 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
ModesofThought
12/09/00 1:40 PM
To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the human person is an agent of libertarian free will. Often I am accused of "elevating the self" or "American individualism" or some other accusation of idolatry. What confuses me is that it seems those who make such accusations seem to think that I assert human freewill for its own sake or my own sake. This is not the case. Rather I assert human freedom because I know that I am a sinner. It is for the legitimacy of understanding my sin as opposed to God's will and my being responsible for it that I assert that I am indeed free. You compatibilists out there, here are some questions which I'd like some help with:
1. Is sin against God's will?
2. Are we sinners?
3. Are we the sufficient cause of the "sinfulness" of our sin (not the sufficient cause of our existence or ability to do as we please)?
4. Is this being the sufficient cause of the sinfulness of our sin different than saying that our acts are sinful because we are creatures? If it is different, then how?
As of right now it seems to me that the compatibilist must either deny that sin is against God's will, or acknowledge that sin is a function of creatureliness. Either way, it seems to me that compatibilism, in effect nullifies the meanifulness of their important doctrine of "total depravity" by denying the doctrine of sin clear meaning and furthmore making it ambiguous in what sense we are responsible for our sin.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/09/00 10:59 PM
RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as you've set the table, you have excluded all who believe that God's foreordination of all things and human accountability for sin are compatible. On what premise have you decided that we must either deny that sin is against God's will, or acknowledge that sin is a function of creatureliness? It's because you allow for no distinction between God's moral will and God's will of purpose.
Of course, we compatiblists, as you called us, don't hold to either of your necessary conclusions, because we don't agree with your premises.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/10/00 2:50 AM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad Modes asked this question--sin is one of the things that really confuses me about the reformed view.
I think of sin as anything that is contrary to God's will (hamartia = missing the mark). But how can anything be contrary to God's will in a system where everything happens according to God's will? And how can someone be held responsible for something they were predestined from all eternity to choose to do and they could not have chosen otherwise? And if everything that ever happens happens in order to bring glory to God, in what sense does sin glorify God, and where is this supported in scripture?
What is the problem with believing that when God chose to create humans in his image, part of the imago dei entails that God gave them wills of their own, delegated some (by no means all, and not even most) of his authority to them, and held them responsible for how they used it? This is how I read Gen. 1:26-31. How do you read it?
I'm not raising these quesions to insult those of you who have a reformed-type view, I'm seeking clarification of questions that have rarely been addressed--and never satisfactorily so--in my upbringing in the reformed tradition.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/10/00 10:30 AM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb, you seem to resent some of the terms that are being used that I thought were just standard nomenclature--i.e. compatibilists, reformed, gratuitous suffering, God's decree, etc.
What words would you use to describe the view that God foreordains everything and that humans are accountible for their actions?
Just curious.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/10/00 10:49 AM
A Cursory Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
*********************
You asked:
"But how can anything be contrary to God's will in a system where everything happens according to God's will?"
Mephi:
I think that Lion was right, in that maybe we need to really understand that there may be differentiations between aspects of what we call "God's will"
**********************
You asked:
"And how can someone be held responsible for something they were predestined from all eternity to choose to do and they could not have chosen otherwise?"
Mephi:
First, check my analogy and see if that helps. If not, we'll try something else.
***********************
You asked:
"And if everything that ever happens happens in order to bring glory to God, in what sense does sin glorify God, and where is this supported in scripture?"
Mephi:
Not being funny or anything, that's thinking of the subject on too superficial a level. See, people even thought of this as a WAY to justify their sin, and St. Paul checks them with the quickness...
Romans 2:5-8
But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say-- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say-- "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Let's break the argument down. What is the person opposite Paul saying? He (or she) is saying:
"Look, I KNOW that God uses our sin as a contrast to his moral perfection. Just like what you say about what the Law was for (Rom 7:13) But if this is true, and I'm really giving glory to the Lord by my sin, why the heck is He blaming me for it? Let me keep ON sinning, so God can look better and better by comparison!"
What does Paul say? That type of thinking sucks. Throughout Romans 9, Paul's opponent raises VALID questions concerning how God's sovereignty relates to human action (Why don't more theologians see this?) But Paul doesn't really answer the question philosophically. Basically, he answers very pragmatically, basically seeing PAST the argument. What the people were trying to do was to justify their OWN sin by lauding God's sovereignty. They knew that their arguments had some potency. Think about it. The SAME question is being asked today:
"How can God blame anyone for sin when He is ultimately behind it all?"
