[quote]talldude wrote:
This argument is based on the premise that you cannot think. We have logic and reasoning ability. We have the ability to choose from a variety of responses. You have to have lived in a bubble if there’s never been a situation in which you DOUBTED yourself and what you should do. If every action was simply the result of “the way you are” then there would be no doubt, and no choice.[/quote]
You’re not getting it.
Determinism means that all the choices & actions that you make (including doubting yourself) are part of a causal chain of events. You might experience the subjective feeling of free will in the decisions you make, but this doesn’t mean that free will actually exists.
For free will to exist, your decision to make a particular action must be separate from the chain of cause & effect.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, and I reject the notion you’re trying to push.
I’ll use chaos theory to illustrate. The most famous example is a butterfly flapping its wings, and a tornado being spawned on the opposite side of the planet as a result of the change in the air’s movement.
The most miniscule change to the starting conditions will result in an entirely different outcome. If we bring into this framework quantum mechanics and the random nature of sub atomic particles, then the end conclusion is that our world is non-deterministic as a change in just 1 sub-atomic particle will result in an entirely different outcome for the entire system.
Your counter-argument is no doubt that sub-atomic particles are deterministic as well. This is where we’ll just have to have a philosophical difference of opinion.
[quote]talldude wrote:<<< , arguing about free will in the theological context between people who do not share the same basic belief structure is basically pointless. >>>[/quote]UNBELIEVABLE! Here kids we have a self proclaimed unbeliever who has the best grasp I’ve seen yet of anybody here (aside from myself of course =] ) of exactly why epistemology is paramount. If only more of the Christians of the world understood what this guy just said. This man just explained my long post on the first page of this thread.
[/quote]
We’d have a hell of a lot less pointless arguments, that’s for sure
I’ve lived in 4 distinctly different cultures which has opened my eyes, so to say. Frame of reference is the most difficult thing about inter-cultural communication. So many ways to unwittingly step on someone’s toes…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Nah, Augustine taught it back in the 4th century and Jesus told us all about it. Paul had it all over his writings as did Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon and David among others. [/quote]
As opposed to the hundreds of scriptures calling all men to repentance, freely offering the grace of god to all, and expressing god’s will that all would accept his grace and live, which collectively swamp Calvin’s cherry picked citations on predestination, completely out of context from this ocean of god’s infinite grace?
Gotcha.[/quote]You are clueless beyond words pal. Calvin exegeted and exposited every syllable of both testaments in the original languages which he was thoroughly fluent in (not to mention a few others) and published most of that work which remains extant for all to examine. Cherry picked he says Har dee har har!!! Go ahead take a look. I dare ya.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Nah, Augustine taught it back in the 4th century and Jesus told us all about it. Paul had it all over his writings as did Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon and David among others. [/quote]
As opposed to the hundreds of scriptures calling all men to repentance, freely offering the grace of god to all, and expressing god’s will that all would accept his grace and live, which collectively swamp Calvin’s cherry picked citations on predestination, completely out of context from this ocean of god’s infinite grace?
Gotcha.[/quote]You are clueless beyond words pal. Calvin exegeted and exposited every syllable of both testaments in the original languages which he was thoroughly fluent in (not to mention a few others) and published most of that work which remains extant for all to examine. Cherry picked he says Har dee har har!!! Go ahead take a look. I dare ya.
[/quote]
Calvin can translate and exposit all he wants, it doesn’t change the hundreds of scriptures that make it perfectly clear that god extends his grace to all that will accept, and calls all to repent.
I wonder what Calvin had to say about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, and saying that he would have gathered them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet THEY WOULD NOT?
You’re fond of Paul, maybe you should check his warnings of wolves in sheep’s clothing that would come in later times and twist the biblical message to their own ends. Calvin looks very wolfish to me.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Certainly. Faith is so strongly emphasized throughout the gospels that it almost seems it could be described as a “work.” >>>[/quote]If it originated from us I would agree, but I’m getting ahead of myself [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Maybe you want to take the fork in the road with the words “the decision to believe” instead? >>>[/quote]This is closer. In light of the unmistakable message from the passages I quoted (you’re obviously welcome to look them up), that being that before the foundation of the world in the mind of the eternal God His Lamb was already slain, foreordained as the sacrifice and Paul telling us this in the 1st of Ephesians (larger quote this time) Please read the whole thing. ESV, Catholic approved translation.
[b]3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.[/b]
Now who’s ultimate choice was it that somebody believed?
