Does God have the right to judge according to what Adam did? per the Bible, YES, as Adam and Jesus stood before God "on trial" and God finds us either in first or second Adam!
or do you find fault with God judgements?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Compatibilism?
- Thread starter jbh28
- Start date
Does God have the right to judge according to what Adam did? per the Bible, YES, as Adam and Jesus stood before God "on trial" and God finds us either in first or second Adam!
or do you find fault with God judgements?
Do you honestly think anyone is going to fall for this? You are insulting my intelligence...There's a new one :sleep:....this is on roughly the same level as asking if God can create a rock so big he can't lift it.. (no)
I will answer once:
Yes, he does, of course he does...and no one would argue that...you would like for someone to, because you would obviously win that one, but God is himself the source of "rights" so it is essentially a self-answering question...the second you say "GOD" in the Judeo-Christian sense...then by definition it is necessarily inferred that he does.
This is true...but theoretically, you wouldn't even need Scripture to back this claim...once you establish ANY Omnipotent being this follows necessarily. Allah as the Haji's define him would also (by definition) posses this right as well.
No. Try again
humblethinker
Active Member
I agree, but I don't see why you felt that you had to claim that the Open View of God abandons the biblical teaching of omniscience.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Does the "open view" in anyway posit that God is uncertain or without knowledge of what His "free creatures" will do. Perhaps I am wrong, but most objections to openness center around God being somehow surprised or that the two, God and His creation learn together through time and experience.
its either God is fully Sovereign, Him ALONE, or else He is not...
Which do you hold him as being?
quantumfaith
Active Member
Y1, I do not think many (most) who hold to some form of "openness" have any questions or doubts as to God's sovereignty, they view him just as sovereign as do you, they simply think he expresses that sovereignty differently, surely if He is indeed sovereign, he has every right and capability to do that, doesn't He?
I dont agree because a Calvinistic thinker can hold both in his mind ...ie Predestination is for ones salvation & not meant to turn one fatalistic.....you draw the line at scriptural predestination & do not take it to extreme denial of any free will. The Calvinist will always point to Gods Sovereignty but will allow for even the reprobate to have access to God & he will concede that sin is the choice of Man & not God. God doesnt create sin. Therefore I will site that the Calvinistic believer is in fact a Compatibilist. Now a Hyper-Calvinist is exactly a different story. :smilewinkgrin:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Many have equated the Open View with the denial of divine omniscience...
humblethinker
Active Member
So? That's not what you said though. It seems to me that Openness' explanation of God's omniscience does not abandon biblical teaching on what God knows. It's explanation may differ with yours but yours may differ with the determinist's explanation who might then acuse your belief of abandonment. 'Abandon' is a strong and in this case inflammatory word used to, it appears, soften criticism or build support for your stance on the point you were making. I know of no Open Theist that would characterize their beliefe as you have. I just don't think it was a necessary or fair characterization.
humblethinker
Active Member
As I understand it, God knows what His free creature will do, being that God knows all of the potential responses of a free creature in any one point of exercise of free will. It seems to me that, according to the classical arminian viewpoint, that God can not know the response of a free will creature as a potentiality, but ONLY as a certainty with no potentiality. Since God does not 'know' the response as a possibility then it can be claimed that that is something God does not know. One could then make the claim that the classical arminian view of omniscience abandons the scriptural teaching of God's omniscience (though I think that would be a claim to be regretted).
quantumfaith
Active Member
Upon what basis does "the choosing agent" determine the greatest desire? Appeal to mystery is fine (you know that I most certainly do so with my view), but your question seems to be circular before an appeal to mystery becomes legitimate.
So, if I held a gun to someone's head and pulled the trigger, I would have a reason/intention/purpose for doing so (not that it would be good). However, if I did not pull the trigger, and instead threw the gun on the ground, would you say that the purpose for either of those actions were the same or different?
If they were the same, then I think you would violate the law of non-contradiction.
If they were different, then you have to determine the intention that changed the action. Perhaps I had an emotional guilt trip. Did I freely choose to have the guilt trip to change my action, or did something affect my greatest desire so that I acted accordingly?
