Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

Deputy Dog

michelle
I know it must seem like all we want to do on this thread is argue. But deep down, I'm praising God with you! Thanks again michelle
D Dog
LittleToe

Myelaine:
Praise God
Theologically speaking, we don't "deserve" life for any reason other than God's good pleasure.
That's why it's all of grace.
The discussion may seem quite cut n thrust, but it's all in good heart, with plenty of love.
DDog:
I suspect we agree on LOTS of things
Regarding predestination and foreordination, it was EW who declared they were the same. I've disagreed about that from the start. It was me who showed the difference from the Greek, a couple of pages back. The Confession is in agreement with my position.
So is sin "actions", or more than that?
EW:
No. I believe we should examine the tree, and who might have designed it to hold good and evil that obiviously was present prior to the fall.
You mean they didn't know good, before they ate of it?
Along with the thought, God already knew Adam would eat. Thus created with sin. (before the founding of the world)
Knowing is one thing. Being the actual direct creator of it is another matter entirely.
I agree that all of this knowing took place before creation actually began. The order of that being the major portion of the lapsarian stuff we discussed.
Deputy Dog

LT
Let me get this straight
It was foreknown (in the eternal plan, before the founding of the world) that all would be vessels of wrath.
Are you saying God did not make the " vessels of wrath", but that they made themselves? You make it sound as if God had no control over the " vessels of wrath"
OK I'll bite.
That would be the general scriptural viewpoint, in that all makind are by nature vessels of wrath
Where did mankind get this nature? From Adam or from God? Was Adam able to give himself a nature?
So is sin "actions", or more than that?
It's much more. we sin with our minds all the time. Jesus made that clear. I ask again whats with Gal.3:19?
LittleToe

DDog:
Paul argues that the "vessels of wrath" have no argument, because God has the right to make them as He will, if He so desires.
He doesn't ever state that God made them that way, though.
God can control all that He wishes, and nothing exists outside of His will. The question is, is it His active or passive will, when folks sin?
If we say that it's an active thing, then we attribute the sin to Him, as He made them that way, and directed them to act in such a manner.
Sure, the reprobabe would have no argument about God creating them thus, but lets place the blame where it lays, in that theological construct.
Personally I can't abide the idea, and I don't think Paul is arguing for that at all.
If it's his passive will, in that He permits things to occur (like "the Fall" and sin), then the only blame you could level at Him is His not interfering to stop the misery that then ensued. I don't have a reason for that one, and suspect I never will. God's lack of interferance, concerning misery and evil, is something I can't get my head around. But my confusion is vastly more beneficial to me than attempting to "know all" and claim God caused sin actively.
Interestingly enough, even the supra-lapsarian theology uses the term "permitted the fall".
You're the first person I've met who wanted to argue that God was the author of sin (but maybe you have company with EW ).
By "nature" man is flesh.
Man got his original nature from God, but it was man that distorted it. Man took it upon himself to write (author) his own script, and so the result (and responsibility) was in his own hand. Hence all are "totally depraved". God permitted this.
Regarding sin (I'll get to Gal.3:19 soon), what kind of sin is that which is inherent in man?
I'm basically asking you to describe Adamic sin, from the perspective of someone living now, and contending with it.
If someone were able to keep the whole law, he would surely still be subject to that one, yes?
ellderwho
DDog:Paul argues that the "vessels of wrath" have no argument, because God has the right to make them as He will, if He so desires.
He doesn't ever state that God made them that way, though.

I feel a bit of confusion in the air.
- Paul confirms we are all under sin.
- That one sin was condemnation for all men.
- God demonstrates his love while we were still sinners.
Because God digs into the same lousy lump of clay to make pots of mercy, reveals we are all on our way to destruction. God is the author of everything. How could something exist or have a chance of existing without Gods foreknowledge, sin, principalities, powers, thrones, its all him. How could it not be?
IMHO anything less puts God in a box.
LT,
The question is, is it His active or passive will, when folks sin?
Does not God do things just because?
What is passive will? Is that kinda like being "passive aggressive"
God's lack of interferance, concerning misery and evil, is something I can't get my head around.
Im sure the generations of Jews that were inslaved by Egypt felt the same way.
Its for Gods glory. Anything less is God in a box.
You're the first person I've met who wanted to argue that God was the author of sin (but maybe you have company with EW ).
Im with brother Dog. God decrees everything. Yes sin too.
Man got his original nature from God, but it was man that distorted it.
Did not God allow the serpent to have its way? Or did the snake catch everyone by surprise?
Michelle,
I suspect this chewing on solid food may seem a bit argumentive, I assure you it is not. Like LT says "the devils in the details."
E.
LittleToe

EW:
I feel a bit of confusion in the air.