[/quote]
Many people quote the above passages to prove that God foreordains and predetermines peoples destiny. Since Paul states “before the founding of the world,” many think that God chose who will be with Jesus in heaven before he actually created the earth. That is not the case. The word “founding” is translated from the Greek word katabole which literally means “throwing down of seed,” and can be rendered “conceive” as is the case at Hebrews 11:11 which states: “By faith also Sarah herself received power to conceive seed, even when she was past the age limit.” And the term “world,” as I’m sure you know, doesn’t always mean the literal planet earth but often refers to mankind as a whole. The several passages including the one you quote above do not mean that the people who will rule as kings and priest in heaven with Jesus as part of God’s kingdom were chosen before God created the planet earth. Those passages mean that after the rebellious act but before the conception of children by Adam and Eve, God foreordained or predestined that a seed would be produced. The was foreordained before the human race was ‘founded’ through the first human pair, Adam and Eve. The particular world that Paul meant is the one that came into existence after Adam and Eve rebelled in Eden-a world very different from the one originally purposed by God. It was the world that began with the children of Adam and Eve. That world consisted of people alienated from God and enslaved to sin and corruption. It was a world of people who, unlike the willful sinners Adam and Eve, were redeemable.
Further evidence that the founding of the world is not when God actually created the planet earth is at Hebrews 4:3 which states: “For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: “So I swore in my anger, ‘They shall not enter into my rest,’” although his works were finished from the founding of the world.”
That passages shows that his works, which is God creative works, were not started at the founding of the world but were finished. Since Eve was evidently the last of God’s earthly creative works, the world’s founding could not precede her.
Jesus’ death and resurrection provided the loving arrangement of the ransom, whereby inherited sin and all of Satan’s efforts are to be brought to nothing. God foreordained another development in the outworking of his purpose. This is indicated by what Paul wrote to the Ephesians at Ephesians 1:10,11, namely that God will “gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.” Then, with reference to “the things in the heavens,” that is, those who are chosen as heirs with Christ, Paul explained: “We were foreordained according to the purpose of him who operates all things according to the way his will counsels.” God determined ahead of time that a limited number of humans as indicated by Jesus using the term “little flock” at Luke 12:32 and stating at Matthew 22:14 that “many are invited but few are chosen,” would make up a secondary part of the seed of God’s woman and share with Christ in dispensing the benefits of the ransom. God foreordained or predetermined a group or class of people as indicated by Peter using the term “Holy Nation” at 1 Peter 2:9, not individuals.
I’ll illustrate this with an illustration I read a while back.
“Suppose that a government decides to set up a particular agency. It predetermines the agency’s functions, its powers, and its size. The agency finally goes into operation some time after it was set up, and its members issue a statement saying: “The government determined a number of years ago what our job would be. Now we begin the work assigned to us.” Would you conclude that the government must have predetermined some years earlier who the individual members of that agency would be? Surely not.”
God predetermined that he would set up a special agency to remedy the effects of Adam’s sin when he made the statement at Genesis 3:15 about producing a seed. He foreordained the class of people who would serve in that agency-but not the individuals. They would be chosen later, and the choices they would make in life would have a bearing on whether they were finally approved or not. Evidence of this is the fact that the letters written to the Christian congregation that make up most of the the Christian-Greek scriptures contained guidance and instructions so the Christians at that time would not fall away from the faith and lose out of the privilege of going to heaven. Below are some scriptures that support this.
Revelation 2:10: "Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison that you may be fully put to the test, and that you may have tribulation ten days. Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life.
That passages is pretty clear. If one doesn’t remain faithful up until the point they die, they will not receive the crown of life.
Hebrews 10:26 states: “If we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left.”
Again, this passage is pretty clear. If you willfully practice sin after receiving the truth, then Jesus sacrifice no longer applies to you.
Again, the founding of the world mentioned in the Bible does not mean before God created the planet earth. God was instantly able to meet the situation resulting from the rebellion in Eden. As soon as the need arose, he foreordained a special agency-the Messianic Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ-that he would use in connection with the redemption of mankind from Adamic sin. God did this “before the founding of the world” of redeemable mankind, that is, before rebellious Adam and Eve brought forth children.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I wonder what Calvin had to say about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, and saying that he would have gathered them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet THEY WOULD NOT? >>>[/quote]Good heavens man!!! Don’t be wunderin like that!!! Go look for yourself. You really are a hysterical bit of entertainment. As if Calvin would be like "ooooohhhhh, what am I gonna do? Jesus doesn’t agree with me =[=[=[ LOL!!! Seriously, Go look. Love all those passages. Bring some more please. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re fond of Paul, maybe you should check his warnings of wolves in sheep’s clothing that would come in later times and twist the biblical message to their own ends. Calvin looks very wolfish to me.[/quote]Thank you so much for that. I don’t know how I missed it. I cannot say this very politely so I’ll state that I do not care what Calvin looks like to you. He was just a gifted willing instrument anyway.
