 |
| 
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/14/2004 3:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Consider this scenario...
I have a son
My son reaches the age of accountability; let's assume it is in the teenage years for this scenario.
Even though over the years I have warned my son about the dangers of drugs and alcohol use, he choses to experiment with them.
Even though I have the ability and knowledge to influence my son, at this point, to make better decisions concerning drugs and alcohol, I decide instead, because he has reached the age of accountability, to kick him out of my house, but not before I supply him with a fresh supply of drugs and alcohol and money to purchase more later. My decision will more then likely lead to my son falling into a drug and alcohol addiction.
I would be considered the worst parent to walk the earth and many would doubt that I even truely love my son at all.
But yet, this is the picture "free will" theology paints of God and mankind...
God creates man in His own image.
Man makes some bad choices (Rom. 1:18, 19).
Even though God has the ability and knowledge to influence man to make the right choices, instead He gives them over to the lusts of their heart (Rom. 1:24), He locks them up in stubbornness (Rom. 11:32), and adds the Law so that all of this sin can be kept track of (Rom. 5:13, 20) making the situation worse.
On top of this, on judgment day God condemns man to the lake of fire and brimstone (most believing this is either eternal torment or annihilation, one being only a little more merciful then the other!)
Many people look at this scenario and question whether God truly loves them! And even though God loves the world, according the "free will" theology, he only loves those who make the right choice.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/14/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Consider this scenario...
Even though I have the ability and knowledge to influence my son, at this point, to make better decisions concerning drugs and alcohol, I decide instead, because he has reached the age of accountability, to kick him out of my house, but not before I supply him with a fresh supply of drugs and alcohol and money to purchase more later.
Your example is patently ludicrous, and is an inaccurate reflection of Open Theism, at least. (Can't speak for other "free will theologies"). Where in the published writings of Open Theists (or even, for that matter, on this message board) can you show where Open Theists EVER once have said God acts in such a way as to basically give more drugs to a juvenile delinquent?
As usual, Lock, the absurd straw men you attempt to raise against Open Theism are far more reflective of your own prejudiced (and may I say, jaundiced) preconceptions of the implications of the Open View than they are of anything else; they certainly don't represent Open Theism accurately.
In the Open View, no one ends up in hell who doesn't FREELY choose to persist in rebellion against God.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2004 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Consider this...
You have a son.
You determine every choice he'll ever make before you have him.
You have him. He kicks you out of the house (as you determined him to), he becomes a drug addict (as you determined him to), abuses his wife and children (as you determined him to), and goes to his grave cursing you (as you determined him to).
He stands before you for sentencing and you hold him accountable for everything you determined him to do. He again curses you for this charade (as you determined him to) and goes to hell (as you determines him to).
And the other children you had whom you determined to make different choices that landed them in heaven all confess, "What a glorious God! What an awesome Father!" (as you determined them to).
Whatever might be the weaknesses of worldviews that embrace libertarian free will, they pale in comparison to those that deny it.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2004 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | It's open mic nite at the forum folks! 
Spen: I am disappointed by the straw man you created here.
Tom: There’s no more straw in what I proposed than in what Lock proposed. Where were you when Lock posted to start this thread? His post was accurate and honest? Or is it OK to whip up on open folk? 
Spen: This hyper-hyper-Calvinism is…
Tom: It’s not hyper-Calvinism Spen. It’s SOFT determinism. Listen, every soft-determinist believes, just as every hard determinist does, that God unconditionally determines everything that comes to pass. That is, it’s true of everything that happens that God unconditionally decreed it should happen. Never forget the unconditionality of the decree. It's all-important to Calvinism, hard or soft. The difference between hard determinists and soft determinists is that the former could care less about making sense out of how we are held responsible by God for doing what he determined us to do whereas soft-determinists claim such determinism IS ‘compatible’ (thus, Compatibilism) with our being justly held responsible (though 3 years of asking compatibilists on this board for the analogy that demonstrates how this makes sense hasn’t produced a single analogy). But it’s the same unconditional and exhaustive decree that stands behind it all.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2004 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Romans says that God leads men, by His kindness, to repentance, but they, because of their hard hearts, treasure up wrath by refusing to repent...
Tom (thinking as a soft determinist): ...as God unconditionally determined them to do! Right Spen?
