Philosophical discussion about free will

[GordonSlocum]

Skandelon.



But we are not created in His image we are created in the image of Adam even if I ignore the contradiction in more than One having free agency.
GE 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
And:
2 Cor 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

If we were in His image and likeness we would not need transforming.

john.

You can run but you can't hide: 22. Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever''

 

[dwmoeller1]

Here is how simple it is = if God were a Puppet Master the word believe would not be in the Bible. If man did not have free will he would not be ask to obey or believe.

Or maybe God is both totally in control AND man has free will. We can't explain it fully yet Scripture teaches it, therefore both, while seemingly contradictory, are true.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Or maybe God is both totally in control AND man has free will. We can't explain it fully yet Scripture teaches it, therefore both, while seemingly contradictory, are true.

In my thinking God's sovereign control does not draw conflict against man's free will. Why? It is God who created man and gave to him the free will - better stated limited free will.

 

[skypair]

Or maybe God is both totally in control AND man has free will. We can't explain it fully yet Scripture teaches it, therefore both, while seemingly contradictory, are true.

Let me get this straight -- you'd rather believe an unproven, inexplicable theory than a proven, explainable theology? Isn't that the same as rejecting the Holy Spirit (assuming that the explanation is from the Bible)?

Why do you think that God allows men to operate totally against God's will most of the time if He is totally sovereign? Does that not demonstrate to you that God has given man a will and soveriengty of his own? If God were totally sovereign, we'd be in the kingdom of God -- the eternal kingdom. There'd be no prayer "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," d-dub. Can you imagine it? Glory, glory, glory! :jesus:

Clearly somebody doesn't know what "totally sovereign" means, eh?

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

Let me get this straight -- you'd rather believe an unproven, inexplicable theory than a proven, explainable theology?

You hold to the unproven, inexplicable theory of the Trinity do you not? Why?

 

[dwmoeller1]

In my thinking God's sovereign control does not draw conflict against man's free will. Why? It is God who created man and gave to him the free will - better stated limited free will.

I agree. However, one must admit that the limited free will cannot sufficiently explain man's responsibility for his own sin. Regardless of where exactly you place the paradox, the paradox exists.

 

[johnp.]

The rich young ruler made his choice. He rejected Christ's offer of eternal life because money was his god.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.

That means no one can go to Jesus unless the Father draws you and those the Father draws Jesus will raise up SaN.

john.

 

[johnp.]

You can run but you can't hide: 22. Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

Like God are you GordonSlocum? Knowledge of right and wrong does nothing for righteousness it is the ability to be righteous that is needed not just a knowing of it.

If we were in His image and likeness we would not need transforming.

I'm sure your opinion is as welcome as mine, why don't you deal with the need to be transformed?

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell?

In my thinking God's sovereign control does not draw conflict against man's free will. Why? It is God who created man and gave to him the free will - better stated limited free will.

It's just your opinion verses scripture. PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

You can say man has free will if you like, or more correctly, God can cause you to write what He wants but He won't shift me, but it doesn't make it so.

john.

 

[Skandelon]

I must be dense cause I don't see the infinite regression. In all cases the answer stops at God's choices being determined by who He is - His nature if you will. What determined God's nature? God has always been who He is, unchanging and unchangable, eternally existent. So, as I see it, any possibility of infinite regression runs aground on that fact.

You don't realize it but you are making my point. Let me explain. You said, "The answer stops at God's choices being determined by who He is." This is actually the very foundation of my believe of agent causation. The cause of the choice is the chooser, period. Where it gets hairy is which your next question: "What determined God's nature?" And though you attempt an answer you really have no answer because nothing determined/caused/created God's nature...you simply stated what is nature is...."unchaning eternally existent"...that doesn't answer what determined it...it only admits that its not determined by anything...it merely exists and is mysteriously infinite.

The mysterous concept that any agent can make choices undetermined by anything outside himself is all that must be established and I contend that your paragraph above supports this very concept. God makes choices that are only determined by Him and Him alone. I think we would all agree. Thus, it is possible that an agent can make choices undetermined by anything outside himself. That is all that must be established on my side. Why? Because if it can exist then an all powerful creator could create it. If an agent (like God) can exist with a nature that is determined only by himself, then surely you must agree that God could create men with a similar nature in that it is only determined by itself. If you deny that, then you deny the omnipotence of our God.