I was once a very strong knowledgeable Arminian elder forlife. I went to Calvin’s writings assuming he was a well meaning simpleton to believe all that predestination stuff. Oh yes I did. I was told by Jim White actually to ask God to be with me when I read the Institutes of the Christian Religion the first time. I came away eyes WIIIIIIIDE open with a new utterly awesome view of God almighty. I could barely stay off my face before His throne. That man handled the written Word of God with the reverence and devotion of a dozen angels and the precision of a spiritual surgeon. A sinner to be sure saved by the same grace as I am, but a holy humble weapon ordained to the rank of general in the army of the King of kings.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
Many question, “How can God be sovereign and man be free at the same time?” Many people take Ephesians 1:4-5 out of context to teach the arbitrary election by God of some to salvation and some to damnation. These individuals take the word “chosen” (Gk. exelexato, “elect”) to mean God chooses some individuals to be spared to the exclusion of all others.
The verb “chose” is a middle voice verb meaning “He chose us for himself.” The “in him” in verse 4, as well as the statement “in Christ” in verse 3, indicates that all God’s blessings come to people “in him.” In other words, only those people who are “in Christ” (literally “in the sphere of Christ”) are recipients of spiritual blessings.
One of the great theological questions concerns election and predestination. Certain truths emerge. God knows all things, the future as well as the past. God is not willing that any should perish. God has granted to man free moral agency, the right to make choices. Our choices determine our eternal destiny.
“Having predestinated” comes from an aorist participle usually translated “having predestined,” and basically means “to determine beforehand.” The idea expressed is that of God placing a fence around those people who accept His provision for salvation. The fence, of course, is Christ himself. God elected that all those people “in Christ” would be saved, and no one else (Acts 4:12).
God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. In the same manner, He chose Israel to represent Him in the world during an earlier period (Deut. 7:6-8; Isaiah 43:1-10). The fact that God chose Israel does not mean He rejected every other nation or refused salvation to all other people. The very opposite is true.
God chose Israel to take the message of salvation to the rest of the world. The term God’s chosen people does not imply they were chosen to salvation, but they were chosen to represent God to other nations. Although some Israelites did accept the Messiah when He came to this earth, the nation as a whole rejected Him (Mat. 21:42-43). Therefore, God predestined, even before the world was created, that the N.T. Church would exist as His witness to the people of this age. Those people who are “in Christ” (I Jn. 5:11-12) comprise the N.T. Church.
Thus, “chosen” (“the elect”) refers to God’s choice of a people “in Christ.” Predestination is the end results of the people who remain “in Christ” (Jn 14:1-3).
[quote]blacksheep wrote:<<< God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. In the same manner, He chose Israel to represent Him in the world during an earlier period >>>[/quote]There is no person on this site I love and respect more than this man. I embrace him without hesitation as my brother in Christ in full confidence that he loves the same Jesus I do. I have sought his council in PM’s as he is my elder both in earthly years and in the Lord. It is therefore with humble regret that I must say that this statement is wholly unsupported by the grammar of the immediate context, quite the opposite actually, and the systematic treatment of the scriptures as a whole. (I can hear the banshees already).
Not to mention that it springs from the same anthrocentric, autonomous epistemology shared by the great thinkers of the Catholic church and even more importantly shared by absolutely every unbelieving shred of secular philosophy in history. It forces God into contingent dependence upon man for the most significant events in created history. The redemption of eternal souls spawned in His image. Once He’s contingent there, what difference does the rest make? At least the Jehovah’s Witness here simply cops to that and will tell us outright that God is not beyond our comprehension. Just ask him. Or Pat. They agree.
I just cannot keep up with all this. I have work all day today. I love ya brother and look forward to singing His glorious praise with you in the choirs of heaven, but I have been though all this. I once held PRECISELY the view you are here espousing. God used John Calvin himself to drag me out of it (and I was certainly dragged) and Cornelius Van Til to forever harden that concrete.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< but I am not able to square it with my gut. >>>[/quote]Neither can I. Thank God my gut (or yours) is not the standard. God is the standard [quote]Cortes wrote:This has far less to do with my Catholicism, per se, as it does with my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be. >>>[/quote]This right here is a strobing neon illustration of exactly one of the main points I’ve been making about Catholicism forever. You just declared your divorce of what you are calling your conviction of a supposedly infinite, holy and powerful God from “my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be.” Don’t you see that? There is your catholicism AND “my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be”.
