BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Apologetics => Topic started by: Not Worthy on July 30, 2021, 06:39:03 AM
-
I wanted to put this as a reply in another thread in Controversial issues but that thread is locked. To me this isn't really a controversial issue.
I saw that comment under someone's YouTube video a few weeks ago and decided I would give the person a reply. This is what I said:
"If you understand what "you shall surely (most definitely) die" in Genesis 2:17 means you will understand what "God is not willing that any of us should perish" in 2 Peter 3:9 means; and if you understand what "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 and "Christ died for our sins" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 means, then finally you will understand what "did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" and "He who believes on Him is not condemned" in John 3:17-18 means.
Then you will understand that the burning thing is a personal choice people make for themselves because we are not robots forced to receive rescue from everlasting death EVEN when it's freely given."
The everlasting death is both spiritual (separation from the Spirit of God, who is Life, John 6:63; John 3:6-8) and physical. Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of this state every time He spoke of it (example Matt 5:29; Matt 10:28). If Jesus spoke of this state implying that it is a real state, then it's a real state. John saw death and hades delivering all the souls in them in Rev 20:13-15. Anyone who was not found in the Lamb's book of Life (John 6:63; John 3:6-8) was cast into the Lake of Fire.
-
I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?
So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.
-
I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?
So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.
For some, even for Christians, it can be difficult to understand the fullness of God's righteousness. Then compound His righteousness with His "sovereignty." So, when God has to "kill" His own Son so mankind can also be righteous due to Jesus' shed blood... there really should be zero consideration for what makes our "feeling" feel good about whether or not God's final punishment for the unrighteous is just, or not.
-
I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?
So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.
There's only so much that someone can put in a post under a YouTube video before you lose the concentration of the reader. But as for the question itself, I thought that the Bible telling us of (eternal) Life in Christ through faith in Christ and His Life-giving Spirit and His redemption bought by His sacrifice for sins as the only way to eternal Life explains the opposite. There is only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death set before us.
So what you said is like saying God is able to create a nice cozy place called everlasting destruction for those who refuse Life. God never created it any more than he created death. He created Adam to live forever and warned as much as "commanded" Adam that if he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die. There's only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death. The latter is not cozy. The question asked in the YouTube comment itself is based on faulty thinking.
-
There's only so much that someone can put in a post under a YouTube video before you lose the concentration of the reader. But as for the question itself, I thought that the Bible telling us of (eternal) Life in Christ through faith in Christ and His Life-giving Spirit and His redemption bought by His sacrifice for sins as the only way to eternal Life explains the opposite. There is only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death set before us.
So what you said is like saying God is able to create a nice cozy place called everlasting destruction for those who refuse Life. God never created it any more than he created death. He created Adam to live forever and warned as much as "commanded" Adam that if he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die. There's only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death. The latter is not cozy. The question asked in the YouTube comment itself is based on faulty thinking.
The heart of the objection is to suggest that God is able to create a cosy place for those who don't want to be in relationship with Him, but is unwilling, and in suggesting that God is unwilling the objection casts doubt on the idea that God is love/loving.
So, how does one reconcile the idea that God is love with the teaching that those who reject God go on to everlasting death, punishment, etc., if God could create some other place for these people to go? Or, why is God unwilling?
I have answers for myself that I consider compelling, but I take it to the above you would reply that this is just the way things are? I'm not sure how satisfactory that would be to someone who's calling into question God's character. The same for Slug1's reply above. I don't think the issue is people's lack of understanding or comprehension, but the perceived tension between how God is presented and the reality of hell, annihilation, or what have you.
-
The heart of the objection is to suggest that God is able to create a cosy place for those who don't want to be in relationship with Him, but is unwilling, and in suggesting that God is unwilling the objection casts doubt on the idea that God is love/loving.
So, how does one reconcile the idea that God is love with the teaching that those who reject God go on to everlasting death, punishment, etc., if God could create some other place for these people to go? Or, why is God unwilling?
I have answers for myself that I consider compelling, but I take it to the above you would reply that this is just the way things are? I'm not sure how satisfactory that would be to someone who's calling into question God's character. The same for Slug1's reply above. I don't think the issue is people's lack of understanding or comprehension, but the perceived tension between how God is presented and the reality of hell, annihilation, or what have you.
Yeah I understand what you are saying but the way to point someone in the right direction is to at least attempt to help him to see it the Biblical way, ie God's way. We could invent noval or imaginative ways of answering but personally I'd rather just try to help the person see it from the Biblical perspective.
But that wasn't my point in my post. My point had more to do with the fact that everlasting destruction or death is a Biblical concept, and Jesus would not have spoken about it a number of times in such a way as to imply it's a reality if it is not a reality. There is only (eternal) Life. Outside of Life there is only (eternal) death, and only in Christ is there Life. This is the Biblical message from the day God told Adam about it. It's Satan who was the first to say, "You will NOT surely die."
-
Yes, the objection accepts this for the sake of argument and then presents its questions in light of.
-
Jehovah - yes; that is his inescapable NAME- NEVER stated that to Adam, Eve, or to ANYONE in their day...or to ISRAEL!
So, where did Christ CHANGE this?
-
Excessive focus upon less important details obscures the point in names. A name identifies a person so we know who is being talked about. How you spell Jesus, or how you spell your own name, is not so important. Knowing who is being talked about is.
If I want to call you "Questions," or simply refer to you as "?," it matters not. Same with the name Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Lord, or the multitudes of descriptive names for God. I'm suspicious that those who make a big deal out of this are either obsessive compulsive about spelling things right, or are part of a cult that wishes to trash people who are orthodox so they can substitute for orthodox teaching their own cultic teaching.
Go ahead and ask your questions, but I've certainly not heard anything but a set-up for substituting your doctrine for orthodox Christian doctrine. Let me know if you're open to the doctrinally-orthodox positions or not? That's my main question for you!
-
Go ahead and ask your questions, but I've certainly not heard anything but a set-up for substituting your doctrine for orthodox Christian doctrine. Let me know if you're open to the doctrinally-orthodox positions or not? That's my main question for you!
It would be worth considering if this person (bot?) is actually here for answers, or if they're here to raise questions in the name of an agenda: God's name, priestly blessing, conspiracy, etc.
-
Watchtower.
-
Watchtower.
The JWs used to frequent our front door every 3 weeks or so. First, it was a lady by herself, then her husband, then some kids. An attempt not to argue in front of the children, I guess? But you know, I answered the door once wearing socks that had a floral pattern on them, and they never showed up again. Was it the theology? Was it the socks? We'll never know.
Also, overrated song, too.
-
Dude, it is that you answered the door wearing ONLY socks with a floral pattern, I'm guessing. I mean, geez louise, bro...
My dad used to answer the door, invite them in, get into a great discussion about John 1:1, then reach in the side table hand hand them his Greek New testament UPSIDE down and ask them to show him how that "no definite article thingy" was consistent between "in THE beginning" and "the Logos," not six words apart, even in their Watchtower translation.
-
Dude, it is that you answered the door wearing ONLY socks with a floral pattern, I'm guessing. I mean, geez louise, bro...
Yes, just floral socks, but it's Europe so I mean that's cool right?
My dad used to answer the door, invite them in, get into a great discussion about John 1:1, then reach in the side table hand hand them his Greek New testament UPSIDE down and ask them to show him how that "no definite article thingy" was consistent between "in THE beginning" and "the Logos," not six words apart, even in their Watchtower translation.
I should pick up a new Watchtower translation. The book of Mormon is looking a bit old.
-
I wanted to put this as a reply in another thread in Controversial issues but that thread is locked. To me this isn't really a controversial issue.
I saw that comment under someone's YouTube video a few weeks ago and decided I would give the person a reply. This is what I said:
"If you understand what "you shall surely (most definitely) die" in Genesis 2:17 means you will understand what "God is not willing that any of us should perish" in 2 Peter 3:9 means; and if you understand what "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 and "Christ died for our sins" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 means, then finally you will understand what "did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" and "He who believes on Him is not condemned" in John 3:17-18 means.
Then you will understand that the burning thing is a personal choice people make for themselves because we are not robots forced to receive rescue from everlasting death EVEN when it's freely given."
The everlasting death is both spiritual (separation from the Spirit of God, who is Life, John 6:63; John 3:6-8) and physical. Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of this state every time He spoke of it (example Matt 5:29; Matt 10:28). If Jesus spoke of this state implying that it is a real state, then it's a real state. John saw death and hades delivering all the souls in them in Rev 20:13-15. Anyone who was not found in the Lamb's book of Life (John 6:63; John 3:6-8) was cast into the Lake of Fire.
I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'. Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.
In my opinion, love can be demanded, but never gotten by demand. God knows this. When one first comes to Christ, do they love Him? Probably not. They want to be saved by Him and are saved by their faith in Him. Which is why we are not told to 'love me and thou shalt be saved'. We are told to 'believe and thou shalt be saved'. (John 3:18) (Acts 16:30-31)
God wants our love towards Him. But He gets it by loving us, despite us. (1John 4:10) We respond in kind. Why? Because love begats love. Law does not begat love.
Lees
-
I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'. Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.
'Will' is a capacity while 'obedience' is an act. Could it not be the case that through our will we choose to obey, or are you trying to say something else? The distinction you've offered is a bit of a funny one.
-
'Will' is a capacity while 'obedience' is an act. Could it not be the case that through our will we choose to obey, or are you trying to say something else? The distinction you've offered is a bit of a funny one.
I agree it is involved. But think on this. If a man has a wife and he tells her 'I choose to love you'. How well do you think she will respond to that? She doesn't want his love by an act of will. She wants his love because he loves her.
Compare David's sin concerning Bathsheba. (Ps. 51) David was repenting of his sin in that (Psalm). He sought mercy because he was guilty. Then he said a strange thing in (Ps. 51:16-). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering." But the Law, that was given by God, did require sacrifice and burnt offerings. How could David refuse to give them?
I believe the answer is that David was a man after Gods heart. (Acts 13:22) He knew God and he knew the Law and it's sacrifices and offerings were not the end to what God wanted. They were but a means to an end. That end was a true heart after God. (Ps. 51:17) "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
In other words some Pharisees could say they loved God. They willfully obeyed the Law. But many, if not most, were despised by God and Christ. (Matt. 23) Their will to obey didn't change their heart.
So, in my opinion, God begins with the demand. Love Me. And His people try to obey but fail in every way. But God then says, that's ok because I love you and sends His Son to make up the gap. Then His people say thank you Lord...I love you.
Lees
-
I agree it is involved.
It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).
But think on this. If a man has a wife and he tells her 'I choose to love you'. How well do you think she will respond to that? She doesn't want his love by an act of will. She wants his love because he loves her.
I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".
True story.
Compare David's sin concerning Bathsheba. (Ps. 51) David was repenting of his sin in that (Psalm). He sought mercy because he was guilty. Then he said a strange thing in (Ps. 51:16-). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering." But the Law, that was given by God, did require sacrifice and burnt offerings. How could David refuse to give them?
I believe the answer is that David was a man after Gods heart. (Acts 13:22) He knew God and he knew the Law and it's sacrifices and offerings were not the end to what God wanted. They were but a means to an end. That end was a true heart after God. (Ps. 51:17) "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
In other words some Pharisees could say they loved God. They willfully obeyed the Law. But many, if not most, were despised by God and Christ. (Matt. 23) Their will to obey didn't change their heart.
So, in my opinion, God begins with the demand. Love Me. And His people try to obey but fail in every way. But God then says, that's ok because I love you and sends His Son to make up the gap. Then His people say thank you Lord...I love you.
Lees
You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.
-
It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).
I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".
True story.
You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.
What is not an 'either/or'? The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'. There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded.
Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage. And I doubt a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'.
I'm not confused at all. What made you say that? I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart. A will demanded is not free will. Love demanded is not love.
Lees
-
I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'. Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.
I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."
An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.
-
It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).
I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".
True story.
You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.
What is not an 'either/or'? The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'. There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded.
Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage. And I doubt a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'.
I'm not confused at all. What made you say that? I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart. A will demanded is not free will. Love demanded is not love.
Lees
The impositions of the Law of God does require that we give up our self-autonomy. If we don't, our religious devotion becomes insincere.
We might argue that under duress people are not fully accountable for their actions. If God threatens damnation can they really be responsible for their choices?
But the "duress" of the human conscience, though it is an imperative, does not negate a free choice, nor does it even necessarily disturb a reasonable choice to comply with the imperative.
The consequences of doing wrong does motivate us to do right. But to be sincere in our choice to do right requires that we fully recognize our dependence upon God.
If we refuse to give up what we need to surrender in order to do right, then of course our choice to obey becomes insincere. To properly choose to do right, we must accept our dependence upon God, and be willing to give up our autonomous existence, separate from God's guidance.
Take, for example, the young woman who chooses to marry an outwardly "religious" man, who is intellectually gifted, full of talents, is good looking and has a lot of money. She does not sincerely choose to marry him for his religious devotion, but that becomes a cover for her real carnal interests.
When the inevitable divorce takes place, being that her husband is falsely religious, then instead of being sincerely repentant she doubles down in defending her choices. She does not give up her own carnal interests, but she covers them over with layers of bitterness and self-justification.
In this case, the threat of failure does not preclude choices. The choice is either in accord with God's demands or not. The outcome can be met with self-justification or with sincere repentance.
-
What is not an 'either/or'? The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'. There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded.
Your suggestion in the post that I quoted sets up a false dichotomy and should not be viewed as an either/or (within the context of this broader discussion):
I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'. Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.
'It' is an act of will and of obedience, not an act of obedience instead of/over against/in contradistinction to the will. The two work together, and that's true even in scenario's where a choice appears to be otherwise compelled ('love me or burn forever'). Even Amanda Rogers knew the silliness of that demand -- the demand to be loved, that is. I don't think she threatened Riker with damnation.
Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage. And I doubt a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'.
The point is that these things are all related. The feeling of love, the desire to love, the want to continue to love, the duty to love, the choice to love. We can't take our existential scalpels to the love of a old couple and neatly divide its playing-out in the lives of these two lovers. John and Sherry are getting divorced? "Yes, they've just fallen out of love". As if love is something that happens to us. Love is a feeling, a choice, a desire, a duty. It's not Hollywood to be told that one's love is a choice, but at least that person has an awareness of what love actually is.
I'm not confused at all. What made you say that? I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart. A will demanded is not free will. Love demanded is not love.
I know; I'm taking specific issue with your comparison of a capacity (will) with an act (obedience). The latter follows from the former. I'm getting at something like what Aquinas wrote https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2017.htm#article9, with this understanding of 'will' as the backdrop https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm.
(I do wonder if 'love' can be demanded, which, over time, becomes love proper. Say, in an arranged marriage.)
-
I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."
An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.
If you are forced to love or burn forever, it is not 'free will'. It is your will exercised to avoid burning. It does not produce the desired end which is love of God. Neither free will or a love of God has been exercised.
Lees
-
You propose a false dichotomy
The free will choice is “love me or do not love me”
That’s the only choice
Everything that follows is consequence
-
Your suggestion in the post that I quoted sets up a false dichotomy and should not be viewed as an either/or (within the context of this broader discussion):
'It' is an act of will and of obedience, not an act of obedience instead of/over against/in contradistinction to the will. The two work together, and that's true even in scenario's where a choice appears to be otherwise compelled ('love me or burn forever'). Even Amanda Rogers knew the silliness of that demand -- the demand to be loved, that is. I don't think she threatened Riker with damnation.
The point is that these things are all related. The feeling of love, the desire to love, the want to continue to love, the duty to love, the choice to love. We can't take our existential scalpels to the love of a old couple and neatly divide its playing-out in the lives of these two lovers. John and Sherry are getting divorced? "Yes, they've just fallen out of love". As if love is something that happens to us. Love is a feeling, a choice, a desire, a duty. It's not Hollywood to be told that one's love is a choice, but at least that person has an awareness of what love actually is.
I know; I'm taking specific issue with your comparison of a capacity (will) with an act (obedience). The latter follows from the former. I'm getting at something like what Aquinas wrote https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2017.htm#article9, with this understanding of 'will' as the backdrop https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm.
(I do wonder if 'love' can be demanded, which, over time, becomes love proper. Say, in an arranged marriage.)
I disagree that what I stated was a 'false dichotomy'. The demand was 'love me or burn'. Ones will is exercised to survive, not to love God. Ones will exercised to survive doesn't mean they now love God. It means the one doing the demanding got his will...not the will of the one submitting.
I disagree that love is a choice. You can't make yourself love someone when you don't. If you say I choose to love God, then you don't love Him. That's like saying I choose to believe. That is not belief. An act of the will does not produce belief just like an act of the will does not produce love.
Of course love can be demanded just like it was under the Law. But the demand does not produce any love. Just like it didn't with those under law.
Only love begats love. Is it not so with Christ? (John 10:17) Christ said He knows the Father loves Him. He is loved. In (John 15:13) Jesus said the greatest love is to lay down ones life for a friend or brother. So Christ is loved and in turn loves us. Christ gives a new commandment. (John 13:34, 15:12) Love one another. Love the brethren. Takes us back to (1John 4:10) It is not our love demanded. It is the love of God shown to us that produces our love. Love is always a response. Not an act of the will.
John and Peter are good examples. Peter declared his undying allegiance to Christ and that he would never be offended by his connection with Christ. (Matt. 26:33) (Mark 14:29) (Luke 22:33) (John 13:37).
John on the other hand declared himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, 21:24)
And who was there at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was crucified? John. (John 19:26) The one who knew he was loved by Jesus. Which produced a love in him for Jesus.
Lees
-
Was it the socks?
Those must have been some socks!
-
Was it the socks?
Those must have been some socks!
You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!
Oh well, the truth comes out in the end! ;) The fact my wife is blonde has nothing to do with it!
-
You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!
:o
-
I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."
An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.
If you are forced to love or burn forever, it is not 'free will'. It is your will exercised to avoid burning. It does not produce the desired end which is love of God. Neither free will or a love of God has been exercised.
Lees
Please tell me you see the contradiction in your statement? "It is *your will* exercised to avoid burning."
If that isn't free will, what is it?
I think what you're saying is that such a choice dilutes a pure choice from the heart that wants to do the right thing without threat of punishment. How can one say he really loves his wife if his stepfather is behind him holding a shotgun? I can understand your point.
-
@RandyPNW
No, I see no contradiction in my statement. I explained my statement.
If your will is obtained under duress and threat, it is not your will to love God. It is the will of the other which you submit to. Vietnam POW's were forced to sign papers condemning the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. They willfully signed due to torture and duress. But that wasn't their will.
The topic statement is confusing. Eternal destiny, burning forever, is not based upon loving God. It is based upon faith towards God. It is not based upon you saying 'ok I love God'. It is based upon your belief in God and Christ. In other words, it is not based upon your 'will'. (John 1:13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Lees
-
Was it the socks?
Those must have been some socks!
I mean, they were quite pretty socks. They're the least of my worries now, though.
Was it the socks?
Those must have been some socks!
You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!
Oh well, the truth comes out in the end! ;) The fact my wife is blonde has nothing to do with it!
But pastor, I, I... I thought it was the Canadian leaf flag thing!
-
Love is an act of the will nit an emotion or a quality dumped into you by an external source
-
I disagree that what I stated was a 'false dichotomy'. The demand was 'love me or burn'. Ones will is exercised to survive, not to love God. Ones will exercised to survive doesn't mean they now love God. It means the one doing the demanding got his will...not the will of the one submitting.
Yes, I got that. I was commenting on the specific portion of your reply that I quoted. But, okay...
If we assume "love me or burn (burn, burn, as Naglfar once sang, and I recommend you don't listen)" we still haven't arrived at a circumstance where there is, as you wrote, "no free will". The will, in fact, is as free as it was before those ~4 words were uttered. What's potentially constrained is the ability of one to exercise their will vis-a-vis acting in a given direction. I say 'potentially', of course, because the question is binary: either one loves or they do not. The constraint isn't artificial.
If anything, what we have here is an argument against the goodness of God for imposing - I imagine it would be argued - the burn on people who don't love Him, but don't hate Him, but simply want to do their own thing. On the surface, anyway. But God would be foolish indeed to present this kind of choice, and He doesn't.
As it is, if one's will is 'exercised to survive' then one's will is exercised. Perhaps that exercise eventually turns into genuine love, or maybe intense bitterness and resentment. It's an interesting question to consider.
If you love raisins you may collect $200, but if you don't, I will take $200 from you instead. This idea of God predicting eternity or salvation or whatever on compelled belief is an asinine caricature. (Was it Lady Sovereign who 'sang', "Love me or hate me, that is the question"? I think so. Not the greatest song I've ever heard.)
I disagree that love is a choice. You can't make yourself love someone when you don't. If you say I choose to love God, then you don't love Him. That's like saying I choose to believe. That is not belief. An act of the will does not produce belief just like an act of the will does not produce love.
It's too bad English has only one word for 'love'.
The more existential question is, why would someone just decide to make themselves love another person when they don't already? Divorced from context it's a silly suggestion, but as I've outlined in my previous replies (following your lead), we have in mind people who know each other, or couples -- both young and old. The commitment already exists. Perhaps it started with a bit of philia, then ludus was introduced; eros surely followed, and pragma as well. Perhaps storge has some role to play, too. They were friends and then lovers? Or perhaps they weren't even friends at all if their marriage was arranged?
Love is not just a feeling that happens to us. It very much invoices decisions and choices. If you disagree that love is a choice then I don't think you quite realise what you're saying. Do sisters who find their younger brothers disgusting love them all the same, even if at times they can't stand them? Parents in relation to their teenage children, and vice-versa? What about when a couple remains committed to each other? We make all sorts of choices in relation to love. Love is hardly anything other than a choice, except perhaps at the very beginning.
Of course love can be demanded just like it was under the Law. But the demand does not produce any love. Just like it didn't with those under law.
Did it demand love in the form of a threat, as the current discussion might imply?
Only love begats love. Is it not so with Christ? (John 10:17) Christ said He knows the Father loves Him. He is loved. In (John 15:13) Jesus said the greatest love is to lay down ones life for a friend or brother. So Christ is loved and in turn loves us. Christ gives a new commandment. (John 13:34, 15:12) Love one another. Love the brethren. Takes us back to (1John 4:10) It is not our love demanded. It is the love of God shown to us that produces our love. Love is always a response. Not an act of the will.
Did you read Aquinas? Will precedes the response. One must have the will to lay down their life for a friend or brother, or to remain in a garden knowing who and what was coming.
John and Peter are good examples. Peter declared his undying allegiance to Christ and that he would never be offended by his connection with Christ. (Matt. 26:33) (Mark 14:29) (Luke 22:33) (John 13:37).
John on the other hand declared himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, 21:24)
And who was there at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was crucified? John. (John 19:26) The one who knew he was loved by Jesus. Which produced a love in him for Jesus.
Lees
And yet we call them both Saints, or some of us, anyway (not even necessarily me). This doesn't demonstrate some kind of will/act of obedience dichotomy. John willed and he obeyed if you... will.
-
Yes, I got that. I was commenting on the specific portion of your reply that I quoted. But, okay...