I KNOW y'all have to see the parallel here. What does Paul do? He basically appeals to the fact that they are creations and they should let God do what he wants to do. He also IMPLICITLY, by his later writing, affirms that people are not to philosophically justify their sin, but they are to NOT sin according to the power of choice that they have by following after the Spirit. This is nothing short of William James' concept of Pragmatism with regard to free will, with a decidedly Pauline spin. "Just do the good that you know to do...and let God be God."
This goes along with the absurd situation of someone who, after adhering to a fatalistic worldview, decides not to make anymore decisions because whatever will be will be. But the deluded individual doesn't see that he is ACTIVELY using his power of volition to do nothing! Bottom line: No matter how you try to philosophically justify fatalism through living it out, your prima facie ability to choose will always prove you the fool. This is what some Reformed philosophers of religion, like Michael Sudduth, see quite clearly. This is what I keep saying. IF predestination is true, it doesn't take away the responsibility of human beings to make the right choices towards the Good.
***************************
You say:
What is the problem with believing that when God chose to create humans in his image, part of the imago dei entails that God gave them wills of their own, delegated some (by no means all, and not even most) of his authority to them, and held them responsible for how they used it?
Mephi:
To me, the only thing wrong with it is that is doesn't reconcile ALL of the Biblical data. It is much easier explain the more analogical statements attributed to God about changing his mind in the context of God's omniscience....than it is to truly adhere to Open View Theism and explain the immense amount of knowledge that God is purported to have. Millard Erickson, in his work "Christian Theology" says basically the same thing. We have to deal with ALL the data.
Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/10/00 3:04 PM
RE: RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G, no, I don't resent the terminology per se. Rather, I rather shy away from terminology that people toss about without careful definition. If I accept a term to describe my beliefs, I consider it necessary for me to define the term with some care, for it was evident in the note to which I responded that compatiblist was not being defined as compatiblists use the term to describe their own position.
Put briefly, labels generally don't offer much to a discussion, for everyone has their own idea what the label means, due to varied knowledge and experience. Labels are helpful shorthand expressions but only if all who take part in the discussion share the same understanding concerning the labels used.
That, briefly stated, is my concern. It's not resentment. I simply seek accuracy, fairness, truthfulness, and proper understanding.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/10/00 3:21 PM
Let's reset the table…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a consistent Classical Theist, you will adhere to the simplicity of God. In what way can a simple God have mulitiple wills? Your moral will and will of purpose, I mean. Besides that, does this distinction not have the effect of saying that God's moral will may not be part of God's purpose? Or that God' purposes may not be moral? What are you really saying? Why are these distinctions helpful?
The question still stands, in what way is sin, as human responsibility and opposed to God's will, distinguishable from being simply a function of creation which in turn is a function of the Creator? It seems that Classical Theists would have a difficult time unwinding sin from the general rubric of creatureliness. In which case, we are sinners because we are not God. This of course does not adequately fit the biblical portrait of sin, surely there is more that must be said about sin! But can Classical Theists do better than some form of the same (that we are sinners because we are not God)? Why then speak of sin at all?
Of course, you will say smething to the effect of, "You are still ignoring the compatibilist's conception of divine and human agency!" But on the contrary, I am challenging it. The conception still has not been rendered plausible. I am using the question of the reality and definition of "sin", a core Christian concept, to get us to the heart of the matter. Simply put, is sin against God's will? Are we culpable? Is God? Coherent answers to these questions are what I am after. So far, they have only found plausible responses from the camp which affirms libertarian freedom.
Mephi's analogy is interesting and provacative, but it depends upon one accepting the paradox (I might say contradiction) of a verbal plenary form of inspiration, which I do not accept. For those who do, however, I would suggest yo consider Mephi's challenge and either convert to his sort of compatibilism (which hopefully by now people are picking up on in distinction from the more traditional Classical Theistic compatibilism) or rethink your perspective on inspiration! If I lost you on this last point, check out Mephi's analogy posted in its own folder.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/10/00 5:27 PM
RE: A Cursory Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I know this is a busy time of year!!!
I haven't had a chance to read your analogy yet, but from what my man Modes says, it must be good. I'll have to get back to you later with a response. Consider yourself warned.
In the mean time, you have mentioned Millard a few times. Who else are you a fan of?
Later, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/11/00 12:54 AM
RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes said:
"If you are a consistent Classical Theist, you will adhere to the simplicity of God. In what way can a simple God have mulitiple wills? Your moral will and will of purpose, I mean. Besides that, does this distinction not have the effect of saying that God's moral will may not be part of God's purpose? Or that God' purposes may not be moral? What are you really saying? Why are these distinctions helpful?"
Excellent questions, but too many for me! I will answer in my own feebleness, though.
