Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[Nang]

Man has a will, and that is one of the things that makes him (as Bob said) a person.

Does being willful make a dog a person?

Nang

 

[Clete]

Does being willful make a dog a person?

Nang

He said "one of the things" you blithering idiot!

Why are you even here?! How can this website be of any interest to people who cannot read?

 

[patman]

AMR...

I am curious what, if any, issues you have with Bob's definition of "will".

As an example, we both know that God made Eve from a rib of Adam's without consulting Adam in any way. Adam had nothing to do with the decision. Yet, in no way did God remove Adam's will. He simply was not involved in that decision. Even if Adam had been against losing a rib to gain a wife, it would not have removed his will to go against his will. Man has a will, and that is one of the things that makes him (as Bob said) a person.

I want to participate on this side discussion, because I think that there are things about the will that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are missing.

I think the "will" that God respects is the will of who to love. God never changes one's will, but he does go against it in some cases. Yet he will always allow one to choose who to love or hate.

That's as far as I take it in general.

 

[Nang]

He said "one of the things" you blithering idiot!

Why are you even here?! How can this website be of any interest to people who cannot read?

Bob says that having a will makes angels persons, and men persons, according to Triune example of willful Persons, so I ask according to that premise . . . if having a will makes my dogs persons?

For without a doubt, my dogs are all very willful.

As is our "alpha" range cow, with a calf on her side, whose will dare not be crossed!

Nang

 

[Mystery]

He said "one of the things" you blithering idiot!

Why are you even here?! How can this website be of any interest to people who cannot read?

Nang is TOL's Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Mystery]

Does being willful make a dog a person?

Nang

I know that it makes at least one person a :dog:

:rotfl:

 

[Nang]

Nang is TOL's Rosie O'Donnell.

:vomit:

 

[Nang]

I know that it makes at least one person a :dog:

:rotfl:

Time for you to go to bed . . .

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, I posted my reply elaborating on 'will' requested by Mystery before I had read the Nang bashing posts following her simple question that was based upon comments Enyart had made elsewhere.

After reading the mocking posts I decided to delete my short response. If the discussion is going to proceed along the lines already demonstrated, count me out.

I'll incorporate my deleted post's contents into my reply to Enyart.

Carry on.

 

[Mystery]

Well, I posted my reply elaborating on 'will' requested by Mystery before I had read the Nang bashing posts following her simple question that was based upon comments Enyart had made elsewhere.

I wasn't talking to "Nag". I was asking you a "simple" question, that did not merit her response.

After reading the mocking posts I decided to delete my short response.

If the discussion is going to proceed along the lines already demonstrated, count me out.

Sounds more like a cop-out. Perhaps "Nag" should just butt-out.



It is very telling that those of the "Calvinist" persuasion cannot "simply" admit that man has the "ability to decide", regardless of what causes or motivates those decisions.

 

[Servo]

Bob says that having a will makes angels persons, and men persons, according to Triune example of willful Persons, so I ask according to that premise . . . if having a will makes my dogs persons?

For without a doubt, my dogs are all very willful.

As is our "alpha" range cow, with a calf on her side, whose will dare not be crossed!

Nang

You are deliberately being obtuse. God created creatures (angels, persons, animals) with a will so therefore one of the things that makes us a person is having a will. That does not mean that a dog is a person just because we both have a will.

Another thing that makes us a person is having a spirit. Dogs do not have a spirit...another reason that they are not considered a person.

Understand?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I want to participate on this side discussion, because I think that there are things about the will that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are missing.

Well, I am all ears (eyes). What are the things you feel both sides are missing about the will?

 

[godrulz]

You are deliberately being obtuse. God created creatures (angels, persons, animals) with a will so therefore one of the things that makes us a person is having a will. That does not mean that a dog is a person just because we both have a will.

Another thing that makes us a person is having a spirit. Dogs do not have a spirit...another reason that they are not considered a person.

Understand?

Man is in the personal, moral, and spiritual image of God. Dogs are not. There will is not moral, but limited. Cats think they are gods (I think my cat is smarter than I am).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I want to participate on this side discussion, because I think that there are things about the will that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are missing.

