Good versus Evil

[Winman]

When God formed the earth, He called it "good" not perfect.

Obviously, evil was already present at the formation, for He put a tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden.

Do we have such a tree available to modern man?

Are we not all formed and prone to evil and have to be taught good?

Adam did not have to be taught what was good but what was evil - don't eat the fruit of that tree. Was the tree itself evil? Would God have placed evil in the garden?

I do not agree that "privation" is the source of evil.

Lucifer was not in "privation" (lacking full or sufficient) in resources, knowledge, or ability when "evil was found in his heart." Ezekiel 28

“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you."
​

Some would use human understanding and have two (perhaps three) conditions that can exist. That which is and that which isn't. For example Pathos (feelings) and the opposite antipathy (anti-pathos - or opposed feelings). One is to consider something good, or evil opposite. The third would be some neutral position residing in the medium.

But, consider the thinking that evil is not a "privation" of good, but a "perversion" of good.

Lucifer took good and claimed it for himself. Certainly, that was depriving God of glorification, but if we follow the thinking of some on the thread - such privation obliges God be considered evil (being deprived of glory) and Lucifer being as good having the glory.

Rather, God remained God, and Lucifer has continued from that time to pervert the truth into a lie.

All good has the ability to be marred by perversion. The earth was good, the garden was good, the wholesomeness of all creation was good, but the good was made perverse - not deprived - it remains that God allows the rain on the just and unjust.

Often we humankind dwell in the thinking of either/or - neither/nor rather than catching a glimpse of better,best, worse, worst.

God gave the law to show what was best and establish that which was not the best.

The OP seeks to discuss "On what grounds can one speak about a past atrocity as being "evil" when it was determined by God for his Glory?"

IMO it is the same issue as what was foundational to the earliest account of evil - perverting good into self adulation.

God determined all for His glory (the heavens declare the glory of God and such other verses) but perversion brings atrocities. Doesn't mean that good does not still exist.

I do not agree that God determined sin would occur. Why then would God be grieved at sin?

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If God desired and determined that sin would occur, then it is nonsensical he would be grieved when his own plan came to pass.

 

[agedman]

I do not agree that God determined sin would occur. Why then would God be grieved at sin?

For sure and certain, God does not "determine(d) sin, and if you took that I was making a case that God does from the post, you would be mistaken.

Gen 6:6

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If God desired and determined that sin would occur, then it is nonsensical he would be grieved when his own plan came to pass.

God had no more "desire and determination(ed) that sin would occur in Lucifer than he did in the garden with Adam and Eve.

However, because both were CREATED with free will (no longer is humankind "created") then the God would have been remiss in not including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For Lucifer certainly was created before the formation of this earth.

In eternity, the "evil" (perverse) is locked away in the lake of fire which is seen and the smoke of it rises for eternity. But the heavenly has the tree of life.

Winman, folks (as this thread shows) usually do not consider evil as originating from perversion, but privation.

When Christ was in the desert, he was deprived of sustenance, but He such did not make Him evil.

When Lucifer came to tempt - did he not use perversion to persuade?

When Lucifer came to tempt Eve - did he not use perversion to persuade?

What of modern man - is not the uses of perversion of the Scriptures into "I think..." the persuasion of most folks fall into - even today? Often in the modern churches you hear "I think..." more often than "Thus saith the Lord..."

Perversion can certainly bring privation, and usually does.

God didn't have to superimpose some one time miraculous hardening of pharaohs heart, merely confirm what was already hard. Pharaoh had long perverted justice.

Ultimately, Lucifer will be deprived of all that he desired and longed for in self adulation.

Until then, "he goes about seeking whom he can devour."

It is interesting to me that in that verse the figurative language portrays Lucifer strutting as the supreme one worthy of worship (a god) to swallow up everyone. Now what is the picture we have of God? Is it not of unfathomable riches, glorious abode, with absolutely no deficiency of health? The typical US "Christian" has the perverted thinking as the last church of Revelations.

Ultimately, the perversion of the assembly (as shown in Rev.) has Christ outside the assembly. The assembly thinks that because of health and wealth they reside in the will of God - but have bought into perversion resulting in delusion and the stated deprivation.

It is the same type and kind of perversion that Lucifer offered Christ.

The same found in Lucifer in the first record of evil.