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2004 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Nothing at all Jeff. I was just responding 'as a soft-D would'.  Just stirring up trouble! 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/15/2004 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Your example is patently ludicrous, and is an inaccurate reflection of Open Theism, at least. (Can't speak for other "free will theologies"). Where in the published writings of Open Theists (or even, for that matter, on this message board) can you show where Open Theists EVER once have said God acts in such a way as to basically give more drugs to a juvenile delinquent?
John-
In my scenario where I kick my son out of the house and give him more drugs and alcohol corresponds with God locking up peoples in stubbornness (Rom 11:32) and giving them over to their lusts (Rom. 1:24). You are correct that the OV does not claim this, the bible does.
quote:
wouldn't you also say that now the father is attemtping everything he can to get the kid back and no matter how hard the father tries, it is ultimatley up to the son to come back to the "loving" arms of the father.
Borg-
This would only be true if the lake of fire and brimstone is not the end for unbelievers. This post does not reflect God's dealings with believers, that is an entirely different subject. This deals with those who do not believe during this age, who are holding the truth of God in injustice (Rom. 1:18) and who are given over to their own lusts (Rom. 1:24). I agree that your post in the "final" product, but most do not agree. They believe that the lake of fire and brimstone is the unbeliever's (even though they too are created in God's image and God loves them) final, eternal destiny. I have stated it before, free will theology and eternal torment and/or eternal annihilation go hand and hand.
quote:
Consider this...
You have a son.
You determine every choice he'll ever make before you have him.
You have him. He kicks you out of the house (as you determined him to), he becomes a drug addict (as you determined him to), abuses his wife and children (as you determined him to), and goes to his grave cursing you (as you determined him to).
He stands before you for sentencing and you hold him accountable for everything you determined him to do. He again curses you for this charade (as you determined him to) and goes to hell (as you determines him to).
And the other children you had whom you determined to make different choices that landed them in heaven all confess, "What a glorious God! What an awesome Father!" (as you determined them to).
Whatever might be the weaknesses of worldviews that embrace libertarian free will, they pale in comparison to those that deny it.
You are correct Tom-
If you believe God is going to send people to hell for the rest of eternity, then of course, you cannot hold God responsible. I think this is admirable. I do not believe God is going to determine someone to go to hell for eternity because they could not withstand God's intentions (Rom. 9:19). This proves again that free will thoelogy and eternal torment or annihilation go hand and hand.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/15/2004 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: You are correct Tom…
Tom: Yay! I’m right!
Lock: If you believe God is going to send people to hell for the rest of eternity, then of course, you cannot hold God responsible. I think this is admirable. I do not believe God is going to determine someone to go to hell for eternity because they could not withstand God's intentions (Rom. 9:19). This proves again that free will thoelogy and eternal torment or annihilation go hand and hand.
Tom: Unfortunately, the price to be paid for abandoning libertarian free will even on the assumption that universalism is true is a heaven just as void of truly personal and loving relationships for us as hell would have been.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/15/2004 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: Are you saying that in order for us to have a truly loving and personal relationship with God, He HAS to send someone to hell? To show love to one person, God MUST show hate to another?
Tom: Oh, no. Sorry to give you that idea. I’m saying that so far as I understand the nature of ‘loving’ and ‘personal’ relationships, libertarian free will is required by finite folks like us if we’re to enjoy such relationships. My love for another cannot be determined for me by another. Nor can my relationship with another be considered mutually ‘personal’ if one party in the relationship is determining the other. To the extant that one party unconditionally determines the other, to that extent the relationship ceases to be ‘personal’. This is just Doc’s first thesis: Love requires freedom.
That said, I’ve yet to hear an argument for universalism that doesn’t end up denying the freedom required by the kind of salvation (salvation = a loving and personal relationship with God) universalists want to insist is guaranteed to all. What grounds the truth value of the proposition, “Every person without exception will choose a loving relationship with God”? If this proposition is true, then it can’t be that everybody makes a choice for a loving and personal relationship with God. What does salvation amount to for these folks?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Your example is patently ludicrous, and is an inaccurate reflection of Open Theism, at least. (Can't speak for other "free will theologies"). Where in the published writings of Open Theists (or even, for that matter, on this message board) can you show where Open Theists EVER once have said God acts in such a way as to basically give more drugs to a juvenile delinquent?