People make determinations according to desires. A desire cannot cause something to happen because "it" is powerless without a person. A person cannot determine something to happen without a desire to do something. A desire is part of the will, which is part of the makeup of a person.
Of course, all things created must come ultimately from the decree of the Creator.
Here is where the "mystery" legitimately comes in, because it is a question about God (not us). As finite creatures, we can only know things about God that He has revealed about Himself.
Just guessing philosophically, I would say that compatibilism applies to God as well. God's free choices are based on His greatest desires. However, unlike finite, sinful man, God's nature and His desires are perfect and holy. He is the Self-sufficient One, and nothing can supercede Him to cause Him. All His actions are supremely authoritative, without mistake, and without regret (in ultimatum). In our compatibilism, we are subject to the decrees and causes of an outside ontology. In God's compatibilism, His nature and desires are not subject to any other ontology. I would say that this is one distinctive of God that the name Yahweh (the Self-sufficient One) indicates.
Your view is dependent on this "appeal to mystery" for its position of wishful thinking, when another explanation is sufficient. We are subject to a created order that is defined by interdependent contingencies. I do not believe you sufficiently solve the problem of circular reasoning in this regard by an appeal to mystery.
If you try to say that I would have the same problem with my view of God, then I would say that your reasoning is flawed, because it would necessitate that the same definition of man must also be of God. The distinction between the Creator and the creature is an important one, and the First Cause cannot be defined by the limitations of His own creation.
I have seen and heard this polemic that a view of God with creatures that have libertarian free will makes God "greater" than if His creatures act according to His ultimate decree. I would disagree. If a man creates a machine that malfunctions according to his ultimate intent, is that man "greater" than one who is capable of creating a machine that functions exactly as he intended? The One Who is ultimately self-sufficient ("Yahweh") should not have part of the definition of His eternal being--His perfect knowledge--dependent upon His own creation. Such "backwards" determinism (or "two-way" determinism) makes God NOT the "Self-sufficient One."
The idea is that this somehow unprovable, inexplicable appeal to mystery that is libertarian free will is necessary to regard God in the highest sense is flawed, in my opinion. Libertarian free will for the finite creature subject to contingencies makes humans like little "gods" who contribute to the created order ex nihilo in the same way that God Himself does. Their immaterial ex nihilo creations have both material and immaterial effects that are somehow independent of both material and immaterial causes, but intermingled with actual material and immaterial cause-effect relationships. To me, this is untenable.
Yet, many people just require such paradox as necessarily true for moral responsibility and personhood, when the criteria itself beg the question. Philosophers that debate the subject of free will and determinism argue that both determinism and indeterminism are logically impossible, and that both compatibilism and incompatibilism are logically impossible. The factor that is missing from this quandary is God. Without God, moral responsibility faces the logical insufficiency of determinism, indeterminism, compatibilism, and incompatibilism. The appeal to mystery that depends on the solution of God resolves the logical inconsistency of these opposing problems, and compatibilism is allowed to thrive here. Attempting to reconcile the existence of God and incompatibilism relegates the appeal to mystery to the finite creation rather than where it belongs: in the hands of the infinite Creator.
Yes, but your problem is that you have an ontological interdependency between Creator and creation. A creature must have his being defined by the Creator for his existence, yet you have the alleged libertarianly free decisions present in God's eternal knowledge. You have part of God's being "backwards" dependent on the ex nihilo contributions of His own creation that He was "free" to create. To me, this makes God not self-sufficient and "free" to create according to His ultimate desire, because He can only create according to the dictates of His eternal knowledge that is dependent on other autonomous ontologies. For God to be "Yahweh" (the Self-sufficient One), His eternal being must be entirely sufficient within Himself and uncaused by anything outside Himself.
This is why both Calvinism and Open Theism "fill the gap" in the inherent logical inconsistencies of the Arminian or "simple foreknowledge" view. For libertarian free will to be true, God cannot know what free creatures would do. If God even knows what free creatures would do, how can they be truly "free"? If God does know, upon what basis does He know something entirely undetermined such that the agent "could have done otherwise"?
However, for this to be the case, God's eternal knowledge would be imperfect and "measurable" such that it could be increased.
