This conundrum is answered very simply….
God and his divine sovereignty does exist and so does free choice. God does not make choices for us but rather he knows what we will chose. Simply because what we will chose is known to an infinite exactness does not mean it is predetermined.

This is possible because god knows us and everything about the world so well, perfectly in fact, that he is able to determine the choices we will make in the future. He is however NOT making them for us.

If god had designed us with complete knowledge of our attributes and every action we would ever take then you could argue that every decision we had made was predetermined. From our perspective this would appear as free choice, but objectively it never really is - it would be the choice of the creator in his design.

i think we need to define two things;

1) what is free choice?

2) and what is sovereignty?

free will isnt free will

if desire is under no compulsion then the will is under no compulsion (thus making it free) - but because desire by definition can’t exist without compulsion, the will can never be free. human desire is a form of determinism and causation (and thus must have an exterior cause).

so (libertarian) free will can only exist if we act with no thought process or rationality, or even physical consciousness - which is only humanly possible with a medical or psychological condition, which is also an exterior will.

logically, free will as a completely unbound agent can’t exist - because since the universe (X) exists, nothing can be unbound.

nat,

i think you totally misunderstand free will (no offence).

proponents of libertarian freewill are more than happy to accept that we cannot fly, no matter how much we will it.

secondly, what reason is there to artificially separate the will and desire. Surely, they are functions of one another. you are left with something so absurd and circular as you show below when you do such a thing.

and i might add - comments to the effect “human responsibility exists but free will doesnt” are just as problematic as saying we are determined. I suggest the ONLY rational and Biblical position is a form of compatibilism that insists on divine control (manifest in foreknowledge and intervention) and human freedom. If either are compromised we thoroughly undermine the character of God. And i believe that they can exist without logical contradiction.

nat didnt really say, you cant fly therefore theres no free will. he seperated desire and will because free desire and free will are two different things. he said that human responsibility exists but free will doesnt because the bible says that we are responsible for our actions, he said that free will doesnt exist because to quote john hendryx “We might want to consider whether the Bible uses the expression ‘freedom’ to describe any fallen man. And the answer is no, not UNTIL Christ sets us free (Rom 6). Jesus says that prior to grace, persons are ’slaves to sin’. And, last time I looked, a slave is not free”. what part of God is undermined if nat does it, sovereign ruler/righteous judge?

eddie, we may have hit a brick wall, because i think you misunderstand compatibilism.

compatibilism is a will acting voluntarily rather than ‘freely’ - compatibilism upholds determinism and moral responsibility, not divine control and human freedom (John Frame’s Doctrine of God for reference). my argument was entirely appealing to logic - to assert my conclusions on God is a straw-man argument. but all roads lead there…

i think rather, that we undermine God (as Will said) if we EVER assert human freedom outside of Christ.

I also think you misunderstood my separation of will and desire.
my argument was that the will is subordinate to desire; agreed? and if it’s not subordinate to desire - it’s subordinate to another exterior force. therefore (my previous conclusion) - the will can only be free if desire is free. desire’s existence depends on exterior compulsion - so desire is not free.
so a free will cannot exist.

well that is a lame definition of compatibilism. it says nothing but rephrases another anglicanised mantra “we dont have freedom, just responsibility”.

If we want any hope of being freed (excuse the pun) from the despair and meaninglessness of determinism, or the frightening heresy that God is not in control, we need a decent meaning to the term compatibilism. The phrasing you quote is a religious version, not a philosophical one.

i speak not of moral freedom as in the capacity to be free from corruption, there is enough scripture to tell us that we are all corrupted, and that is a whole separate debate with its own issues. i speak of the freedom to choose. to choose God or not. to choose grace or not. to choose maccas or to choose frozen meat pies.

what does it mean to say that we voluntarily, but not freely choose something? it is a game of semantics that simply tries to avoid the problem by creating further categories. we are bound, or we are not. we act freely, or we do not.

and as for this desire - will discussion i feel like it is irrelevant. it mistakes the entire picture. effectively it says that free will as a concept cannot exist for humanity, and as it is it has nothing to do with God’s control. it could be a completely atheistic argument. therefore, it can only but miss the whole point of the discussion. the discussion is about whether there is a logical contradiction either in our doctrine of God (for how can he be in control, because we can choose what we want, when we want) or as humans we are determined, not biblical, not desirable, and contradicts our own experience of life and the presumptions of our society.