How can God have multiple wills and be simple in His essence? While God has many attributes, He is still one. God is in three persons, yet He is one in essence. God's sovereign will is what He wills (acts out) to accomplish. Even His permissive will is part of His sovereign, because it is through His permissive will we act out to fill His sovereign plan. By His permissive will, we mean that He allows, knowingly evil things, but they are at the hands of His creatures. God’s moral will, I assume you mean His Law and requirements of perfection, are certainly required of us. This doesn’t mean His sovereign plan is that we all abide by His Law. His Law reflects His nature, to not fulfill it is to sin against God. Is God immoral for not making us fulfill this requirement? No, He is self-existent and we depend on Him, so we are not entitled to this grace.
God’s purposes are always righteous and perfect. He tells us that all things work together for those that love God. Within the context that means evil too. We shouldn’t look so narrowly at temporal evils, for they are evil enacted by man, or satan, not God, yet God purposes them for good. This reminds me of Joseph. His brothers meant evil by selling him, but God purposed it for good. What we (me, at least) are saying is that it is good that evil exists, but evil is not good. Ultimately, everything will be to the glory of God, and in our finiteness we cannot comprehend the grand scale of the plan of God. There is nothing outside of God’s sovereign will, but within His plan are morally responsible agents who act evil, while God acts righteously. There are multiple wills in the world, but all come under the rule of God’s sovereignty. The distinction between the wills is faulty. God has His sovereign will, God has moral requirements (which we also call his will), but the requirements are not something we can possibly fulfill. We are not outside of God’s will when we sin, we are outside of His favor. Too often people look at our requirements and say we must be free since they are commanded, but that is faulty. We must fulfill them or die. If I break a law, do I prove I am free from American Law? No, I stand condemned and will be pursued till justice is served. I am not outside its rule, I broke a rule, which brings down the rule of the iron fist.
Modes also says:
“The question still stands, in what way is sin, as human responsibility and opposed to God's will, distinguishable from being simply a function of creation which in turn is a function of the Creator? It seems that Classical Theists would have a difficult time unwinding sin from the general rubric of creatureliness. In which case, we are sinners because we are not God. This of course does not adequately fit the biblical portrait of sin, surely there is more that must be said about sin! But can Classical Theists do better than some form of the same (that we are sinners because we are not God)? Why then speak of sin at all?”
Sin is to not act in accordance with God’s nature. Our nature NOW is sin, it wasn’t originally. Being a creature doesn’t make one a sinner by definition, one is deemed a sinner by fallenness, and we are all fallen. We shall be creatures still when we are glorified, but we won’t be fallen.
I am also curious, it sounds like you are saying that since Classical Theists believe God’s Sovereign will and foreknowledge are comprehensive, then our sin must be willed by God; is this what you’re thinking? Our creatureliness made our goodness mutable, as I said we are not evil because we are creatures. If God were to not uphold a mutably good creature at every point in his decisions, certainly faulty reasoning and sin could result. The action would be by the will of the creature, for he acted by his own volition. All God would do is refrain from showing this grace which is not entitled to his dependent creature, which made the sin plausible, and the creature would make it actual.
You also say:
“Of course, you will say smething to the effect of, "You are still ignoring the compatibilist's conception of divine and human agency!" But on the contrary, I am challenging it. The conception still has not been rendered plausible. I am using the question of the reality and definition of "sin", a core Christian concept, to get us to the heart of the matter. Simply put, is sin against God's will? Are we culpable? Is God? Coherent answers to these questions are what I am after. So far, they have only found plausible responses from the camp which affirms libertarian freedom.”
Your idea of compatabalism being implausible has been unimpressive, and not convincing to say the least. Prove it cannot be true and then we’ll see if you’ve successfully challenged it. Your fail to answer two questions which delve into the subject matter: What is true freedom? What is the nature of man?
Your idea of freedom is to act and be able to thwart God. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me, that is bondage to sin. You also assume if we are to be truly free then evil must be out of the control of God. That also isn’t freedom. That is God being too weak to free us from bondage to an enemy force He cannot control.
You infer an ability of man in order to be free. This is a fallacy. Freedom is to act according to your will. What is our will at birth? We are born in sin, and dead in our transgressions. We are in bondage to sin, but we freely choose it. How? It is our desire to sin, God doesn’t make us, our choice is to commit it. The ultimate form of bondage is to make decisions according to our fallen nature because it is in opposition to God.
Where do you get the idea of an ability in man to will righteously in his own nature?
We are free! We do not act out evil by the actions of God, they are the results of our desires (uncoerced desires which are in our nature) to do evil. Since our actions are results of our nature, and our choices come out of that, is it not accurate to say that man has made uncoerced choices, which means they were free, and at the same time God has all things under the control of His sovereign will by giving undeserved grace where He desires so man acts less evil, or is enabled to choose Christ?