I have no problem with believers being able to choose other than what they end up choosing (in one sense, at least).

If so, then you support the idea of contra-casual choice and you may want to study the implications of that position.

God definitely never lets the believer be tempted beyond what they are able to bear. It is the natural man in and of his own which I would deny that for...or even the Christian in and of his own. The Christian in and of his own has no more power to resist sin than does the natural man. In the end it all comes down to dependence on Christ and His power.

Okay, allow me to press you on this point. Suppose in one instance you do resist the temptation and in another you give in and sin. In the first instance where you succeed in resisting temptation was it because God gave you the power to do so? If so, then to be consistent would you say that you didn't have the power in the latter instance? See my point? If God NEVER allows us to be tempted beyond what we can bear then we must maintain the the power to resist always exists and that the variable is US, the chooser. We are the determining factor. We are responsible. God has provided all that is needed for us to stand against temptation, but we must choose to do so each time we face the temptation.

Now, what makes this difficult for the Calvinistic position is that if you accept this then you are accepting the premise libertarian free will (in the contra-casual sense of the word). I'm not sure you really mean to do that, but if you are then we can simply refocus our discussion onto the free choices of natural men...which becomes much more of a biblical study on the nature of fallen mankind and less on the philosophical premises of determinism.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You don't realize it but you are making my point. Let me explain. You said, "The answer stops at God's choices being determined by who He is." This is actually the very foundation of my believe of agent causation. The cause of the choice is the chooser, period. Where it gets hairy is which your next question: "What determined God's nature?" And though you attempt an answer you really have no answer because nothing determined/caused/created God's nature...you simply stated what is nature is...."unchaning eternally existent"...that doesn't answer what determined it...it only admits that its not determined by anything...it merely exists and is mysteriously infinite.

Agreed. God, by definition is the only uncaused being. Since He is eternally existent, the question of 'what caused God' is moot.

The mysterous concept that any agent can make choices undetermined by anything outside himself is all that must be established and I contend that your paragraph above supports this very concept. God makes choices that are only determined by Him and Him alone. I think we would all agree. Thus, it is possible that an agent can make choices undetermined by anything outside himself. That is all that must be established on my side. Why? Because if it can exist then an all powerful creator could create it.

The basis for your reasoning is fallacious: The fact that something could exist does not mean God could create it. An eternally existent being can exist (God exists), yet God cannot create another eternally existent being - anything created would, by definition, not be eternally existent.

If an agent (like God) can exist with a nature that is determined only by himself, then surely you must agree that God could create men with a similar nature in that it is only determined by itself. If you deny that, then you deny the omnipotence of our God.

No, here I would not agree. God can be that was because *everything* about Him is uncaused by an outside being. That is what makes Him God. Yet even God cannot create an uncaused being - that would be a self-contradiction. Created beings, by defintion, are caused beings.

Let me be clear that I am *not* saying that God is self-determined. I am saying that God simply IS who He IS. Since man has a beginning point, it not logically possible that man can be the same. Either man is self-determined, or his nature is caused by an outside agent. Either way, man would be essentially different than God and thus any arguments for man being self-contained as a chooser fall apart. God is self-contained as a chooser only because He is eternally existent and unchanging.

More on the nature of God's choices later...gotta run to work.

If so, then you support the idea of contra-casual choice and you may want to study the implications of that position.

If it is contra-casual, then it applies to believers only. The reason for this is because believers have two natures at work. I don't really want to get into that right now since my argument so far has centered around unregenerate man in and of himself.

 

[MB]

Like God are you GordonSlocum? Knowledge of right and wrong does nothing for righteousness it is the ability to be righteous that is needed not just a knowing of it.

If we were in His image and likeness we would not need transforming.

I'm sure your opinion is as welcome as mine, why don't you deal with the need to be transformed?

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell?

The answer to that is obvious. To give them a chance an opportunity to over come. To make them responsible for their rejection of Christ. As long as man can't make a decision for or against then man isn't responsible.

It's just your opinion verses scripture. PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

If this is the case, then how is it a child can be raised being taught the word of God and when he gets old will not depart from it?

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Who directed the childs steps the parent or God?.

You can say man has free will if you like, or more correctly, God can cause you to write what He wants but He won't shift me, but it doesn't make it so.

john.