i say again, and i dont agree, it is an artificial separation of will and desire. the two categories do not exist. how do we not know that what you call desire is a function of the “yet-to-determine-itself” will? and furthermore, what of the person who acts unselfishly? that would be to act in contradiction to their desire (a fundamental component of self-lessness) - they act not to serve themselves but to serve others. and if you are going to say thats because they desire to be selfless, for one that just proves my point that there is an artificial separation, and for two, take the person who justs acts that way in spite of their own desire. actually chooses to spite themselves and act outside of desire. if you can avoid both those problems without collapsing the terms then you have done something impossible.

i think the problem in this argument is that we are arguing on different premises. what is freedom. what is sovereignty. ill continue on engageforum..

lets consider what we’re arguing;
God’s revealed character in the Bible -
or humanist logic and freedom of choice

ill start with the Bible;

John 15:16 - (Jesus to disciples/Christians) You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

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

*my conclusion is that Biblically, God is sovereign over choice - sinners and repenters alike. this is the premise to any of my philosophical arguments.

you accused my argument of getting caught up in semantics - in love brother i have to say thats all i saw in your argument too!
lets do some defining if we want to have a fruitful discussion..

we act freely or we don’t?
my answer: we don’t because we are sinners and nothing happens against the will of God (Romans 6 & 9)

we act voluntarily or we don’t?
my answer: yes we do because there is a difference between the cause and executor of a will - who is responsible for King Duncan’s death in Shakespeare’s Macbeth? Is it Shakespeare the sovereign author of the play or is it Macbeth the voluntary executor of the plot? Since Shakespeare (as the author) is not bound by the contextual/conventional confines of the play and Macbeth is - we have to conclude, Macbeth is responsible because he acted voluntarily whilst he was unable to choose otherwise under the sovereign plot of Shakespeare.

That analogy is full of holes - im aware, but Biblically the only conclusion i am convinced we can end up with is something similar.
God determines everything.
including what we want and do.
we choose what we want and do.
this decision, whilst not free, is unforced.
therefore we are morally responsible.

Nat, and am thankful for this awesome chat… it rocks.

thanks for providing some definitions, and yes, semantics riddle this whole issue - granted.

lets get to work.

I do not dispute the sovereignty of God. I hear God’s word and totally grant that God is in control of salvation and even the sparrow that falls.

My question is simply, that this assertion (and truth) is presented concurrently with assertions to rid ourselves from sin and turn to Christ (Col 3 is a good example).

Thus my problem is not that i wish to deny the sovereignty of God, simply that i wish to question how (logically) it can coexist with moral responsibility.

If as you say in your last paragraph, God DETERMINES the world, then how can he possibly then turn and condemn sinners? Determinism and moral responsibility are mutually exclusive. I know you will suggest we are volunteers, but i believe this to be thoroughly misleading and essentially a fallacy - there is no such thing as a volunteer in a determined universe, because you cannot volunteer to do something that you have no choice but to do in the first place… but let me return to this after an analogy.

Consider the way we attribute moral guilt in a court of law. We presume innocence, and when we can show that the offender did, and (in more serious crimes) intended to do the crime, we convict them and punish them.

now, we make allowances for coercion and undue influence, indeed these are defenses (as is provocation). That is, if someone holds a gun to my wife’s head and says “i will shoot her unless you go and steal that packet of chewing gum”, and i then go and commit the crime, i am not considered morally corrupt or a criminal - i was forced to act that way - i effectively had no choice.

or similarly, and more simply, if my car malfunctions (despite all my efforts to keep it in it’s best condition) and i run over an old lady, i am not held criminally accountable - i had no choice, i was forced by an exterior circumstance - i am morally uncorrupted.

Now, this seems a thoroughly sensible system to me. the fundamental premise of our legal system is that we only convict people when we can show that it was they themselves that did the actions of their own free will (my meaning of free will at this point is thoroughly a-religious). if their will was not free, we do not convict them.

So the question is not complicated by voluntariness (indeed, that is an exact element of each crime - did the criminal voluntarily act the way they did). It is a logical contradiction to suggest that one can have their freedom determined (i.e. at any given moment, they can not do anything BUT what is already decided) and then rightly hold them morally accountable for what was already chosen for them.