For me it is unthinkable that those could ever be compartmentalized like that. My sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be is… IS my relationship with the living Word of God in my heart testifying to the written word in my hands. [quote]Cortes wrote: <<< but I am going to have to say that what Pat and Chris and yes, forlife, are saying seems far more likely to me than what you are suggesting. >>>[/quote]Here again. Two Catholics and an open Christ denying practicing homosexual in the same sentence as spiritual, intellectual and moral allies for you? This is what the God you believe in has for you? Think with me man. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. [quote]4-You adulterous people Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. [/quote]James 4:4 You don’t think that sharing the foundational governing world view of flaming pagans is spiritual adultery? [quote]Cortes wrote: At first I thought perhaps you were suggesting a paradox, >>>[/quote]Of course it’s a paradox. We are in this conversation, or at least I am, talking about the ultimate supremacy of God almighty. I wasn’t around in eternity when the Word clearly states I WAS CHOSEN BY HIM. How do you respond to my post in the other thread with the long quote from the book of Ephesians? [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< but on further exploration I am no longer even finding as much of that as I am the suggestion that we don’t have ANY control over ANY of this. No choice in the matter. Honestly to me your arguments as I understand them sound like theist determinism, a very complete, wholly uncompromising determinism. And I just can’t see the point in it all, if that is the case. Indeed, hearing such fatalism from the mouth of a Christian is practically outside the realm of my imagination. [/quote]Fatalism is the diametric opposite of the Christian doctrine of divine providence. What will be will be is a declaration of blind fate. Divine providence is the intelligent ordering of all that is by a blessed holy God to the praise of his awesome glory. Remember the declaration of independence? “with a firm reliance on divine providence?.” I don’t have all the answers and never will. This I absolutely DO know. Any view of the human will that credits to it the ability to thwart the ultimate will of God is an affront to His majesty and power. Any person He ultimately desires to save who winds up in hell is mightier than God. NO WAY!!![quote]Cortes wrote: Still thinking about this but unfortunately family from the states came today and it’s going to be very hard to get here over the next few days. Either way, I’m not leaving this time. Still interested in exploring this.
[/quote]fair enough.
[/quote]
Okay Tirib, I still have family here for another week and a half, but I’ll try and keep up. Certainly no promises.
In order to keep this from becoming bogged down in details and indirectly related points (and to save myself time!), I’ll just ask one question.
This statement:
Can you please explain it to me in a bit more detail and show me the scripture that supports it?
Also just one more point I couldn’t let slip by:
Did you just forget that I happen to be two out of those three?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Okay Tirib, I still have family here for another week and a half, but I’ll try and keep up. Certainly no promises. >>>[/quote]No worries man. Enjoy your family. We’ll be here when they go home. [quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The absolute theocentric God statements of the bible govern the contingent anthrocentric man statements, never the other way around.
[/quote]Can you please explain it to me in a bit more detail and show me the scripture that supports it?
[/quote]This I must be careful in explaining, but as usual you have isolated the most important question. Yes, this principle governs how the scriptures are interpreted. Either God defines man or man defines God. There are no other options. It is the hermeneutical twin sibling of epistemology. Everybody assumes certain things when they approach in this case scripture. What things those are radically affects, even determines the nature of both God and man that’s found there. This is why I asked you back then “where does this preeminent presuppositional assumption of autonomous human freewill come from?” If one opens the scriptures with that assumption already in place? The outcome of very many critical doctrines is determined before we even start. I’ll have more. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Did you just forget that I happen to be two out of those three? [/quote]You makes 3 Catholics. I was referring to Chris and Pat. Or did I misunderstand? These topics are of the utmost import and by their very nature subsume the rest of human experience and knowledge within them. It is so tough to render proper treatment on an internet forum which is why it took me so long to even begin discussing these things here. Do not mistake my passion for anger with you BTW.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I wonder what Calvin had to say about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, and saying that he would have gathered them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet THEY WOULD NOT? >>>[/quote]Good heavens man!!! Don’t be wunderin like that!!! Go look for yourself. You really are a hysterical bit of entertainment. As if Calvin would be like "ooooohhhhh, what am I gonna do? Jesus doesn’t agree with me =[=[=[ LOL!!! Seriously, Go look. Love all those passages. Bring some more please. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re fond of Paul, maybe you should check his warnings of wolves in sheep’s clothing that would come in later times and twist the biblical message to their own ends. Calvin looks very wolfish to me.[/quote]Thank you so much for that. I don’t know how I missed it. I cannot say this very politely so I’ll state that I do not care what Calvin looks like to you. He was just a gifted willing instrument anyway.
I was once a very strong knowledgeable Arminian elder forlife. I went to Calvin’s writings assuming he was a well meaning simpleton to believe all that predestination stuff. Oh yes I did. I was told by Jim White actually to ask God to be with me when I read the Institutes of the Christian Religion the first time. I came away eyes WIIIIIIIDE open with a new utterly awesome view of God almighty. I could barely stay off my face before His throne. That man handled the written Word of God with the reverence and devotion of a dozen angels and the precision of a spiritual surgeon. A sinner to be sure saved by the same grace as I am, but a holy humble weapon ordained to the rank of general in the army of the King of kings. [/quote]
It’s clear you had a powerful personal experience, and that Calvin’s message resonated with you.