If you and I see problems inherent in a view of God Who's core eternal being can be defined in a fashion of imperfection such that it can grow indefinitely, then you have to evaluate the problems also inherent in the "simple foreknowledge" view. You cannot just assume it because you do not like the alternatives.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You answer my question first: "Who, if not the choosing agent, determines that greatest desire?"
So, you are admitting that God created the desire of Dahmer to molest, kill and eat children?
This seems to ignore the fact that God created us in his image. Are you suggesting God is unable to create something with a mysterious element?
True, and we can only know things about his creation that he has fully revealed as well.
Yet, you assume that HE, being fully omnipotent, was unable to create others with similar abilities? And what determined God's desires to be what they are if not God Himself?
By whose standard? Yours? Because scripture never draws your conclusions. As you admitted, both our views appeal to mystery. The difference is that my view doesn't contradict the biblical teaching regarding the Holiness of God by suggesting that He originates or creates evil desires.
I don't believe determinism is a sufficient answer. I believe it is far to small and limiting view of an infinite God.
If you accept the possibility that God is able in his sovereignty to create free moral agents with the ability of first cause choices then there is no circular reasoning...just mystery as to HOW God created such a being.
A better reflection of what you just said is: "...view of God with creatures that have true responsibility for their choices makes God 'greater' and 'holier' than if His creatures are merely doing what He has determined for them to do."
That is just it, God never intended to create a machine or a puppet or something to do HIS WILL. His plan was to create a FREE CREATURE who can do their own will.
You appear to confuse the term "self-sufficient" with "all-encompassing." God can be self-sufficient without being everyone's "self." What separates 'yourself' from 'Himself' if you are merely doing as he has determined you to do through secondary causes etc? It appears you believe the only Self in our world is God's Self.
Which scripture compares us to, mind you...
Why, because you can't grasp it? Is the Trinity untenable for the same reason?
Well, the alternative of appealing to mystery is determinism and it is clear that is not a biblical conclusion, so that only leaves us mystery. Scripture clearly teaches God is holy and doesn't even tempt men to do evil and that men are responsible for their choices and gives strong indication people can do otherwise than what they do (i.e. they have actual options from which to choose). Why go beyond the text and draw conclusions that scripture doesn't draw...just leave it to mystery.
But don't you think the conclusion that God determines even the evil desires of man removes a mystery of the Creator? It is making a positive accusation about the Creator, it is not appealing to mystery about our creator. Our view is the one that does this.
Right, and have you considered that the Omnipotent creator may have chosen to define a creature called "man" as being morally free? I ask because your view doesn't seem to leave much room between the instinctive choices of animals and those of man.
What do you mean by 'dependent?' What does our ability of first cause choice have to do with God's self-sufficiency? Why does my ability to choose X or Y make God dependent on my contribution? Is He not great enough to overcome and accomplish His purposes regardless of whether or not I choose X or Y? Is God so small that he must determine that I choose X in order for Him to accomplish His purposes? I think not.
A middle-knowledge view perhaps as well....
I think this is simply a misunderstanding. God's foreknowledge simply does not HAVE to deny LFW. They are two different things. God knows truths such as choices timelessly does he not? This might be simply a mistake of modal logic. A common one.
Simply on the grounds that it is true. You are appealing to a certain form of truth-making assumption perhaps. What is it that makes a proposition true? I think you are bringing into the idea that something has to have concrete purpose or rather something causal for something to be known, but, If, for instance, truth is simply defined as correspondence with reality, then it does not appear all things must be grounded or "determined" in a certain way that you seem to think. To elaborate: What would make this proposition true?
The President of the United States in 2024 will be a woman.
I would simply argue that it is true if it in fact is the case that in 2024 the president was in fact a woman. It simply corresponds with reality. It does not have to have some form of "determiner" per se
Unless his foreknowledge of actual events is based upon his middle knowledge of all possible counterfactual events. :thumbs:
Ultimately, God.
Appeal to emotion. I would like you to explain where such a desire can originate ex nihilo and why.