If we assume "love me or burn (burn, burn, as Naglfar once sang, and I recommend you don't listen)" we still haven't arrived at a circumstance where there is, as you wrote, "no free will". The will, in fact, is as free as it was before those ~4 words were uttered. What's potentially constrained is the ability of one to exercise their will vis-a-vis acting in a given direction. I say 'potentially', of course, because the question is binary: either one loves or they do not. The constraint isn't artificial.
If anything, what we have here is an argument against the goodness of God for imposing - I imagine it would be argued - the burn on people who don't love Him, but don't hate Him, but simply want to do their own thing. On the surface, anyway. But God would be foolish indeed to present this kind of choice, and He doesn't.
As it is, if one's will is 'exercised to survive' then one's will is exercised. Perhaps that exercise eventually turns into genuine love, or maybe intense bitterness and resentment. It's an interesting question to consider.
If you love raisins you may collect $200, but if you don't, I will take $200 from you instead. This idea of God predicting eternity or salvation or whatever on compelled belief is an asinine caricature. (Was it Lady Sovereign who 'sang', "Love me or hate me, that is the question"? I think so. Not the greatest song I've ever heard.)
It's too bad English has only one word for 'love'.
The more existential question is, why would someone just decide to make themselves love another person when they don't already? Divorced from context it's a silly suggestion, but as I've outlined in my previous replies (following your lead), we have in mind people who know each other, or couples -- both young and old. The commitment already exists. Perhaps it started with a bit of philia, then ludus was introduced; eros surely followed, and pragma as well. Perhaps storge has some role to play, too. They were friends and then lovers? Or perhaps they weren't even friends at all if their marriage was arranged?
Love is not just a feeling that happens to us. It very much invoices decisions and choices. If you disagree that love is a choice then I don't think you quite realise what you're saying. Do sisters who find their younger brothers disgusting love them all the same, even if at times they can't stand them? Parents in relation to their teenage children, and vice-versa? What about when a couple remains committed to each other? We make all sorts of choices in relation to love. Love is hardly anything other than a choice, except perhaps at the very beginning.
Did it demand love in the form of a threat, as the current discussion might imply?
Did you read Aquinas? Will precedes the response. One must have the will to lay down their life for a friend or brother, or to remain in a garden knowing who and what was coming.
And yet we call them both Saints, or some of us, anyway (not even necessarily me). This doesn't demonstrate some kind of will/act of obedience dichotomy. John willed and he obeyed if you... will.
The will of man is never free. Man has a will but it's not free. It is always influenced by outside sources. Be they physical or spiritual. God is never influenced by outside sources. He does His will free from outside influence. So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man. But, he exercises his will. And man cannot will to love God. Man cannot will to believe.
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn. But as I said, one cannot will to believe either. Yes, of course we can ponder the goodness of God and why did God create such a salvation that was so bloody and brutal. Myself, I would say because it is what works. And, that nothing else would work for God to obtain what He wanted. So, such a salvation does show the goodness of God, and the love of God for His people. (1John 4:10)
Many in the early church during the Roman empire were baptized and said they believed, but they didn't. But they were brought into the church. Their will was exercised, but contrary to what they really willed. And their will being exercised didin't make it true. See how it is a good thing that the Lord does not save by the 'will'. He saves by our faith.
I do not agree that love is a choice. I have stated it several times. Because one loves, that surely affects many choices.
Concerning the demand in the Old Testament to love God, it is interesting that it is not mentioned in the 10 commandments in (Ex. 20:2-17). It is mentioned in (Deut. 10:12). My point is the same. The demand to love will not produce the love. It is true that God should be loved. It is true it is what He demands. But that alone does not produce it. And a person saying 'I choose to love God', does not produce it either. In my opinion.
No, I don't read Aquinas.
The example of John and Peter demonstated that the one who loved, who was John, was the one whom it is said Christ loved. John loved Jesus because Jesus loved John. Again, (1John 4:10). Also, (1John 4:19)
I think I have pretty much said all I can on the subject. All I seem to be doing now is repeating myself. It's not important that any agree with me here. But I have given Scripture to support and to think on.
Lees
-
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.
Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn... off the extra calories I ate today because I can't resist a good McChicken (honestly it all goes to my chest these days). I'll reply in full once I've recovered.
-
The will of man is never free. Man has a will but it's not free. It is always influenced by outside sources. Be they physical or spiritual. God is never influenced by outside sources. He does His will free from outside influence. So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man.
Then what's the point in God commanding or even asking for anything? For that matter, what's the point of human existence?
-
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.
Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn...
Sweet
-
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.
Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn...
Sweet
The spin cycle class was in German for some reason? That said, my German is better than I realised, and Eminem apparently makes for a compelling session.
-
The will of man is never free. Man has a will but it's not free. It is always influenced by outside sources. Be they physical or spiritual. God is never influenced by outside sources. He does His will free from outside influence. So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man. But, he exercises his will. And man cannot will to love God. Man cannot will to believe.
I don't think anyone responsible would reasonably suggest that our will is free, as in free from *. One's will is of course exercised within the context and circumstance of one's life, and it competes with one's other appetites daily (Aquinas is a good if not dramatically boring read at times), and it is limited by what know and how we conceived of the world, and so forth. Despite this framing of human existence freedom (of the will) is still very much a thing. I am, as we all are, free to discount the influence of outside forces. That this influence exists, in whatever form we want to present it, says nothing about the will.
God, while not influenced by outside sources, is still indeed subject to logical limits, and cannot do anything that would make Him, not God. I'm sure there's an interesting contrast in there somewhere.
But, so, anyway, as you were saying: no free will for man (I'd assume you're not a raging misandrist and include women as well), but the will is yet exercised, except that it cannot love God and there is no will to belief? So, what do you mean by this? Free will doesn't exist because of... the fall? Corruption of human nature?
Ever listen to the song 'Jekyll and Hyde' by Petra? I used to quite like it, 18ish years ago.
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn. But as I said, one cannot will to believe either.
He doesn't impose anything. What you think is an imposition is actually a description of the consequences of rejecting God, and thus, all that God provides, in connection to the teleological nature of human creation, i.e., to be in relationship, in part, with God. (By implication, we aren't truly human as we ought to be in a state of separation from God).
We still arrive at a similar situation of course: if you believe in me you'll experience joys and "wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine" (okay, Q said that to Picard, but it's a good line) and if you don't believe in me, then you will experience existence truly separate from Me. This betrays the fact that I don't think hell is literally hellfire. I do think the reality is much worse, and that the psychological trauma will be far worse than the physical situation mostly everyone fixates on
We could assume the position of the father in Mark 9 and pray, "I (want to) believe, help me in my unbelief". So like, God meets people where they are, and people can interact with Him genuinely at the place they're in, in life? That's insane; that's like... what happened during Jesus' ministry. I guess we agree then, that one cannot will oneself into belief, but one can will to want to believe and act accordingly with that desire.
...but it seems I allow possibilities that you don't. Satre vs Camus deuxième partie.
Yes, of course we can ponder the goodness of God and why did God create such a salvation that was so bloody and brutal. Myself, I would say because it is what works. And, that nothing else would work for God to obtain what He wanted. So, such a salvation does show the goodness of God, and the love of God for His people. (1John 4:10)
Yeah, I don't know about that personally -- that it had to be bloody and brutal. Maybe it didn't have to be if people were different.
Many in the early church during the Roman empire were baptized and said they believed, but they didn't. But they were brought into the church. Their will was exercised, but contrary to what they really willed. And their will being exercised didin't make it true. See how it is a good thing that the Lord does not save by the 'will'. He saves by our faith.
Coincidentally, it was William James who lectured on The Will to Believe, in which he said:
In the recently published Life by Leslie Stephen of his brother, Fitz-James, there is an account of a school to which the latter went when he was a boy. The teacher, a certain Mr. Guest, used to converse with his pupils in this wise: "Gurney, what is the difference between justification and sanctification?—Stephen, prove the omnipotence of God!" etc. In the midst of our Harvard freethinking and indifference we are prone to imagine that here at your good old orthodox College conversation continues to be somewhat upon this order; and to show you that we at Harvard have not lost all interest in these vital subjects, I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith to read to you,—I mean an essay in justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical {2} intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper.
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm
Perhaps only related in a secondary way. Ah well, yes, we are indeed saved by grace through faith. I'll again point out that will is presupposed, but this will be immediately problematic in light of the presuppositions you've implied and haven't yet been clarified.
I do not agree that love is a choice. I have stated it several times. Because one loves, that surely affects many choices.
Yes, you have stated this several times. You have a misconceived notion about love, but that seems neither here nor there given your lack of interaction with what I've said. Insistent just like Judge Wilhelm, I guess.
Concerning the demand in the Old Testament to love God, it is interesting that it is not mentioned in the 10 commandments in (Ex. 20:2-17). It is mentioned in (Deut. 10:12). My point is the same. The demand to love will not produce the love. It is true that God should be loved. It is true it is what He demands. But that alone does not produce it. And a person saying 'I choose to love God', does not produce it either. In my opinion.
What do you think is meant by 'love' in Deuteronomy 10:12? That hasn't been clear in this discussion despite my implicit attempts to get at what is meant.
No, I don't read Aquinas.
You should give him a try. He died doing what he loved.
The example of John and Peter demonstated that the one who loved, who was John, was the one whom it is said Christ loved. John loved Jesus because Jesus loved John. Again, (1John 4:10). Also, (1John 4:19)
Well, Jesus loved all of the apostles, while John was beloved just that little bit more. The contrast you're looking for isn't here, or at least, it's not naturally read from the text. I wonder if Peter willed himself to walk on water, or was that faith and love for Jesus?
I think I have pretty much said all I can on the subject. All I seem to be doing now is repeating myself. It's not important that any agree with me here. But I have given Scripture to support and to think on.
Lees
Yeah but it's a forum and espousing from a milk crate is just soooooooo boring.
-
@RandyPNW
No, I see no contradiction in my statement. I explained my statement.
If your will is obtained under duress and threat, it is not your will to love God. It is the will of the other which you submit to. Vietnam POW's were forced to sign papers condemning the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. They willfully signed due to torture and duress. But that wasn't their will.
The topic statement is confusing. Eternal destiny, burning forever, is not based upon loving God. It is based upon faith towards God. It is not based upon you saying 'ok I love God'. It is based upon your belief in God and Christ. In other words, it is not based upon your 'will'. (John 1:13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Lees
Yea, I think most of us reading your posts have understood that your argument was about *duress*--not free will. The problem is, you confused these two separate matters. And so I explained to you that even under duress, you are making a free choice, to either pretend to be making a choice or to suffer as a victim. Either way, it is a free choice.
But as you explain it, I understand the real point you're making. And I would respond by saying I don't think the decision set before us by God is "under duress."
Christians are sometimes abusive by threatening unbelievers with Hell, and not presenting a Gospel of love. True love will not deny that there is a consequence for making the wrong decision, and will not, therefore, deny the punishment of Hell. But the true Gospel is not manipulative and threatening, simply presenting the facts and the consequences that God has laid out for consideration.
I do believe that the thing drawing people to Salvation is a clear presentation of God as love, and a person's inclination to be part of that love. It is not purely a pragmatic decision to avoid the threat of "separation from God." The choice, by the unbeliever, to view God as undesirable is a de facto choice to be separate from God.
-
Love is an act of the will nit an emotion or a quality dumped into you by an external source
Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental! ;)
-
The will of man is never free. Man has a will but it's not free. It is always influenced by outside sources.
I heard something similar from Martin Luther in his "Bondage of the Will." And as pro-Lutheran as I am, I had to depart from Luther on this issue. I'm Predestinarian, as he was, but not in the same way.