Millions of sincere Christians fundamentally disagree with you and Calvin. I don’t know that you’re even aware of how your confirmatory bias affects your beliefs. For example, when I pointed out the bible saying clearly that god desires everyone to be saved, you twist that in your mind to mean god desires only the elect to be saved. Why? Because you’re starting with the assumption that it must be true, and are totally unwilling to accept that you could be mistaken.
It makes no sense that Jesus would weep for people that refuse to accept him, and would say that he wants to save them, but for their own stubborn will, if Calvin was correct. Calvin believes in a god that chooses who to save and who to damn, and takes glory in both.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
Many question, “How can God be sovereign and man be free at the same time?” Many people take Ephesians 1:4-5 out of context to teach the arbitrary election by God of some to salvation and some to damnation. These individuals take the word “chosen” (Gk. exelexato, “elect”) to mean God chooses some individuals to be spared to the exclusion of all others.
The verb “chose” is a middle voice verb meaning “He chose us for himself.” The “in him” in verse 4, as well as the statement “in Christ” in verse 3, indicates that all God’s blessings come to people “in him.” In other words, only those people who are “in Christ” (literally “in the sphere of Christ”) are recipients of spiritual blessings.
One of the great theological questions concerns election and predestination. Certain truths emerge. God knows all things, the future as well as the past. God is not willing that any should perish. God has granted to man free moral agency, the right to make choices. Our choices determine our eternal destiny.
“Having predestinated” comes from an aorist participle usually translated “having predestined,” and basically means “to determine beforehand.” The idea expressed is that of God placing a fence around those people who accept His provision for salvation. The fence, of course, is Christ himself. God elected that all those people “in Christ” would be saved, and no one else (Acts 4:12).
God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. In the same manner, He chose Israel to represent Him in the world during an earlier period (Deut. 7:6-8; Isaiah 43:1-10). The fact that God chose Israel does not mean He rejected every other nation or refused salvation to all other people. The very opposite is true.
God chose Israel to take the message of salvation to the rest of the world. The term God’s chosen people does not imply they were chosen to salvation, but they were chosen to represent God to other nations. Although some Israelites did accept the Messiah when He came to this earth, the nation as a whole rejected Him (Mat. 21:42-43). Therefore, God predestined, even before the world was created, that the N.T. Church would exist as His witness to the people of this age. Those people who are “in Christ” (I Jn. 5:11-12) comprise the N.T. Church.
Thus, “chosen” (“the elect”) refers to God’s choice of a people “in Christ.” Predestination is the end results of the people who remain “in Christ” (Jn 14:1-3).[/quote]
This resonates with my own reading and understanding of the bible.
Paul was notoriously difficult to understand, as Peter warned, and this passage is a classic example. Calvin cherry picked the scripture, while ignoring the ocean of other biblical verses affirming the free agency of men, and Christ’s commandment that all would repent and be saved. Reminds me of Christ’s condemnation of the pharisees, who strained at a gnat but swallowed a camel.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Where does Calvin go wrong? He simply assumed to much. He claims to know something about God that was not revealed and built a faith modus with out the benefit of divine revelation. Plain and simple. >>>[/quote]Precisely the opposite. Calvin let the scriptures talk to him under the influence of the Holy Spirit so as to uncover the purest expression of the gospel of the grace of the living Christ seen in a millennium and a half. It was the most accepted in the American colonies and all the way up until the decline of the country in the 20th century.[quote]pat wrote:<<< I wounld expect me to read the ‘Institutes’ any time soon, any more that you’d pick up the ‘City of God’.[/quote]I once owned and read Augustine’s “City of God”, along with his confessions and several of his shorter works. I have read Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” as I’ve told you along with more Watchtower literature than this young man ever dreamed on seeing in his life. Actually you would be quite disappointed if you saw what Augustine said about predestination, election and depravity. You’d think you were reading me.
[/quote]
I see no where, where Calvin expressed divine assistance with his interpretation of the epistles. Many theologians both Catholic and Protestant have poured over them with a fine toothed comb and cannot see where or how he drew his conclusions.
His error isn’t that he thought it as a possibility, but he built an entire theology around it with out divine assistance…
LOL! I was actually referring to the ‘Mystical City of God’ by Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda, not ‘City of God against Pagans’ by St. Augustine…Both are often referred to at just ‘City of God’.
And yes, I disagree with both Augustine and Aquinas on that matter. It’s an open issue in the church, because of the many possibilities in which this is resolvable.