How about what the scriptures say? Why doesn't the scriptures shift you? They plainly teach that man can be saved if he is willing to be.
2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
MB

 

[johnp.]

Hello MB.

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell?

The answer to that is obvious. To give them a chance an opportunity to over come.

But God knows they are going to Hell? What chance is there to overcome?

To make them responsible for their rejection of Christ.

Ok. But now you have God knowingly creating men to punish but God doesn't need our guilt to judge us. Even if we were innocent we would still be guilty because God said we are. That is the real expression of the Sovereignty of God and man's responsibility. We did nothing and get the blame. Then He made us do lots of stuff badly and we get it in the neck from Him for it.

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

See what I mean? We have a valid theology whether it is liked or not.

PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

If this is the case...

How can you say that?

Who directed the childs steps the parent or God?

God. And God directed the parents into using the means given for our kids to grow up upright and God directs the steps of everyone the scripture says. PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

How about what the scriptures say? Why doesn't the scriptures shift you? They plainly teach that man can be saved if he is willing to be.

What about what the scriptures say? I did not say I ignored scripture but I ignore God when He speaks through others in the wrong religion. PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.

Scripture is my final authority. If a man is willing it is because God has made him willing ...for it is God who works in him to will and to act according to his good purpose. Php 2:13.

2 Cor 8:12 For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.
But the willingness is not there in fallen man. Enough scripture explicitly states the same yet these two verses are enough if you are willing.
PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

But you are not willing. I can't see how these scriptures can be regarded as an 'if'. If you were willing they would at least cause you pause.
The only way to get round them is to say God does not determine our steps nor does He speak through all men. Is this what you believe?

john.

 

[Skandelon]

Or maybe God is both totally in control AND man has free will. We can't explain it fully yet Scripture teaches it, therefore both, while seemingly contradictory, are true.

I could not agree more. We may not be near as far from either other as it once appeared...

:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Agreed. God, by definition is the only uncaused being. Since He is eternally existent, the question of 'what caused God' is moot.



The basis for your reasoning is fallacious: The fact that something could exist does not mean God could create it. An eternally existent being can exist (God exists), yet God cannot create another eternally existent being - anything created would, by definition, not be eternally existent.

I'm not advocating God could have created another eternally existent creature, I'm only advocating that if a nature could exist which is not determined/caused by an outside source then it must be able to be duplicated...unless of course you deny omnipotence. Is God just not powerful enough in your view to have created a self existant/self caused/undetermined nature?

No, here I would not agree. God can be that was because *everything* about Him is uncaused by an outside being. That is what makes Him God. Yet even God cannot create an uncaused being - that would be a self-contradiction. Created beings, by defintion, are caused beings.

Yes, the existance of their being is caused but that doesn't mean their natures are such that their choices cannot be free. Why couldn't God create a creature with the power of first cause choices? I see that as mysterious indeed, but not impossible by any means. Our finite minds may not be able to wrap around all that but why wouldn't we accept that our moral choices could be other than what they end up being? You have already admitted this is possible with believers, so what is the problem?

Let me be clear that I am *not* saying that God is self-determined. I am saying that God simply IS who He IS. Since man has a beginning point, it not logically possible that man can be the same. Either man is self-determined, or his nature is caused by an outside agent. Either way, man would be essentially different than God and thus any arguments for man being self-contained as a chooser fall apart. God is self-contained as a chooser only because He is eternally existent and unchanging.

Says who? By what authority to you make these unfounded claims? That is like saying God is either 3 or He is 1 and He cannot be both. Why couldn't God create a man with the ability to make undetermined choices...or if you prefer, choices determined only by himself and not some other outside source?

If it is contra-casual, then it applies to believers only. The reason for this is because believers have two natures at work. I don't really want to get into that right now since my argument so far has centered around unregenerate man in and of himself.

Like I said, even if you admit contra-casual free from believers then you accept the premise of free will and we can move on to more theological aspects of the natural man's nature...

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'm not advocating God could have created another eternally existent creature, I'm only advocating that if a nature could exist which is not determined/caused by an outside source then it must be able to be duplicated...unless of course you deny omnipotence. Is God just not powerful enough in your view to have created a self existant/self caused/undetermined nature?

