Free will and All loving vs. Predestination and Devine ****

[Byblos]

Hi Guys

Here is my two cents. I for one do not believe in Predestination - although I appreciate the arguements put forward from scripture - although some of them can be interpretated differently - such as the expression "Apart from me you can do nothing" - is to me a figure of speech - it does not literally mean that we cannot do nothing - just anything of real significant IMHO.

This concept of Freewill ties is closely to whether you believe the universe functions under a A theory or B Theory of time. If it is A then God cannot know who will choose Christ. As the future does not exist yet - however I am sure he can predict with almost 99.9999999999999% accuracy what we would choose from his middle knowledge - but this is a prediction and not an influencing factor on our choice. If you believe in a staic B theory of time where all moments of time exist simultaneously and all that changes is our perspective on it then God will know what we will choose and will probably have more of an influence on our choices.

On a more logical front - how can you coincide an All Loving God with one who chooses from the start who to save and allow some people no option. We would have been better not to have existed in the first place - if our entire purpose is to suffer damnation for all eternity. That strikes me as down right evil and is not a God I would like to worship.

Silvertusk.

Silver, I don't think anyone is saying we don't have the free will to choose, I would venture to say not even Calvinism. What we (I, at least) have been arguing all along, here and in other threads, that our free will is not unconditional. If it were then we would have the inner power to save ourselves apart from God's grace. And that my friend would be pure heresy (pelagianism).

[DannyM]

In short, Norman's view on Christian exclusivity in the manner of Calvinism, is that its philosophical implications are NOT REASONABLE, LOGICAL, OR POSSIBLE when you read the bible in COMPLETE CONTEXT.

Then show us how. Present it, man!

I have read a few more of Danny's posts elsewhere on this recently hot topic around here, but it still does not fix the philosophical implications it presents.

And what might they be?

Danny, I understand that you have taken the view of what is known as "soft determinism" but that STILL does not fix the philosophical problem. You present it as what we would call "inclination". You may think it works, but it really doesn't on philosophical grounds.

Still waiting…

As a philosopher, and my studies on the views of other Christian philosophers. I can tell you with full confidence that we all reject your view outright.

Who’s “we all”?

God is the very basis of Logic and Reason so any view in which you present that God has deceived us with a FAKE free will is automatically DQed.

What? Where did I even intimate such a thing?

There is basically a 0% chance that you can sell this idea of FAKE free will to anyone who is philosophically equipped.

Aunt Sally time!

You know why? Because God will never go against LOGIC and REASON. Its impossible because we understand on a philosophical level the personal nature of God as a COMPLETE TRUTHBEARING SUPREME BEING.

Agreed.

So, let's go ahead and temporarily leave this thread for the time being. It seems as though I am going to have to create some other thread with more basic doctrine because this is probably TOO advanced for this board at this point in time.

Dom, I’m still waiting for you to present an argument against me. You see your above post? It’s all just a rant with no substance. Please re-read your own words which I have quoted and responded to. You are not saying anything, other than blowing smoke up your own backside. Where’s this philosophical argument that will put me away, Dom?

I’ll suggest once more that you step back and examine your posts, and find that you have written quite a lot but said nothing.

God bless

[DannyM]

Dom, please answer this:

Did God foreknow your response? Did God foreknow you would be saved?

God bless

[Silvertusk]

Hi Guys

Here is my two cents. I for one do not believe in Predestination - although I appreciate the arguements put forward from scripture - although some of them can be interpretated differently - such as the expression "Apart from me you can do nothing" - is to me a figure of speech - it does not literally mean that we cannot do nothing - just anything of real significant IMHO.

This concept of Freewill ties is closely to whether you believe the universe functions under a A theory or B Theory of time. If it is A then God cannot know who will choose Christ. As the future does not exist yet - however I am sure he can predict with almost 99.9999999999999% accuracy what we would choose from his middle knowledge - but this is a prediction and not an influencing factor on our choice. If you believe in a staic B theory of time where all moments of time exist simultaneously and all that changes is our perspective on it then God will know what we will choose and will probably have more of an influence on our choices.

On a more logical front - how can you coincide an All Loving God with one who chooses from the start who to save and allow some people no option. We would have been better not to have existed in the first place - if our entire purpose is to suffer damnation for all eternity. That strikes me as down right evil and is not a God I would like to worship.

Silvertusk.

Silver, I don't think anyone is saying we don't have the free will to choose, I would venture to say not even Calvinism. What we (I, at least) have been arguing all along, here and in other threads, that our free will is not unconditional. If it were then we would have the inner power to save ourselves apart from God's grace. And that my friend would be pure heresy (pelagianism).