I don't believe an external force imposes love on us. But I would agree that God's external love does influence us in the way of testimony.
So when we are presented with the choice to love or hate other people, what is the basis of our choice? It is the testimony of God's love, and how that love views each individual that we encounter.
With some people, God's love cries out for justice, because a person is unrepentant and is determined to continue in godless acts of violence and abuse. With other people, no matter how bad they are, there arises an understanding of the underlying causes of the sin, and there is a love that continues to call out to them to repent.
So there isn't just a single response to all people. Love demands that each person be judged based on the choices they are making. We derive our love for them from God by determining how God views each situation. If we choose not to see things through the prism of God's love, and determine to create our own rules of engagement, then we are choosing against God's love. And we will reap the consequences.
So I believe we do make free choices, to either accept the influence of God's love or not. That testimony to God's love comes to us as either a strong impression or a weak impression. And so, not all can be judged clearly as hopeless and calcified. We have to be open to God's love to see how He really sees each individual.
If we have received a clear testimony of God's love, and simply dislike it, wishing to create our own rules of engagement, we becomes friends of the world by our own choice, and choose not to live by the definition of who God is in the Bible.
We are making a free choice based on facts that we are clearly being presented with. This is not just a threat or a situation of being under duress. Rather, this is a clear revelation and insight into God's love, and an inclination to be repulsed by it, for one reason or another.
It's amazing how people can be embarrassed by the sentimentality of Jesus' love for children, for example. And yet, pride rises up in all of us in one way or another, and perhaps this determines who is going to be the sheep and who is going to be the goat?
Are we inclined towards humbling ourselves and accepting God's love for us, or not? That's more of a question about Predestination. But we all have the same presentation, the same revelation, and the same free choices to make.
-
I don't think anyone responsible would reasonably suggest that our will is free, as in free from *. One's will is of course exercised within the context and circumstance of one's life, and it competes with one's other appetites daily (Aquinas is a good if not dramatically boring read at times), and it is limited by what know and how we conceived of the world, and so forth. Despite this framing of human existence freedom (of the will) is still very much a thing. I am, as we all are, free to discount the influence of outside forces. That this influence exists, in whatever form we want to present it, says nothing about the will.
God, while not influenced by outside sources, is still indeed subject to logical limits, and cannot do anything that would make Him, not God. I'm sure there's an interesting contrast in there somewhere.
But, so, anyway, as you were saying: no free will for man (I'd assume you're not a raging misandrist and include women as well), but the will is yet exercised, except that it cannot love God and there is no will to belief? So, what do you mean by this? Free will doesn't exist because of... the fall? Corruption of human nature?
Ever listen to the song 'Jekyll and Hyde' by Petra? I used to quite like it, 18ish years ago.
He doesn't impose anything. What you think is an imposition is actually a description of the consequences of rejecting God, and thus, all that God provides, in connection to the teleological nature of human creation, i.e., to be in relationship, in part, with God. (By implication, we aren't truly human as we ought to be in a state of separation from God).
We still arrive at a similar situation of course: if you believe in me you'll experience joys and "wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine" (okay, Q said that to Picard, but it's a good line) and if you don't believe in me, then you will experience existence truly separate from Me. This betrays the fact that I don't think hell is literally hellfire. I do think the reality is much worse, and that the psychological trauma will be far worse than the physical situation mostly everyone fixates on
We could assume the position of the father in Mark 9 and pray, "I (want to) believe, help me in my unbelief". So like, God meets people where they are, and people can interact with Him genuinely at the place they're in, in life? That's insane; that's like... what happened during Jesus' ministry. I guess we agree then, that one cannot will oneself into belief, but one can will to want to believe and act accordingly with that desire.
...but it seems I allow possibilities that you don't. Satre vs Camus deuxième partie.
Yeah, I don't know about that personally -- that it had to be bloody and brutal. Maybe it didn't have to be if people were different.
Coincidentally, it was William James who lectured on The Will to Believe, in which he said:
In the recently published Life by Leslie Stephen of his brother, Fitz-James, there is an account of a school to which the latter went when he was a boy. The teacher, a certain Mr. Guest, used to converse with his pupils in this wise: "Gurney, what is the difference between justification and sanctification?—Stephen, prove the omnipotence of God!" etc. In the midst of our Harvard freethinking and indifference we are prone to imagine that here at your good old orthodox College conversation continues to be somewhat upon this order; and to show you that we at Harvard have not lost all interest in these vital subjects, I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith to read to you,—I mean an essay in justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical {2} intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper.
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm
Perhaps only related in a secondary way. Ah well, yes, we are indeed saved by grace through faith. I'll again point out that will is presupposed, but this will be immediately problematic in light of the presuppositions you've implied and haven't yet been clarified.
Yes, you have stated this several times. You have a misconceived notion about love, but that seems neither here nor there given your lack of interaction with what I've said. Insistent just like Judge Wilhelm, I guess.
What do you think is meant by 'love' in Deuteronomy 10:12? That hasn't been clear in this discussion despite my implicit attempts to get at what is meant.
You should give him a try. He died doing what he loved.
Well, Jesus loved all of the apostles, while John was beloved just that little bit more. The contrast you're looking for isn't here, or at least, it's not naturally read from the text. I wonder if Peter willed himself to walk on water, or was that faith and love for Jesus?
Yeah but it's a forum and espousing from a milk crate is just soooooooo boring.
The point being man doesn't have 'free will'. Only God has 'free will'. In everyplace one would want to use the term 'free will' for man, how would using just the term 'will' not suffice? Answer: The term 'will' would suffice in everyplace. As to God's 'free will', there is never any conflict with God and Himself. He does His will free from any outside influence.
Yes, I have said man cannot will to love God nor can he will to believe. (1John 4:10, 4:19) (John 1:13) (Matt. 16:16-17) Man has never had 'free will' either before or after the fall.
Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was simply using the term you brought up. But, I have no problem with it. And, concerning the Scriptures I gave you above, how is that not God imposing His will upon man? How is (Acts 9:1-16) not God imposing His will upon man?
What do you mean concerning God's bloody and brutal salvation when you say maybe it didn't have to be that way if people were different? Are you blaming people or God? Either way the blame or responsibility goes back to God. Why didn't God create a salvation where all man had to do was climb a certain mountain and hollar Praise God three times and your sins are all forgiven and Heaven is yours forever? Instead of through blood and death?
Concerning your quote from William James, I believe (John 1:13) and (Matt. 16:16-17). God must first give to man the faith to believe. Then the will of man is exercised.
Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), it means to have an affection for. See Strongs concordance.
Concerning Aquinas, dying for what one loves is commendable. But it doesn't mean all that they wrote about is correct. I'm sure he has many good things to say.
Concerning the contrast with John and Peter, I believe it is there. That Jesus loved all the disciples, Judas being a question mark, is not the point. It was John who recognized that it was the love of Christ for him that was preeminent. With Peter it was all about Peter's faithfulness being boasted of. And the one who knew Christ loved him is the one at the foot of the Cross. The one who boasted of his loyalty and faithfulness denied Christ. It is no wonder John wrote what he did in (1John 4:10).
Lees
-
Yea, I think most of us reading your posts have understood that your argument was about *duress*--not free will. The problem is, you confused these two separate matters. And so I explained to you that even under duress, you are making a free choice, to either pretend to be making a choice or to suffer as a victim. Either way, it is a free choice.
But as you explain it, I understand the real point you're making. And I would respond by saying I don't think the decision set before us by God is "under duress."
Christians are sometimes abusive by threatening unbelievers with Hell, and not presenting a Gospel of love. True love will not deny that there is a consequence for making the wrong decision, and will not, therefore, deny the punishment of Hell. But the true Gospel is not manipulative and threatening, simply presenting the facts and the consequences that God has laid out for consideration.
I do believe that the thing drawing people to Salvation is a clear presentation of God as love, and a person's inclination to be part of that love. It is not purely a pragmatic decision to avoid the threat of "separation from God." The choice, by the unbeliever, to view God as undesirable is a de facto choice to be separate from God.
The topic statement is about duress and free will which is why I addressed it. But, as I said, the topic statement itself is confusing because our salvation is not about 'love or burn'. It is about our faith.
I pretty much agree with what you have said.
Lees
-
Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental! ;)
Or it's just the wonderful world of human (emotional) experience, as viewed by Christians who insert the mysteries of God into every little thing. This is the cynicism of having grown up Pentecostal.
God created us with the capacity to love, as misguided as it may sometimes be (e.g. Matthew 5:46). Certainly, there is a love for others that is a reflection of God's love for us, but I wonder if that's a step beyond, and no such drawing from the wellspring of the love of God is required is otherwise required.
-
The point being man doesn't have 'free will'. Only God has 'free will'. In everyplace one would want to use the term 'free will' for man, how would using just the term 'will' not suffice? Answer: The term 'will' would suffice in everyplace. As to God's 'free will', there is never any conflict with God and Himself. He does His will free from any outside influence.
Ah, so a little bit of that Thomistic dialectic slips in after all.
I understand what you're saying. As I said, no one responsibly defines or predicates the 'free' in 'free will' on freedom from outside influence, one's appetites, context, circumstance, and so forth. The reason 'will' does not always suffice is that there is the question of what we mean by 'will', and its nature, and character. Is the will free, or is it constrained? If either, to what degree? What do we mean by 'will'? These are all reasonable questions in our quest for good will... hunting. (A bit rough that one.)
...anyway. They're reasonable questions, and asserting that "man doesn't have 'free will'" and also that the term "'will' would suffice in every place [the term 'free will' is used]" begs the question. You've yet to offer a positive, only negative, and while negative theology is fine for those people - like me - who can't be bothered to pronounce 'apophatic', it does leave us wanting. We're curious for more. What is the 'will' if it is not 'free'?
Yes, I have said man cannot will to love God nor can he will to believe. (1John 4:10, 4:19) (John 1:13) (Matt. 16:16-17) Man has never had 'free will' either before or after the fall.
But what do you mean? It is at this point where I'm asking you to define your terms, for we have hit a wall. A proper discussion isn't possible without mutual understanding, and 'the will isn't free because it's under threat/duress/whatever' are the first few words in the beginning of the argument. What's the rest of the argument?
Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was simply using the term you brought up. But, I have no problem with it. And, concerning the Scriptures I gave you above, how is that not God imposing His will upon man? How is (Acts 9:1-16) not God imposing His will upon man?
Oh don't be silly, I was following your use of the word, right here:
God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.
Of course, you have no problem with it, you said it first.
But what about Acts 9:1-16? My reply was written in reference to the idea of 'believe or burn' being a divine imposition, and I argued that it was not for this was a caricature of the reality of the situation (that being my view that hell is a consequence and the 'threat' isn't a threat at all). This was not a broader comment about God never 'imposing His will upon man'.
Context, and all that.
What do you mean concerning God's bloody and brutal salvation when you say maybe it didn't have to be that way if people were different? Are you blaming people or God? Either way the blame or responsibility goes back to God. Why didn't God create a salvation where all man had to do was climb a certain mountain and hollar Praise God three times and your sins are all forgiven and Heaven is yours forever? Instead of through blood and death?
What a curious direction; why have you immediately jumped to a notion of 'blame'? I wasn't commenting on blameworthiness or responsibility, only that if people had accepted Christ instead of crucifying him, then who is to say a bloody brutal sacrifice would have been necessary?
Climbing a mountain wouldn't have been fair to the disabled and infirm, obviously. Or those afraid of heights. Or the unfit. Would society have to be organised around a particular mountain, or would any mountain do? Would people in the UK be damned for their lack of mountains, or can a hill be used in a squeeze?
Concerning your quote from William James, I believe (John 1:13) and (Matt. 16:16-17). God must first give to man the faith to believe. Then the will of man is exercised.
