 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Character solidification and repentance | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/17/2005 8:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Sahid-who-is-listening!
various folks said...
Lee: "I believe ... that believers can choose within God's will, just like he chooses."
Sahid: … but I say that I am a believer, so the accusations must be false, because believers can only choose within God's will.
Sorry I wasn't clear about this with you all, I meant "can" in the sense of "it's possible," not in the sense of "can only."
Now if Jesus said "If the Son sets you free," that must imply that those who have not yet believed are not free, and I believe the freedom Christ gives is more than just freedom not to sin! I believe there are real choices within God's will:
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us…
So he could choose either option! Both were within God's will, and God's will is not a monorail, as here as well:
1 Corinthians 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
So the "better" choice is not the only choice!
1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not free?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/18/2005 10:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Sahid said...
From what I've read in the past I gather that you think an nonbeliever's actions are determined. If so, how can they be held responsible for their actions?
Just like a person is guilty for an unintentional sin?
Leviticus 4:22 When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, he is guilty.
Leviticus 5:17 If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible.
various folks said...
Lee: Now if Jesus said "If the Son sets you free," that must imply that those who have not yet believed are not free…
Jeff: Lee, see Rom. 6:20-22. It says there is freedom AND bondage for both believers and unbelievers.
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Freedom in the sense of not being under the control of righteousness, but not freedom in the sense of being able to make real choices, I would say here in reply.
Jeff said...
They just don't have the kind of freedom Christ was referring to.
Yes, so we must consider further what freedom might have been meant in what Jesus said!
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/19/2005 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee, when you quoted Leviticus, you only quoted half of the sentences. The other half, both times, goes on to say that those who sin in this way should sacrifice a goat. I don't think these passages are authoritative to believers today (authoritative in the sense of having authority over one's life). You quoted two obsolete verses to show that God's people used to believe that guilt could be found in the ignorant, but you didn't answer my question of how or why. How can they be held responsible? I know that under the old coventant they were. But how is that just?
Finally, does Leviticus even address the subject? These are God's coventant people. They don't fit nicely into the category of nonbelievers. If anyone had freedom at that time, it would have been the Jews, right? Their sin may have been unintentional, but it was still chosen; precautions could have nevertheless have been taken. If I get high and kick my dog, the act may be unintentional, but I am the one responsible for my ignorance. Likewise, with the Jews, one may have been ignorant, but it's on the individual's shoulders to not be ignorant. He could have been more deliberate, more thoughtful. It's not as though he is determined like a nonbeliever.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/19/2005 12:49:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/19/2005 9:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Jeff said...
… that's what the whole argument is about - whether or not freedom or bondage, in any given context, is absolute. I think not.
Well it's called "slavery to sin," (Jn. 8:32-36), implying, at least overall, Jesus considered they were not free.
Sahid said...
I don't think these [Leviticus] passages are authoritative to believers today (authoritative in the sense of having authority over one's life).
I agree that the remedy is not to offer a sacrifice, yet is there not real guilt there, if an animal sacrifice was required? Which must represent cleansing by the blood of Jesus.
Sahid said...
… but you didn't answer my question of how or why. How can they be held responsible? I know that under the old covenant they were. But how is that just?
If God bears this sin and guilt? Cleansing, by the blood of Jesus, justice would be in his being the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world.
Sahid said...
Likewise, with the Jews, one may have been ignorant, but it's on the individual's shoulders to not be ignorant. He could have been more deliberate, more thoughtful. It's not as though he is determined like a nonbeliever.
Could an unbeliever sin unintentionally though, and not be guilty? I think not, the parallel is pretty close here with a unintentional sin by a believer. Also, I think it is possible unbelievers might be direct sources in their motives, thus intentional sins would bring guilt for that reason:
Proverbs 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart…
Proverbs 16:2 … motives are weighed by the Lord…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/20/2005 12:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | "If God bears this sin and guilt? Cleansing, by the blood of Jesus, justice would be in his being the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world."
But holding someone guilty for what they cannot control is still unjust. If I kick my dog for causing the Holocaust, giving him a puppy-treat later doesn't make the kicking just.