Sorry bro, are you confused?
What is passive will? Is that kinda like being "passive aggressive"
Things that are permitted rather than actively being directed.
God decrees everything. Yes sin too.
You'd need to define "decree" for me. I agree with the statement, if you are including things which He permits.
Did not God allow the serpent to have its way?
He permitted it, but it wasn't HIm that directed the serpent what to do.
Or did the snake catch everyone by surprise?
Nope, which was the whole basis of my argument on Lapsarianism. God knew all that would come to pass (through to the end of time) before He even began creating. It seems that the JW's are amongst the few that believe God has selective foreknowledge, and hence has to do things on-the-fly.
ellderwho

Sorry bro, are you confused?

Well lets see, some of your statments leaves me wondering what your definition is of Gods total sovereignty.
Things that are permitted rather than actively being directed
How would you know what things fall into the above catagories, being you are limited by human perceptions.
There are numerous, countless examples of God using people in scripture to do his will, while these people probably had no idea what Gods plans would result in. Much like myself. I really dont know the hardships or blessing God has in store.
Because of Gods sovereignty I realize things are set in time, everything. Begining to end. Whether its an evil occurance or a blessing.
With your reasoning (things permitted/actively directed) you have to concur that God does not have a blind spot. Thus your catagories are really one catagory.
It matters not what our preceptions are of wether something is fair or not. In this world that is full of suffering. Everything has to be by Gods design.
What are the principalities and powers spoken of in Colossians? They cannot just be the good attributes that come to mind first while reading the passage.
What does "everything made that was made" include in John chapter one. Again this cannot just be the nice little things in life.
You'd need to define "decree" for me. I agree with the statement, if you are including things which He permits
Decree=Ordain.
Did not God allow the serpent to have its way?
He permitted it, but it wasn't HIm that directed the serpent what to do.
If He permitted it then he approved of it. Because God is not set in time. Thus already knew the outcome of creating the serpent/Lucifer.
You see it cannot be both ways, God is the author of EVERYTHING. Its a small camp to be in, I realize this, however in the end its Gods world not mine.
E.
Deputy Dog

LT
Sure, the reprobabe would have no argument about God creating them thus, but lets place the blame where it lays, in that theological construct.
Personally I can't abide the idea, and I don't think Paul is arguing for that at all.
Then why did he ask that question?
Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy , and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus?
If it's his passive will, in that He permits things to occur (like "the Fall" and sin), then the only blame you could level at Him is His not interfering to stop the misery that then ensued.