Yeah I understood you weren't arguing that. I was arguing that God self-caused/self-exitant/undetermined nature is a true only because God is eternal existent and unchanging. In short, God's will is fully self-determined simply because God IS was He IS and always has been.

In fact, I would consider it erroneous to say God has a self-caused, or self-existant nature. If God always has been and is unchanging, then the concept of self-existant God is an oxymoron. There was never any time when He was other than what He is, thus He is not self-existant, He is simply existant, period - He IS what He IS. Self-existant carries the connatation that He could be other than what He is. The same is true of the concept of 'self-caused'. God is causeless since He has always been what He is and thus the what caused God is not an infinite regression but simply an absurdity.

Or to put it another way...(sorry, I get verbose sometimes )
You argue thus that God's nature is undetermined because it is unchanging and mysteriously infinite. On this we agree. However, you then argue that since God's nature can be undetermined, He can thus create a being which also has an undetermined nature. I, on the other hand, point out that God's nature is undetermined due to the fact that He is eternally existant. Since God cannot create a being which is eternally existant, He also cannot create a being with an undetermined nature. Undetermined nature is dependent on being eternally existant.

Yes, the existance of their being is caused but that doesn't mean their natures are such that their choices cannot be free. Why couldn't God create a creature with the power of first cause choices?

Because it is an extension of being eternally existant and unchanging - man can be neither.

I see that as mysterious indeed, but not impossible by any means. Our finite minds may not be able to wrap around all that but why wouldn't we accept that our moral choices could be other than what they end up being? You have already admitted this is possible with believers, so what is the problem?

I have not admitted that its possible with believers. Even with the believer, all choices extend from their nature. Yes, I know that will appear self-contradictory at this point. I am currently mulling over how explain it, let me just say that I feel the key is found in Rom 7. I can feel the answer intuitively, but currently don't have the tools to explain it satisfactorily.

Says who? By what authority to you make these unfounded claims? That is like saying God is either 3 or He is 1 and He cannot be both. Why couldn't God create a man with the ability to make undetermined choices...or if you prefer, choices determined only by himself and not some other outside source?

You haven't yet shown that God makes undetermined choices, (in fact, the fact that He *can't* lie would argue that His choices can be determined) so lets set that aside altogether at this point.

So the question is then about whether choices can be determined by the chooser alone without any outside factor determining the choices in any way. You argue that God's choices are of that type. I agree. However, you then make the unsupported logical leap that (lets not get into the whole 'by what authority?' thing quite yet here ) this must mean that God has the power to create beings with the ability to make the same sort of choices. Why do I say unsupported? Because you have already admitted that what is true about God does not necessarily mean that God can create another being with the same attribute. That being true, on what logical basis do you claim God's ability to create a being with His sort of undetermined-by-outside-factors choices. You must first show that such an attribute is not the result of His being God and thus non-attributable to other beings. You haven't yet shown this (if I am in error, please post that part again because I must have missed it). I am arguing that it is, in fact, an attribute which is a product of His unique status as the eternally existant and unchanging Being.

Like I said, even if you admit contra-casual free from believers then you accept the premise of free will and we can move on to more theological aspects of the natural man's nature...

But i don't believe the issue of the believers choice is as simple as compatibalism vs. contra-casual free will. Like I said, I can't yet explain exactly why, but I am working on it. For now, lets simply deal with the fact of the unregenerate man in and of himself. Then if we can arrive at some conclusion, we can then see if the position of the believers choice can be fit into the system.

But while I am thinking on this, can you maybe address how the fact that God *can't* lie fits into your contra-causal paradigm. That's still the biggest difficulty for me. As long as I can accept that God could possibly do anything, then I can groove (if not agree yet) with your paradigm (BTW, thanks for making much more clear what others have hinted at - I may not agree, but at least now I respect the position as worthwhile of consideration). But my groovitude runs up against the fact that there are somethings which God *can't* do.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The answer to that is obvious. To give them a chance an opportunity to over come. To make them responsible for their rejection of Christ. As long as man can't make a decision for or against then man isn't responsible.