I hope this is helpful! Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/11/00 3:32 AM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Craig: That is God being too weak to free us from bondage to an enemy force He cannot control.
That article you showed me hit it on the nose. The tradition only nodded its head toward's justice but in reality emphasized the power of God.
It seems past conversations that the worry that God will seem to week is a big influence for you. But there are far worse things than that such as God being unloving.
from Craig:
All God would do is refrain from showing this grace which is not entitled to his dependent creature, which made the sin plausible, and the creature would make it actual.
and this is nothing short of a cruelty. So God made man in such a way that he would sin whenever God takes the initiative to remove his grace? And then he punishes man beyond measure? In your description it is unavoidable to consider God as part of the cause of sin and indeed he is the necessary cause. You say that this doesn't mean that God causes sin but this simply doesn't work You have objected in the past that God does not owe us his grace, but what you have described is faithlessness on the part of God. Poor Adam. If only God had not removed his grace we would not be in this mess.
I'd be surprised if Sproul even suggests such a thing. It seems that he is content to call the the problem of evil a mystery albiet it is somehow good.
In openness, we emphasize the love of God. We are not obscessed with the notion that God might look week. As a matter of fact, so great is his love that we fully embrace the notion that he is vulnerable to us as his grief and frustration at his rejected love, so evident throughout the scriptures, especially the prophets, demonstrates. But since there is evil in the world which cannot come from God nor his negligence and faithlessness, which virtually fits your description, we need another source. How about libertarian free agents that come from God? Even ones that are made in his image.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Craig
12/11/00 9:10 AM
RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob says:
"and this is nothing short of a cruelty. So God made man in such a way that he would sin whenever God takes the initiative to remove his grace? And then he punishes man beyond measure? In your description it is unavoidable to consider God as part of the cause of sin and indeed he is the necessary cause. You say that this doesn't mean that God causes sin but this simply doesn't work You have objected in the past that God does not owe us his grace, but what you have described is faithlessness on the part of God. Poor Adam. If only God had not removed his grace we would not be in this mess."
What cruelty? This is the freedom you and your theology extol! God didn't coerce man to do evil. When I say God removed His grace, I don't mean salvifically, or that God removed His favor; only that at some point God refrained from keeping man under submission to His will and allowed him to reason with his mutably good mind. God showed Adam love at every point, He even spelled out what eating the forbidden fruit would entail. All of God's actions were good, and man didn't stay faithful...poor Adam? Wicked Adam, and wicked you and me!
Your vision is narrow and it is near-sighted. How does the fall of Satan play a role, and what was God's intention of creating man, which was after Satan fell? There is much larger plan in view here. Why would God create man with the big plan being man would be submissive to Him, while letting Satan prowl around needlessly to tempt him? That is cruel! Unless one would see a need in it, and there being a larger plan than what the open theist says.
YOu say:
"I'd be surprised if Sproul even suggests such a thing. It seems that he is content to call the the problem of evil a mystery albiet it is somehow good."
Is this in reference to the presence of evil being good? You say he doesn't say it is good it exists, yet it is somehow good? Well, I guarantee you he said the presence of evil is good (read the Invisible Hand). You are right, however, he left the problem of evil more of a mystery, but I don't think I said my views were his own.
You also say:
"In openness, we emphasize the love of God. We are not obscessed with the notion that God might look week. As a matter of fact, so great is his love that we fully embrace the notion that he is vulnerable to us as his grief and frustration at his rejected love, so evident throughout the scriptures, especially the prophets, demonstrates. But since there is evil in the world which cannot come from God nor his negligence and faithlessness, which virtually fits your description, we need another source. How about libertarian free agents that come from God? Even ones that are made in his image."
Your God is loving, yet He doesn't know the future, prophecies evil, and thus commits sin Himself since His knowledge of the future entails what He will do. Quite loving!
Your idea of freedom is wrong. Freedom is only acting according to what we will. How could it be otherwise? If I were to will the opposite of what I willed, then I choose against my will and makes me not free.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/11/00 11:13 AM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from craig:
"This is the freedom you and your theology extol!"
no it isn't, unless you are saying that when God quit using this grace you believe truly that adam could've avoided sin. And if that is true, God could not have known for sure that adam would sin. The freedom I extol and reformed thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga, C. Stephen Evans, and R.C. Sproul is that which says Adam had both the ability to sin and the ability to not to sin. If God knew that Adam would sin, then the only way adam could have had the ability to not sin is if adam had the ability to change God's foreknowledge that he would sin. But then it wouldn't be called foreknowledge.