Can you expand on this?
Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), it means to have an affection for. See Strongs concordance.
Dictionaries are wonderful things, aren't they? Where's the demand?
Concerning Aquinas, dying for what one loves is commendable. But it doesn't mean all that they wrote about is correct. I'm sure he has many good things to say.
I'll have to check my notes where I said that everything Aquinas wrote was correct. The death comment was a bit of cheek, as he died before finishing the Summa, which I previously linked to.
Concerning the contrast with John and Peter, I believe it is there. That Jesus loved all the disciples, Judas being a question mark, is not the point. It was John who recognized that it was the love of Christ for him that was preeminent. With Peter it was all about Peter's faithfulness being boasted of. And the one who knew Christ loved him is the one at the foot of the Cross. The one who boasted of his loyalty and faithfulness denied Christ. It is no wonder John wrote what he did in (1John 4:10).
Lees
So Peter boasted in himself and walked on water as a consequence?
-
Ah, so a little bit of that Thomistic dialectic slips in after all.
I understand what you're saying. As I said, no one responsibly defines or predicates the 'free' in 'free will' on freedom from outside influence, one's appetites, context, circumstance, and so forth. The reason 'will' does not always suffice is that there is the question of what we mean by 'will', and its nature, and character. Is the will free, or is it constrained? If either, to what degree? What do we mean by 'will'? These are all reasonable questions in our quest for good will... hunting. (A bit rough that one.)
...anyway. They're reasonable questions, and asserting that "man doesn't have 'free will'" and also that the term "'will' would suffice in every place [the term 'free will' is used]" begs the question. You've yet to offer a positive, only negative, and while negative theology is fine for those people - like me - who can't be bothered to pronounce 'apophatic', it does leave us wanting. We're curious for more. What is the 'will' if it is not 'free'?
But what do you mean? It is at this point where I'm asking you to define your terms, for we have hit a wall. A proper discussion isn't possible without mutual understanding, and 'the will isn't free because it's under threat/duress/whatever' are the first few words in the beginning of the argument. What's the rest of the argument?
Oh don't be silly, I was following your use of the word, right here:
Of course, you have no problem with it, you said it first.
But what about Acts 9:1-16? My reply was written in reference to the idea of 'believe or burn' being a divine imposition, and I argued that it was not for this was a caricature of the reality of the situation (that being my view that hell is a consequence and the 'threat' isn't a threat at all). This was not a broader comment about God never 'imposing His will upon man'.
Context, and all that.
What a curious direction; why have you immediately jumped to a notion of 'blame'? I wasn't commenting on blameworthiness or responsibility, only that if people had accepted Christ instead of crucifying him, then who is to say a bloody brutal sacrifice would have been necessary?
Climbing a mountain wouldn't have been fair to the disabled and infirm, obviously. Or those afraid of heights. Or the unfit. Would society have to be organised around a particular mountain, or would any mountain do? Would people in the UK be damned for their lack of mountains, or can a hill be used in a squeeze?
Can you expand on this?
Dictionaries are wonderful things, aren't they? Where's the demand?
I'll have to check my notes where I said that everything Aquinas wrote was correct. The death comment was a bit of cheek, as he died before finishing the Summa, which I previously linked to.
So Peter boasted in himself and walked on water as a consequence?
If the will is influenced, or 'constrained', from any outside source it is not free. That could be through people, through Spirit/spirits, through situations one is in. That you deem that irresponsible is immaterial to me. There is no place where the term 'will' cannot be used in place of 'free will'. Why? Because there is no place where man exercises 'free will'. The will of man is his will. His ability to decide.
I have told you what I mean. I am not aware of any wall. I have defined my terms. I have given you Scripture that supports what I am saying. Is that the wall you speak of? Interesting. You asked a question and I answered. Man has never had 'free will'. That includes Adam and Eve.
Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was following your use of it in post #(32).
Why a curious direction? You now focus on the peoples fault for not accepting Christ. Yet we are told that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation thirteen:eight) Which means what? It means it was always the plan of God, even before He created man.
Concerning (John 1:12-13) it is pretty self-explanatory. "...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The will plays no role in being saved. It is faith, belief. Concerning (Matt. 16:16-17) it too is very plain. Jesus had just asked his disciples who do you say that I am. (16:15) Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God". (16:16) Jesus then said "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hat not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (16:17) Peter could only have come to this belief because God revealed it to him. And this will be true of all believers in Christ.
Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love. It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy). For example, (Deut. 6:5) says "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
I never said Peter's walking on water was a consequence of his boasting. Perhaps his sinking would have been.
Lees
-
You robots feel free to continue the discussion that is preprogrammed and predetermined by a puppetmaster.
Since the script is written, you can but play your part as dictated.
I, on the other hand, will exercise both discretion and wisdom and leave you to it.
There is a passage in Proverbs that instructs as to certain answers, and I'll take Proverbs instruction here.
Enjoy.
-
The will of man is never free.
This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.
He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.
-
If the will is influenced, or 'constrained', from any outside source it is not free. That could be through people, through Spirit/spirits, through situations one is in.
You're assuming that the will is necessarily influenced, not that it can be influenced, and in this latter case, there's certainly no argument against the word 'free' if that influence is known and considered by the person in question. This isn't the case either, even if the will is unknowingly influenced -- necessarily.
That you deem that irresponsible is immaterial to me.
Curious. Are you someone who thinks 'free will' means that the will is free from everything? Then yes, that's an irresponsible conception of free will. If not, then what I wrote was not a statement that applies to you.
There is no place where the term 'will' cannot be used in place of 'free will'. Why? Because there is no place where man exercises 'free will'. The will of man is his will. His ability to decide.
This is a meaningless language game, Lyotard.
I have told you what I mean. I am not aware of any wall. I have defined my terms. I have given you Scripture that supports what I am saying. Is that the wall you speak of? Interesting. You asked a question and I answered. Man has never had 'free will'. That includes Adam and Eve.
I understand what you've written. I'm asking you to go beyond the assertion "the will is constrained therefore it isn't free". Is that really all there is, an attempt to assert an axiom?
Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was following your use of it in post #(32).
That was a tangential point relating to how a typical someone might argue against the genuine expression of the will insofar as they'd construe 'believe or burn'. Anyway, this is neither here nor there.
Why a curious direction? You now focus on the peoples fault for not accepting Christ. Yet we are told that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation thirteen:eight) Which means what? It means it was always the plan of God, even before He created man.
Curious, because you could have asked anything, but went straight to blame.
Yes, Christ was slain and foreknowledge is a neat little trick indeed. Had the people of the first century accepted Christ, would Revelation 13 read differently? Was Christ's sacrifice on a cross necessary, vs. any other sacrifice? That's the Molinist in me coming out. She's irritating at the best of times.
Concerning (John 1:12-13) it is pretty self-explanatory. "...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The will plays no role in being saved. It is faith, belief. Concerning (Matt. 16:16-17) it too is very plain. Jesus had just asked his disciples who do you say that I am. (16:15) Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God". (16:16) Jesus then said "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hat not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (16:17) Peter could only have come to this belief because God revealed it to him. And this will be true of all believers in Christ.
Sigh, the gravity of the existential reality of belief and faith seem lost to you. Believe as you will.
Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love. It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy). For example, (Deut. 6:5) says "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
Oh, so a broader context.
I never said Peter's walking on water was a consequence of his boasting. Perhaps his sinking would have been.
Lees
I know you didn't. You may have the final word, as I will... not have anything further to say.
-
Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental! ;)
Or it's just the wonderful world of human (emotional) experience, as viewed by Christians who insert the mysteries of God into every little thing. This is the cynicism of having grown up Pentecostal.
I turned from Lutheranism to Pentecostalism just after turning 17 years old. The Lutheran experience was completely dead to me, although I have a good friend from that time who became a Lutheran pastor, and is, I think, a very good one.
I don't think I've ever completely drunk the Kool-Aid from Pentecostalism, although I have to say there was obvious power there, along with signs and wonders. But the theology was often very flawed--apparently God was less concerned with the theology than with the attention to the immediate spiritual need.
But over time, the theological deficiencies became glaring and serious. I can't stand the Faith Movement, although I will still call those who are in it brothers and sisters. I could go on, but I agree with you--I remain skeptical of all good works, including Christian good works, that are not truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. A lot of "religious talk" covers and hides a lot of abuse.
God created us with the capacity to love, as misguided as it may sometimes be (e.g. Matthew 5:46). Certainly, there is a love for others that is a reflection of God's love for us, but I wonder if that's a step beyond, and no such drawing from the wellspring of the love of God is required is otherwise required.
I think the same God presents the same love to all men, Christian or pagan. The difference between the two is that the Christian internalizes God's love by embracing it as the exclusive religious ethic, as opposed to choosing to disregard God when it is convenient to do so, confusing the conscience with various justifications.
Therefore, the pagan can do good, can genuinely love with the love of God. But it is being treated like a can of corn, here today and gone tomorrow--disposable like an old, abandoned wife. That kind of "love" is hard to compare with true Christian love. But I think we need to acknowledge the good that all people do, because God created them, impartially, to be able to do that.
-
The will of man is never free.
This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.
He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.
The political freedom to exercise ones will is not what is being addressed here.
Man's will given him by God is what is being addressed.
Lees
-
You're assuming that the will is necessarily influenced, not that it can be influenced, and in this latter case, there's certainly no argument against the word 'free' if that influence is known and considered by the person in question. This isn't the case either, even if the will is unknowingly influenced -- necessarily.
Curious. Are you someone who thinks 'free will' means that the will is free from everything? Then yes, that's an irresponsible conception of free will. If not, then what I wrote was not a statement that applies to you.
This is a meaningless language game, Lyotard.
I understand what you've written. I'm asking you to go beyond the assertion "the will is constrained therefore it isn't free". Is that really all there is, an attempt to assert an axiom?
That was a tangential point relating to how a typical someone might argue against the genuine expression of the will insofar as they'd construe 'believe or burn'. Anyway, this is neither here nor there.
Curious, because you could have asked anything, but went straight to blame.
Yes, Christ was slain and foreknowledge is a neat little trick indeed. Had the people of the first century accepted Christ, would Revelation 13 read differently? Was Christ's sacrifice on a cross necessary, vs. any other sacrifice? That's the Molinist in me coming out. She's irritating at the best of times.
Sigh, the gravity of the existential reality of belief and faith seem lost to you. Believe as you will.
Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love. It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy). For example, (Deut. 6:5) says "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
Oh, so a broader context.
I know you didn't. You may have the final word, as I will... not have anything further to say.
If man's will is influenced, whether by known or unknown source, it isn't free.
I have stated several times already that 'free will' means a 'will' that is not acted on or influenced from any outside source. And only God has 'free will'.
You ask for definition. I give you definition. You say it is a meaningless language game. You don't like the definition?
Yes, I know you understand what I have written. You ask questions and I answer and you act as if I didn't answer. Apparently you don't like the answer. I have not just given an axiom. I have answered your questions and have supported them through Scripture.
Of course it is neither here nor there...but as I said, I responded to your use of the word impose.
I went straight to blame as that is what you were suggesting. Which is proven by your focus on the people's fault for not accepting Christ. No trick. God knows all His works from the beginning of the world. (Acts 15:18) Jesus Christ would die and must die for the sin of the world. Nothing is an 'if' with God.
Well, concerning my explanation of (John 1:12-13) and (Matt. 16:16-17), you asked. Sorry you don't like the explanation. I guess it is one of those instances if you don't really want to know...don't ask.
Concerning (Deut. 10:12), you also asked. I simply answered.
Well, I don't ever try and get the last word. If you remember I tried to exit the discussion earlier yet you continued with it forcing me to answer. it's been a pleasure talking with you.