This is probably getting off topic somewhat, but your obvious answer makes me very curious. Here is why:
- Lets say Bob dies without believing in Christ.
- You would agree that when God decided to create Bob (before the foundation of the world) He knew full well that Bob would go through life without believing in Christ. Correct?
- IOW, God KNEW there was NO chance that Bob would ever believe in Him. Right?
- God could have chosen to not create Bob with this knowledge that there was no possibility of Bob believing in Him. Agreed?
- Since God is responsible for Bob's existence, and God knew full well what the end result of His creating Bob would be that Bob would go to hell, how can God not be held responsible to some extend for Bob ultimately going to hell?

Sure Bob is still responsible for his own choices, but it seems God would be culpable as well since he could have prevented it by the simple expedient of not creating Bob.

 

[reformedbeliever]

This is probably getting off topic somewhat, but your obvious answer makes me very curious. Here is why:
- Lets say Bob dies without believing in Christ.
- You would agree that when God decided to create Bob (before the foundation of the world) He knew full well that Bob would go through life without believing in Christ. Correct?
- IOW, God KNEW there was NO chance that Bob would ever believe in Him. Right?
- God could have chosen to not create Bob with this knowledge that there was no possibility of Bob believing in Him. Agreed?
- Since God is responsible for Bob's existence, and God knew full well what the end result of His creating Bob would be that Bob would go to hell, how can God not be held responsible to some extend for Bob ultimately going to hell?

Sure Bob is still responsible for his own choices, but it seems God would be culpable as well since he could have prevented it by the simple expedient of not creating Bob.

This is my big question for Jesus. Why did you allow anyone to come into being, whom you knew would never have faith?

The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is an antinomy. I don't think we will ever be able to put our arms around that. Unless of course Christian universalism is true. They would claim that eventually all will come to faith. That wait in hell will be a long hard period to go through however. If it was 60 seconds....... that would be too long.

 

[MB]

Hello MB.

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell?



But God knows they are going to Hell? What chance is there to overcome?
[/quuote]
All things are possible with God my friend.
Mar 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Christ believed that why can't you?

Ok. But now you have God knowingly creating men to punish but God doesn't need our guilt to judge us. Even if we were innocent we would still be guilty because God said we are. That is the real expression of the Sovereignty of God and man's responsibility. We did nothing and get the blame. Then He made us do lots of stuff badly and we get it in the neck from Him for it.

Do you really believe that a Just God could send men to hell who aren't responsible. The choice to accept or deny is real whether God knows anything or not it has notheing to do with our choice. We still have to make a choice. Even if God's knowing you will or won't does apply. you don't know whether or not in advance of the choice. You'll either choose or not and you can't say you wasn't given the chance. You have no excuse none of us do.

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Nothing concerning our having Salvation prevents us from having it but our belief. Man does talk back to God. And just because we are clay in His hands doesn't mean there are no possibilities with God.

See what I mean? We have a valid theology whether it is liked or not.

I disagree you haven't shown this to be true at all.

PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.



How can you say that?

Porverbs 22:6 is how I didn't say it. The Bible did.

God. And God directed the parents into using the means given for our kids to grow up upright and God directs the steps of everyone the scripture says. PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Really like He did Jonah Eh!

What about what the scriptures say? I did not say I ignored scripture but I ignore God when He speaks through others in the wrong religion. PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.

Maybe you should check your preception of that. You're saying that if God disagrees with what you believe to be true He is wrong.
The reply of the tounge comes from being convinced and convicted. It's your preception of how this works that deceives you.

Scripture is my final authority. If a man is willing it is because God has made him willing ...for it is God who works in him to will and to act according to his good purpose. Php 2:13.

These philippians were already saved. This verse has nothing to d0o with the lost.

2 Cor 8:12 For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.
But the willingness is not there in fallen man. Enough scripture explicitly states the same yet these two verses are enough if you are willing.
PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

You have no scripture that says there is no willingness in the natural man. I thought you believed in scripture only???

But you are not willing. I can't see how these scriptures can be regarded as an 'if'. If you were willing they would at least cause you pause.
The only way to get round them is to say God does not determine our steps nor does He speak through all men. Is this what you believe?

john.

God does not determine the steps of the wicked and you haven't proved this to be true
MB

 

[Skandelon]

I have not admitted that its possible with believers. Even with the believer, all choices extend from their nature. Yes, I know that will appear self-contradictory at this point. I am currently mulling over how explain it, let me just say that I feel the key is found in Rom 7. I can feel the answer intuitively, but currently don't have the tools to explain it satisfactorily.

