Tuese Ahkiong Ok, I think I have one of the main issues free-willers are having. Is it: If God sovereignly controls and ordains everything that is to happen in history even the choices of the creature, how is it that the creature can be held responsible for the commands God has place on him or her unless he or she had "free-will" b/c it is God who is predestining everything? Is this it? May 12 at 6:24pm · Comment · Like
Darren Ooyman This is good Tuese. Because without free will there is no explanation for the tendency to disobey. If there is no freewill, and we disobey, than logically, God is disobeying himself through us. This would mean that the Kingdom of God is divided and thus cannot stand. There is no explanation for why God gets angry. God's anger in the OT would be against himself if there was no freewill. Do you see this? It doesn't make any sense. May 12 at 10:44pm ·
Mike Boswell I ditto Darren. There would also be no real purpose for God to command anything if we had no choice in the matter in the first place. That would make God's commands and actions purposeless. Why command Mike Boswell to love others if God is going to just control my actions any way? Why make it appear as if we have choices (even whether or not to follow Christ) if we really don't? Either God is in some way dishonest and leading us to believe a lie or it just doesn't make sense. May 12 at 11:06pm ·
Bryan Maddox This is one of the core issues as Darren pointed out. May 12 at 11:31pm ·
Tuese Ahkiong What you talking about!!! I pointed it out. lol. Don't worry guys I got my Biblical answers for you. I'm just waiting for a little more people to comment and then I'll share. hehehe???? May 12 at 11:46pm ·
Mike Boswell Just baiting a hook, huh Tu? Thursday at 6:27am ·
David Fitzgerald Heya Tu: No comment, just here to see how this conversation plays out... -D Thursday at 8:30am ·
Galen Sterling-Smith God's sovereignty and man's choices aren't separate issues. Thursday at 9:19am ·
Angelo Aroche how can i get into your bible studies on thursday. Thursday at 11:37am ·
Jordan Grant One must presuppose that accountability necessitates moral "freedom". This isn't justified biblically when it comes to God and man. Pretty simple case to me :) Thursday at 11:44am ·
Tuese Ahkiong Angelo, I will send you my address. Thursday at 2:18pm ·
Chang Yuon God has the right to do to his creatures as He pleases. God can demand obedience without any assumption of ability on our part.
Romans 9 addresses God's prerogative as Creator:
7For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'
The issue is not whether we have a choice--the issue is why we make the choices that we make. Genuine heart-felt obedience to love others arise not from sheer human will or effort, but from God who work in us, "to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Phil. 2:13).
Question: Does God have the right to create sinners who cannot and will not obey him for the sole purpose of displaying His wrath (i.e Does God have the right to make objects of wrath?) I think Romans 9 clearly says that He does. And if so, this in no way, shape, or form suggest that God is "against Himself." He does all things for His Glory--that is, even His anger/wrath displays His Glory.
Finally scriptures teaches our inability to obey God (Rom. 8:6-8). Thursday at 4:18pm ·
Darren Ooyman "God has the right to do to his creatures as He pleases. God can demand obedience without any assumption of ability on our part."
So I could just blame God for my disobedience then? Or, for someone else's disobedience? Please clarify. Romans 9 can't be the whole story. Something is missing. If it was whole pie, than I could just blame God for everything. But if you are honest, you know you can't do that. Do you see the problem with the premise you are operating off of? This vague premise insinuates that God's purpose for us was to sin in order for him to get glory. Thursday at 5:24pm ·
Chang Yuon Darren, thanks for the question.
Actually, Romans 9 does address specifically the issue of blame. Hypothetical objector in 9:19 says, "Then why does God still blame us?" That is, if God has the right to do to his creatures as He pleases, how can God blame us, for wouldn't the blame be on Him? ("God, you made me this way!"). I think the important point here is that Paul say this objection is not valid. It may "make sense" to us, but Paul pushes us back to God's prerogative as Creator (9:20).
James 1 teaches us that culpability is rightly placed on us and our sinful nature, and not God.
You said, "God's purpose for us was to sin in order for him to get glory." I don't have a problem with this statement. But you see, the issue is blame. The assumption you seem to have is that if God controls all things, He is culpable for sin. However, I'm saying that scripture goes against this.
I hope this clarifies some. Thursday at 6:03pm ·
David Fitzgerald OK, I do have to weigh in here, because I'm not getting how Jordan & Chang can justify what they're asserting here. Assuming it's true that a god made our natures what they are, how is it NOT his fault? And more to the point, if the majority of people are going to hell because they are what he made them, how can he be considered a loving god at all? Yesterday at 3:38pm ·
Chang Yuon Dave, those are great questions.
First, the way I justify my previous assertions is by Scripture. Since the Bible bears the authority of God, it is the sole infallible standard by which Christians correct and challenge each other (2 Timothy 3:16). I know you don't believe this, so exactly how I'm justifying what i've said may be puzzling to you. However note the kind of argumentation I'm making. I'm appealing first and foremost to what the scriptures say, and not merely to what "seems right" or "makes sense" to us.
Second, "fault" or culpability assume a moral standard. This is Euthyphro's dilemma all over again, but God is not bound by any moral court outside Himself. In other words, the real dilemma is this: even if it is God's "fault", who is going to bring him to court? Paul says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4); "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this?" (Rom. 9:21).
This leads to your last point. When the Bible says, "God is Love" it doesn't mean love defined by humanists. Certainly God is loving to His people, and in the sense God is patient and merciful to the wicked by allowing them to live, move, and exist at this very moment, we can say that God is loving to all. But God is also the God of wrath. Paul says, "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath" (Rom. 2:5).
Romans 9 again speaks of God's sovereign choice in terms of both love and hatred. "Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What then shall we say? Is God unjust?" (9:13-14) You probably would say yes, but Paul says, "Not at all!" God's saving love is very particular. And so, God's love is "unfair" to sinners like us. Yesterday at 4:46pm ·
Jordan Grant #1) I don't deny God made us this way. This in no way makes him accountable for some sin, for he cannot sin by definition. So yes it's his "fault" that we're this way, in that He ordained it. It's not his "fault" in the sense of accountability for some "wrong" committed, for we are His creation.
#2) you have to presuppose things about "loving God" to make your assertion. God is holy X 3. he is wrathfal, vengeful, jealous, etc, as well.
He shows His love in many ways...justice in many ways, etc. Without men being depraved, the gospel has no meaning. Yesterday at 4:49pm ·