It is as if i build a robot that can only say f***, then i make a rule that whenever it says f*** i am going to destroy it, and it is their fault. it is nonsensical.

Now, returning to the concept of volunteerism. Is it possible to have someone’s free will constrained, in a determined world, yet some concept of being a volunteer remains, and thus, moral responsibility can still exist?

firstly, no, for the reasons above, determinism is too strong for any sense of voluntariness to exist. Because if God is fully in control and has fully determined the world, then he has determined our voluntariness (and if he hasn’t, then he is not in control, and that would contradict the Bible).

secondly, what the heck is the difference between being a volunteer and being free? as i said in the email before, how on earth do they no collapse into one another? you use the example of Macbeth and Shakespeare, yet that only goes to show my point above. as you rightly concede, Shakespeare has designed the character and determined his fate. Macbeth can act in no other way than how he does, thus his freedom is a myth. even his voluntariness (i presume you mean his wish to still do the acts he is determined to do) is determined - thus the argument of voluntariness looks like this:

1. God determined the world, including human action.
2. God determined that humans will feel like they voluntarily do what they do.
3. God then “rightly” judges them in eternal condemnation because they voluntarily did what He determined for them to do in the first place.

It is a smoke screen, and such an annoying smoke screen when people just insert another world instead of freedom and think that solves a far more profound problem. if everything in this world is forechosen by God, then we have a pickle, because it means we CANNOT choose anything for ourself. and the problem with this view is that (1) we become like the robots above, condemned for what we were programed to do in the first place (and as we have seen, even our legal system picks up on the fallacy of logic and morality this necessitates); (2) all the praise and glory that God gets, He only gets because He determined it that way. So essentially, some of us robots have a “give praise to God” button, and God has written a script for when he wants that button to be pressed and not pressed.

Now, these are two fairly big problems. The goodness of God is impossible to sustain in (1), and in (2), our God gets no real glory, but the same amount of glory we would if we built a robot that said, “Nat rocks the world’s Jocks”.

My next point is that if humans do not have free, voluntary choice, then the Bible makes no sense. The Bible is littered with commands. There are over 600 of them in the old testament and plenty in the new. If God already determined the world, then what the heck are all those commands for?? Its like writing a letter to our robot friend above telling him not to say f***. it is a waste of everyone’s time.

Therefore, in the same way as you have quoted scripture to establish God’s sovereignty, i similarly rely on scripture to give credence to a fully fledged doctrine of human choice.

Love your Father and Mother; Go and make disciples of all nations; etc…

The Bible doesn’t need to derive human choice, it is obvious and essential to our humanity. it is an axiom presumed as much as conscious is.

And what of the instance you quote above where Jesus explicitly states that we do not choose him, [John 15:16 - (Jesus to disciples/Christians) You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name]? well i am very thankful for that example because it does exactly both things at once. It asserts quite rightly that in salvation there is something that we cannot do. we are not able to save ourselves. God must. however, in the phrase following it says “the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” - essentially, go and ask God for things (freely) exercising your own will and here is a promise to with that in God’s answers to prayer.

Of course God acts in creation. And one of those most profound acts is to save sinners. i certainly do not assert that we can do that on our own. But having a limit to what we can do, is not to suggest we do not have freedom!? Forgetting religion for a moment… lets say i can do whatever i want. the fact that i cannot now fly does not then mean that i am not free. it is to say, you are a human and the scope of what you can do does not include flying. likewise, and i think the biblical picture of both salvation and our own human plight is that we cannot live a life sinless - choosing godliness at every juncture. likewise, in salvation, because it is a GIFT FROM GOD, there is an element to which we cannot choose to receive the gift but rely on God’s goodness to give it to us. this fact, that God acts in creation, and that some things are impossible for man, does not mean that we do not have free choice. our choice is constrained by the context that we live in a natural world. we cant teleport either!

My assertion is not that God is not “in control”, simply that the world is not determined. One can be “in control” without determining the universe. And for the person that asserts determinism, they commit rational suicide if they also assert that God is good and humans are held responsible for the forced acts that they commit. likewise, if we voluntarily commit these acts, then our voluntariness is determined, and if our voluntariness is not determined, then God is not in control and we are back where we started from.