John-
In my scenario where I kick my son out of the house and give him more drugs and alcohol corresponds with God locking up peoples in stubbornness (Rom 11:32) and giving them over to their lusts (Rom. 1:24). You are correct that the OV does not claim this, the bible does.
If you believe the Bible teaches this, what's your beef, then?
That said, I don't believe it is accurate at all to say as you do that God basically gives more drugs to the druggie delinquent. Locking them up in unbelief, a la Romans 11:32, does not have to have the deterministic interpretation you assign to it, any more than it is deterministic for secular governments to imprison criminals. When God gives them over to depravity a la Romans 1, He gives them what they want, yes, but that is simply the necessarily corollary to freedom of choice. It is the righteous wrath/judgment of God for Him to let people go, according to what Paul says in that chapter. Giving a druggie more drugs would be an addition to the sinner, not a subtraction from him (as God letting them go is).
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/15/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What grounds the truth value of the proposition, “Every person without exception will choose a loving relationship with God”? If this proposition is true, then it can’t be that everybody makes a choice for a loving and personal relationship with God. What does salvation amount to for these folks?
The grounds of your arguement is that there are those who would not chose to have this relationship with God. Explain why they would choose not to have this relationship with God after they have gained a realization of God's righteousness through His judgments, and more fully, a realization of His love and grace when made alive in Christ at the end of the eons. What would be the grounds of choosing not to love God in return for His gracious love? What impairs man now is the flesh and its desires. When made alive in Christ, they will no longer be constrained by the flesh, they will have a full realization of God's righteousness and more importantly, His grace and love, what truly would be their grounds for choosing otherwise?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
I would still be a horible father if it was within my ability and knowledge to lead my son down the correct path of choices, but instead choose to just let him go off on his own and in the end condemn myself.
The parable of the prodigal son teaches we can not control the choices of others, but we can welcome them with love like the Lord’s readiness to welcome and bless all who return to him.
Luke 15:13
A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/15/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: What grounds the truth value of the proposition, “Every person without exception will choose a loving relationship with God”? If this proposition is true, then it can’t be that everybody makes a choice for a loving and personal relationship with God. What does salvation amount to for these folks?
Lock: The grounds of your arguement is that there are those who would not chose to have this relationship with God. Explain why they would choose not to have this relationship with God after they have gained a realization of God's righteousness through His judgments, and more fully, a realization of His love and grace when made alive in Christ at the end of the eons. What would be the grounds of choosing not to love God in return for His gracious love?
The “grounds of my argument”? Lock, I asked a question. My question itself is not grounded, as you suppose, on the assumption that there will be some who would choose not to have a relationship with God. I don’t want to argue that there will or won’t be such. But it’s certainly a logical possibility that there will be both. Since both are logically possible states of affairs, you have to ground the truth of the proposition “Every person without exception will choose a loving relationship with God” in something.
Here’s what you ground it in:
quote:
Lock: What impairs man now is the flesh and its desires. When made alive in Christ, they will no longer be constrained by the flesh, they will have a full realization of God's righteousness and more importantly, His grace and love, what truly would be their grounds for choosing otherwise?
What would be their grounds? The same that Adam had: libertarian free will. Look Lock, Adam didn’t have a sinful flesh, no “Old Self” to struggle with, no fallen sinful societal structures and influences, blah blah blah. He had all the benefits and advantages of a pre-Fall friggin perfect world and he STILL screwed up. So I’ve no reason to believe that people will unfailingly make right choices if only the influence of their fallen selves is removed.
If the sinful flesh of the wicked dead with all its desires and freely chosen tendencies is—poof—removed at the resurrection by God without their having a choice in the matter, how have you upheld free choice? How is the resulting state a libertarian choice that the wicked raised make responsibly to determine themselves with respect to God?