Lees
-
The will of man is never free.
This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.
He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.
The political freedom to exercise ones will is not what is being addressed here.
I don't understand where politics entered the discussion. Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.
-
Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.
His contention is that any constraint, imposition, influence, etc., on the will nullifies any notion of 'free', such that although it looks as if we make free choices, we don't, and that's true of everyone including Adam and Eve. Conveniently, experience is no counterargument because the requisite metaphysical exclusions are already in place. You think you're free to express your will, but it's your hunger that impressed upon you the need to eat Lucky Charms this morning. You are not free, silly Asgardian.
But this is absurd. It's a bad existential joke. It is to say nothing of the dieter who rejected the very same insatiable hunger and ate vegetables instead. But that one is merely hungry is definitive proof that one lacks free will, for if one was truly free one could stop eating! And so some people have, and we now refer to them as dead. Well, dead people don't eat so I guess they truly were free after all? For nothing now impresses upon them except the underside of dirt.
It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.
-
It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.
There seems to be a theme around here lately that some members feel that they are the private recipient of hidden knowledge (TM) and should be believed simply on the basis of that claim alone.
-
Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.
His contention is that any constraint, imposition, influence, etc., on the will nullifies any notion of 'free', such that although it looks as if we make free choices, we don't, and that's true of everyone including Adam and Eve. Conveniently, experience is no counterargument because the requisite metaphysical exclusions are already in place. You think you're free to express your will, but it's your hunger that impressed upon you the need to eat Lucky Charms this morning. You are not free, silly Asgardian.
But this is absurd. It's a bad existential joke. It is to say nothing of the dieter who rejected the very same insatiable hunger and ate vegetables instead. But that one is merely hungry is definitive proof that one lacks free will, for if one was truly free one could stop eating! And so some people have, and we now refer to them as dead. Well, dead people don't eat so I guess they truly were free after all? For nothing now impresses upon them except the underside of dirt.
It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.
BF Skinner seemed to think we are all making decisions by the stimuli that conditions our predicted responses. I reject a world predetermined by things that make our free choices an illusion. "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" was an interesting read. But it is false.
-
I think Lees is concerned with the difference between a proposed idea and a manipulated idea? What is propaganda and what is a recommendation between two opposite choices?
Duress is a legal term and renders a "free choice" to be tainted by manipulation. How can acceptance of God be valid if the alternative is damnation?
I don't see it as an invalid question. Lees personally informed me that he wasn't denying free will--just the validity of free will informed by manipulation and threat. At least that's the way I understood him.
I suggested that he, from the start, should've clearly stated that he was not denying free will, and just state his concern that Christianity was a proposition possibly tainted by duress. I think that's what he meant.
I think that the idea of duress in religious proposals can be dealt with in the same way duress is dealt with legally. We can simply deny when a person is being threatened physically, as opposed to a hypothetical threat from the afterlife.
After all, a person is being proposed something. If that proposal is rejected as an inconsistency, then Hell was never a threat to start with--just a possibility. But if the religion is accepted, along with the threat of Hell, then the person never was manipulated by the idea. He is accepting the conditions of the proposal.
When some Christians try to frighten people into accepting Christianity, by the threat of Hell, I think most people recognize the inconsistency, and reject it. Or, they accept the proposition despite the poor delivery of the proposal.
-
It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.
There seems to be a theme around here lately that some members feel that they are the private recipient of hidden knowledge (TM) and should be believed simply on the basis of that claim alone.
Gnosticism never really goes away.
-
Duress is a legal term and renders a "free choice" to be tainted by manipulation. How can acceptance of God be valid if the alternative is damnation?
Sure, but that's choice and not will, and freedom of the will and the freedom to choose isn't quite the same thing. True storytime.
I recently - I suppose it's been 7 months now - made a 'choice', and I put that word in scare quotes because it wasn't the freest of choices I've made. The circumstances of my life dictated the choices that I had, but on this point, it's important to keep in mind that the circumstances of life frame the context of all of the choices we make.
- I could accept ongoing and worsening, already severe depression, and physical ailments. In other words, do nothing.
- I could mitigate the physical ailments, but accept ongoing and worsening, and already severe depression. I could fix the physical, but not the psychological.
- I could mitigate some of the physical ailments, and potentially all of the depression, but would need to act contrary to my beliefs, concerns, and enter into a state of cognitive dissonance. I'd heard rumours that I could fix both.
Now, imagine you're in your late 20s or early 30s and you're expected to live for another 30+ years (God willing). You're already severely depressed, you know what it means to be chronically physically ailing, and you used to work in retirement homes so you know how life ends for many people -- not nicely. Not nicely. What do you pick? There's no fourth option, you have to pick one of the three.
Here's how it went:
I'm not strong enough to choose the first option.
I tried the second option for two and a half years and started becoming suicidal.
I didn't want to risk the second option so I tried the first one after all for a year and a half. I was pretty darn close to planning.
I then gave up, gave in, and went with the third option.
I think it's the worst personal failing I'll ever experience. At least, I hope. I consider myself an abject failure because of it. I'm waiting for the hammer to fall. It's quite unfortunate because I'm no longer depressed. My dysphoria is little more than a gentle reminder most of the time. I'm not thinking about how many pills, or if the railing will hold me, or what the train timetable is, or if I could put the driver of a transport through the trauma (but those last two are too aesthetically displeasing).
There's a song from Marina called 'Teen idol' that contains the refrains:
Yeah, I wish I'd been, I wish I'd been, a teen, teen idle
Wish I'd been a prom queen, fighting for the title
Instead of being sixteen and burning up a bible
Feeling super, super, super suicidal
The wasted years, the wasted youth
The pretty lies, the ugly truth
And the day has come where I have died
Only to find, I've come alive
In some twisted way, that's me. I feel more alive than I remember ever feeling, but at what cost?
Throughout these last few years has my will been anything but free because of the influence of this or that? Not at all. Have I been any less free to choose because the choice has been coerced? Not at all. Life is not a courtroom. We all have choices and we all have the will to instantiate the person who chooses. It's not easy, it's difficult, we're weak, we mess up, but the mere presence of influence doesn't suddenly negate the freedom of the will. No matter what those old reformers thought.
The choice to believe in God or burn, or love God or be destroyed, or whatever, isn't an artificial construction. It's also a caricature. God isn't making an arbitrary threat, as if He's so petty He'll accept unwavering devotion or else. What we're given is the consequence: relationship with God is life, rejection of God is death. It's a brute fact, a description of reality. It's the difference between "you'll burn if you reject me" and "I'll burn you if you reject me". The call to believe, to love, to enter into a relationship with God isn't what we often make it out to be, as if everyone starts off certain, or especially regenerated, or whatever. Faith is possible, and the will to believe.
Or like, existence is duress because we have to live without our circumstances.
Anyway, I have a song to listen to.
-
Gnosticism never really goes away.
It makes for a few good Sunday morning favourites too.
-
Thanks for that. I can identify, but don't have time to answer right now. I truly sympathize and empathize. When you suffer, those who try to console you seem like cheap imposters, pretending to have all the answers. I know that for real.
It's maddening when you absolutely *know* God could fix things with the snap of His fingers. But He doesn't...at least most often He doesn't. Suffering is our lot in life. But there are smaller miracles wrapped up in the experiences of those who plod on ahead in hope. Keep hoping. I can tell you this *for real.*
I'm not sure about the difference between freedom of the will and freedom to choose. Clearly, we can't choose what we have no power to do. I agree with your description of choice given as a list of cause and effects, behavior and consequences--not necessarily the threat of judgment. But I do think the threat of judgment is a failure of Christian evangelists who wish to literally "scare the Hell out of people." ;)
-
It's maddening when you absolutely *know* God could fix things with the snap of His fingers. But He doesn't...
The book of Job comes to mind. Why does God allow the righteous sometimes suffer? Because He is God and has His reasons that we wouldn't necessarily understand, we being frail mortals with limited understanding.
-
It's maddening when you absolutely *know* God could fix things with the snap of His fingers. But He doesn't...
The book of Job comes to mind. Why does God allow the righteous sometimes suffer? Because He is God and has His reasons that we wouldn't necessarily understand, we being frail mortals with limited understanding.
That's pure wisdom, Fenris.
-
Thanks for that. I can identify, but don't have time to answer right now. I truly sympathize and empathize. When you suffer, those who try to console you seem like cheap imposters, pretending to have all the answers. I know that for real.
For sure, and I appreciate that. :)
It's maddening when you absolutely *know* God could fix things with the snap of His fingers. But He doesn't...at least most often He doesn't. Suffering is our lot in life. But there are smaller miracles wrapped up in the experiences of those who plod on ahead in hope. Keep hoping. I can tell you this *for real.*
Yeah, I think for me it's less an impulse towards anger and more the temptation towards acedia. That sort of, oh whatever, He can, but He doesn't, who cares, what does it matter, etc. etc. A great deal of apathy, too. But God has His purposes and honestly, and I'm not personally bothered by my own theodicy, or 'why doesn't God act?' and all the rest. God has acted, and in that vein of Kierkegaardian anxiety it's up to me, with Him, to live a proper life and to conduct myself in such a way that a Kierkegaard or a Peterson can't walk up and say, "So, you say you believe in God but then why do you live like you don't? Eh, belief's a difficult thing, let me tell you, I've thought about it a lot". I've had one or two people ask me why I'm not angrier at God than I am, and I don't know, what would be the point in that? What matters is me before God. If I'm going to get angry at someone it will be other Christians who judge and tsk and gossip and look down on me and pity me and all the rest.
Jacob wrestled with God, what a neat story. But please don't wrestle with life.
I'm not sure about the difference between freedom of the will and freedom to choose. Clearly, we can't choose what we have no power to do. I agree with your description of choice given as a list of cause and effects, behavior and consequences--not necessarily the threat of judgment. But I do think the threat of judgment is a failure of Christian evangelists who wish to literally "scare the Hell out of people." ;)
One of the points of my true life story was that these questions of will and choice, freedom, constraint, determination, etc., aren't ivory tower questions with the luxury of purely academic theological reflection. We all have our appetites, desires, inclinations and dispositions. One of the other points is that I contend with a mental state that I don't have the luxury of trusting. Do you know what it feels like to be convinced that you're not the person you present to the world? That you know better about yourself, and that something isn't right? That you engage in pretension; that you pretend to be the person other people perceive you to be? It's unsettling, obviously. It's disorienting. It's anxiety and discomfort, and lots of other things.
If we're going to talk about influence, then I know that well. I'm friends with duress. I have a good understanding of what it feels like to be compelled in a certain direction. It means that theology and philosophy and all the rest aren't exercises. They're deeply existential. They're an interest but they're also pursued as a means to survive. Holding to unfalsifiable ideas about human existence because some syllogism suggests a particular conclusion is fine I guess for some people, but it's not going to convince me. People appear to possess free will but actually don't? I'm such a person, explain to me why I think I'm free if I'm not? Good luck.
So, in light of all of the above, I persist in maintaining that my will is free and that I'm able to make free choices. "Your will isn't free because of influence!" collides with, "Yeah I'm under the influence occifer but clearly I still contend that my will is free". The academic position is unmoving in light of my experience and doesn't make sense of my experience, so neither is it compelling.
-
Yeah, I think for me it's less an impulse towards anger and more the temptation towards acedia. That sort of, oh whatever, He can, but He doesn't, who cares, what does it matter, etc. etc. A great deal of apathy, too. But God has His purposes and honestly, and I'm not personally bothered by my own theodicy, or 'why doesn't God act?' and all the rest.