 

[Luke2427]

Boy, talk about an argument that is EASY to refute, Paul clearly refutes this nonsense.

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul repeatedly says that he does things he does not want to do here.

Pretty much DESTROYS Luke's false view.

EVERYBODY DOES THINGS THEY DON'T WANT TO DO EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!


How many times do I have to clarify this for you!?!?!?!?!?

I want a double cheeseburger. I don't want to deny myself.

Also...

I don't want to eat that cheeseburger. I DO want to deny myself.

BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, WINMAN.

So if I do either I am going to do what I DON'T want to do.

Now, which one will I do?

I will do the one that I want to do THE MOST!!!


THE MOST!!!!

Can you get that???

 

[agedman]

EVERYBODY DOES THINGS THEY DON'T WANT TO DO EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!


How many times do I have to clarify this for you!?!?!?!?!?

I want a double cheeseburger. I don't want to deny myself.

Also...

I don't want to eat that cheeseburger. I DO want to deny myself.

BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, WINMAN.

So if I do either I am going to do what I DON'T want to do.

Now, which one will I do?

I will do the one that I want to do THE MOST!!!


THE MOST!!!!

Can you get that???

If he had read the writing of Johnathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will) with any understanding...

never mind, sometime, maybe it will be read with awareness and comprehension.

 

[Winman]

EVERYBODY DOES THINGS THEY DON'T WANT TO DO EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!

How many times do I have to clarify this for you!?!?!?!?!?

I want a double cheeseburger. I don't want to deny myself.

Also...

I don't want to eat that cheeseburger. I DO want to deny myself.

BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, WINMAN.

So if I do either I am going to do what I DON'T want to do.

Now, which one will I do?

I will do the one that I want to do THE MOST!!!

THE MOST!!!!

Can you get that???

Well, I disagree, I don't think a person always does what they want to do the most.

Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

In the garden, Jesus asked Peter and the sons of Zebedee to watch and pray with him. But when he returned to them, they were asleep. Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing, but their flesh was weak. I believe this is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7.

I can relate to this, we have long meetings at work on occasion, and I always have great difficulty staying alert and awake. I am the kind of person that needs to keep moving, if I sit still for a long period of time, especially in a warm room, I tend to get drowsy and sleepy.

Now, don't tell me I want to fall asleep, because I don't. My greatest desire is to be wide awake and alert, and paying attention. But invariably I get very drowsy and must fight off sleep.

Now, the body itself does not have a desire per say, it just feels tired and drowsy, just as the scriptures say the disciples eyes were heavy. But I would bet they sincerely desired to stay awake with Jesus and pray. So, we do not always do what we most want to do.

As far as Jonathan Edwards, I prefer to read the scriptures.

I have seen his church, it is just a few miles away from where I work.

 

[agedman]

Well, I disagree, I don't think a person always does what they want to do the most.

Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

In the garden, Jesus asked Peter and the sons of Zebedee to watch and pray with him. But when he returned to them, they were asleep. Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing, but their flesh was weak. I believe this is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7.

I can relate to this, we have long meetings at work on occasion, and I always have great difficulty staying alert and awake. I am the kind of person that needs to keep moving, if I sit still for a long period of time, especially in a warm room, I tend to get drowsy and sleepy.

Now, don't tell me I want to fall asleep, because I don't. My greatest desire is to be wide awake and alert, and paying attention. But invariably I get very drowsy and must fight off sleep.

Now, the body itself does not have a desire per say, it just feels tired and drowsy, just as the scriptures say the disciples eyes were heavy. But I would bet they sincerely desired to stay awake with Jesus and pray. So, we do not always do what we most want to do.

As far as Jonathan Edwards, I prefer to read the scriptures.

I have seen his church, it is just a few miles away from where I work.

Apparently you align desire and will with what is most needed. Unfortunately, such alignment isn't always in step.

If you had read Edwards you would not be so confused.

I will give you a clue.

The next time you have a protracted meeting, do not attend the bathroom and start the meeting with a full bladder.

You will have no problem overcoming sleep, for your "desire" will certainly be on what you really desire.

Your brain will overcome the natural desire that impacts every human who sits or lays back for an longer period of time.

There is a nerve ending that senses when the body is at rest (either sitting or laying) and cues up the brain to start shutting down. Attention is the first area impacted - usually this happens between the 15 and 30 minute mark.