"Could an unbeliever sin unintentionally though, and not be guilty? I think not"
Why?
"Also, I think it is possible unbelievers might be direct sources in their motives, thus intentional sins would bring guilt for that reason:"
For unbelievers to be the sources of their motives, they could not have been determined ahead of time by God.
As to the verses you quote, there are such a lot of dots.
"To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue. All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD."
Verse 2 especially talks about men acting independently of God. Would you say that the not-innocent motives were determined by God?
It seems like you have God being evil then good. His evil isn't really evil because he makes up for it later. But I don't buy it. The "I'm not stealing; I'm just borrowing" excuse sounds like a cop-out
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/20/2005 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said...
You quoted two obsolete verses to show that God's people used to believe that guilt could be found in the ignorant, but you didn't answer my question of how or why. How can they be held responsible? I know that under the old coventant they were. But how is that just?
Lee said...
If God bears this sin and guilt? Cleansing, by the of Jesus, justice would be in his being the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world.
Sahid said...
But holding someone guilty for what they cannot control is still unjust. If I kick my dog for causing the Holocaust, giving him a puppy-treat later doesn't make the kicking just.
Nonono. The apparent injustice under the Old Covenant was not strict liability crimes.
1. In fact, there are strict liability crimes in the United States today. Examples include parking violations, statutory r@pe, selling unsafe food, possession of , etc.
As to the policy reasoning behind strict liability? I suppose that the social interest outweighs the lack of intent. Such as, a regulatory scheme could not function without it. In addition, it makes businesses more careful. I should also note that both in the Old Testament and today a strict liability offense gets a relatively light punishment.
2. But the perceived injustice under the Old Covenant is outlined in Romans 3:25-26Paul said...
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his . He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
The inequity was that God didn't destroy the world at all the times of wickedness in the Old Testament. He could afford to have mercy in this way because he was looking forward to the Cross. This brings up another point.
3. God had no obligation to extend mercy to anyone in the New Testament either. Because of the cross, we don't get the just penalty we deserve. This has nothing to do with excusing God for "unjust" laws. So why do you complain if He chooses to save some and not others?
4. Before we were saved, it is not that we were ignorant of God's law. Even if we were, there is still the conscience, and the fact that we hold others to a standard we are unable to keep. (Rom. 1-3) Nor was it the case that we honestly tried to keep the law and found it too hard. It was not. (Deut. 30:11-14) The fact was that we wilfully refused to, because of our wickedness of heart. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/20/2005 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. I don't know what you mean by "strict liability." Does it have to do with whether someone's actions are their choices or determined ahead of time.
2. Agreed. So what? I don't understand the application to this thread. I think it's great that God shows mercy. I am thankful. But under determinism there is another inequity, that is, punishing people for what they had no role in causing. Like kicking my dog for causing the Holocaust. That is not justice, and it's not mercy either.
3. Did I complain that God saves some and not others? When? I don't recall ever disagreeing with any of this.
"The fact was that we wilfully refused to, because of our wickedness of heart."
4. My point exactly! It was not determined; it was willful! When God punishes someone, his punishment is just. He doesn't assign blame for a crime to someone who couldn't have done otherwise. He doesn't blame my dog for the Holocaust. He doesn't punish people for kicking their leg when the doctor hits their knee. He doesn't punish us for bleeding when we are cut. These are things that are out of our control. If we assume that someone's life has been completely determined, then everything for him is out of his control. He cannot be responsible for anything, and he cannot be justly blamed for anything. He is a machine. Maybe a spiritual machine, but a machine nontheless. Machines are not responsible for their actions; their creators and users are.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/20/2005 10:24 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. Strict liability is when a law presents a penalty for an action whether or not the defendant did it intentionally.
2. Well, this whole discussion has drifted from the original question of the thread. However, what I was responding to here is Sahid and Lee accepting that strict liability offenses in OT law were unjust and suggesting that they were solved by the cross.
a. There was no inequity to begin with.
b. This was an analogy to justify God condemning those who cannot choose to do right (slaves to sin). It happens to be a false analogy.
c. I can still say God is just in condemning the non-elect "slaves to sin", because it is a volitional inability rather than externally imposed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/21/2005 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Jeff said...