I would apply to myself what you say below, that I'm less affected by theological speculations than by drawing conclusions from personal experience. If I cannot affect a positive change, fixing my situation, then I have the choice either to accept my fate and continue believing in God's love, or resort to a lifestyle more comforting and yet less of a Christian witness.
I grew weary of improving my lot after some years, and resorted to visiting bars, even though I was never a bar person. Everybody treated me like I didn't belong there--they seemed to know I was a Christian.
One day I went into a bar with my alcoholic, formerly Christian friend. I was selling my motorcycle to him, and he said he would pay me in installments.
As I walked into the bar, I noted a pretty woman who I felt strangely didn't belong in a bar either. I immediately wished I could meet her, and sat down at the bar with my friend.
Immediately my friend said, "I have someone here I'd like you to meet." And he brought over the woman I had seen!
It turns out they were just "temporary friends." A few years later I married the woman. So I guess God meets you where you're at, at your worst moments?
The woman I met was not a Christian at the time, but was later converted due to the evangelism of someone else she met at a bar--a backslidden Pentecostal! It was only after that that we were reacquainted, and we got married.
We both had cleaned up our lives and decided a Christian witness is more important than feeling sorry for ourselves. When I first met her at that bar, she had just been going through her 2nd divorce! She was brought over to the US by an American serviceman from England, and now was desolate and alone in a foreign country.
God has acted, and in that vein of Kierkegaardian anxiety it's up to me, with Him, to live a proper life and to conduct myself in such a way that a Kierkegaard or a Peterson can't walk up and say, "So, you say you believe in God but then why do you live like you don't? Eh, belief's a difficult thing, let me tell you, I've thought about it a lot". I've had one or two people ask me why I'm not angrier at God than I am, and I don't know, what would be the point in that? What matters is me before God. If I'm going to get angry at someone it will be other Christians who judge and tsk and gossip and look down on me and pity me and all the rest.
One of my best friends, who was only vaguely a Christian said, humorously, "If I were you, I'd cut my throat!" I appreciated his honesty! ;) Much better than the phony advice I've gotten through the years from Christian friends who always wanted to think they had all the answers.
One of the points of my true life story was that these questions of will and choice, freedom, constraint, determination, etc., aren't ivory tower questions with the luxury of purely academic theological reflection. We all have our appetites, desires, inclinations and dispositions. One of the other points is that I contend with a mental state that I don't have the luxury of trusting. Do you know what it feels like to be convinced that you're not the person you present to the world? That you know better about yourself, and that something isn't right? That you engage in pretension; that you pretend to be the person other people perceive you to be? It's unsettling, obviously. It's disorienting. It's anxiety and discomfort, and lots of other things.
Sounds almost like an out of body experience? But yes, I really do relate. Maybe we have relatable conditions? I was actually trained in the military to evaluate psychological conditions and treat addictions.
I try to not bog people down too much with my own negativities. But I actually have a cathartic appreciation for hearing about the sufferings of others, largely in movies. I don't actually wish suffering upon any real person at all, except that hearing their accounts does make me feel less alone in my own private suffering.
I used to hate to hear anything about people with disabilities, missing limbs, etc. But now, after decades of living, and having had friends with many different conditions, I'm much more comfortable with seeing suffering in the world.
If we're going to talk about influence, then I know that well. I'm friends with duress. I have a good understanding of what it feels like to be compelled in a certain direction. It means that theology and philosophy and all the rest aren't exercises. They're deeply existential. They're an interest but they're also pursued as a means to survive. Holding to unfalsifiable ideas about human existence because some syllogism suggests a particular conclusion is fine I guess for some people, but it's not going to convince me. People appear to possess free will but actually don't? I'm such a person, explain to me why I think I'm free if I'm not? Good luck.
So, in light of all of the above, I persist in maintaining that my will is free and that I'm able to make free choices. "Your will isn't free because of influence!" collides with, "Yeah I'm under the influence occifer but clearly I still contend that my will is free". The academic position is unmoving in light of my experience and doesn't make sense of my experience, so neither is it compelling.
Yea, we're free, no matter what influences us. I don't think we can always immediately avail ourselves of a magic pill, or a Bible promise. But if we persist, over time, in faith that it will end good if we continue to do good, then things do change for the better over time, and more understanding comes. Take care...
-
I would apply to myself what you say below, that I'm less affected by theological speculations than by drawing conclusions from personal experience. If I cannot affect a positive change, fixing my situation, then I have the choice either to accept my fate and continue believing in God's love, or resort to a lifestyle more comforting and yet less of a Christian witness.
I grew weary of improving my lot after some years, and resorted to visiting bars, even though I was never a bar person. Everybody treated me like I didn't belong there--they seemed to know I was a Christian.
One day I went into a bar with my alcoholic, formerly Christian friend. I was selling my motorcycle to him, and he said he would pay me in installments.
As I walked into the bar, I noted a pretty woman who I felt strangely didn't belong in a bar either. I immediately wished I could meet her, and sat down at the bar with my friend.
Immediately my friend said, "I have someone here I'd like you to meet." And he brought over the woman I had seen!
It turns out they were just "temporary friends." A few years later I married the woman. So I guess God meets you where you're at, at your worst moments?
The woman I met was not a Christian at the time, but was later converted due to the evangelism of someone else she met at a bar--a backslidden Pentecostal! It was only after that that we were reacquainted, and we got married.
We both had cleaned up our lives and decided a Christian witness is more important than feeling sorry for ourselves. When I first met her at that bar, she had just been going through her 2nd divorce! She was brought over to the US by an American serviceman from England, and now was desolate and alone in a foreign country.
Quite interesting how God works.
One of my best friends, who was only vaguely a Christian said, humorously, "If I were you, I'd cut my throat!" I appreciated his honesty! ;) Much better than the phony advice I've gotten through the years from Christian friends who always wanted to think they had all the answers.
I get that sentiment semi-regularly or used to. That, and worse. A lot of, 'how are you able to live with yourself?'.
Sounds almost like an out of body experience?
No, very much 'in body', and almost a hyperawareness of that body. Although, how I have developed an unhealthy habit of relating to myself as if I were abstracted from myself. Maybe that speaks to the uncertainty.
-
...anyway. They're reasonable questions, and asserting that "man doesn't have 'free will'" and also that the term "'will' would suffice in every place [the term 'free will' is used]" begs the question. You've yet to offer a positive, only negative, and while negative theology is fine for those people - like me - who can't be bothered to pronounce 'apophatic', it does leave us wanting. We're curious for more. What is the 'will' if it is not 'free'?
Yes, if something as a will exists it's (basically) free, else the word would make no sense. So free will is a choice. Ha, I love paradoxes. BTW, your extended signature is a nice overall improvement ;)
-
Man has never had 'free will'. That includes Adam and Eve.
The implication of your statement is that God on multiple occasions in Scripture asked the impossible of people and punished them for their impossibility afterwards.
That's odd, right?
-
BTW, your extended signature is a nice overall improvement ;)
And yet, I keep trying to solve my life! I should just enjoy the uh, benefits (no that doesn't mean what everyone just thought).
-
It's maddening when you absolutely *know* God could fix things with the snap of His fingers. But He doesn't...
The book of Job comes to mind. Why does God allow the righteous sometimes suffer? Because He is God and has His reasons that we wouldn't necessarily understand, we being frail mortals with limited understanding.
In the matter of Job, my question has been, why would Omniscient God the Father wager with Satan? As pertains to Job's commitment to faith in God.
God allowed Satan to take everything including Job's family in order to test Job. Why would Job's faith matter in particular to Satan?
Satan is opposed to everyone who has faith in the Father. While God knows all things from beginning to end. It stands then that God would know Job would persevere and hold to his faith and trust in God. Job suffered horribly so that God could win his wager with Satan.
And why does God confer with a fallen angel at all? Satan wanted God's job. He was the first sinner when he led a war against God in the hopes of gaining victory and taking God's place.
Of course he lost that war. Then his punishment entailed being cast out of Heaven but to the earth where God let him be lord and be an enemy of God, an opposer, while exploiting our sinful nature through temptation.
-
I wanted to put this as a reply in another thread in Controversial issues but that thread is locked. To me this isn't really a controversial issue.
I saw that comment under someone's YouTube video a few weeks ago and decided I would give the person a reply. This is what I said:
"If you understand what "you shall surely (most definitely) die" in Genesis 2:17 means you will understand what "God is not willing that any of us should perish" in 2 Peter 3:9 means; and if you understand what "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 and "Christ died for our sins" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 means, then finally you will understand what "did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" and "He who believes on Him is not condemned" in John 3:17-18 means.
Then you will understand that the burning thing is a personal choice people make for themselves because we are not robots forced to receive rescue from everlasting death EVEN when it's freely given."
The everlasting death is both spiritual (separation from the Spirit of God, who is Life, John 6:63; John 3:6-8) and physical. Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of this state every time He spoke of it (example Matt 5:29; Matt 10:28). If Jesus spoke of this state implying that it is a real state, then it's a real state. John saw death and hades delivering all the souls in them in Rev 20:13-15. Anyone who was not found in the Lamb's book of Life (John 6:63; John 3:6-8) was cast into the Lake of Fire.
There's just one real big problem with this OP that was posted long ago.
Faith is not a part of Free Will.
It is a gift from God given to whom He chooses.
Nobody just wakes up one day and decides, of their own Free Will, to believe in, love and worship God.
The Bible proves that with many verses including: John 6:44; 14:26; Eph. 2:8; 1 Peter 1:21; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 12:9; Jude 3
Once someone IS given Faith, though, they do have Free Will at that point, to some degree, because we see examples of people going astray from the Faith, and many warnings against falling away and encouraging enduring to the very end; as well as passages that relate the relentless attempts by the devil to lead us astray. Clearly, he is not working overtime to attack those who do not even have faith to begin with; those he already has in the bag.
These facts from Scripture change the entire landscape of the Christian paradigm for the modern mainstream Christian. Devouring the Bible daily is paramount in order to avoid Hosea 4:6,14; Jer. 9:6; Prov. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:15
-
So, your response to Revelation 22:17, John 3:16, etc is?
And beyond that, the text itself (in the original) doesn't permit the idea that "faith" is the antecedent of "this" -- wrong gender.
Faith is not the free gift being discussed in Ephesians 2. Salvation is.
-
Faith is not a part of Free Will.
It is a gift from God given to whom He chooses.
Are you a Calvinist now?
-
So, your response to Revelation 22:17, John 3:16, etc is?
And beyond that, the text itself (in the original) doesn't permit the idea that "faith" is the antecedent of "this" -- wrong gender.
Faith is not the free gift being discussed in Ephesians 2. Salvation is.
Rev. 22:17 "... whosoever will ..." are only those who have been called and given faith.
Nobody can come to Jesus until/unless they are called/drawn by God to Him. John 6:44 Nobody can get to God the Father unless they go through Christ. John 14:6b
Contrary to what modern mainstream churchianity would have you believe, John 3:16 is not all that is stated upon the subject within the Scriptures. The Bible must be taken as a whole, not cherry-picked apart to support favorite doctrines by anybody. Layman or well-respected Professors, Pastors or church leaders, etc.
Eph. 2:8 cannot be stating what you claim as long as all the other verses support my stated claim. It is speaking of Faith being a gift because the weight of the Scriptures support that concept. Look again at the supporting verses that I posted.
-
Titus, I didn't know "churchianity" was a word.
-
Titus, I didn't know "churchianity" was a word.
It even has a Webster's Dictionary definition, first coined in 1837.
The official definition is more what a specific church teaches, but the common, modern, understanding is what the modern mainstream churches of today teach. It is the common, most trendy and popular, understanding of christianity, but it is not sound Biblical doctrine.
It is more along the lines of cherry-picked verses, to create the impression of a religious foundation based on the Bible, mixed with New Age, self-help and pop-psychology, philosophies.