The Bible clearly asserts three central truths:

1. God is in control and foreknows everything
2. Humans can choose and are implored to choose to live sinlessly
3. God is good.

the unity of these things cannot be rationally held together by determinism.

my own personal conclusions are these:

1. there may be no rational explanation for this scenario, and there may be good reason for this.
2. omniscience does not necessitate determinism
3. God acting in the world does not outright contravene our human freedom (though it does contrain it at points), however, this is not unnatural, we do it to each other all the time
4. if we are not free in the choices we make, then God is wicked for condemning sinners
5. the matter of total depravity and original sin is a seriously complicating factor and contributes to the complexity of the whole issue.

would love your thoughts mate. disagree, but totally respect your view.

cheers,

eddie

thanks for that well thought out response man. i fully understand your argument - but i have some questions.

1. you’ve asserted that man has freedom to choose otherwise. essentially libertarian free will. does God have a free will in the libertarian sense? for example; is God able to choose otherwise? (is He “free” to choose whether he does good or evil?) And if not does this mean human beings have more freedom then God does?

2. secondly - on the premise that God possesses all knowledge, he is infinite, he is perfect and he is beyond our understanding; is God’s character really compromised if he did do your points (1) and (2)? it depends on our presumption whether God is a primarily self-centred being or not.
John 17:
“20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”
This passage portrays God (in the Father and Jesus) as primarily self-centred; Jesus states that his Father chose (v24) people for salvation in order that they may see Jesus’ Glory and the Glory of the Father. i dont think it is our position to judge whether Gods character is compromised by election (rather than choice) for his own Glory as you suggested - i think rather God’s character is compromised when we, put ourself in the driver seat and let pagan philosophy wear the pants over God’s revealed character in the Bible.
before i go on - id suggest that if you followed your leading principle of the “logical contradiction” you’d start dropping Biblical doctrines like flies; explain the trinity without a logical contradiction to me, explain jesus’ divinity/manhood without a logical contradiction to me, explain the virgin birth, explain any argument about an infinite, perfect God whilst being a finite human without becoming circular - and then maybe tell me that predestination and judgement are illogical.
i think a strictly determinist compatibilism is not necessarily contradictory - but i think we need to decide who’s in the drivers seat in the end, the Bible or worldly philosophy.

*my original argument:

my original argument was that free will is not free. i suggested that the will isn’t free because for something to be free (as you said) “forced by an exterior circumstance” - i then concluded that desire (regardless of whether you see it is as inseparable from the will or not) DEPENDS ON EXTERIOR CIRCUMSTANCE.
if as you agreed - desire is indeed inseparable from human will (which i agree, i was separating them to prove my point) then you have just, in your own words, denounced the definition of free will you have presented.
this is my premise for saying free will is a logical contradiction. since we are not dealing with infinites - it is possible for a logical contradiction to actually be deduced. i think on the character of God you’ll find yourself running in circles, because youll have to!

in your 3 points of what the Bible tells us - i suggest that we make one alteration.

1. God foreknows everything BECAUSE he is in control.
2. Humans can choose and are implored to choose to live sinlessly
3. God is good.

back to my second question - here is some Bible support regarding why God’s election is both self-centred and just.

“His motivation in election

A) His own good pleasure

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

B) The display of his glory

Isa 43:6-7 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Rom 9:22-24 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Eph 2:4-7 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

1Co 1:27-31 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

C) His special love

Deu 7:6-8 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

D) His foreknowledge

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

· Which means his special love

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained [Greek, “foreknown”] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

E) But not:

· Any good [nobility, wisdom, power, choice, seeking] he foresees in anyone

Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

Rom 9:11-13 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

1Cor 1:27-29 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

1Cor 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began”

more from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html

i think at this point we need to cease being philosophers,
and just be theologians hey ed?

Thanks nat,

I will respond in turn to your comments:
1. I assert that of course God has the freedom to do evil. The fact that he is good means he does not. And that he is perfectly good would mean that he would not. We are no more free than God, we simply choose with less consistency – sometimes we choose good, sometimes we choose evil.
2. For one, I have no idea which points (1) and (2) you are referring to. I used points 3 times in my above post. However, I will comment on your argument. I concede that God is self-centred. But it is no concession at all in the context of this discussion, in fact it appears quite irrelevant.
God may be self-centred, however, he also purports to be good, so his self-centredness can never constitute evil (injustice). Condemning sinners to eternal pain, loneliness, fear and suffering for actions that they were not free to do otherwise is like smacking your kid for touching the hot oven when you pressed his hand onto it with your own. Regardless of God’s desire for His own glory, His character is good, and therefore, it is not possible to maintain that he has determined the universe, yet he condemns sinners (the sinners he forced to reject him in the first place).

