I Believe In Free Will

[Rey Reynoso]

For the sake of this discussion, I believe in complete free will. Luther was wrong. Edwards is wrong. They deny reality with philosophical constructs. Romans 9 is misinterpreted. John 6 is taken out of context. Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with it.

What say you?

Feel free to attack.

[Anselm]

Chen Yew Lin said:

Regarding freewill, the extent of our degeneration is in issue. Although we cannot exactly say for sure the extent of it, we are not broken beyond redemption. I believe 'dead in trespasses and sin' is a positional statement of the condemned condition and situation of sinners. However, we are not fallen beyond the work and hope of redemption, otherwise how is God to redeem us if we are unable to exercise choice. We can still discern true or false and right or wrong. So 1Cor 1:19-31, says that the gospel is made very simple so that even those who are not so clever and uneducated can still made lives' simple choices.

If I understand what your saying correctly: You are saying man is, in his natural ability, fallen but still able to choose God. Man is not completely dead in his ability to will good. Dead in sins means, to you, unable to save himself until a path to God is provided. Jesus provided that path therefore man, using his natural ability, can choose God.

In contrast I believe man is completely and totally dead. Unable to do good or will the good in his natural ability. Apart from the grace of god, man can do nothing good. But I would tend (at least this week) to agree with the Classic Arminians, that we have, because of God pouring out prevenient grace on mankind, a freed will that is now, because of God, somehow able to not resist his calling.

[Jack]

Anselm; Do you suppose that when Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth from the tomb, that God sent prevenient grace to Lazarus, so he could decide whether or not he wanted to rise up and come forth?

Anselm said:

Chen Yew Lin said:

Regarding freewill, the extent of our degeneration is in issue. Although we cannot exactly say for sure the extent of it, we are not broken beyond redemption. I believe 'dead in trespasses and sin' is a positional statement of the condemned condition and situation of sinners. However, we are not fallen beyond the work and hope of redemption, otherwise how is God to redeem us if we are unable to exercise choice. We can still discern true or false and right or wrong. So 1Cor 1:19-31, says that the gospel is made very simple so that even those who are not so clever and uneducated can still made lives' simple choices.

If I understand what your saying correctly: You are saying man is, in his natural ability, fallen but still able to choose God. Man is not completely dead in his ability to will good. Dead in sins means, to you, unable to save himself until a path to God is provided. Jesus provided that path therefore man, using his natural ability, can choose God.

In contrast I believe man is completely and totally dead. Unable to do good or will the good in his natural ability. Apart from the grace of god, man can do nothing good. But I would tend (at least this week) to agree with the Classic Arminians, that we have, because of God pouring out prevenient grace on mankind, a freed will that is now, because of God, somehow able to not resist his calling.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Rey Reynoso said:

Well, yes and no. You’re right that man’s station became “lower than the angels”.

I didn't say that. Heh. Paul did. Some translations of that verse in Psalms use "God," "angels," or "heavenly beings"; but this would lead us back into a discussion of that elohim and that's not really the point of this thread.

All of creation was “subjected to slavery to corruption” underneath the eroding influence of man but I think that can just mean that the vice-gerant over creation stopped caring for it in the sense of being a majordomo for His master. So when its all under Man’s care and Man doesn’t give a damn save for himself then it’s all going down the drain. So Yes, there was a change that made man better but it also made man worse.

No argument from me. It's the whole Spiderman lesson: With great power comes great responsibility. It's just that I expect slaves to act like slaves rather than Freemen and I believe that the opening of the eyes made Freemen rather than slaves (however, willing or innocent such a state may have been). The Fall was not about man becoming like a god, but man failing to recognize that becoming like god had huge consequences that could not be ignored. Mankind has spent however many thousands of years running from both the responsibility and the consequences and that's the real original sin here.

(Oops. Did I just insert some of my theology into this discussion? My bad. Sorry! Feel free to ignore it.)