Well, I am all ears (eyes). What are the things you feel both sides are missing about the will?

It is very telling that those of the "Calvinist" persuasion cannot "simply" admit that man has the "ability to decide", regardless of what causes or motivates those decisions.

I have never denied that man has the ability to decide. You can take a trip down memory lane here and see for yourself. A more recent and comprehensive discussion can be found here.

I really don't know the Calvinists with whom you have been interacting that are unable to simply admit man has the ability to decide. The next time you run across one, please send them my way for some catechism training.

In any case, that is not the point in question. In the quote above, you contend that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are in need of some enlightenment about the 'will'. I look forward to reading those insights.

 

[Mystery]

You can take a trip down memory lane here and see for yourself.

I want to start with something you said in your link, before I get back to your post.

Paul spoke of these inclinations in Romans 7:15-19: the good that he willed to do, he did not do. A regenerated person struggles with this "spirit and flesh" struggle always. But, the unregenerated person, in bondage to sin, has no such struggle.

Let's expand the context a bit...

"For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"

This is one area where I am convinced that the majority of doctrine takes a wrong turn. Paul is not speaking of his state as a believer, but is rather giving his testimony on how the Law led him to Christ, the One who "sets him free" from "this death", from the "flesh", and from his "bondage to sin".

Paul never struggled with sin, after having been set free.

 

[godrulz]

AMR: Is your view of free will that the desires are determined and we chose according to our desires?

Could you summarize compatibilism in a simple assertion (sentence or two).

Is God omnicausal?

Does He exercise meticulous control?

If desires are caused, how or what is meant by this?

What is your big objection to libertarian free will (redundant, but necessary in this debate)?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” (Romans 7:14-25 – last verse added by AMR)

This is one area where I am convinced that the majority of doctrine takes a wrong turn. Paul is not speaking of his state as a believer, but is rather giving his testimony on how the Law led him to Christ, the One who "sets him free" from "this death", from the "flesh", and from his "bondage to sin".

Paul never struggled with sin, after having been set free.

I am going to disagree.

Chapter 7 of Romans is about the law in general, referring to it around 35 times in one way or another, and only mentions the Holy Spirit once. Chapter 8 of Romans, on the other hand, refers to the Holy Spirit more than 20 times, and the law four times. Viewing these two chapters linearly will lead to thinking that Chapter 7 deals with the law (Old Testament pre-Christian) and Chapter 8 deals with the Spirit (New Testament, Christian). The Apostle did not write with chapter and verse markers and we need to view Chapters 7 and 8 as a unified whole written for mature Christians, but with different perspectives of Christian life. Viewed separately, Chapter 7 could be seen to view the Christian life as defeatist and Chapter 8 as victorious.

Chapter 7 continues the teaching started in Romans 5:20:
“Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,”

In Chapter 5 the Apostle teaches that justification and peace have come through Christ (v. 1), that the law was added that sin might increase (v. 20), which makes justification by faith even more worthy of praise. As in Romans 5:20, where sin increased, grace increased all the more for there is no sin or amount of sin that is larger than God’s grace. Paul raises two questions to this teaching and answers them. He tells us that grace gives us no license to sin (Romans 6:1-2 and beyond). He also tells us that while the law reveals sin the law is not bad, or sinful (Romans 7:7 and beyond). In other words, the law is good since it reveals sin, but the law becomes an intolerable yoke if a person tries to eliminate sin by obeying the law. Chapter 7’s key theme is that the gospel can free a person from the yoke of slavery to the law and its condemnation of sin. Just as justification is not accomplished through the law (Romans 6:14), sanctification is not accomplished through the law (Galatians 5:18).