I have long expressed to pastors to either cut their sermons to 15 minutes, or plan to have the folks stand occasionally during a longer time.

 

[Skandelon]

Quote from it please so I don't have to read the whole article. I am, as you are, very busy.

I already did and you asked for the source...I even summed it up for you. Augustine still set the origin of sin with the free will of man.

Its the same thing.

Not even close.

It still has people choosing one thing over the other without cause.

Incorrect the chooser is the cause of his choice. What is the cause of God's choice to save you? God.

Why did you choose a hamburger over a hotdog?

Because my WILL is FREE!!!!

Exactly, for if God determined my will then I wouldn't have been the one who made the choice, He would have been, thus the question asked should actually have been, "Why did God choose for me to pick a Hamburger over a hotdog?"

No, because you WANTED a hamburger over a hotdog at that moment that you made the choice.

Humans, unlike animals, have the ability to choose to act based on any of our many competing desires. We are able to reason, deliberate and choose. Animals react on instinct (reflexive predetermine responses based on given stimuli), which is apparently what you think human choice is limited to as well?

There is always a reason people choose what they choose at any given moment.

Indeed, that is why it is called a choice. The choosers make choices. They are the cause of their choices.

No its nothing like that. God is infinite, and eternal. Nothing could be a worse conflation than the one you just made.

You have no basis on which to conclude that our choices could not be anything like those of God, except your own limited opinion. Given that God created us in his own image and He is all powerful, there is NO REASON to suggest that if God so desired that He wouldn't be able to create being with such abilities. You just assume that it couldn't be because you can't understand it. That seems to be a very limited view of God's creative abilities. Do you really believe He is only able to create determined creatures? Or do you just believe that such a free creature was possible for God, but he picked a determined one instead?

I should not have to tell you that omnipotence has NOTHING to do with God being able to do anything like lie or be illogical which would be against his nature.

Explain how being contra-causally free choices, like God does, is illogical? Do you mean its unexplainable?

 

[Luke2427]

Well, I disagree, I don't think a person always does what they want to do the most.

Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

In the garden, Jesus asked Peter and the sons of Zebedee to watch and pray with him. But when he returned to them, they were asleep. Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing, but their flesh was weak. I believe this is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7.

I can relate to this, we have long meetings at work on occasion, and I always have great difficulty staying alert and awake. I am the kind of person that needs to keep moving, if I sit still for a long period of time, especially in a warm room, I tend to get drowsy and sleepy.

Now, don't tell me I want to fall asleep, because I don't. My greatest desire is to be wide awake and alert, and paying attention. But invariably I get very drowsy and must fight off sleep.

Now, the body itself does not have a desire per say, it just feels tired and drowsy, just as the scriptures say the disciples eyes were heavy. But I would bet they sincerely desired to stay awake with Jesus and pray. So, we do not always do what we most want to do.

As far as Jonathan Edwards, I prefer to read the scriptures.

I have seen his church, it is just a few miles away from where I work.

Who on earth does not think the will is limited?

What are you trying to prove with all of this?

Do you think that we haven't already thought of this? Do you think you are informing us of something?

Of COURSE you can't always do what you want to do. I want to fly to the moon like Superman. That's what I most want to do sometimes. But I can not WILL myself to do that and I cannot WILL myself to stay awake when I am tired.

But when I have two wills and I am able to do either of them I will always do the one I want to do the most.

OBVIOUSLY Winman, if I am too tired to do it I CAN'T!

I don't know what you think you are adding to the conversation by pointing out something so ridiculously obvious!!!

 

[Luke2427]

I already did and you asked for the source...I even summed it up for you. Augustine still set the origin of sin with the free will of man.

You didn't provide the quote for his "free will" comments. If you did, you did not cite it so that we could tell it was a quote.

It looked like you just SAYING it and putting up some link claiming that is was in that article somewhere.

Not even close.

Yes it is. Your turn.

Incorrect the chooser is the cause of his choice. What is the cause of God's choice to save you? God.

God CAN originate things. He is the unmoved mover.

We can't. We are made of stuff. We are finite. Just because God can do something doesn't mean WE can for heaven's sake!

Exactly, for if God determined my will then I wouldn't have been the one who made the choice, He would have been, thus the question asked should actually have been, "Why did God choose for me to pick a Hamburger over a hotdog?"