Yes, I believe that ultimately, everything that is created comes from God. I do not believe God has to coerce anyone to do such things, but all things are done willfully according to one's nature. One's nature comes about from innumerable contingencies that ultimately come from the decree of God. I don't have to answer for God or understand God. I can only take God's revelation of His moral will and say "This is evil" and to something else "This is good." According to God's command and moral will "Thou shalt not kill," yet it is God who killed Jesus Christ through the agency of wicked men violating God's law:
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
If we understand that such things are abhorrent, I do not see how your position (or even the Open Theist position) resolves the problem that God saw such things and allowed them to happen. God either knew from eternity that this would happen, or according to open theism, God was certainly aware when they were happening. He did not intervene, and for some reason only known to God, He allowed these children to be harmed against their will in favor of the will of Dahmer being accomplished. The only thing your position does is shift the problem of origin, but not the problem of purpose of occurrence. Your position does not explain the origin of evil. It denies that all evil can actually have a purpose in a good God that is a mystery to us. It, just like an atheist position, has to say "'Stuff' happens." Purposeless evil comes about in a vacuum.
Job 21:22 Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high.
Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Isa 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil [bara ra]: I the Lord do all these things.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
A legitimate area of inquiry is in what "the image of God" means. It does not have to mean God-like powers to create immaterial causes ex nihilo. I say it means (1)awareness of the Creator, (2)awareness of morality, (3)rational mind, and (4)an immaterial part of ontology [soul/spirit]. Part of this "image of God" was so that man could "have dominion over" the earth in a way that animals cannot.
And I see nowhere where God has "fully revealed" the philosophical concept of libertarian free will. It is a circular tautology that is just assumed to account for a faulty explanation of moral responsibility.
God's desires are based on His nature, and His nature is eternally, perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good.
This is why God alone is "Yahweh" (the Self-sufficient One). We are not self-sufficient, only God is. I cannot fully understand or explain how this works because the mystery lies with God.
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Some Open Theists like Bob Enyart assert that goodness and love cannot be "genuine" without the "real possibility" of evil and hatred. They even try to put the same assumed libertarian free will of good and evil on God, resulting in a seemingly zoorastrian concept of transcendent good and evil outside the decree of the Creator. Therefore, God has to have the capacity to do "real evil" (like something that would be regarded as "sinful") for His goodness to be "legitimate." Therefore, God would have to have the "real ability" to lie, when Scripture says that God cannot lie and that it is impossible for God to lie, not just that we can trust that He will never exercise His "free will" to do so.
I believe I have quoted Scripture above that would argue for my case.
If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 10:13, I will refer you to the context of that verse. It is comparing the Corinthians with the Israelites in the wilderness (v.1) and is admonishing them not to do what they did; however, it also echoes that promise of the distinction between the elect of God and the non-elect. God protects His elect from yielding to temptation leading to apostasy, but He does not do so for the non-elect.
If you are referring to James 1:13-14, we need to look at the context:
Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The temptation in v.12 has to do with temptation to apostatize. This could be trials and tribulations from oppressors (vv.2-4), or sinful desires. Compare v.12 to Philippians 1:29:
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Other passages too numerous to list bear out the idea that God has purpose in the suffering of His elect to try them as gold. Therefore, comparing Scripture with Scripture, James 1:13 cannot be saying that the origin of "temptation" cannot come from God's ultimate decree. The idea being expressed is of someone yielding to such temptation and blaming God as the excuse for yielding. Otherwise, how could mere "temptation" be equated with being "drawn away" and actually "enticed." Verse 15 elaborates the results, demonstrating that this "temptation" in v.13 is not the mere presence of a test, but is rather a synecdoche of the whole gambit of yielding to it and being subject to the consequences.
I believe that in light of the whole of Scripture and the passages I have presented, compatibilism is necessary to account for the apparent discrepancies between God's decree, Him "form[ing] darkness" and "creat[ing] evil," and Him having "created [all things]...visible and invisible" and man's moral responsibility to follow God's revealed moral will that He allows to be violated.
When Scripture says that "by Him were all things created...visible and invisible," I am going to believe just that, and not try to put some "things created" upon other ontologies that God created. Those who try to argue libertarian free will find themselves at the mercy of atheists who will eat them for lunch. The argument that we have for God as the first cause of the origin of the physical universe and the contingencies of physics should be similar to our argument for metaphysics also. Let the atheists look befuddled when we call them to repentance for "suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness" while we do not succumb and shuffle to their logical appeals to emotion.