Before looking at verses 14-25, we need to look at verses 7-13; for verses 7-25 are divided into two sections dealing with the value of the law and the conflict with the law. We can see this given the past tense verbs in verses 7-13 and the present tense verbs in verses 14-25. In verses 7-13, Paul is referring to his past experience of realization of sin through the law. In verses 14-25, Paul is referring to his ongoing struggle with what the law continues to reveal to him. Nevertheless, in both sections, the law is “good” (verses 12, 16). In the first section the law aids in Paul’s salvation while in the second the law aids in his sanctification. After salvation, the law and sin do not disappear from the believer’s life—their presence creates the conflict that cause is to “groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23).

Verses 7-13 are describing Paul’s experiences as he was led to Christ by the law. Verses 14-25 describe Paul’s experiences wrestling with the law’s revelation of his still alive sin nature even as a mature believer (he had been a Christian for nearly 25 years when he wrote Romans). I think this view accounts best for the shift to the present tense while Paul’s theme in v. 7-25 continues. We also find in verses 14-25 items only the believer would know: desires to obey God’s law, hates sin (v. 15, 19,21); humility and knows there is nothing good in his flesh (v. 17, 20-22). serves Christ with his mind (v.25). Instead of portraying the unbeliever, verses 14-25 along with Romans 8 shows the believer who has been delivered from the law positionally, by experientially lives the tension of the “now but not yet”. The sanctification being described in Chapters 6-8 are for the believers, excepting verses 7:7-13. The tension of the “now but not yet” can be seen when we view each Chapter:

Romans 6: We are free from sin, but we must battle against sin
Romans 7: We are free from the law, but we are not free from the law’s criteria for righteousness
Romans 8: We are free from death, but we long for the redemption of the body

The final verse of Chapter 7 summarizes the chapter. Paul the believer is a slave to God’s law, but Paul the sinner is a slave to the law of sin. And if we ignore the artificial section break, we see that immediately in Chapter 8 Paul moves from his slavery to freedom from the law of sin and death (v. 2).

 

[Clete]

Well, I am all ears (eyes). What are the things you feel both sides are missing about the will?

I have never denied that man has the ability to decide. You can take a trip down memory lane here and see for yourself. A more recent and comprehensive discussion can be found here.

I really don't know the Calvinists with whom you have been interacting that are unable to simply admit man has the ability to decide. The next time you run across one, please send them my way for some catechism training.

In any case, that is not the point in question. In the quote above, you contend that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are in need of some enlightenment about the 'will'. I look forward to reading those insights.

AMR is lying. He DOES NOT believe that anyone, including God Himself, has the ability to decide anything.

He's playing word games and he knows it.

Pathetic. :vomit:

 

[Clete]

Bob says that having a will makes angels persons, and men persons, according to Triune example of willful Persons, so I ask according to that premise . . . if having a will makes my dogs persons?

I know why you asked the question Nang. Your so stupid, you still don't see why it was an idiotic thing to ask.

For without a doubt, my dogs are all very willful.

No kidding.

As is our "alpha" range cow, with a calf on her side, whose will dare not be crossed!

Nang

Mentally speaking, I'd say you were the cow of the family.

Bob DID NOT say that having a will makes you a person.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR: Is your view of free will that the desires are determined and we chose according to our desires?

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose.

Could you summarize compatibilism in a simple assertion (sentence or two).

God’s creatures can do what they want, but what they want is determined by God in advance because God is working within the person to direct choices according to His plan. Persons who enjoy compatibilistic freedom do not suffer divine compulsion to act in a manner contrary to their desires.

Is God omnicausal?

If you mean that God is the first cause of all that happens, yes, He is.

Does He exercise meticulous control?

If you mean "Is God sovereign according to the orthodox definition of the term?", yes He is and yes, there is not a single charmed quark existing anywhere in the universe that is not under the direct control of God.

If desires are caused, how or what is meant by this?

What someone wants (desires) is a function of a myriad of reasons, including especially God. There are no uncaused desires other than within the essence of God.

What is your big objection to libertarian free will (redundant, but necessary in this debate*)?

Other than the obvious illogic of the notion, the liberty of indifference of a creature presumes autonomy from the creature's sovereign God. Such a presumption, born of unbelief, was the very first sin in Eden that plunged all of the universe into corruption.

* We are not debating.