Now your second point here is that there are many occurrences of logical contradiction in the Bible, and indeed in some central truths of the evangelical Christian faith. Moreover, you explain this is because God is infinite and thus we will frequently find ourselves unable to explain God.

It may sound pious to sit there and praise God for the logical contradiction that we have created and look down on all those inferior, mindless ‘philosophers’ for trying to find a reason for the assertions of the Bible, but not only is it a form of hypocrisy, it plainly contradicts the evangelical, rational heritage of the same doctrines that you have quoted.

How do you think a doctrine like the trinity was deduced? It isn’t mentioned in the scriptures? By flipping rational deduction. God has revealed himself to us in the scriptures, and often reveals himself in an appeal to reason. Paul is a prime exemplar of this very reasonable revelation. Don’t tell me that because there are other problems that we struggle to understand in the Bible that therefore logical contradictions are to be embraced!! This discussion is not about the trinity, or the virgin birth, or any other miracle. In fact, you aren’t even willing to accept there IS a logical contradiction (or so you deduce). The fact that we have trouble explaining the divinity of Jesus and the manhood of Jesus simultaneously doesn’t mean that we should embrace a God who condemns those that he forces to reject him. That sounds like a wicked God playing lemmings with creation.

And don’t assert that using “pagan philosophy” by which you mean “reason” is when we compromise the character of God. And don’t dare chuck that into a rant that you intend to found upon your own reason. I don’t appreciate being told by someone that since I choose to look for a logical, rational explanation to a monumental problem in our doctrine of God’s character, that my problem is that I am trying to be sensible. According to you what I really need to do is care less about what makes sense, and just assert nonsense.

Moreover, asking me to be first a theologian and then a philosopher is to assert meaningless as well. Theology is a subset of philosophy. Try telling a theologian to refrain from using systematic consideration of basic concepts. Plus, it is no more godly to quote selected scripture, then implore me to give up my ‘misled’ conceptions of God, when in fact, I am offended by the God you derive. I do not wish to follow a God who will create a being, mislead it to believe that it has the capacity to choose, then give it a conscience that will invariably condemn it for its acts of sin (forced by this God, though unbeknown to the helpless being), then write it a book revealing a perfect God that will burn them in hell forever unless they repent and believe (though, he forces them never to be able to accept his grace he enforces on others). I assert a God who is in control, yet we have freedom to choose to sin, or to honour God. You derive a God who plays chess with himself (playing both sides of the game), then pretends that he was the rightful winner.

To assert a determined universe, where we still have choice is meaningless, it is a contradiction in terms. And without choice, we cannot rightly be condemned.

3. Commenting on “*my original argument”
I find this thoroughly perplexing. You continue to labour this (what I think is absurd) distinction between the will and desire. I have argued that they cannot be separated (i.e. they are one and the same thing, it is the will), and you concede this, but then you argue that this depends on exterior circumstance and thus I compromise my own definition of free will. No.
There is a very very very very big difference between something as you say “depending” on exterior circumstance, and being “forced” by exterior circumstance. Our will depends on our existence. It depends on our world. It depends on oxygen going to our brain. It is not forced by existence, the world or by oxygen. This is an absurd game of semantics. Lets stop making this more complicated than it is. If you want to argue that our will is not free, then show me in a real, tangible sense that actually corresponds even to our outermost sense of experience. All you are doing here is using another word to somehow show that our ability to choose is impossibly fraught with some exterior force that compels and subverts our freedom. I say its total BS, and the more I think about it, the more convinced I am, and as I read what is above, I think you have shown rubbish all to convince me otherwise.

Just an aside on your comment “since we are not dealing with infinites – it is impossible for a logical contradiction to actually be deduced”. This is essentially relativism.

I say, if you want to remove deduction from our conversation then I really wish that you had told me this before I begun. What the heck! You just deduced that!?! Not only will I find myself running around in circles when it comes to the character of God, if I become a true relativist, then I will find myself running around in circles on everything.

If you are a Christian, then there is truth. If there is truth there is deduction, and if you are not willing to accept even a pragmatic, axiomatic version of deduction then go and wallow with Neitzsche, while the rest of us live on. Facts happen, truth exists, God is an even greater proof for that, and so I will continue to deduct things without running in circles.