I would say a view of God that is entirely trustworthy in a way that transcends finite human logic is better than one that has both God's creation and God Himself saying "What in the world?!"
I will accept your view when you can explain to me how libertarian free will works logically without tautology. You accept it because it is what you want to be true. I accept my view not because I want it to be true, but because of, in my opinion, the impossibility of the contrary.
No, ontology IS a fundamental basis for my position. I believe that the Scriptures declaring "for by Him were all things created...visible and invisible" necessitates my view. "Beside me there is no God formed" necessitates my view.
Yahweh is the only "ontology" Who is entirely self-sufficient. There is nothing outside His ontology upon which He is dependent to define His ontology (i.e. His eternal perfect knowledge being defined by what autonomous, libertarian free creatures would do). On the contrary, we are not self-sufficient like Yahweh is because "our sufficiency is of God" (2Co 3:5). We are created beings whose makeup is dependent on an outside source: God. God's being is self-sufficient. When you grant God's ability to create ex nihilo to other ontologies, you indirectly make an interdependency between God and His creatures.
Ontological distinction between God and His creatures is wholly part of my argument.
Ares:
It would seem to me that the opposite is true....No Atheist can believe in LFW. Materialism demands an explanation based upon prior causes to include all human thoughts....feelings....even desires. As C.S. Lewis puts in his book "Miracles" ...paraphrased: "for the materialist, the statement 'I want' is to say nothing more signifigant than 'I itch' " Your view is consistent with Materialism/Atheism. LFW is inconsistent with it. I would contend, however, that (in most circumstances) the average person has a natural and normal properly basic belief that they make real un-caused choices. It is usually a battle for them to let that idea go, if they want to believe in Atheism, they will have to surrender a belief in LFW. Think about this hastily construed syllogism for a sec:
Only God could create a being with LFW
Humans have LFW
Therefore God exists
It would seem to me that the opposite is true....No Atheist can believe in LFW. Materialism demands an explanation based upon prior causes to include all human thoughts....feelings....even desires. As C.S. Lewis puts in his book "Miracles" ...paraphrased: "for the materialist, the statement 'I want' is to say nothing more signifigant than 'I itch' " Your view is consistent with Materialism/Atheism. LFW is inconsistent with it. I would contend, however, that (in most circumstances) the average person has a natural and normal properly basic belief that they make real un-caused choices. It is usually a battle for them to let that idea go, if they want to believe in Atheism, they will have to surrender a belief in LFW. Think about this hastily construed syllogism for a sec:
Only God could create a being with LFW
Humans have LFW
Therefore God exists
I think this is an oversimplification Yeshua; alone and by itself, without modification of any sort, to say that God is "Sovereign" is not to say "God exhaustively and actively causes all things to the smallest of details". Theoretically, a God such as Deists believe in would be "Sovereign"; he would, after all, be Omnipotent would he not? Omnipotence itself necessarily implies "Sovereignty" simply stated. To say that he is "Sovereign" simply is not sufficient to conclude that therefore he has chosen to actively cause all things, either as a primary or secondary mover.
Remember, LFW is not the belief that man can choose Anything. God chooses of himself what choices are made available and which are not, and he reserves the right to "choose" for us as he wills, or to harden as he wills. That is sufficient for Sovereignty.
And to your question, probably not. My immediate guess is that our Wills are far more constrained and limited than was Adam's in the beginning.
Which Scriptures? I would say that the Scriptures never call humans "gods" with any positive meaning.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
God (with the exception of Satan and his followers) was unique at this time to know "good and evil" (having perfect knowledge), yet God is good. This is how Adam and Eve became "like one of us." They now, having committed evil against God, fell, and "dying thou shalt die." They lost their everlasting life (which perhaps was aided in a mysterious way by a "tree of life" in the garden. Elohim did not want a fallen humanity to receive sustenance from the tree of life to live perpetually.
Psa 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Psa 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?In this case, God called the judges of Israel "gods" because He gave them His law and they were "gods" among the people to judge by proxy. They had the divine oracles from God. However, they were unrighteous judges, and God said that, although they were in an exalted position, they would "die like men."