from Craig:
"only that at some point God refrained from keeping man under submission to"
and if this Gauranteed that Adam would sin then there is nothing to stop one from calling this a cause. If there was a true possibility that this would not cause adam to sin then God could not have foreknown that adam would sin.
from Craig:
"All of God's actions were good, and man didn't stay faithful...poor Adam? Wicked Adam"
And why was this wicked? Because Adam truly could have avoided sin.
from craig:
"How does the fall of Satan play a role"
role of an influence, not a garaunteeing factor. Other wise it would not be Adams fault for eating of the fruit. I know you'll disagree with this but your battling against intuition. If I do you a particular wrong that was destined before my birth then I can look at you in the eye and say, "well, I couldn't help it, it couldn't be any other way so get over it," but in reality I shouold say, "I'm sorry my dear Craig, I did not have to do such a thing, there were beter options that I could have chosen."
from Craig:
"Why would God create man with the big plan being man would be submissive to Him"
I would rather phrase it, "lovingly obey". Man didn't, which was truly evil. So God who is resourceful changed his plans. Are you suggesting that the omnipotent God requires certain circumstances to acheive his goals, that he can't work with a perfect world and that he needs someone to boch it up?
from Craig:
"Is this in reference to the presence of evil being good? You say he doesn't say it is good it exists, yet it is somehow good? Well, I guarantee you he said the presence of evil is good (read the Invisible Hand). You are right, however, he left the problem of evil more of a mystery, but I don't think I said my views were his own."
The point is many reformed thinkers do not hold the view that adam sinned because God removed his grace. You justify this by saying that God is not obligated to us, and yet the Bible repeats many times that God is faithful. I don't see that God can be faithful and remove his grace simply so that man would sin because God has made plans that are dependent upon the existence of sin
from Craig:
"Your God..."
Must you say this? Are you saying that we beleive in a different God? Can you not rise above rb and Dwayne who are prone to speak this way? Perhaps you didn't mean this but it sure looks that way. Our conceptions of God may differ very significantly but the basis of knowing God does not depend upon whether we view him as immutable and cognizant of every future event, nor whether we view him as dynamic and open. On what basis does Jesus say he knows the sheep whom he will seperate from the goats and on what basis will he tell the goats that he does not know them. I know this for sure. He's not going to tell the goats "Away from me for I never knew you as you did not recognize my meticulouse foreknowledge." Nor will he say to the sheep "well done good and faitheful servants, for you believed in libertarian free will."
from craig:
"yet He doesn't know the future, prophecies evil, and thus commits sin Himself since His knowledge of the future entails what He will do. Quite loving!"
I answered this. Page six of "open theism makes God a sinner," in my first post. I'll post it here since it remains neglected at theologyonline as everyone chased red herrings.
from Craig:
"Your idea of freedom is wrong. Freedom is only acting according to what we will. How could it be otherwise?"
We have significant controll over what we will. The process of deliberation gives us this impression. Even deterministic philosophers such as Searl and Nagel admit that we get this impression.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Geebob
12/11/00 3:08 PM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the first part of the significant material...
quote:
------------------
How can He prophecy about an unactualized evil event in the future if we, and or Satan hasn’t decided to act it out yet?
------------------
Satan's options are limited in some cases but he will probably take any opportunity to cause people to stumble. Peter, a close associate of Jesus' provided a juicy opportunity of his own free volition. God knows what opportunities lay before Satan. That God should manipulate Satan to perform an act in a certain way for certain reasons matters to me not as long as the determinant factor that it should happen at all is due to the previous actions of humans or Satan. That God should intend for Satan to trip people up just so that he can make glorious prophecies is horrendous, and I don't see how Calvinism escapes this because you and other Calvinist's insist that it is all good somehow because it was in God's will.
quote:
------------------
but if I follow the reasoning as I understand it
------------------
The key phrase is "as I understand it". You don't. You're still hung up on the Pelegian version of libertarian free will, which is that every choice of every man is perfectly perched between good and evil. If this were the case, then it is true that God should not be able to predict anything about man's. We recognize that culture, environment, and upbringing play a significant role in the choices people make but those do not determine that a morally culpable action choice should come out in one way. However, what may determine a morally culpable choice are previous moral choices.
Here's a hypothetical situation. Pastor Buefort catches a glimpse of a beautiful woman who is dressed immodestly. This first time he sees her, he has a perfectly moral and undetermined choice. He may either avert his eyes quickly thus strengthening his commitment to his God, wife, family, and church, or he can let his eyes linger just a little longer. God provided a way out, but he didn't take it, as Christians often don't. More and more he allows himself to lust and it becomes more difficult for him to choose rightly and predictability becomes easier and easier until after giving in to worse and worse sins, it becomes inevitable that he will commit adultery.
quote:
------------------
Why might I ask did Jesus act as though it was CERTAIN that Peter would deny Him three times... He didn’t seem to see a possibility of this situation being otherwise.