One can be a slave to sin in more than one sense. One can be a slave to sin in the sense of addiction, which is acquired. And one can be a slave to sin in the sense that it is inevitable that one sin somewhat. Neither of these implies a person has no freedom whatsoever.
"A slave" implies more than just "sometimes obedience," though.
2 Timothy 2:26 … that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Various people said...
Lee: If God bears this sin and guilt? Cleansing, by the blood of Jesus, justice would be in his being the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world.
Sahid: But holding someone guilty for what they cannot control is still unjust.
Why was a bull put to death for goring someone, then? Ex. 21:28. And the meat was not eaten, so this is more than just preventing the bull from goring anyone else.
Various people said...
Lee: Also, I think it is possible unbelievers might be direct sources in their motives, thus intentional sins would bring guilt for that reason…
Sahid: For unbelievers to be the sources of their motives, they could not have been determined ahead of time by God.
That's fine, I think I could live with this, though I would still hold that he knows the future here.
Sahid said...
Verse 2 especially talks about men acting independently of God.
Planning independently, maybe! But not acting, "from the Lord comes the reply of the tongue," not even acting in this area of speaking, which is so much under our control, is possible, as far as being a final cause here.
Sahid said...
It seems like you have God being evil then good. His evil isn't really evil because he makes up for it later.
I don't buy that, either! God has a good purpose, which he infallibly carries out, even the very fire of the trial, even this does good to those who trust him, and is for a good purpose, then "May the name of the Lord be praised" (Job).
Nathan said...
However, what I was responding to here is Sahid and Lee accepting that strict liability offenses in OT law were unjust…
Actually, I hold that they were just! I was only arguing as much as I could from Sahid's perspective, I hold to more than what I am proposing in my comments here.
Nathan said...
This was an analogy to justify God condemning those who cannot choose to do right (slaves to sin). It happens to be a false analogy.
Well, it did seem appropriate to me…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/21/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: "A slave" implies more than just "sometimes obedience," though.
2 Timothy 2:26 … that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Jeff: But even if we accept that humans can ONLY sin, it still doesn't follow that a human has absolutely no free-will. A person could still choose which sin he/she wants to do at a given time. I just don't see how the passages in question prove absolute lack of LFW, even for unbelievers.
Lee: I don't buy that, either! God has a good purpose, which he infallibly carries out, even the very fire of the trial, even this does good to those who trust him, and is for a good purpose, then "May the name of the Lord be praised" (Job).
Jeff: But your view of universalism has to account for how the sufferings of unbelievers are somehow related to their ultimate salvation. In the past, you've referred to a verse in Ecclessiastes, but it didn't seem to be making your case in the context. One can speculate that there is some positive role to their suffering, but it certainly isn't evident. Do you have any other verses to make that case?
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/21/2005 1:31:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/21/2005 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | "Why was a bull put to death for goring someone, then? Ex. 21:28. And the meat was not eaten, so this is more than just preventing the bull from goring anyone else."
I'm not arguing that bulls have freewill. As to not eating the meat, it's not appropriate to have a feast in response to someone being gored.
We said...Sahid: For unbelievers to be the sources of their motives, they could not have been determined ahead of time by God.
That's fine, I think I could live with this, though I would still hold that he knows the future here.
If it is known ahead of time it is determined. That's which is determined is known to God ahead of time. If he knows ahead of time, then there is no amount of human "freedom" that can change anything. "Freedom" when the future is known is not free to do anything, but be a slave to destiny.
"Planning independently, maybe! But not acting, "from the Lord comes the reply of the tongue," not even acting in this area of speaking, which is so much under our control, is possible, as far as being a final cause here."
"...a man's ways..." not his plans. If I put the dots in the right places I can change the meaning back.
"I don't buy that, either! God has a good purpose, which he infallibly carries out, even the very fire of the trial, even this does good to those who trust him, and is for a good purpose, then "May the name of the Lord be praised" (Job)."
But that is exactly what I was talking about : A good goal justifying evil means. In Job's case I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bible portrays God acting in an evil way, but the idea that God judges the sinner who truly can not help himself does.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/21/2005 1:47:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/21/2005 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | This is obviously confusing. There are four types of determinism being batted about.