As you are thinking on that you might want to consider Adam's nature prior to the fall. Is it possible that Adam resisted the temptation in the garden? Was there anything within Adam's nature preventing him from not sinning?

You haven't yet shown that God makes undetermined choices, (in fact, the fact that He *can't* lie would argue that His choices can be determined) so lets set that aside altogether at this point.

It's not that the choices are undetermined as much as it is that they are undetermined by anything outside himself. In the same way I believe that men can also be created to make choice that are only determined by themselves.

Additionally, God lying is a whole other issue. That would be contradictory toward his nature and that is not what I'm talking about...I'm simply addressing choosing one option over another option, both of which are not contradictory to his nature.

I'll stop with that for now...

 

[johnp.]

Hello MB.

I did not say 'How can you say that?' to the Proverb but to your 'if that is the case'.
PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

'if that is the case.' How can you say that I asked?

What you believe Pro 16:1 to say is that He doesn't determine the words people speak when the verse clearly says He does and He doesn't direct our steps when the verse, Pro 16:9 clearly says He does.

Do you really believe that a Just God could send men to hell who aren't responsible.

Yes. Since God said we are responsible we are responsible. If I was innocent I would still be responsible because He says so. I do not talk back to God. The "Why does He still blame us for who resists His will?" Is open for anyone with eyes to see.

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell?
In hope they overcome?
But God knows they are going to Hell? What chance is there to overcome?

All things are possible with God my friend.

If God knows they are going to Hell they will go to Hell won't they?

Mar 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Christ believed that why can't you?

Wasn't possible for Him though was it? JN 11:41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
Jesus said His Father always hears Him but not in the garden. Jesus was refused mercy. It wasn't possible for God not to strike His Son, it was predestined. History's pivotal moment.

The choice to accept or deny is real whether God knows anything or not it has notheing to do with our choice.

If man is sovereign then the king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. PR 21:1. Have another Proverb.

We still have to make a choice. Even if God's knowing you will or won't does apply. you don't know whether or not in advance of the choice.

I made no choice. Jesus came to me and convinced me while I was an atheist. He did a similar thing to Paul if you remember.
AC 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
And He did it to them. And lydia. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. Acts 16:14.

You have no excuse none of us do.

I no longer need excuses Jesus Christ died for my sins and I have been imputed with His righteousness I confess my sins.

Nothing concerning our having Salvation prevents us from having it but our belief.

You run counter to scripture again. ...God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Rom 9:18. JER 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Man does talk back to God. And just because we are clay in His hands doesn't mean there are no possibilities with God.

You don't. You are supposed to ask the question "Why does He still blame us for who resists His will?" And He is then supposed to answer you, "Who are you to talk back?" But you won't ask Him the question because you don't believe Paul's conclusions of the passages preceding. "Why does He still blame us for who resists His will?"

We have a valid theology whether it is liked or not.

I disagree you haven't shown this to be true at all.

We have a valid theology whether it is believed or not.

Really like He did Jonah Eh!

And Elijah. To teach us.

You're saying that if God disagrees with what you believe to be true He is wrong.

He has no argument with me as I am what I am by the grace of God. If He doesn't want me to behave this way I will behave in another of His ways for me. being confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Php 1:6. I'm a work in progress. I have complete confidence in His promise to complete the work He started in me. My transformation is guaranteed my faith sure and certain and my soul anchored.

You're saying that if God disagrees with what you believe to be true He is wrong.

I listen to the argument and check what is said by scripture. If anything disagrees with scripture then it is false. That the first cause of that is God is no problem. God sends delusions and lying spirits to do His work of hardening at times. 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Thess 2:11.

The reply of the tounge comes from being convinced and convicted. It's your preception of how this works that deceives you.

I am not deceived I trust in my Saviour you are in error. The scripture says ...but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue. What does it say?

These philippians were already saved. This verse has nothing to d0o with the lost.

Goats are not lost, sheep are. The Good Shepherd came to find the lost and He said, "It is finished."

You have no scripture that says there is no willingness in the natural man. I thought you believed in scripture only???

Rom 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

God does not determine the steps of the wicked and you haven't proved this to be true

No? I have proved it true. God does not determine the steps of the wicked... Is a straight denial of PR 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends--even the wicked for a day of disaster.

PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

john.