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

[Byblos]

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

If only God can save, would that not suggest some kind of predestination?

[RickD]

This article is pretty darn good. It deals with what we're talking about, here.



http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/p ... ation.html

[Silvertusk]

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

If only God can save, would that not suggest some kind of predestination?

No. God is offering salvation to everyone - we have to accept it. Pure freewill.

[DannyM]

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

If only God can save, would that not suggest some kind of predestination?

No. God is offering salvation to everyone - we have to accept it. Pure freewill.

Then it is not God that saves, but rather your free will.

[August]

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

If only God can save, would that not suggest some kind of predestination?

No. God is offering salvation to everyone - we have to accept it. Pure freewill.

What does "pure freewill" mean? It seems to be the crux of many disagreements here, with everyone laying claim to free will, but there seems to be different definitions for it.

[jlay]

Aug,

I brought up this point on the FW thread and provided a link which covered the different perspectives of FW. it's pretty obvious that when the term FW is used, that not everyone is abiding by the same definition.

[August]

Aug,

I brought up this point on the FW thread and provided a link which covered the different perspectives of FW. it's pretty obvious that when the term FW is used, that not everyone is abiding by the same definition.

Thanks, I will go look for that. It may be worth posting here too.

[jlay]

About 2/3 thru the Geisler audio. Obviously some points i agree with, not being a Calvanist. But some that I know a RT could easily refute, or find misrepresenting. He fails to address many of the explanations to some of the common objections to TULIP. Not saying I would dismiss it with entirely, but not the most convincing argument against TULIP that I've heard.

And Norman is wrong because he either doesn't understand, or chooses to misrepresent Calvinism. Furthermore, Geisler starts with philosophical assumptions, and then attempts to justify and interpret those back into Scripture, as opposed to starting with Scripture.

Actually, early in the discourse he makes that same acusation against Calvinists. On more than one occassion he starts with scripture.

[August]

Actually, early in the discourse he makes that same acusation against Calvinists. On more than one occassion he starts with scripture.

Yes, my observation was more based on his writings than the video. The sermon format obviously does not allow for lengthy exegetical arguments, but even in the places that he starts with Scripture, to me it sounds like he basically prooftexts it, and then carries on as if there has been no study or attempts to understand the text from reformed scholars.

Let me just clarify something, and thanks jlay for creating the opportunity to get this off my chest: I really don't hate Geisler, and in fact admire him a lot for the apologetics work he does, and also for the stand he took for Biblical inerrancy and against open theism that resulted in him leaving the ETS. He has done a whole lot more very sound and good work than work I consider to be in error. That is maybe why it is so disappointing that he treats Calvinism so poorly, because he has done some great work elsewhere, and while I don't need him to agree with Calvinism, it would be nice if he treated it with the same circumspection and care then he did some other topics. From what I heard from people that know him he is a good and friendly person, and regardless of his stance on the reformed faith, I consider him a brother in Christ.

[Silvertusk]

Not sure I follow here - I never stated that we have the power to save ourselves - only God can do that. Not sure what you mean by unconditional free will? I think this dumb welshman needs some enlightening.

If only God can save, would that not suggest some kind of predestination?

No. God is offering salvation to everyone - we have to accept it. Pure freewill.

Then it is not God that saves, but rather your free will.

Not at all. If you did not have the gift of salvation given to you in the first place then you would not be able to choose it would you. But it is still your choice whether to accept that gift - therein lies your freewill. If you have been ordained from the beginning that you would never choose salvation and were built for hell then this view is no better than the materialists who state that we are no better than the sum of our parts and our whole life is determined by our genetic makeup. If we are made in Gods image then we have that unique gift of total freewill, anything less then we are just puppets made for God's sadistic pleasure considering the amount of people he created just to go to hell.

[DannyM]

Not at all. If you did not have the gift of salvation given to you in the first place then you would not be able to choose it would you. But it is still your choice whether to accept that gift - therein lies your freewill. If you have been ordained from the beginning that you would never choose salvation and were built for hell then this view is no better than the materialists who state that we are no better than the sum of our parts and our whole life is determined by our genetic makeup. If we are made in Gods image then we have that unique gift of total freewill, anything less then we are just puppets made for God's sadistic pleasure considering the amount of people he created just to go to hell.

Silver, is the gift of salvation something God just puts out there, not knowing who will accept and who will scoff?