------------------
That may have been the case that when Jesus predicted this, but He only predicted it after He had seen that Peter was not entirely receiving his message of the way of the suffering servant. One thing I am not sure of is whether Jesus knew that it was truly determined in the sense that their was zero chance of Peter not denying Him or if the chance was something like one in a million. I am comfortable with either option because for the former, I have explained ad nauseum that moral actions can be determined provided that the attitude(callused heart) that determined them was the result of previous undetermined choices. The latter is also fine because as Jer. 3:7 so explicitly demonstrates, God does speculate about the outcomes of undetermined future events.
quote:
------------------
Christ also said He was praying for Peter, but notice that it wasn’t a prayer for him so that he wouldn’t deny Christ, but that after his denial, he would return to Christ and strengthen his brethren.
------------------
Right, because after Peter placed himself on a course of error, his foolishness needed to be made visable to himself so that he could fully repent of his attitude and even in that, prayers are helpful.
and here's the second...
quote:
------------------
Is there not prophecy of Judas’ betrayal? Psalm 41:9 "Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me"
------------------
No there is not a prophecy of Judas' betrayal. Supposing that that is a prophecy, it does not indicate that Judas would betrayal Jesus. It would say that someone would betray Jesus but not necessarily Judas. I was originally not opposed to viewing this as a messianic prophecy in light of the fact that anyone could have fulfilled it. After all, evil people are a dime a dozen, and if Judas didn't put himself in that position then, If Jesus did specifically pick Judas to betray him, he would have merely picked someone who was in such a rebellious state. But I find that dubious that this is a messianic prophecy, because if it is, when did Jesus fulfill verse 4?
quote:
------------------
Zechariah 11:12,13 "Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver….So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter"
------------------
Once again, it didn't have to be Judas. Also although there is a parallel, I don't see that this is necessarily a prophecy of the betrayal of Jesus. Zechariah was the person speaking. Did he betray someone for the silver? It doesn't look like it.
Another problem, did Judas throw his money into the temple or did he use it buy a field in which he splattered?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Craig
12/11/00 2:24 PM
RE: RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob says:
“no it isn't, unless you are saying that when God quit using this grace you believe truly that adam could've avoided sin. And if that is true, God could not have known for sure that adam would sin. The freedom I extol and reformed thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga, C. Stephen Evans, and R.C. Sproul is that which says Adam had both the ability to sin and the ability to not to sin. If God knew that Adam would sin, then the only way adam could have had the ability to not sin is if adam had the ability to change God's foreknowledge that he would sin. But then it wouldn't be called foreknowledge.”
I am sorry if I was unclear, but I did say man was created good, and that goodness was mutable. By God fellowshipping, and telling man what the consequence of sin would be, He had prepared the mutably good creature to truly be able to choose righteously. I had also made a distinction before about fallenness and being a creature. We are sinful because we are fallen, not because we are creatures. By saying Adam was mutably good, I wasn’t saying that he must perform evil if God should allow him to reason with his mutably good mind. I am in agreement with you; Adam truly had it within his power to choose not to sin, after all he was created good. But by allowing man to reason in his imperfect knowledge (not sinful, just incomplete) the ability to sin was very real, and Satan contributed greatly to this. Man wasn’t coerced by Satan, rather, (I believe this, I may be wrong) he introduced ideas for man to ponder with his finite facaulties and so his thinking was misconstrued and his desire was to be at liberty from God. You also say:
“and if this Gauranteed that Adam would sin then there is nothing to stop one from calling this a cause. If there was a true possibility that this would not cause adam to sin then God could not have foreknown that adam would sin.”
It was guaranteed, but not in the sense that God’s actions necessitated the fall. The fall was result of a mutably good creature’s decision to rebel. By allowing Adam to reason on his own, God didn’t create evil in him. Ultimately, evil comes from the heart, and God said He created man good, so somehow evil was placed in man’s heart. It was either God, or it was man. You and I say it was man, we differ as to how he got there. I asked: "How does the fall of Satan play a role"
You said:
“role of an influence, not a garaunteeing factor. Other wise it would not be Adams fault for eating of the fruit. I know you'll disagree with this but your battling against intuition. If I do you a particular wrong that was destined before my birth then I can look at you in the eye and say, "well, I couldn't help it, it couldn't be any other way so get over it," but in reality I shouold say, "I'm sorry my dear Craig, I did not have to do such a thing, there were beter options that I could have chosen."