And I am sure you read a much abridged version of Augustine’s books since there are 23 volumes to it…I sure couldn’t sit through it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created it�??�??�??�??�?�¢?�??�??�??�??�?�¦
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
Ok, so now I can answer this.
Our freewill does not have the capacity to change anything about the physical universe. I am not saying that we cannot move things, burn them, melt them, etc. What I mean is we cannot change the way matter and energy work. We cannot will electrons to stop moving or lose their charge. Our will is limited by the power to execute. Our ability to execute our will cannot does not change the way things are. We only have the power to choose in a limited space.
What makes freewill a free will, is that given the choice between two or more options, that no matter what we choose, we could have always chosen different. But it still makes no difference in the larger scheme of all existence. That shit still goes on despite our choices.
If you think about it, we don’t have a lot of control and most of our ‘choices’ tend to be moral /ethical things. It isn’t that material things aren’t involved, but the reason for said choices aren’t material. For instance, you have a family, you can buy a motorcycle or a minivan and you pick one…Technically, one is the ‘right’ thing to do, one is not. The choice is material, the impact is ethical. BUT no matter what you choose it does not change the way the universe works, nor the function of a single subatomic particle.
I have been flirting with a far fetched idea based on String Theory and it’s variants. Most posit 10/ 11 dimensional space /time. This has caused some theoretical physicists to postulate multi-verses sitting side by side, being near copies of what we recognize as ‘the universe’. And when I mean side by side, we’re talking a tiny shift in atomic subspace. What they can’t figure is how to ‘get to’ these alternate universes.
So this is already pretty crazy stuff, but my far fetched idea is based on this being right. Instead of getting ‘there’ through some scientific experiment, what if we shift universe based on our choices?
For instance, you have a choice between ‘a’ and ‘b’ Choosing ‘a’ keeps you in your current, uh, ‘verse’ (say verse a) and choosing ‘b’ shifts you to another (verse b). In this scenario, both universes actually keep on trucking and both play out the respective decision you made, but you are only aware of the one ‘verse’ you chose, based on the decision you made. So if you chose ‘b’ your only aware of ‘verse b’, but ‘verse a’ still exists, but you are not aware of it anymore. So, in short, its not a decision between two things, but a rather a choice of conscious awareness, which ‘verse’ you decided to be conscious of.
I don’t know, really. It’s another way of looking at things and melding the stuff of theoretical physics with the metaphysical consequences of choice.[/quote]
If multiple universes exist, reflecting every choice that could have been made, there is no free will. That reality would mean all choices were made, rather than one choice being made and another choice not being made. By your own definition, free will would only be an illusion carried by the consciousness in that particular choice universe.[/quote]
No, the theory would mean that you chose a particular ‘universe’ over another. Like switching channels. The programing will continue one the one your not watching, but you are participating in another channel, or reality. And you want to be in the channel that has the happy ending…But where you are is your choice.
So in this little world, your choice is which ‘channel’ to tune into. Each channel will run it’s course, but you choose where you want to be. That’s why it’s not purely deterministic, you still have choice and still could have chosen otherwise.
Don’t dwell to much on this, it’s just another way to resolve the issue. I have no proof it’s right, just possible. One of many, many possibilities.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
Many question, “How can God be sovereign and man be free at the same time?” Many people take Ephesians 1:4-5 out of context to teach the arbitrary election by God of some to salvation and some to damnation. These individuals take the word “chosen” (Gk. exelexato, “elect”) to mean God chooses some individuals to be spared to the exclusion of all others.
The verb “chose” is a middle voice verb meaning “He chose us for himself.” The “in him” in verse 4, as well as the statement “in Christ” in verse 3, indicates that all God’s blessings come to people “in him.” In other words, only those people who are “in Christ” (literally “in the sphere of Christ”) are recipients of spiritual blessings.
One of the great theological questions concerns election and predestination. Certain truths emerge. God knows all things, the future as well as the past. God is not willing that any should perish. God has granted to man free moral agency, the right to make choices. Our choices determine our eternal destiny.
“Having predestinated” comes from an aorist participle usually translated “having predestined,” and basically means “to determine beforehand.” The idea expressed is that of God placing a fence around those people who accept His provision for salvation. The fence, of course, is Christ himself. God elected that all those people “in Christ” would be saved, and no one else (Acts 4:12).
God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. In the same manner, He chose Israel to represent Him in the world during an earlier period (Deut. 7:6-8; Isaiah 43:1-10). The fact that God chose Israel does not mean He rejected every other nation or refused salvation to all other people. The very opposite is true.