Now, to comment on the deluge of scripture and your surrounding argument:

I have commented above on conceding the self-centredness of God. It is of no consequence to me (at this point in the discussion). I am happy for God to be jealous for his glory as long as he is still Good. That is what I think is at stake.

You have said that your deluge shows how God’s election is just. I disagree. You only showed how it was self-centred. However, let me provide some scripture to illustrate with (in combination with what you have provided) the very heart of the issue.

Jesus: “Repent and believe”. Recorded by Mark in Chapter 1, vs 15.

God is fully in control (so we both agree). I also assert, and see my post above, that we require the gift of God to be saved – he is divinely at work in the act of election and salvation. However, I simultaneously observe that God gives us the capacity to act. Jesus here seems to think so too.

Herein lies the issue.

So far you have asserted that God is in control, and we are pawns on his self-centred chess board, being moved around for his pleasure, and we just have to hope that this God leaves us on the winning side.

Contrastingly, I assert that God is in control, and he has given us choice to act in creation.

You derive a wicked God. I derive a problem, indeed, some might say logical contradiction (though I would disagree). However, if we we are plainly faithful to the scriptures, the theologian in me feels that I would come up trumps. And moreover, I prefer to worship a Good God.

I have no intention of ceasing to be a philosopher, for to do so is to cease to be a theologian. I also have no intention of giving up my reason simply because it sounds more pious to say God has more control than he has.

If I was going to make a god that that was good according to a worldly definition he would be like this. He would turn everyone into robots (for as long as a “vapor” is) and then when everyone was in heaven he would tell them all what had happened and they all would be happy- who would give up a lifetime in paradise for eighty or something years with free will and then eternity in hell? The Arminian understanding of God is that he desires everyone to go to heaven, BUT what he prefers is to preserve everyone’s free will. Why? Surely that’s not nice or good according to the world? So I’m left with two understandings of God that don’t really gel with what I learnt in Sunday school. Both make me very, very sad at times. I have decided to choose the one that I think has much more support from the bible.

My argument goes like this

*Unregenerate man can’t do any good by himself -since he doesn’t worship God, everything he does is idolatry. He will not randomly decide to worship and praise God- flesh produces flesh/ fig trees don’t bear oranges. Biblical support- Gen 6:5, Job 15:14-16, Psa 130:3,` Isa 64:6, Jer 13:23, Joh 3:19, Romans 8:7,8, John 15:4,5
*Faith and repentance are gifts from God Joh 3:27, Phi 1:29, 2Pe 1:1, Act 16:14, Act 18:27, Eph 2:8-10, John 6:63-65, Act 5:31, Act 11:18,
*Jesus doesn’t say “ I don’t know you anymore”, but I “NEVER knew you”- all to whom God grants faith and repentance will go to heaven. Biblical support- Phi 1:6, 2Ti 4:18 , Joh 6:39-40, Joh 10:27-29, Rom 8:28-31 , Rom 8:35-39, Heb 7:25, Heb 10:14
*not everyone goes to heaven
*everyone is not granted faith and repentance

Objection one- “ but that sounds unfair”, based on what…you? Though I agree I get sad about it all the time, it doesn’t mean that its wrong, “ my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways”.

Objection two- “but it’s illogical” first we have to work out whether or not it’s biblical. If its true and it contradicts our logic then we take our logic as far as it can go (recognizing the truthfulness/ objective existence of complicated doctrines like the trinity, divine sovereignty/human responsibility, how Paul can be sorrowful yet always rejoicing), then leave the rest up to God trusting in His goodness and righteousness. “ Our part (Paul) would tell us is to acknowledge these facts , and to adore Gods righteousness, both as King and as Judge, not to speculate as to how sovereignty can be consistent with his just judgement, and certainly not to call the justice of either into question because we find the problem of their relationship too hard for us! The creator has told us that He is both a sovereign Lord and a righteous Judge, and that should be enough for us. Why do we hesitate to take His word for it? Can we not trust what He says?- J.I Packer