Jesus referenced this passage in His accusation against the Jews who wanted to stone Him for calling Himself "the Son of God." His point from Psalm 82 was to compare them to the unrighteous judges who abused their position from God and were false in their dealings with the Word of God. Jesus was addressing their hypocrisy because they accepted themselves as "gods" who were privileged as the mediators of God's law, yet they accused Jesus of blasphemy when all the evidence indicated that Jesus was indeed the "God with us" prophesied. He was the One "Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world." He was the One that by searching the Scriptures would testify of Him.
There is no point in any of these "man-god" passages that would indicate that men are "gods" who have the ability to create ex nihilo.
I have been heading a study on the Trinity for months. One of my points about why people reject the Trinity is because natural people cannot understand it; therefore, they reject it. I fully accept that the Trinity cannot be fully understood by humans because it cannot be compared to anything observable with the senses.
However, it is not comparable to what I asserted above. It is entirely different because the Trinity is all about the eternal being of God. I state above that I believe that even God's free will is compatibilistic: His desires and actions are according to His nature. The difference, as I have explained, is that only Yahweh is the self-sufficient one who can create ex nihilo. I have already stated that I cannot understand how this works, but that is reasonable because it is yet another observation about the eternal nature of God, not finite creatures.
I have argued from Scripture that "by Him were all things created...visible and invisible.... All things were created by Him and for Him." If autonomous man can create ex nihilo things that are not ultimately according to God's eternal decree, then God did not create all things BY Him and FOR Him.
Your dependence on libertarian free will for moral responsibility requires that God cannot create sentient, relational, accountable beings without such a tautology. You assert the necessity of something as intrinsic to finite creatures, but you cannot explain it. You assert the necessity that creatures be able to create ex nihilo when it logically contradicts the very reason choices can be made intelligently. You rely on an appeal to mystery that is really question begging, circular reasoning, and tautological because it is all about creatures who are not self-sufficient. Only Yahweh is self-sufficient, and He is where the mystery belongs.
The same rationale applies to an atheist who has to believe in some form of spontaneous generation for life to come from non-life. Without intelligence you cannot have life. Without an uncaused cause, you cannot have the first cause. However, if someone's existence is subject to causation, he cannot also be an unmoved mover. A devotion to the tautology of libertarian free will is why Process Theology has gained ground and necessarily claims that both God and the universe are eternally codependent, and that the only constant is change.
No, it is just that you refuse to swallow the tough pill that you are not the ex nihilo master of your own destiny, yet you are wholly accountable to God for your actions. Hey, I never said I like compatibilism. I was a four-point Arminian just like you on this very forum years ago and debated compatibilists just like you. I was brought to my position kicking and screaming by studying Scripture and crying over John 6, Ephesians 1, and other passages. Let me assure you that I do not come here with haughtiness, elitism, or pride, but rather humility and awe of God for Who He is and a low view for Who I am after I had my backside handed to me years ago. If anything I marvel every day at why God would reveal Himself to puke like me and save me, and THAT is a mystery. That is why salvation is so amazing, gut-wrenching, and life-changing, and gives real purpose in the world to serve the Creator and proclaim Him.
I believe I have addressed this charge in my commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:13 and James 1:13-14.
I see in Scripture where man has the power of choice. I see nowhere in Scripture where man has the mythical power of "contrary choice." Why does one have to assert the "real ability" of people to do something that cannot ever happen, namely something that is never actually done? The "ability to do otherwise" is merely a conscious illusion because "otherwise" can never happen. It is only the intellectual reminiscence of counterfactuals in hindsight.
Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for IF the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
How is this "the ability to do otherwise"? It is an if-then statement. It demonstrates both an affirmation of accountability and that moral decisions are the result of contingencies.
Not when the appeal to mystery is where it does not belong and is really tautology. I believe I have not gone beyond the text of Scripture, but rather have explained them according to context.
No, the mystery is His will (Eph 1:9). The mystery is the purpose of His will that we cannot understand in how He "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph 1:11). Recognizing that even evil things ultimately come from God's eternal decree does not remove a mystery of the Creator, it embraces it according to Scripture.