God chose Israel to take the message of salvation to the rest of the world. The term God’s chosen people does not imply they were chosen to salvation, but they were chosen to represent God to other nations. Although some Israelites did accept the Messiah when He came to this earth, the nation as a whole rejected Him (Mat. 21:42-43). Therefore, God predestined, even before the world was created, that the N.T. Church would exist as His witness to the people of this age. Those people who are “in Christ” (I Jn. 5:11-12) comprise the N.T. Church.
Thus, “chosen” (“the elect”) refers to God’s choice of a people “in Christ.” Predestination is the end results of the people who remain “in Christ” (Jn 14:1-3).[/quote]
This resonates with my own reading and understanding of the bible.
[/quote]
Mine too. God ‘predestined’ the revelation toward certain people (First Jew, then Greek…etc.) but not the people’s acceptance. People can and did and do reject it. Christ’s salvation was ordained for ‘all men’, which is not the same as forced on some and withheld from others.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created itÃ???Ã???Ã???
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
Not really, since every universe already has you in it.
Ok, so now I can answer this.
Our freewill does not have the capacity to change anything about the physical universe. I am not saying that we cannot move things, burn them, melt them, etc. What I mean is we cannot change the way matter and energy work. We cannot will electrons to stop moving or lose their charge. Our will is limited by the power to execute. Our ability to execute our will cannot does not change the way things are. We only have the power to choose in a limited space.
What makes freewill a free will, is that given the choice between two or more options, that no matter what we choose, we could have always chosen different. But it still makes no difference in the larger scheme of all existence. That shit still goes on despite our choices.
If you think about it, we don’t have a lot of control and most of our ‘choices’ tend to be moral /ethical things. It isn’t that material things aren’t involved, but the reason for said choices aren’t material. For instance, you have a family, you can buy a motorcycle or a minivan and you pick one…Technically, one is the ‘right’ thing to do, one is not. The choice is material, the impact is ethical. BUT no matter what you choose it does not change the way the universe works, nor the function of a single subatomic particle.
I have been flirting with a far fetched idea based on String Theory and it’s variants. Most posit 10/ 11 dimensional space /time. This has caused some theoretical physicists to postulate multi-verses sitting side by side, being near copies of what we recognize as ‘the universe’. And when I mean side by side, we’re talking a tiny shift in atomic subspace. What they can’t figure is how to ‘get to’ these alternate universes.
So this is already pretty crazy stuff, but my far fetched idea is based on this being right. Instead of getting ‘there’ through some scientific experiment, what if we shift universe based on our choices?
For instance, you have a choice between ‘a’ and ‘b’ Choosing ‘a’ keeps you in your current, uh, ‘verse’ (say verse a) and choosing ‘b’ shifts you to another (verse b). In this scenario, both universes actually keep on trucking and both play out the respective decision you made, but you are only aware of the one ‘verse’ you chose, based on the decision you made. So if you chose ‘b’ your only aware of ‘verse b’, but ‘verse a’ still exists, but you are not aware of it anymore. So, in short, its not a decision between two things, but a rather a choice of conscious awareness, which ‘verse’ you decided to be conscious of.
I don’t know, really. It’s another way of looking at things and melding the stuff of theoretical physics with the metaphysical consequences of choice.[/quote]
If multiple universes exist, reflecting every choice that could have been made, there is no free will. That reality would mean all choices were made, rather than one choice being made and another choice not being made. By your own definition, free will would only be an illusion carried by the consciousness in that particular choice universe.[/quote]
No, the theory would mean that you chose a particular ‘universe’ over another. Like switching channels. The programing will continue one the one your not watching, but you are participating in another channel, or reality. And you want to be in the channel that has the happy ending…But where you are is your choice.
So in this little world, your choice is which ‘channel’ to tune into. Each channel will run it’s course, but you choose where you want to be. That’s why it’s not purely deterministic, you still have choice and still could have chosen otherwise.
Don’t dwell to much on this, it’s just another way to resolve the issue. I have no proof it’s right, just possible. One of many, many possibilities.[/quote]
But if true, you wouldn’t be choosing one over another universe. Every universe would already have you in it, and to avoid paradoxes, you couldn’t exist more than once in the same universe.
[quote]pat wrote:
God ‘predestined’ the revelation toward certain people (First Jew, then Greek…etc.) but not the people’s acceptance. People can and did and do reject it. Christ’s salvation was ordained for ‘all men’, which is not the same as forced on some and withheld from others.
[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]pat wrote:God ‘predestined’ the revelation toward certain people (First Jew, then Greek…etc.) but not the people’s acceptance. People can and did and do reject it. Christ’s salvation was ordained for ‘all men’, which is not the same as forced on some and withheld from others.