So although in one sense Man has become wiser it’s in the completely wrong sense of doing things. Man became wiser by participation in activity unlike God who is wise on account of being above and over all activity. The fact that God would have the options available to them in the Garden actually even underscores the idea that there was roads of wisdom available to them: one road was didactinal and the other was experiential. The experiential one winds up being “a Fall” because Man is now culpable/responsible/accountable for all of his decisions on a scale compared to God without God’s infinitude.

I'll have to think on this a bit more. As you move away from an anthropomorphized divinity, the language barriers begin to show how inefficient words can become in conversations like this. As a big picture, I have to agree with you here. I'm just not completely sure I agree with the idea that responsibility on any level is a step down rather than a step up.

Incidentally, even though the text says that People would have become Like God I don’t think it means they would have been exactly like God. Humans, although then eternal, would still have a finite starting point and a wisdom besmirched by experiential participation in active disobedience in the only relationship that was worth having. It would have been a catastrophe of incalculable proportions to have Eternal Beings that constantly focused on self and had no power but satisfaction of self (some might offer a counterpoint at what exactly is it God does but I would argue His Self is Self-less and constantly giving and sending and so forth—but that’s a whole ‘nutha topic).

I think this whole paragraph underscores something I've said elsewhere: that is, you're dealing with attributes of God. While the particular verse in Psalm 82 would seem to suggest a particular status of divinity to some groups (e.g., Mormons), the general idea of Genesis is that mankind became like God. It shared or took on an attribute of God rather than becoming Gods individually. It is very much the same thing as saying that I can be like you in that we are both share the same quality of being "male" due to certain attributes being the same. However, unless I am you, then ontologically we cannot be the same no matter how many qualities we share in common. At no point in Genesis that I can grok does God (or Gods or whatever) ever come out and say that mankind will be God but only that they will be like Gods. (Which then leads into other discussions as to the nature of god/gods and their ontological differences between each other, what similar qualities make them gods over just mortals, and what actual quantifiable attributes would have defined mankind as gods or godlike through the mere acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil and immortality, etc etc etc)

(incidentally, i typed all this real quick while i finished mowing the lawn and i'm shaky and i don't know if i made sense and if i read everything correctly)

I'm with ya. I'm still trying to shake a mental fog this morning.

[Anselm]

Jack said:

Anselm; Do you suppose that when Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth from the tomb, that God sent prevenient grace to Lazarus, so he could decide whether or not he wanted to rise up and come forth?

I see your point, but I personally don't find it convincing because the text is not only about Lazarus in fact the text is not even primarily about Lazarus or his even his condition. Rather the text is about Christ and his authority, ability, and right to raise the dead.

The calling of Lazarus from the grave is enabled by God's Grace and it is God's grace alone that is the sole cause of Lazarus resurrection. I think we both agree to this point. But is this raising of Lazarus an exact & direct parrallel to people coming to salvation?

Yes and No. Let's define the terms a little.....

Yes, apart from God's calling we are as dead as a door knob, just as lazarus was, completely unable to do anything to change our dead condition.

But No, in the sense that the story of Lazarus rising was a confirmatory miracle illustrating how the person of Christ is the person who has the full authority and power, to raise the dead to life through the instrument he provides and enables. Christ in the story specifically gives the instrument of his ressurection and life and implies that people can somehow not resist his call if they want to live: "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

If we believe in a fall, then this passage would necessarily imply a prevenient grace, dare I even say a regenerating grace, which is given only by God, and which is the only reason we are able to believe. "Freed will."

Why would Christ ask for belief if he hasn't made us capable of doing just that (not a new question I know)?

So yes I do suppose that the Grace of God allowed Lazarus to be raised and apart from Grace Lazarus was completely and totally incapable of doing anything. But No I don't think the story is illustrating that we are saved deterministically rather it is illustrating the first, final, and only cause of salvation, Christ.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Anselm said:

The calling of Lazarus from the grave is enabled by God's Grace and it is God's grace alone that is the sole cause of Lazarus resurrection. I think we both agree to this point. But is this raising of Lazarus an exact & direct parrallel to people coming to salvation?

