Hi Danny, my apologies for the late reply
DannyM on Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:35 pm
neo-x wrote:
Did you notice Danny, that the first part of your statement "since we still exercise choice" contradicts with what you wrote here about Paul "Since God knew that Paul would accept the call, at that time, then Paul would not have done otherwise". So it means we only get to choose what God knows, that is precisely where I can't help but make an objection, bro. This makes free will look like, not a gift of God but some form of trick to give humans the false illusion. Either we have free will or we don't. If there is no absolute free will then choice is merely a formality which we will perform as God foreknew. I hope I made my point clear.
Neo, I think the problem here is that you are trying to work out a position where Paul could have done something different. But if Paul had done something different then God would have acted accordingly and brought things about according to His will. And so we have a new situation where you could again ask if Paul could have done something different. And so on and so on. You need to show that Paul’s choice wasn’t a choice, Bro. But how do you do that? To begin with, can you show me that your choices are not influenced in any way? The very meaning of the term choice involves causal determination. Can you demonstrate that choices being causally determined are not true choices?
Brother Danny, I have tried following on the topic and I think I understand your point clearly. I agree with you partially, forgive me but I am still not fully convinced. Because now it is kind of the point where one can say "whatever I do, God knows before hand" as you said "God would have acted accordingly". And I think God does that some time. I am not in the idea that free will means we can win God's favour by works. It simply means that one is not influenced by God to make a choice in his favour or against him.
Was Eve influenced by evil when she ate the fruit? No, she reasoned, as the Bible tells us. So the point that choices are influenced, fails particularly in this scenario. But I see your point. An evil heart will produce bad things.
Neo, do you think autonomous free will is absolutely free in the sense that it can come to God of its own volition?
Yes and no. No, if it thinks that free will can claim salvation, based on the idea of having a free will in the first place. And yes, if God offers salvation then by its own admission it can accept that offer. But when I read John 3:16, I think the offer is made to all. Now it is up to them to either accept God's offer or reject it. I know you don't hold to this.
So no, one cannot come to God without the father enabling him but I think this is not the initiate step. I think first man hears, then repents, when you hear the gospel, the holy spirit will convict you, now either you repent or you don't, this is free will. And I think whoever hears or witnesses the Gospel is enabled by God to have a choice in this matter. If he chooses to accept, he will be drawn to God. So when Jesus says, no one can come to me unless the father enables him, this, to me, means that once the gospel is heard, the work of God begins but it is the same with everyone, not just a few.
neo-x wrote:
I think it only becomes tautological in the sense that one presupposes that God has predestined Paul and hence Paul cannot deviate, since that is what you are saying, bro, that Paul can not say no. From my side, it is not tautological at all. Because to me this sounds like a subtle override on Paul's choices.
Then you need to prove this, Brother. How has God overridden Paul’s choice?
Bro, the same way you think he can't refuse because God already knew he wouldn't.
Can you show that God has forced Paul against some counterfactual state of affairs he hypothetically might have chosen?
Bro, the very reason that we have a choice in accepting God's plan makes me think that God would never force us and if so then foreknowledge would account for nothing. I think you said
"Since God knew that Paul would accept the call, at that time, then Paul would not have done otherwise."
See a difference, you are coming from the same point I hold objection to, brother. Paul can not do otherwise because God already knew. And this is why I say, if Paul can not choose (since God already knew) then we don't have a choice in accepting God (note, I am not saying that Paul can come to God on his own free will merit and not grace. I am saying that even LIMITED FREE WILL also means that Paul can reject God's plan, this has to be or else God forces us). Either we have free will, in at least a personal relationship to God or God's omniscience would make us do nothing except what God knows. Thus in latter conclusion we always get to choose what God knows we would, which again renders choice as just an illusion.
So to me, here are the two possibilities we are talking about
1. We do what God always knew we would do, this amounts predestination to some extent. As you say, we don't have absolute free will, we just have limited choice but NO, we can not say No to God if he intends to change my life (as you think Paul could not have done it since God already knew he wouldn't)
2. God does not force us to do exactly what he knows and we can always change our mind, we have free will
(not that our free will has any merit on gaining salvation by works, only acceptance when God offers it to us) , even limited free will YET we can say "Yes" or "no" to God's plan for our lives (not talking about prophecies, bro), we will face the consequences anyway. But if this is so then God's foreknowledge is not even an issue here. Is it? Whether God knew or not, doesn't matter, I can choose, God's knowledge has nothing to do with it, it may even be changed or updated.
I hope you see the problem these stances create
I hope to not go in circles with you bro
, just clearing out my points