You make this unsubstantiated assumption that if every possible reason a person might have for choosing against God is just removed, if the invironment is just right, the person would certainly choose for God. Why in the world believe that? It’s like Dewey’s understanding of sin as ‘ignorance’. If people just understand what the truth of the matter is, if they can just be stripped of all their fantasies and illusions, they can’t fail to choose rightly. I don’t see that this is true. I’m looking for an actual ‘argument’ that demonstrates this, but it seems people believe it’s true because they want it to be true so badly. And I don’t want it ‘not’ to be true. I just refuse to assume that it’s true without some justification. I do however have plenty of reason to believe that the same freedom that’s required to be exercised by people NOW if they are to know and love God has to be required of people in any place or time either side of the grave if THEY are to know and love God.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
The same that Adam had: libertarian free will. Look Lock, Adam didn’t have a sinful flesh, no “Old Self” to struggle with, no fallen sinful societal structures and influences, blah blah blah. He had all the benefits and advantages of a pre-Fall friggin perfect world and he STILL screwed up. So I’ve no reason to believe that people will unfailingly make right choices if only the influence of their fallen selves is removed.
If the sinful flesh of the wicked dead with all its desires and freely chosen tendencies is—poof—removed at the resurrection by God without their having a choice in the matter, how have you upheld free choice? How is the resulting state a libertarian choice that the wicked raised make responsibly to determine themselves with respect to God?
You make this unsubstantiated assumption that if every possible reason a person might have for choosing against God is just removed, if the invironment is just right, the person would certainly choose for God. Why in the world believe that? It’s like Dewey’s understanding of sin as ‘ignorance’. If people just understand what the truth of the matter is, if they can just be stripped of all their fantasies and illusions, they can’t fail to choose rightly. I don’t see that this is true. I’m looking for an actual ‘argument’ that demonstrates this, but it seems people believe it’s true because they want it to be true so badly. And I don’t want it ‘not’ to be true. I just refuse to assume that it’s true without some justification. I do however have plenty of reason to believe that the same freedom that’s required to be exercised by people NOW if they are to know and love God has to be required of people in any place or time either side of the grave if THEY are to know and love God.
Tom
Wow, the state of being self-accountable for one’s own choices, what a concept.
Most awesome Tom.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/15/2004 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What would be their grounds? The same that Adam had: libertarian free will. Look Lock, Adam didn’t have a sinful flesh, no “Old Self” to struggle with, no fallen sinful societal structures and influences, blah blah blah. He had all the benefits and advantages of a pre-Fall friggin perfect world and he STILL screwed up. So I’ve no reason to believe that people will unfailingly make right choices if only the influence of their fallen selves is removed.
Tom-
Adam warred the same flesh we do. The disposition of flesh is death and enmity towards God. Those in the flesh are not able to please God (Rom. 8:5-8). Adam was unable to please God due to the weakness of his flesh, which he was created in! Romans 8 speaks of flesh, not a so-called "sinful nature". The only difference between the flesh of Adam before he sinned and our flesh today is the corruption God subjected nature with (Rom. 8:20). Where in Gen 3 does it say we now have a "sinful natur" due to Adam's sin. We do not inherit a "sinful nature" from Adam, but we do inherit flesh and flesh is unable to please God. Adam "screwed up" due to his flesh, even though he was part of a friggin perfect world.
quote:
I do however have plenty of reason to believe that the same freedom that’s required to be exercised by people NOW if they are to know and love God has to be required of people in any place or time either side of the grave if THEY are to know and love God.
It is and will be the same for everyone. Those who believe during this era only do so because of the spirit of God; "Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you" (Rom 8:9). A believer can choose to have a loving relationship with God un-influenced by the flesh because the flesh has been crucified and buried with Christ (Rom. 6:2-4). Jesus made it clear that no Israelite will enter the kingdom unless born of the spirit (John 3:3-8).
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by lock
I would still be a horible father if it was within my ability and knowledge to lead my son down the correct path of choices, but instead choose to just let him go off on his own and in the end condemn myself.
The parable of the prodigal son teaches we can not control the choices of others, but we can welcome them with love like the Lord’s readiness to welcome and bless all who return to him.
Luke 15:13
A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living.
Spark-
Do you really think that this was the Lord's meaning behind this particular parable?
The parable is about the consequences of our choices in life, repentance, love and forgiveness, what else is there? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/15/2004 4:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock-
I wish I could say I even understand your argument and the points you make. Truth is I'm completely unable to put the different points you make together and come up with a view I even understand. I'll take resopnsibility for it. I'm just slow I guess.
Bless ya,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:28 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 |
|
|