I don't have a problem with that. I think you are oversimplifying but I TOTALLY agree that in an ultimate sense in really was up to God whether you would choose a hamburger or a hotdog and your choice was PRECISELY what he has always intended for you to choose.

No problem at all here.

Humans, unlike animals, have the ability to choose to act based on any of our many competing desires. We are able to reason, deliberate and choose. Animals react on instinct (reflexive predetermine responses based on given stimuli), which is apparently what you think human choice is limited to as well?

There are several premises here that you have not proven and I reject.
One example is that all animals have to choose by is instinct.

Indeed, that is why it is called a choice. The choosers make choices. They are the cause of their choices.

What does that even MEAN? THEY are the cause of their own choices?

Its nonsense. In what WAY are they the "cause" of their own choices?

Are they the cause of their own desires whereby they CAUSE those choices?

You have no basis on which to conclude that our choices could not be anything like those of God, except your own limited opinion.

No that's bull.

It is not my OPINION that Skandelon is not Almighty. That is a fact. Almightyness is an attribute that can only belong to God.

The same with being a first cause. Only God can be the first cause, the prime mover. All other creatures and there actions are contingent.

It is not my opinion that Skandelon cannot make something of nothing.

now you can say all of this crap about "I was made in God's image so that means I can do stuff that God does," but its just crap. Its just words that are utterly meaningless and illogical.

You can no more BE a first cause of anything than you can create ANYTHING from NOTHING.

 

[agedman]

Folks,

Ultimately the will is not "free" in any sense.

Humankind respond to the needs and desires (lusts) which motivate.

For instance, in the physical sense, if my bladder is full, I desire to find a place for relief. My will is not "free," but focused upon a solution.

One may say, "But you have freedom to choose among available options (wet pants, bushes and yard, public or private bathrooms...)" but ultimately such freedom is not an expression of "free will" but seeking available options and which criteria with the corresponding levels of hierarchy of appropriateness in the social/societal setting would be acceptable.

The newborn is directed strictly by bodily function. A change takes place when that baby conforms, brings the body under control, and is structured by what is socially acceptable reinforced by the gathering of pleasing response from other human units. There is no "freedom of will" but a conforming to a hierarchy of need and lusts.

One does not choose a hamburger over a hotdog because of "free will." Rather, it is the need expressed in the desire to eat, and what is the greatest craving superimposed upon the list of available options that conforms the "will" to decision.

Continuing with the hamburger/hotdog illustration, there is also the consideration of the physical. The will is conformed not only to desires, but the desires are often conforming to actual nutrient demands made by body's physical deficits.

The nutrient need structure for minerals (salt, zinc, potassium...) and other such cause the cravings to be modified that the "hierarchy of need" is impacted. Often the nutrient need structure is depraved in that the cravings for more than necessary salt, sugar, potassium... is imposed and the cravings then must be over ridden, not by "freedom of the will" but bringing the body under subjection.

One can say, but is that decision then not an expression of the "freedom to choose?"

Not really, for such decision making may on the surface seem free, but ultimately it is structured again by a hierarchy conformed by motive conforming desires. One desires to be physically enhanced, or fit, or in some other manner changed not out of "freedom of the will" but motivated cravings out of the lust of the flesh, or perhaps the pride of life. Perhaps there is a certain "need" for acceptance by peer and family. Such is no longer a "freedom to choose or freedom of the will" but a conforming out of lust.

Does not the Scriptures warn of the "lust's" and what person does not struggle to conform at least one into what is socially, personally, or some other hierarchy of acceptance?

The presence of "choices" does not translate to a "freedom to choose" or a "freedom of the will." That would be like a person who is destitute passing a field of horses can by some impulse acquire a horse. No right thinking person would not see that the acquiring has a huge number of aspects many of which would be derived from motive, need, desire, lust, ... - none of them "free."

Christ addressed this thinking when stating such items as: can a person add one cubit of height to their body or a hair on their head by thought alone or some craving, or who can add minutes to their life?

There is no "freedom of the will" as some modern thinking would suppose.

The Scriptures clearly state that the body is not "free;" that the believer is to be no slave to the body and the lusts thereof, but to bring the body under subjection.

The Scriptures clearly state that the mind is not "free" but to be transformed.

The Scriptures clearly state that the natural spirit is not "free" but the believer is to be filled with the Holy Spirit...