[/quote]Excellent Post![/quote]Except that it’s entirely unbiblical. The God of the bible doesn’t “force” anybody to be saved, but He saves every last one He intends to and it is untrue that “some” reject it. ALL reject it until subdued and drawn sweetly and submissively by His grace. Stay tuned. I am hoping the most thorough and concentrated treatment thus far is coming between Cortes and I.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Calvin’s message resonated with you. >>>[/quote]Calvin’s message did not resonate with me. The power of the Holy Spirit branded the Godhood of God and the depravity of Greg on my soul in a painful, hissing, sizzling, smoking work of conviction. You know me by now. Picture how hard it was for me to admit I was dead wrong believing in a God who was less powerful than I was. That’s the god who wants to save everybody but they just won’t let him. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< It makes no sense that Jesus would weep for people that refuse to accept him, and would say that he wants to save them, but for their own stubborn will, if Calvin was correct. Calvin believes in a god that chooses who to save and who to damn, and takes glory in both.[/quote]It would make no sense if it were the father weeping. For the incarnate Christ? Makes perfect sense to me. Yes, Calvin rediscovered the holy almighty sovereign Lord of heaven and earth who out of unthinkable merciful grace chose to save some out His creation which is universally deserving of His eternal wrath. He could have justly left all to their sin and death.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created itÃ???Ã???Ã???
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
Not really, since every universe already has you in it.
Ok, so now I can answer this.
Our freewill does not have the capacity to change anything about the physical universe. I am not saying that we cannot move things, burn them, melt them, etc. What I mean is we cannot change the way matter and energy work. We cannot will electrons to stop moving or lose their charge. Our will is limited by the power to execute. Our ability to execute our will cannot does not change the way things are. We only have the power to choose in a limited space.
What makes freewill a free will, is that given the choice between two or more options, that no matter what we choose, we could have always chosen different. But it still makes no difference in the larger scheme of all existence. That shit still goes on despite our choices.
If you think about it, we don’t have a lot of control and most of our ‘choices’ tend to be moral /ethical things. It isn’t that material things aren’t involved, but the reason for said choices aren’t material. For instance, you have a family, you can buy a motorcycle or a minivan and you pick one…Technically, one is the ‘right’ thing to do, one is not. The choice is material, the impact is ethical. BUT no matter what you choose it does not change the way the universe works, nor the function of a single subatomic particle.
I have been flirting with a far fetched idea based on String Theory and it’s variants. Most posit 10/ 11 dimensional space /time. This has caused some theoretical physicists to postulate multi-verses sitting side by side, being near copies of what we recognize as ‘the universe’. And when I mean side by side, we’re talking a tiny shift in atomic subspace. What they can’t figure is how to ‘get to’ these alternate universes.
So this is already pretty crazy stuff, but my far fetched idea is based on this being right. Instead of getting ‘there’ through some scientific experiment, what if we shift universe based on our choices?
For instance, you have a choice between ‘a’ and ‘b’ Choosing ‘a’ keeps you in your current, uh, ‘verse’ (say verse a) and choosing ‘b’ shifts you to another (verse b). In this scenario, both universes actually keep on trucking and both play out the respective decision you made, but you are only aware of the one ‘verse’ you chose, based on the decision you made. So if you chose ‘b’ your only aware of ‘verse b’, but ‘verse a’ still exists, but you are not aware of it anymore. So, in short, its not a decision between two things, but a rather a choice of conscious awareness, which ‘verse’ you decided to be conscious of.
I don’t know, really. It’s another way of looking at things and melding the stuff of theoretical physics with the metaphysical consequences of choice.[/quote]
If multiple universes exist, reflecting every choice that could have been made, there is no free will. That reality would mean all choices were made, rather than one choice being made and another choice not being made. By your own definition, free will would only be an illusion carried by the consciousness in that particular choice universe.[/quote]
No, the theory would mean that you chose a particular ‘universe’ over another. Like switching channels. The programing will continue one the one your not watching, but you are participating in another channel, or reality. And you want to be in the channel that has the happy ending…But where you are is your choice.
So in this little world, your choice is which ‘channel’ to tune into. Each channel will run it’s course, but you choose where you want to be. That’s why it’s not purely deterministic, you still have choice and still could have chosen otherwise.
Don’t dwell to much on this, it’s just another way to resolve the issue. I have no proof it’s right, just possible. One of many, many possibilities.[/quote]
But if true, you wouldn’t be choosing one over another universe. Every universe would already have you in it, and to avoid paradoxes, you couldn’t exist more than once in the same universe.[/quote]
Like I said it ain’t perfect. But arguing this would be that the ‘you’ would be in the ‘verse’ you chose and the other universe existing would be more like a movie of ‘you’.
I got a long way to go to flesh this out… Like I said it’s another possible ‘solution’, it doesn’t mean it’s right.
