omniscient. We are omnipresent. We are not infinite. But we are responsible.

Free will is not unlimited freedom, Luke. It's RESPONSIBLE, meaning response-able...enabled to respond (not held responsible for how another determines you to respond). You redefine the word's "responsible" and the word "choice" to meaningless affirmations of divine determinism all the while claiming you affirm responsibility and human choice. Any one can redefine a word to mean something else in order to affirm its consistency with a system of belief, but that doesn't make it right.