Humankind want to state they have "freedom of the will" when in all practical and biblical sense, that is a mere deception of the enemy of the believer. The same deception presented to Eve in Eden.

For every expression of "freedom of the will" there is the hierarchy of needs and lusts that frame every aspect of life. Eve's lust - to be like God. Lucifer's lust - to be God.


Consider - does God have "freedom of the will?"

The answer is obviously, no.

For God can do nothing contrary to His nature.

His nature conforms His will and desires.

If God does not have freedom of the will, then what makes man greater than God?


(the more I "edited" the longer the post became - I finally just stopped writing)

 

[Luke2427]

Folks,

Ultimately the will is not "free" in any sense.

Humankind respond to the needs and desires (lusts) which motivate.

For instance, in the physical sense, if my bladder is full, I desire to find a place for relief. My will is not "free," but focused upon a solution.

One may say, "But you have freedom to choose among available options (wet pants, bushes and yard, public or private bathrooms...)" but ultimately such freedom is not an expression of "free will" but seeking available options and which criteria with the corresponding levels of hierarchy of appropriateness in the social/societal setting would be acceptable.

The newborn is directed strictly by bodily function. A change takes place when that baby conforms, brings the body under control, and is structured by what is socially acceptable reinforced by the gathering of pleasing response from other human units. There is no "freedom of will" but a conforming to a hierarchy of need and lusts.

One does not choose a hamburger over a hotdog because of "free will." Rather, it is the need expressed in the desire to eat, and what is the greatest craving superimposed upon the list of available options that conforms the "will" to decision.

Continuing with the hamburger/hotdog illustration, there is also the consideration of the physical. The will is conformed not only to desires, but the desires are often conforming to actual nutrient demands made by body's physical deficits.

The nutrient need structure for minerals (salt, zinc, potassium...) and other such cause the cravings to be modified that the "hierarchy of need" is impacted. Often the nutrient need structure is depraved in that the cravings for more than necessary salt, sugar, potassium... is imposed and the cravings then must be over ridden, not by "freedom of the will" but bringing the body under subjection.

One can say, but is that decision then not an expression of the "freedom to choose?"

Not really, for such decision making may on the surface seem free, but ultimately it is structured again by a hierarchy conformed by motive conforming desires. One desires to be physically enhanced, or fit, or in some other manner changed not out of "freedom of the will" but motivated cravings out of the lust of the flesh, or perhaps the pride of life. Perhaps there is a certain "need" for acceptance by peer and family. Such is no longer a "freedom to choose or freedom of the will" but a conforming out of lust.

Does not the Scriptures warn of the "lust's" and what person does not struggle to conform at least one into what is socially, personally, or some other hierarchy of acceptance?

The presence of "choices" does not translate to a "freedom to choose" or a "freedom of the will." That would be like a person who is destitute passing a field of horses can by some impulse acquire a horse. No right thinking person would not see that the acquiring has a huge number of aspects many of which would be derived from motive, need, desire, lust, ... - none of them "free."

Christ addressed this thinking when stating such items as: can a person add one cubit of height to their body or a hair on their head by thought alone or some craving, or who can add minutes to their life?

There is no "freedom of the will" as some modern thinking would suppose.

The Scriptures clearly state that the body is not "free;" that the believer is to be no slave to the body and the lusts thereof, but to bring the body under subjection.

The Scriptures clearly state that the mind is not "free" but to be transformed.

The Scriptures clearly state that the natural spirit is not "free" but the believer is to be filled with the Holy Spirit...

Humankind want to state they have "freedom of the will" when in all practical and biblical sense, that is a mere deception of the enemy of the believer. The same deception presented to Eve in Eden.

For every expression of "freedom of the will" there is the hierarchy of needs and lusts that frame every aspect of life. Eve's lust - to be like God. Lucifer's lust - to be God.


Consider - does God have "freedom of the will?"

The answer is obviously, no.

For God can do nothing contrary to His nature.

His nature conforms His will and desires.

If God does not have freedom of the will, then what makes man greater than God?


(the more I "edited" the longer the post became - I finally just stopped writing)

Yep.

______

 

[Skandelon]

It all boils down to this.

God CAN originate things.

Can God originate creatures with free will? Apparently you don't think He is capable of such a task, but I stand in agreement with AW Tozer on this point:

God Sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God​

 

[Skandelon]

You didn't provide the quote for his "free will" comments. If you did, you did not cite it so that we could tell it was a quote.