This was my fault, I was in a hurry and wasn’t clear. I have been reading a book called “The Invisible War” by Donald Grey Barnhouse. When I say there is a bigger picture, I mean that God is at “war” with Satan, and I really should have asked what you thought we were created for in light of the fall of Satan. After reading most of the book, I am coming to see a great drama being played out in time. God is being glorified by redeeming evil, weak man before the eyes of a powerful creature who sought glory. Lucifer wanted it, and he is watching God redeem man, who will be glorified by God Himself. We were created for God’s pleasure, which is more than just communing with God. He is pleased to glorify Himself before Satan through us.
You say:
“The point is many reformed thinkers do not hold the view that adam sinned because God removed his grace. You justify this by saying that God is not obligated to us, and yet the Bible repeats many times that God is faithful. I don't see that God can be faithful and remove his grace simply so that man would sin because God has made plans that are dependent upon the existence of sin”
Remember, I am using grace fairly generically. It was A grace God withheld. I do agree, God is faithful, and He was faithful to Adam even in the Fall. There was no reason Adam should doubt God, God had given him resources and knowledge of Himself to overcome, plus he had a good nature. Could you be faithful to your child while at the same time withholding certain privileges. God’s sustaining is a PRIVILEGE not an obligation. God has proven Himself abundantly faithful through Redemptive history after the Fall.
You say:
“Must you say this? Are you saying that we beleive in a different God? Can you not rise above rb and Dwayne who are prone to speak this way? Perhaps you didn't mean this but it sure looks that way. Our conceptions of God may differ very significantly but the basis of knowing God does not depend upon whether we view him as immutable and cognizant of every future event, nor whether we view him as dynamic and open. On what basis does Jesus say he knows the sheep whom he will seperate from the goats and on what basis will he tell the goats that he does not know them. I know this for sure. He's not going to tell the goats "Away from me for I never knew you as you did not recognize my meticulouse foreknowledge." Nor will he say to the sheep "well done good and faitheful servants, for you believed in libertarian free will."
It is not libertarian free will that makes me think your god is different from the God I believe in. I disagree with Arminians, but I don’t think they have departed enough from Classical Theism to be considered followers of a different god. I am not going to denounce you, or do other things like RB and Dwayne do, but suffice it to say, yes, I believe in a different God than Open Theism's version. Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/11/00 4:21 PM
RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
The question is actually quite simple.
In what way are we responsible for sin when the decisive factor is whether God's upholding grace is present to do righteousness in us or not?
If God withdraws grace, we sin. The variable is outside of us. This destroys legitimate responsibility for the person who sins because he wants to and only might have abstained from sin if God had done something differently in relation to him. I understand you're definition of freedom as the person's ability to do what they want, but that definition fails because it is overly subjective and defies the tacit meaning of the word which the dictionary (Webster's) gets right as: "a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; liberty; independence." As Boyd puts it, it is the ability to do otherwise. This fits nicely with GDG's points above. Can we agree to this definition of freedom? Note the definition given is the first occurance in Webster's, it is the preferred and tacit understanding. Most of the other definitions are a variation on this theme. The one which comes closest to what you have in mind is "g) ease of movement or performance; facility." But clearly this is not the typical understanding of this term. If you'd like to redefine "freedom" in some other way, at least be explicit about it so we can all know what you are talking about.
Another problematic definition in the mix here is what you seem to refer to as our "sinful nature". This gives me the impression that you are using the NIV translation which quite wrongly translates "sarx" or "flesh" as "sinful nature." Rather, with the NRSV and other better translations (NASB, KJV, etc. See for example Eph. 2:3) at this point we are to understand that the concept rendered flesh here is a reference to a past way of life, not a sinful nature which implies that our sin is of ontological status. This is precisely why I raise the question of whether you understand sin to be inherent to creatureliness. Of course you deny this but can you avoid it logically? Why do we always sin when God is not sustaining the grace which causes us to do good? Because of our "sinful nature" in your view. Well then, what is the relation between our "sinful nature" and our being as created very good(Gen. 1:31)? The battle between the flesh and the spirit is not the battle between two "natures" but between the old and the new ways ("authorities", fits here, as with the transfer of two masters metaphor) of life.
The importance of the question still stands, Craig. You deny the tacit and dictionary meaning of freedom and then complain about our use of that definition. I'd say that the burden of proof is on you to show that "freedom" does not mean what the dictionary says it does. Even of you do this, you still have to show what sense can be made of responsibility placed on the individual who had no power to do otherwise in the question of sin. God creates sinners who sin and then blames them for being sinners. It sounds like either God is not a very good creator (his toys don't work right) or God is not a very good sport (God's toys work as they were created to work but God punishes them for doing what God decided they would do). Help me out here, your logic eludes me still.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/11/00 7:49 PM
RE: RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes said:
"Craig, The question is actually quite simple. In what way are we responsible for sin when the decisive factor is whether God's upholding grace is present to do righteousness in us or not? If God withdraws grace, we sin. The variable is outside of us."