Now that you're judging Him, maybe you could ask Him the difference between His "passive will" and sins of omission.
By "nature" man is flesh.
Man got his original nature from God, but it was man that distorted it.
Isn't that like, a lion acting a rabbit? I think you had it pretty close when you made this observation:
Adam, in a "state of innocence", could fall. The Elect, in a "state of grace", cannot.
Only I think it should say: "would fall"
I'm basically asking you to describe Adamic sin, from the perspective of someone living now, and contending with it.
Are you getting at Adam wanting God to let him drive?
D Dog
LittleToe
EW:
Sorry, my friend, but we are coming to the point where we'll have to agree to disagree (but that's ok, as it's in love).
I would also add that there's only so much of this kind of argumentation that I can take before I'm completely turned off by it. It brings out the "legalist Calvinist" in me, which is of the flesh...
I find a worldview that has God boxed in as the one who caused "the fall" and "sin", to be contrary to scripture, and I don't think it comes down simply to Paul's saying "don't level that at God because I say so and have some natty little arguements that generations will consider to be directly inspired of God".
I find no scripture that supports your assertion that God predestinated the reprobate.
I find that the Bible (and as a subordinate document, the "Westminster Confess of Faith") to be quite particular in the words used concerning such matters (as I highlighted from the Greek).
I find that man is responsible for his own sin, even though that sets up a dichotomy with God's sovereignty. There are several things like that, though, such as how one can be three and three one, or on a more mundane level how relativity and quantum theory can both be correct.
All things were foreknown, foreordained, and/or predestined, in their respective orders and decrees, prior to creation's beginning. I think we agree on that. What we seem to disagree on is the identification of which is which, and hence what God is directly responsible for. Part of the problem may be your viewing predestination and foreordination as being synonymous, but regardless of whether it's that or not, you are still welcome to your opinion
You use the phrase "God's total sovereignty", it would appear, without due regard for the "superior authorities" that He puts in place. Whilst at one level He becomes ultimately responsible for that which they do, at another level they also are personally responsible for their actions and inactions, since He has delegated certain things to them (and there's scriptural evidence for this operating even at a national level). Is that not also potentially true of those things which He has delegated even down as far as the individual level? (Rom.1:28)
I have no difficulty with defining decrees as being those things which He ordains. However, some things which He decrees are also predestined, so your definition may be a little narrow here, too.
Let me just clarify your mind on a few things here:
- Did God create satan?
- Did He create Him as "the father of the lie"?
- Did He design Him to be wicked and cause hurt?
- Did God create Adam in such a manner as He intentionally set him up to fall?
- Did God design the world in such a way as to make our sins inevitable?
- Is the only purpose of all of this just to show that God is a big guy who can do what He wants, how He wants, and regardless of the pain and suffering it causes His creatures in the process (potentially with the aim of some of them glorifying Him and some of them burning for eternity)?
Maybe I've picked you up wrong, but that appears to be the God that you are describing to me as your own.
I'm afraid that the "mercy" that is evidenced by such a God appears only to be skin deep, since it would seem there's an ulterior motive that has little to do with compassion at all.
Basically, I don't find Jesus to be like that (especially not in any of my encounters with Him), and "He" is my Lord.
How would you know what things fall into the above catagories, being you are limited by human perceptions.
It seems the Word has plenty to say on the subject.
There are numerous, countless examples of God using people in scripture to do his will, while these people probably had no idea what Gods plans would result in. Much like myself. I really dont know the hardships or blessing God has in store.
Methinks you are finding difficulty distinguishing between providence and salvation
Because of Gods sovereignty I realize things are set in time, everything. Begining to end. Whether its an evil occurance or a blessing.
Agreed.
With your reasoning (things permitted/actively directed) you have to concur that God does not have a blind spot. Thus your catagories are really one catagory.
I strongly disagree about your comment on categories. That's the worst kind of black and white thinking, and the basis of your error. Your statement has no logic, IMHO.
It matters not what our preceptions are of wether something is fair or not. In this world that is full of suffering. Everything has to be by Gods design.
Agreed, but we need to be careful what we mean by "design", here. Some things in the design are permitted. The end justifies the means, but at no point can we level injustice at God. That isn't just because we're not allowed to, it's because it would be incorrect.
What are the principalities and powers spoken of in Colossians? They cannot just be the good attributes that come to mind first while reading the passage.
You're wandering into other scriptures, now, but I agree with you in principle.
What does "everything made that was made" include in John chapter one. Again this cannot just be the nice little things in life.
I agree. Once more, though, you attempt to put words in my mouth. I'd rather you didn't do that, thanks. But once more I also state that you need to be careful where you lay the blame for certain actions.
I'll give you just one example:
Search the KJV for instances of God Forbid!!
Firstly maybe look at Gal.2:17:
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
LittleToe

DDog:
Then why did he ask that question?
I can't answer that for him. I can only surmise that it was to cover that particular objection that God's "choosing some, but not others" was somehow injust. Otherwise it doesn't fit with the flow of the argument.
Now that you're judging Him, maybe you could ask Him the difference between His "passive will" and sins of omission.

I understand your argument, but I think it inappropriately applied. In the case of "sins of omission" they are things which God has commanded than man disobeys through inaction. God can't be accused of that, since He doesn't command Himself to do something without seeing it through ("the word that goes forth..."). Besides, it's He who does the commanding.
By "nature" man is flesh.
Man got his original nature from God, but it was man that distorted it.
Isn't that like, a lion acting a rabbit?
I don't know about wascally wabbits but I do know that the scriptures say that whereas at the end of the creation of man creation was declared good, now man in tainted with sin, or as Calvin would have it "totally depraved".
I think you had it pretty close when you made this observation:
Adam, in a "state of innocence", could fall. The Elect, in a "state of grace", cannot.
Only I think it should say: "would fall"
I'm afraid I can't claim it as my own. I was paraphrasing Boston. If I could find the reference I would, as I found it profound.
"Would fall" is accurate, but this was due to foreordination, not predestination.
Supplementary question: Is Adam of the Elect or the Reprobate?
I'm basically asking you to describe Adamic sin, from the perspective of someone living now, and contending with it.
Are you getting at Adam wanting God to let him drive?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. It might be the poor way in which I phrased my own. I was asking about how you describe adamic sin, as one who has inherited it.

Freedom to Choose God

Share this