It looked like you just SAYING it and putting up some link claiming that is was in that article somewhere.

If you actually had any desire to actually engage this point you would...there are dozens of articles about Augustine's teaching on the Privation of Good and his attributing the origin of sin to the free will of man, pick one and engage it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist...I really don't care.

Just because God can do something doesn't mean WE can for heaven's sake!

But that is not the argument Luke. You are claiming something is impossible on the sole bases that it couldn't logically happen, and by the very fact that you accept that it is POSSIBLE with God PROVES all I need to PROVE. You're being unable to explain, define, qualify or otherwise contain God's free choices simply proves that the choice of free moral creature of GOD may likewise be just as mysterious to our finite limited minds. You can't affirm and claim mystery with regard to one while dismissing the other as impossible. Not unless you believe God is just too weak to have created a contra-causally free moral creature. Is that what you believe Luke? That God is just too weak to create someone with the ability to make first contra-causal choices?

I don't have a problem with that. I think you are oversimplifying but I TOTALLY agree that in an ultimate sense in really was up to God whether you would choose a hamburger or a hotdog and your choice was PRECISELY what he has always intended for you to choose.

At least you admit it, which is more than I can say for many Calvinists I talk to about this. Do me a favor and stop calling it man's choice then, because you and I both know we aint choosing jack squat if what you believe is true...we are just actors in his play and right now, in this discussion between me and you, God is putting on a puppet show with his right and left hand making us debate each other when in reality its just God debating himself. :laugh:

Its nonsense. In what WAY are they the "cause" of their own choices?

In the same way God is the cause of his own choice. It is called "self-determination" versus divine-determination. You have God determining Dahmer's activities and then punishing him for it, where as I have Dahmer making those determinations for himself. But whatever floats your boat...

No that's bull.

mature.

It is not my OPINION that Skandelon is not Almighty.

Oh, so the author of Genesis thought He was the Almighty by writing that we are created in God's image? Apparently if anyone thinks we could possibly have any quality that is LIKE God, then he must also believe he is equal to God??? :laugh:

Almightyness is an attribute that can only belong to God.

True, but we are talking about the ability to make choices, not the ability to be almighty. There is a difference.

RESPONSIBILITY. Can God create man with it or not?

Only God can be the first cause

And have you ever considered the POSSIBILITY that God caused free will? Or is that just ruled out on the basis that you can't define or explain it?

It is not my opinion that Skandelon cannot make something of nothing.

Creative Fiat is different from the ability to make choices. Most people would acknowledge that distinction without needing it pointed out, but apparently...well anyway...enough of this...bye

 

[Luke2427]

It all boils down to this.



Can God originate creatures with free will?

God cannot do a LOT of things, as you well know.

One of the many, many, many things he cannot do BECAUSE he is God (Like sin or lie for example) is create a being that can create things ex nihilo.

God can no more make a creature who can cause something without anything to work with than God can make a creature that has no beginning or that has all power.

 

[Luke2427]

If you actually had any desire to actually engage this point you would...there are dozens of articles about Augustine's teaching on the Privation of Good and his attributing the origin of sin to the free will of man, pick one and engage it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist...I really don't care.

I really don't care either. I just think you're full of crap. I know Augustine uses the term "free will" a lot.

I just don't think you know what he means by it and can't provide it in its context.

But that is not the argument Luke. You are claiming something is impossible on the sole bases that it couldn't logically happen, and by the very fact that you accept that it is POSSIBLE with God PROVES all I need to PROVE.

No. You are conflating what an uncreated, unmoved mover can do with what created MOVED beings can do.

That's a very silly thing to do!

You're being unable to explain, define, qualify or otherwise contain God's free choices simply proves that the choice of free moral creature of GOD may likewise be just as mysterious to our finite limited minds.

Everything is not mysterious. This is not at all mysterious.

god can create things from nothing.

No other being in the unvoierse can do that.

That's not a mystery, Bud. It really isn't. It's not even hard to ponder. It is OBVIOUS and self-evident.

Creatures that are themselves the result of a series of caused events cannot CAUSE something FROM NOTHING.

I am the CAUSE of my own decisions. It's weird, illogical mess.

Why can't I be the CAUSE of my own beating heart?

Why can't I be the CAUSE of my own BEING?