It veers widely from what the Bible actually teaches and it is a thorn in the side of every True Bible-believing Christian that strives to speak Truth to the professed Christians they know and care about.
Unfortunately, 99.9% of which will never believe, or even hear, the Truth because they are so mesmerized by what is taught from the exalted pulpit and what is made popular on television and corrupt so-called christian radio.
-
So if I took a verse, say; "choose you this day who you will serve", what does that mean and am I cherry picking?
-
Contrary to what modern mainstream churchianity would have you believe, John 3:16 is not all that is stated upon the subject within the Scriptures.
The is purely imagined. No church teaches that John 3:16 is "all that is stated upon the subject within the Scriptures". You do yourself no favours by predicating your argument - even portions of - on a strawman.
The Bible must be taken as a whole, not cherry-picked apart to support favorite doctrines by anybody. Layman or well-respected Professors, Pastors or church leaders, etc.
You also suggested we ignore words in Proverbs 18:1 so that the verse fits your eisegetical conclusion. You're making demands on others that you yourself do not keep to.
Eph. 2:8 cannot be stating what you claim as long as all the other verses support my stated claim. It is speaking of Faith being a gift because the weight of the Scriptures support that concept. Look again at the supporting verses that I posted.
Allow Bill Mounce to help you https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/antecedents-and-faith-eph-2-8-9.
-
So if I took a verse, say; "choose you this day who you will serve", what does that mean and am I cherry picking?
Cherry-picking is simply using a verse that is vague, or that is refuted by many other verses/passages, to support a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible.
Like basing the whole trinitarian doctrine on Matt. 28:19 when the premise of that verse, according to trinitarians, is contradicted not only by the Bible it its entirety, but by the subsequent actions of the very disciples Christ happened to be speaking to in that verse.
They all baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ after the Great Commission. Every example of baptism in the Bible is done in that manner. Not a single example of baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
-
You don't believe in the Godhead Titus?
-
You don't believe in the Godhead Titus?
I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.
The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3
The only true usage of the term is in Colossians 2:9. The other two usages are defined as divine nature.
Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that it means a trinity concept, that God is three people.
-
I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.
The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3
You're referring to the phrase, κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός but this is "head (of) Christ)", not "Godhead" (as in the essential nature of God; "divine nature" is relevant), so the term isn't used in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
As you note, we could instead look at Colossians 2:9, which the KJV renders "fullness of the Godhead bodily". Though again, that's πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς (fullness of the Deity bodily). Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication", but as you're using people instead of persons, it's questionable what understanding of the doctrine you actually hold.
For some light reading, here is Gregory of Nazianzus against Eusonius https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm.
-
I believe in the Bible's definition of the Godhead. Absolutely.
The term is used only once in Scripture and it is referring to Jesus' Father being the head of Jesus. Just as the man is head of the woman and Christ is the head of man.
1 Cor. 11:3
You're referring to the phrase, κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός but this is "head (of) Christ)", not "Godhead" (as in the essential nature of God; "divine nature" is relevant), so the term isn't used in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
As you note, we could instead look at Colossians 2:9, which the KJV renders "fullness of the Godhead bodily". Though again, that's πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς (fullness of the Deity bodily). Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication", but as you're using people instead of persons, it's questionable what understanding of the doctrine you actually hold.
For some light reading, here is Gregory of Nazianzus against Eusonius https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm.
As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.
I do not.
For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.
We differ.
I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.
-
As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.
I do not.
I like the name Athanasius because it starts with an 'A', and he was known as Athanasius contra mundum (Athanasius against the world). You like to think of yourself as contra ecclesiae, but I don't think the historical Titus would approve. Perhaps you're reading too deeply into names, hmm? It would be a shame for such a thing to be an ad hominem in place of a proper argument.
As it is, no, I don't hold Athanasius or any other ECF in especially high regard, or as determiners of what is legitimately biblical doctrine and what isn't. What you see as an 'indication' is little more than a mechanism for selecting usernames online.
And so, this is not second grade where we play 'greater than thou' on dubious grounds -- my dad can beat up your dad. You construct for yourself antagonistic contexts which is rather telling, disappointing, and insulating. But why take my word for it? I'm sure anyone else here could show you just how good a Catholic believer I am.
For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.
And yet you reply with an ad hominem. Tsk tsk.
I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.
It's right here:
"Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication"..."
The verse is just one consideration out of many verses.
-
As your User Name is also an indication, you hold extra-biblical church fathers, authors and writings in high regard in your estimations of what is legitimate Biblical doctrine, and what is not.
I do not.
I like the name Athanasius because it starts with an 'A', and he was known as Athanasius contra mundum (Athanasius against the world). You like to think of yourself as contra ecclesiae, but I don't think the historical Titus would approve. Perhaps you're reading too deeply into names, hmm? It would be a shame for such a thing to be an ad hominem in place of a proper argument.
As it is, no, I don't hold Athanasius or any other ECF in especially high regard, or as determiners of what is legitimately biblical doctrine and what isn't. What you see as an 'indication' is little more than a mechanism for selecting usernames online.
And so, this is not second grade where we play 'greater than thou' on dubious grounds -- my dad can beat up your dad. You construct for yourself antagonistic contexts which is rather telling, disappointing, and insulating. But why take my word for it? I'm sure anyone else here could show you just how good a Catholic believer I am.
For me, the Bible is a self-contained work of God Almighty that adequately defines itself; and language research therein is also (usually) legitimate.
And yet you reply with an ad hominem. Tsk tsk.
I would also point out that your explanation did not uncover any signs of defining Godhead as a three-person god.
It's right here:
"Of course, we'll need to ask what "fullness of the Deity bodily" means. Clearly, this is an "indication"..."
The verse is just one consideration out of many verses.
I could've written that entire post minus the comment about your name and it had the exact same purpose and effect. You just latched onto a very small part of the post and ran with it.
You have mentioned extra-biblical sources of varying kinds multiple times in the short time I've been here. That is where the sentiment came from. Your name is a non-issue.
And no, you didn't address God being 3 people in that post at all.
Deity means God. That's all it means.
'Fulness of the Deity bodily' means Jesus is fully God Almighty.
And there is mounds of evidence within Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, to support that.
-
I could've written that entire post minus the comment about your name and it had the exact same purpose and effect. You just latched onto a very small part of the post and ran with it.
You could have, but you didn't. The intent was to create a position of moral and theological superiority while casting doubt: look at Athanasius, named after an extra-biblical figure! But I, I'm Titus, of the Pauline epistle -- see how much I respect the Bible?
And no I didn't run with anything or ignore the rest of your post by latching onto 'a very small part'. Listen gaslighting is boring, and at some point, it becomes intolerable when it's done repeatedly.
You have mentioned extra-biblical sources of varying kinds multiple times in the short time I've been here. That is where the sentiment came from. Your name is a non-issue.
I accept your apology. It takes a grown woman to know when she's wrong, so thank you.
And no, you didn't address God being 3 people in that post at all.
Deity means God. That's all it means.
'Fulness of the Deity bodily' means Jesus is fully God Almighty.
And there is mounds of evidence within Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, to support that.
Right, so now we have a notion of (1) God and (2) Jesus, who is also God. But then that raises the questions those early Christological controversies were famous for. So do you include the 'i' or exclude it, are you advocating for Binitarianism, or something else?
-
... Jesus, who is also God.
Jesus is the ONLY God. No also.
Exod. 3:14
John 8:24
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:3, 10, 11, 14-15
Isaiah 44:7, 11-12, 15, 18, 21
-
... Jesus, who is also God.
Jesus is the ONLY God. No also.
Exod. 3:14
John 8:24
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:3, 10, 11, 14-15
Isaiah 44:7, 11-12, 15, 18, 21
Passionate agreement is always great to see.
-
Passionate agreement is always great to see.
Perverting my comments is not.
God is one individual person. Not three.
Christ is that person.
No trinity.
No twinity.
-
Passionate agreement is always great to see.
Perverting my comments is not.
God is one individual person. Not three.
Christ is that person.
No trinity.
No twinity.
For a moment there I was worried you had latched onto one word and run with it. Your intellectually dishonest approach and exacerbatory strategies have overstayed their welcome.
It's binity, by the way.
-
For a moment there I was worried you had latched onto one word and run with it. Your intellectually dishonest approach and exacerbatory strategies have overstayed their welcome.
It's binity, by the way.
That's a shame.
I guess you'll have to go back to being here all by yourself and chatting with your other sock-puppet User Names, ay?
We could've had a lotta good conversations concerning Scripture.
If you keep kicking everybody outta your site here, you're never gonna get it going like it could be.
All this censorship nonsense really impedes the development of a lotta these sites.
Hope you come to understand the Truth of the Scriptures. They are undeniable upon diligent study and observation.
God bless.
Oh, and twinity is a new trending name for Father and Son-only doctrine. I prefer it to binity. Sounds better and rhymes with the other false doctrine. Not that it matters, it's entirely unbiblical. Call it what you like.
-
Take the red pill.
-
guess you'll have to go back to being here all by yourself and chatting with your other sock-puppet User Names, ay?
I've unbanned you, but if your immediate response is to return to your delusions of discernment I can make the ban permanent. I'm going to go read over your other posts now.
All this censorship nonsense really impedes the development of a lotta these sites.
You were banned because you're being an ass, not because of any position you've held.
-
You were banned because you're being an ass, not because of any position you've held.
YOUR definition of "being an ass" (which wording alone - by the way - would get YOU banned from many other sites) is simply ME calling you out on your dishonest handling of me and my posts.
If you treat me with respect, and don't throw around the weight of your imaginary authority here (this IS a virtual meeting place, mind you, it is NOT the REAL WORLD where you have NO power), you will have no problem with me at all.
I treat with full respect those who treat me the same. I have no reason to conduct myself otherwise.
You don't LIKE the Biblical information that I post so you in turn treat me dishonorably. If I post something, and you blatantly misrepresent what I've posted, I'm not gonna take that well. That is the equivalent of false accusations and LYING. And there's nothing I hate more than an outright LIAR.
Be cool with me, I'll be more than cool with you.
-
You were banned because you're being an ass, not because of any position you've held.
YOUR definition of "being an ass" (which wording alone - by the way - would get YOU banned from many other sites) is simply ME calling you out on your dishonest handling of me and my posts.
If you treat me with respect, and don't throw around the weight of your imaginary authority here (this IS a virtual meeting place, mind you, it is NOT the REAL WORLD where you have NO power), you will have no problem with me at all.
I treat with full respect those who treat me the same. I have no reason to conduct myself otherwise.
You don't LIKE the Biblical information that I post so you in turn treat me dishonorably. If I post something, and you blatantly misrepresent what I've posted, I'm not gonna take that well. That is the equivalent of false accusations and LYING. And there's nothing I hate more than an outright LIAR.
Be cool with me, I'll be more than cool with you.
Sorry, but you are just boring.
-
And now perma-banned.
-
To nudge the thread back toward the OP and initial replies, I think it's helpful to realize that God never intended for mankind to be sent to the lake of fire. Jesus reveals to us in in Mat 25:41 that the eternal fire was created for Satan and his angels. But, like the "goat" group, those who rebel against God by refusing to come to Him on His terms must share the same fate as the rebellious angels.
We will either spend eternity with the Lord in His kingdom, or be separated from Him. There is no third option. And if we end up in eternal punishment, it's because we either neglected salvation or did not, as Peter exhorted, strive to make our calling and election sure. We are saved by grace through faith. But repentance, obedience and holiness are also critical -- as the hapless "goats," hypocrites, and unjust stewards will learn when Jesus returns and separates them from among His sheep.