Also, Jesus death can not provide atonement for everyone’s sins (giving everyone the chance to believe) while some people go to hell still. John Owen used to ask people “do you believe Jesus death provided atonement for the sins of all people”
“ Yes”
“so why don’t all people go to heaven”
“because of their unbelief”
“ and that lifelong rejection of God is that a sin?”
If they say it is a sin, then either Jesus died for that sin and they will be forgiven or he didn’t die for it and therefore he didn’t die for the sins of all people. Furthermore to say that Jesus died for the sins of all people is to say that He died for the people who were already in hell while he was on the cross. Its also to say that Jesus pays their punishment on the cross and then they pay their punishment in hell. The point I’m trying to make is everyone does not have the capacity to save themselves because everyone’s sins were not atoned for. The question in Romans “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?, would be very easily answered if the Arminian was right. The answer would be “ God looks through his telescope of time and sees who will choose Him and who wont, therefore its perfectly fair!” but the answer to how God can make “one vessel for honorable use” and one for “dishonorable use” is “who are you o man to answer back to God”. That’s what I think, cheers

roger that will

eddie, we’ll continue when you substantiate a real biblical argument - the “but he tells us to do stuff” argument doesn’t really deliver like you’d want it to.
say i say, “the sun is always shining”
you respond and say “but how can that be when sometimes its night”
although it appears to be a complete refutation of my argument, it hasnt done so at all - because it is not tackling the real systematic issue of (say) the sun’s character.

tell me something about the character of God that undermines election.
not something about us and our justice/logic

1 corinthians 1:18-25

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

nat and will, you are obviously far more godly than i am, because you have no problem with a God who creates (we didnt ask to be!), then by his good choice, chooses some for salvation and some for eternal agony (indeed, he chooses some for noble purposes and some to merely be clay pots (sucked in!)).

nat, you have suggested that i have not mounted an argument as to the character of God. i am wondering who’s posts you have been reading!

it is evil,unjust and plainly wicked to create something, with the illusion of choice (for according to your determinism that is all it can be, an illusion), and then condemn them when they could not but do otherwise!! now i am fine with righteous judgement, but how in the world can judgement be righteous if he actually intended, forced, determined, and any other synonym you can find for complete coercion the very people that God wishes to “punish”!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

God is announced as Good in the Bible, as righteous and just. Explain that! I would say it is in direct contradiction of all the things that make God worthy!

the argument “God tells us to do stuff” is a rather potent one for your own case. You rationalise that call to act by the same person who determines the world!?!?!?!?!?

surely i dont need to go through the Bible, the one you are so good at quoting, and recite every instance where God calls us to act, think, live in a certain way? i will if you request it. but saying my argument is not Biblical is bullcrap.

i remind you, what you are doing is making God a robot-producing sadist, and i do not wish to worship your God. He makes us, programs us to reject Him, when we do He sends his Son to be killed and saves some. but the others are supposedly worthy of eternal destruction - i wonder, have you ever stopped to consider how cruel that is?

i grant that God is sovereign, and that He elects those He saves, but i assert that there must be an element of human freedom for God’s character to be preserved.

so far, all you have done is build a case for a sovereign God, who elects according to his divine will. i agree. but how can the Bible make sense, and indeed God’s character remain, without humans being able to act (flip - why else do we have a God given conscience!?!? Rom 1:20).

seriously, this is not wisdom of the world, this is plainly deriving the world from the Bible. stop calling me worldly for using the same deductive principles as you do!!!! you may feel more righteous because you are ok with a determined universe, but in actual fact you are rejecting the very God given gift of being able to act and choose in His universe.

Proverbs 16:4 - The LORD has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom

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

*What is “good”?

Philippians 2:3 - for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his (own) good purpose.

ULTIMATE GOOD is God doing what he pleases with his own creation - you aptly mocked the Romans 9 portrayal of the potter/artist who has every right to do whatever He wants with His clay.

* judging God’s character by what measure of “good” he is on your radar implies that Good is actually more infinite and superior to God.

>if God is indeed infinite, eternal, all powerful, all knowing etc. as im sure you would agree with - he cannot be judged by an exterior prerogative (i.e whatever definition of “goodness” you prescribe too) because he has created ALL things according to the Bible (including even “goodness”), for his own pleasure/good (Proverbs 16). so to question God’s “goodness” is essentially idolatry.