I can no more be the CAUSE of any one of these things than I can be the cause of any other of them.

You can't affirm and claim mystery with regard to one while dismissing the other as impossible. Not unless you believe God is just too weak to have created a contra-causally free moral creature.Is that what you believe Luke? That God is just too weak to create someone with the ability to make first contra-causal choices?

Saying God CAN'T is not saying God is weak. You ought to know that.

In fact it is USUALLY saying that he is too strong.

For example, God is too STRONG to make a being with all power.

It is the very fact that he is so strong (ALL POWER is His) that he CANNOT do this.

I should not have to tell you this.

At least you admit it, which is more than I can say for many Calvinists I talk to about this. Do me a favor and stop calling it man's choice then, because you and I both know we aint choosing jack squat if what you believe is true...we are just actors in his play and right now, in this discussion between me and you, God is putting on a puppet show with his right and left hand making us debate each other when in reality its just God debating himself. :laugh:

If I write a character in a book and have him choosing to marry someon- he is, in the book CHOOSING. It is still choice- it is just that I, the writer am in COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE, UNMITIGATED, UNADULTERATED CONTROL of the choice he makes.

Now, you may not like that, but it does not change the fact that it is still choice.

In the same way God is the cause of his own choice.

God does not CAUSE his own choice because the mind of God has always eternally been made up about everything.

Yes, yes, yes... the Bible SAYS he choose and I just believe the BIBLE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

I told you this is where this was going, didn't I?

You believe God learns stuff. That stuff OCCURS to God that he had not thought of before.

In other words, quite frankly, you don't believe in God. You believe in god. Your god is learning stuff, right? Am I not being fair? I'll take it back if you say that God does not learn things. But if your God learns things, he's no more than Zeus.

It is called "self-determination" versus divine-determination. You have God determining Dahmer's activities and then punishing him for it, where as I have Dahmer making those determinations for himself. But whatever floats your boat...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DAhmer!!!

I told you this is where you'd go.

this is absolutely hilarious. Even when I TELL you your arguments in advance, you can't HELP but use them. You have nothing else, I suppose.

Dahmer, Dahmer, Dahmer. I've never seen anyone so interested in Jeffry Dahmer!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, so the author of Genesis thought He was the Almighty by writing that we are created in God's image? Apparently if anyone thinks we could possibly have any quality that is LIKE God, then he must also believe he is equal to God??? :laugh:

You're so full of crap and ANYBODY who reads this can see it.

So because I say that there are SOME qualities about God that he CANNOT make man have, I am saying that there are NO qualities about God that he can make man have????

Hilarious.

This is what you are reduced to. It's pitiful. It really is.

True, but we are talking about the ability to make choices, not the ability to be almighty. There is a difference.

No, because I have never in my life said that man does not make choices so we can't be arguing about that.

RESPONSIBILITY. Can God create man with it or not?

Yep.

And have you ever considered the POSSIBILITY that God caused free will? Or is that just ruled out on the basis that you can't define or explain it?

God CANNOT make creatures that can make things ex nihilo. No God absolutely cannot do that. Creatures are contingent beings. There are reasons they exist, reasons they want what they want and choose what they choose and those reasons have made them what they are.

Creative Fiat is different from the ability to make choices.

 

[saturneptune]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DAhmer!!!

I told you this is where you'd go.

this is absolutely hilarious. Even when I TELL you your arguments in advance, you can't HELP but use them. You have nothing else, I suppose.

Dahmer, Dahmer, Dahmer. I've never seen anyone so interested in Jeffry Dahmer!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Here is someone who was as interested in meat as he was, LOL...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOyQfd7OqIY

 

[saturneptune]

I think my signature goes a long way in answering this op.

 

[Luke2427]

I think my signature goes a long way in answering this op.

Amen.

Thanks for drawing my attention to that lovely little poem.

 

[Skandelon]

Very sad response...

I really don't care either. I just think you're full of crap.

And we're done. Wow, and you're a pastor???? WOW...just wow.

 

[Skandelon]

God cannot do a LOT of things, as you well know.

One of the many, many, many things he cannot do BECAUSE he is God (Like sin or lie for example) is create a being that can create things ex nihilo.

God can no more make a creature who can cause something without anything to work with than God can make a creature that has no beginning or that has all power.

So God can only do what Luke can fathom. Ok, got it.