We are responsible for our sin because it is our wills willing sin, and not God. He permits it to be part of His plan. It isn't that we are coerced by God to sin, the sinning desire is present with us in our sinful nature, which wages war against the nature of God.
You also say:
". I understand you're definition of freedom as the person's ability to do what they want, but that definition fails because it is overly subjective and defies the tacit meaning of the word which the dictionary (Webster's) gets right as: "a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; liberty; independence."
You wrongly go to Webster to find out about spiritual freedom. America is the land of freedom, yet does that mean we are spiritually free? You confuse earthly freedom with spiritual by consulting Webster, and not Paul who says we are born children of wrath, and dead in our transgressions. See Eph. 2
You also say:
"This is precisely why I raise the question of whether you understand sin to be inherent to creatureliness. Of course you deny this but can you avoid it logically? Why do we always sin when God is not sustaining the grace which causes us to do good? Because of our "sinful nature" in your view."
I thought I explained it is FALLENNESS that makes us sinful. God removing His sustaining grace did not mean that Adam HAD to sin. It is finiteness in thinking that left the option to sin VERY REAL. Without God's grace sustaining him, and Satan putting thoughts into his mind, thinking about it brought about a failure in his will. He did not sin BECAUSE he was a creature, rather, it was his uncoerced choice to sin which then made him a sinner.
I might add, we are born with a sin nature. When I said fleshly nature, I don't mean our physical body, that is the sin nature. If you disagree that we are born into sin you are a Pelagian, and I know for a fact that Dr. Sanders agrees that we are born in bondage to sin.
You also say:
"You deny the tacit and dictionary meaning of freedom and then complain about our use of that definition. I'd say that the burden of proof is on you to show that "freedom" does not mean what the dictionary says it does."
Of course, you would have to say that. When I want a definition of the status of my relationship with GOd I will consult what Scripture says, rather than take what a dictionary says about physical freedom and apply it to my relationship with God. We are born at enmity with God, we are dead in our sins, we do not understand spiritual things, nor are we ABLE TO. These are just some of the things the Bible says about our great "freedom". We are also PREDESTINED UNTO SALVATION. See what Webster says about the word predestine, or predestinate. If I go by Webster about freedom, yes, the burden of proof is on me. If I go by what Scripture says, and the last 2 thousand years of church history, then I would say the burden of proof is on you now, don't suffocate.
You say:
"Even of you do this, you still have to show what sense can be made of responsibility placed on the individual who had no power to do otherwise in the question of sin. God creates sinners who sin and then blames them for being sinners."
Modes, Modes, Modes! I never said God created sinners, this is a new thing you have inferred into what I said. Is it not clear yet? We had a freedom to be able to not sin, and sin at creation. We were MUTABLY good. If you look at the first genealogy in Genesis, you will see Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, and yet their offspring were born after the likeness of thier parents. Now we are born evil. You see, Adam did have the ability to not sin, but we were all put into bondage to sin by the fall. God created man good, mutably good, and he fell, so God punishes sin. You see, let me spell it out; We were good, we were free to not sin, we did, we fell into perdition and are dead in our transgressions. We chose sin, it is our nature, IT IS OURS NOT GOD'S, so WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.10
Romans chapter 3
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." [6]
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know." [7]
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 
Romans 5
10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
Romans 9
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'"
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--
Sola Scriptura
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/12/00 1:13 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man is still considered by God as created in His image, Craig.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 9:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: To deny freedom is to deny sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have said a lot, but nothing new.
Why is it coherent to attribute fault to something which does exactly what it most certainly will do as though it shouldn't do it?
If it is coherent to say that Adam had true libertarian freedom, to chose to obey God or not, why is it now incoherent to say so about the rest of us? If you want more proof texts see the scripture list which supports Open Theists or any argument by a credible Arminian for that matter.
Of course it is Pelagian to say that we can be saved by our own wills as though we could choose to live sinfree without Christ, this is not what Open Theists think. We are saved by Christ's work for us by grace alone. This grace is a gift, it can be accepted or rejected, just as Eve and Adam had to chose whether to accept God's law (which can be seen as a gift) or reject it. It is through Christ that all are reconciled, so let's get the Pelagian accusations out of the way. Please just answer the question at the top and then the one below.
In what way is sin against God's will?
Move beyond simply restating yourself to specificly describing why we are at fault for what we cannot prevent. Speak about your "God's multiple wills" theories if need be but let's move this conversation forward.
Purity of heart is to will one thing...
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|