Not to be trite here, but it is just as likely that the resurrection of Lazarus was simply that: the resurrection of Lazarus. The need to find some highly spiritual or doctrinal meaning in every single event of the alleged life of Christ borders on excessive. As Freud would say, sometimes a resurrection is just a resurrection. I keep wondering if one of the Gospels had recorded Jesus taking a piss on a tree what kind of doctrine people would be trying to make up around it. Couldn't he merely have raised Lazarus for the mere reason that he wanted to do so? Or merely because it was someone dear to him (cf. Joh 11.3,5)?

Granted, as a converse sidenote, there is an incursion within the text at verse 16 that provides an oft ignored little principle. But most just write it off that Thomas was not grasping the fullness of the situation. I see something much more gnostic in tone and probable meaning given that this story is only found in John's gospel anyway (which makes it no surprise to me).

[Rey Reynoso]

Unfortunately, the example of Lazarus has been used so much as an illustration of predetermined election that folk automatically assume there's a verse stating as such. It's a danger to do that with events in John especially when another event has a man working synergistically with Jesus to get his vision back. I think the resurrection of Lazarus proves the point that Christ Himself states in John 11 and has nothing to do with regeneration, total depravity, election, or the rapture.

Side note: the bit with Thomas saying they're going to Jerusalem to die with Him I think underscores the irony that's throughout the book of John of people speaking better that they know. In Christ, they would die.

[Chen Yew Lin]

Anselm, I have no problem agreeing with you that Grace undergrids freewill. The fact that humans were given freewill is the sure grace and favour of God. It also takes God's faithfulness and justice to maintain it for us, all the way, ie. every human being to the last breathe of the last man. Since the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world, God has made provision for Man's fall even before we did.

Thank God that in His Wisdom many things are a process and rather few things are instantenous. As a result of the fall, one day our brains will be decomposed through ageing, just like our eyes dim and our limbs and hearts grow weaker. Through life many find themselves so defeated they have lost their will for anything. So we will get there but before we do, there is still a chance to save us. Just like a drowning man, there is only a short time to save. During which if the Lord stretch forth His hand and we ours, we can be saved.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Chen Yew Lin said:

Since the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world...

According to New Testament doctrine, yes. But is this same sentiment found in the Old Testament? I find it odd, given the extensive pre-Creation fiascos of the gods recorded in other ancient civilizations, that the Hebrew creation story suddenly pops up with no pre-history that would include this sacrificial Lamb. It seems to me that this is quite an important piece of theology that is too critical to have just been left silent in the protonarrative of creation.

Unless, of course, the early teachers such as Paul needed to produce a continuity between Judaism and their new heresy to ensure that they did not offend their antecedents and could continue to claim valid succession as the "next step" (or "new law/covenant") in religious evolution. Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Therefore, when Paul took up his carnival ministry he needed to ensure that as he dismantled the Jewish elements of Christ's teachings that he also ensured that the most important heroes of Judaism would not get lost in the myth of Christian redemption.

Not that such a possibility exists, of course. I'm just thinking outloud.

[Chen Yew Lin]

When God asked Moses to build His Tabernacle in the Wilderness, Moses was given a pattern in heaven (you can check up the verses yourselves). The Outer Courts, Holy Place and Holy of Holines are after its heavenly one. So there was already a bronze altar for sacrifice and it's there in the OT and quite a central piece of it. (All the OT fellows know that Moses was given the pattern of it from God.)

Elwin Ransom (bishop) said:

Chen Yew Lin said:

Since the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world...

According to New Testament doctrine, yes. But is this same sentiment found in the Old Testament? I find it odd, given the extensive pre-Creation fiascos of the gods recorded in other ancient civilizations, that the Hebrew creation story suddenly pops up with no pre-history that would include this sacrificial Lamb. It seems to me that this is quite an important piece of theology that is too critical to have just been left silent in the protonarrative of creation.