>you still cling to the idea that “free will” is the only way we can be morally responsible. I asked for Biblical support, your response was that a) you needed none and b) the Bible tells us to do stuff. i can tell an oven to do stuff by pressing a button - am i not still in control of what it does? the oven has no free will. but what separates us from an oven or a “robot” as you like to say - is, as you said, “conscience”. the Bible emphatically declares our responsibility not on basis of “free choice” but on our conscience and the fact that we INDEED do “whatever we please”. does this however nullify God’s right to do “whatever He pleases” as you imply? it certainly doesn’t as is exemplified in Acts 4:27-38 (the Believer’s Prayer) – …”Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, who you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”
*but they are still responsible for THEIR motives Acts 2:23 – “This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and forknowledge; and you, with the help of WICKED men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross”
*Righteous judgment, therefore depends on our our will/conscience not God’s will/conscience, Genesis 50:20 – “YOU intended it for harm, BUT GOD intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

>personally i am insulted at your mockery of the God that Will and i (and the overwhelming majority of Christians that both you and I know and love) worship and i would expect better from somebody who leads God’s people. I AM IN AWE of the God who for His own good purposes created people who hated and rejected Him so he could ultimately show them His self-sacrificial love - and reconcile “all things to himself” Col 1, to the “praise of His glorious grace” Eph 1 - I and cry as a sinner in need of forgiveness “nothing in my hand i bring (by NO doing of my own), simply to thy cross i cling”.

im assuming you were making fun of us for our supposed self-righteousness for quoting the Bible.
I don’t think we ever claimed that we were “more godly” than you
that’s just immature and ridiculous*
ha…we just know how to use biblegateway.com
peace out

Haha Nat mines more like DesiringGod.com. Eddie I don’t think it’s fair for you to say that I have “no problem” with this understanding of God when I have said that it makes me “very, very sad”, and then “I get sad about it all the time”, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.” (Proverbs 24:17-18).

God does elect individuals for salvation, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?” James 2:5, and for condemnation, “for certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation” Jude 4.

Honestly, I do think it is godlier to accept God’s character as revealed in the bible “But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares the LORD. JEREMIAH 9:24, “ If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favor with you”, “With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.”, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you”, “But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles?”, “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.”, “What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord”, and especially, “That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed”.

The bible says that “The goodness of God endures continually” (Ps. 52:1) and God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) and it also says “he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ” therefore;
*God is good
* God predestines
* It is good to predestine

Where is the support that this is “evil, unjust and plainly wicked”? How can there “be an element of human freedom” if God “elects those He saves”? Either He chose them or they chose God.

You could “recite every instance where God calls us to act, think, live in a certain way” and then we would respond that the ultimate control is always Gods. For example you could quote Matthew 3:2, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is near” and we would respond with 2 timothy 2-“Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”. You could quote john 3:16, “ whoever believes in him… will have eternal life” and then we would respond with “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him”. You could quote Genesis 38:7 “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the LORD put him to death”, and we would respond with “Proverbs 16:4 - The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom”.

I think you’ve gone too far saying “I do not wish to worship your God”, when we do all worship the same God and should unite together for Jesus’ sake. You’ve questioned how Gods character can remain if “Calvinism” is true- I want to know how Gods character (who chooses us in Him before the foundation of the world) can remain if its not?

In my opinion you have fought to preserve one alleged attribute of God at the expense of the others. So we are not calling you worldly for struggling or systematizing but for placing a higher authority on worldly principles about what is right and good rather than what God says is right and good.

I also believe we hold the traditional, historic perspective-
“to suppose that whatever God requires of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect”- John Owen
“Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven” Charles Spurgeon
“If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright”
Martin Luther
“We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil”- John Calvin
“Our good works and pious prayers and right faith could not possibly have been in us unless we had received them all from Him” St Augustine
“It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin, and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost” J.I Packer
“I quite like puppets” Roger Nicole
This is not the central issue of the bible and I hope we will all still work together despite our differences “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.”

Anyone read works by St. Augustine?

I think he covers this topic quite well, notably in his book “City of God”.

If not Will Durant and Betrand Russell are more contemporary philosophers worth mentioning.

Nat, your beligerence scares me. You have confirmed my view that Christians are closed-minded and unwilling to engage in discussion with normal people. Hell, if you cant even reason with other Christians without the conversation going to the dogs then what hope do the rest of us pagans have!

Hoping that you guys can settle down about uncertain things so that this becomes a meaningful and level-headed conversation,

Andy

I have ended up seeking all over for all of this post. Thankfully I uncovered this on Bing.