1. Foreknowledge
2. Predestination
3. Total depravity
4. Effectual calling | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/21/2005 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
1. Given our presuppositions, could we even be convinced if confronted with our eisegesis?
2. Can we not only justify, but ground, our presuppositions in God's Word? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/22/2005 12:28 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'll do my best to lay down my cards. Nathan, this is how I understand your list of types of determinism.
1. Foreknowledge
2. Predestination
3. Total depravity
4. Effectual calling
I'm assuming that "In the beginning God created." Therefore, whatever God foreknew from the beginning was a result of his action. If he, say, foreknew that I would misspell detirminism before creating, then it was in his power and his power only to decide my action. If he wanted me to spell it correctly, it was his call and his call only. I had no say in it. Once he decided this and I came along, I still had no choice. He had already decided. I may think that it's my choice, but thinking doesn't make it so, not when God has decided otherwise. God cannot force me to freely spell correctly any more than he can make a circular triangle. The only way it makes sense is to divorce at least one of the terms of it's meaning.
Following this reasoning, foreknowledge for someone who is the creator of all, amounts to predestination. If God foreknows my bad spelling and he is ultimately the one in control of it, then he effectly predestined it. Once again, saying otherwise makes the words meaningless.
If God foreknew, and therefore predestined, all that would ever occur, then this amounts to some form of total depravity. However, people mean very different things by this term, so I usually steer clear of it.
I treat effectual calling in the same way as predestination. If the calling and the response were foreknown at creation, then it must be effectual. If either the calling or the response was not foreknown at creation, then there is room for something less than "effectual calling."
I think that humans have LFW, but I don't claim that all do or that it can't be changed or that I know when or where specifically it exists.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/22/2005 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Nathan, here are my "cards."
1. I believe that LFW is intuitive and scriptural.
2. I believe that openness is more rational philosophically and scripturally than non-openness.
3. I belive in an effectual call from both my experience and scripture.
So which of these do you find to be unscriptural? And why?
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/22/2005 11:15:20 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/22/2005 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Jeff said...
A person could still choose which sin he/she wants to do at a given time.
I agree, being a slave to sin might still allow this freedom. But even if this is the case, I'm not should I would call this freedom, if I could only choose my jail cell.
Jeff said...
One can speculate that there is some positive role to [unbeliever's] suffering, but it certainly isn't evident. Do you have any other verses to make that case?
Maybe all the places in Ezekiel where judgments are pronounced, even judgments involving death, followed by "And then they will know that I am the Lord"?
Psalm 136:15 But swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea; His love endures forever.
And not just exclusive love for Israel, "who gives food to every creature" (v. 25).
Exodus 8:28 Pharaoh said, "... Now pray for me."
And if we accept that suffering prior to conversion can have a benefit afterwards in a believer's life, why can't this be true of those who die unrepentant, if afterwards they can be brought to repentance?
Sahid said...
As to not eating the meat, it's not appropriate to have a feast in response to someone being gored.
There might be a famine, though, and the meat should still not be eaten. And I'm not saying that bulls have free will, either, in fact, that is why I mention this, because they are treated as in some way really guilty, though they did not actually choose to gore.
Genesis 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal.
Luke 12:48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.
Not "no blows," though.
Various folks said...
Lee: Planning independently, maybe [in Prov. 16:1-2]! But not acting…
Sahid: "...a man's ways..." not his plans. If I put the dots in the right places I can change the meaning back.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, though, just because a man's ways (or plans) seem right to him, doesn't mean he can really choose his actions.
Sahid said...
That is exactly what I was talking about: A good goal justifying evil means.
If the means are inappropriate, then this is indeed wrong, but are the means appropriate? Does refining not require a fire?
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
Sahid said...
In Job's case I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bible portrays God acting in an evil way, but the idea that God judges the sinner who truly can not help himself does.
Maybe we would need to take this up with him, then!
1 Peter 2:8 They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.
Romans 9:22 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?
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Just the objection being made here, it would seem...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:27 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 |
|
|