Unless, of course, the early teachers such as Paul needed to produce a continuity between Judaism and their new heresy to ensure that they did not offend their antecedents and could continue to claim valid succession as the "next step" (or "new law/covenant") in religious evolution. Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Therefore, when Paul took up his carnival ministry he needed to ensure that as he dismantled the Jewish elements of Christ's teachings that he also ensured that the most important heroes of Judaism would not get lost in the myth of Christian redemption.

Not that such a possibility exists, of course. I'm just thinking outloud.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Chen Yew Lin said:

When God asked Moses to build His Tabernacle in the Wilderness, Moses was given a pattern in heaven (you can check up the verses yourselves). The Outer Courts, Holy Place and Holy of Holines are after its heavenly one. So there was already a bronze altar for sacrifice and it's there in the OT and quite a central piece of it. (All the OT fellows know that Moses was given the pattern of it from God.)

This isn't even in the same ballpark as my wandering query. I can find half a dozen different reasons for the tabernacle and later temple patterns. At no point in these instructions—or elsewhere in the sacrificial instructions—did God say, "Do this in remembrance of my Son, the Lamb sacrificed before the foundation of the world" or "Do this in expectation of my Son, the Lamb sacrificed before the foundation of the world and someday in the future to incarnate and do it all over again for the last time." And, if Christ had been the sacrificial Lamb, slain before the foundation of the world, then the crucifixion is meaningless except as an example of God's cruel and inhumane attributes and the need for animal sacrifices in the tabernacle/temple would have been unnecessary since God could have just explained the sacrificial role of Christ pre-creation and the plan for Christian salvation would have been in place even before the creation of the world.

Of course, one might suggest that this event of the Lamb being slaughtered before the foundation of the world includes before the foundation of time therefore is an event that is outside of time which would include the fact that the Lamb was slaughtered not merely before the foundation of the world, but at the crucifixion, right now, tomorrow, and after the conclusion of the world. It is an event outside of temporality.

Again, just thinking outloud here.

[James Gibbons]

Rey Reynoso said:

Unfortunately, the example of Lazarus has been used so much as an illustration of predetermined election that folk automatically assume there's a verse stating as such. It's a danger to do that with events in John especially when another event has a man working synergistically with Jesus to get his vision back. I think the resurrection of Lazarus proves the point that Christ Himself states in John 11 and has nothing to do with regeneration, total depravity, election, or the rapture.

Side note: the bit with Thomas saying they're going to Jerusalem to die with Him I think underscores the irony that's throughout the book of John of people speaking better that they know. In Christ, they would die.

Nit Pick Day at Theologica. The guy didn’t get his sight back, Rey. He was born blind. He got his site. Period. Not a big thing. But just sayin’.

[Rey Reynoso]

Bud properly nitpicked. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. lol!

edit: incidentally you reminded me that it is unfortunate that folk resort to illustrations and allegorizing stories to support predetermined actions overriding Free Will. The strongest argument I've seen that has absolutely nothing to do with regeneration or with ability of moral agents has everything to do with Christ and the Cross. It's the one thing (though major thing) that holds me on the side of a form of compatibalism.

Argue from the cross!

James Gibbons said:

Rey Reynoso said:

Unfortunately, the example of Lazarus has been used so much as an illustration of predetermined election that folk automatically assume there's a verse stating as such. It's a danger to do that with events in John especially when another event has a man working synergistically with Jesus to get his vision back. I think the resurrection of Lazarus proves the point that Christ Himself states in John 11 and has nothing to do with regeneration, total depravity, election, or the rapture.

Side note: the bit with Thomas saying they're going to Jerusalem to die with Him I think underscores the irony that's throughout the book of John of people speaking better that they know. In Christ, they would die.

Nit Pick Day at Theologica. The guy didn’t get his sight back, Rey. He was born blind. He got his site. Period. Not a big thing. But just sayin’.