Does God know all things that are, have been, and will be?
- Thread starter ghost
- Start date
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Whatever the choice, when it was made it was what one was most inclined to do at that exact moment of the choosing.
No. No inclination of the will means no movement. Stasis. To say, I simply chose randomly, and picked choice A over B thusly, is self-delusion. When you "picked" you were so inclined else you would never have "picked" in the first place.
Persons believing in libertarian free will think original sin did not affect them and they tend to believe they have more moral powers than they actually possess, ignoring the fact that our hearts are filled with evil desires (Matt 5:19; Mark 7:21; Romans 1:24; 1 Pet 2:11).
Indeed, libertarian free will (the liberty of indifference) implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.
Therefore, the Reformed view of free will, choosing according to our most desired inclination, accurately reflects what the process of choosing is all about. It is also biblical, for the un-regenerated sinner chooses only to sin more or sin less, while the regenerated elect can choose to glorify God, which the lost (un-regenerated) can never do.
Rather, mankind’s freedom stems from our natures, connected to our instincts and our emotions, and is determined by our intellectual considerations and character. Man’s freedom is a liberty of spontaneity, or a self-determined freedom—for we choose to do what we are most inclined to do at the moment we so choose. Unlike the notions of unsettled theism, freedom is not arbitrariness. In all rational acts underlies a ‘why’—a reason which decides the act. To be otherwise, to embrace the liberty of indifference, is to be the uncertain, incalculable, and unreliable imaginary man of unsettled theism—which is where claims to the liberty of indifference must ultimately lead—a human will that is autonomous even unto itself.
The mind’s desire always precedes the mind’s choosing. This is precisely why libertarian free-will is impossible. It alleges a choice that is bereft of desire or want. Apparently, people just choose because they can, rather than because they want. But if that were the case, either no choice would ever be made (no desire would win the contest) or the decision would be completely random, arbitrary and thus have no moral consequence. Even American jurisprudence assumes a motive in a given crime. It is only common sense. Yet if libertarian free-will is true, determining motive is a fool's erands. Why? Because desire is not linked in any way to choice. (Of course, those with common sense know better.)
Quite simply, the liberty of indifference position is, given an identical state of affairs at the moment of so choosing, the choice can be other than what it ends up being.
Thus, it necessarily follows that since the state of affairs that precedes the choice would include the strongest inclination that triggered the choice in reality, then for the choice to be other than what it ends up being would require that it be possible for a morally relevant choice to be contrary to what is intended!
Thus we see that libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, does not preserve moral responsibility, it would actually destroy it! For we would have persons intending to do X and yet they would end up doing not-X instead.
AMR
Yes, God is free and therefore free to choose; however He cannot [does not have the ability to] choose to be other than what He is, which means He cannot choose to remain so, by the definition of the word "choose."
God is holy. He does not choose to be holy, nor does He choose to remain holy; He simply is holy.
God is holy. He does not choose to be holy, nor does He choose to remain holy; He simply is holy.
Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself,
Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.
Proverbs 20:24
Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD,
How then can man understand his way?
Isaiah 55:8-9
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself,
Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.
Proverbs 20:24
Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD,
How then can man understand his way?
Isaiah 55:8-9
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
This is going off topic, but you are trying to convince somebody that says God told her to apologize to godrulz for condenming his gospel of self righteousness. Like 'rulz, she will always take that angle, that someone or something can become unrighteous.
Last edited:
andyc
New member
The problem with the Calvinist view from my perspective is that they assume that Adam and Eve were originally created as free moral agents, and that they lost this freedom through the fall.
The natural man was originally created in a state of moral innocence, and was admonished to have dominion over this world. And so the selfish nature of the flesh is natural to the flesh, and this is not a moral issue until people are awakened to the knowledge of good and evil.
A child is selfish but doesn't understand what sin is. Therefore the selfish needs of the body are natural, not moral/spiritual. Even Jesus did not desire in his flesh to do the will of God, which is why he had to die to the desires of his flesh in order to submit to the will of God (Mat 26:39).
Basically freewill is the ability to freely choose between the options we are given. We know that the flesh is selfish by nature, but everyone of us has a conscience that is supposed to restrain our carnal appetites. We are most definitely not totally depraved
zippy2006
New member
Neither does a Calvinistic (deterministic) position preserve moral responsibility, for ought implies can. The dichotomy you've drawn between random choice and determinism is simply a denial of the mystery of freedom which begs the question in the first place. You assume that humans act deterministically based on things that are not in their own control.
Furthermore, many Calvinists I've met affirm such a "libertarian freedom" before the Fall. Which is to say they affirm human freedom before the Fall, rather than a strawman idea of random choice. The Church has always held that man retains free will, and the position was solidified with Augustine.
:e4e:
I'm compelled to share the truth, even with those who will not receive it.
I think you're compelled to say all kinds of things to people and much of it isn't truth.
I'm predicting three days before your first meltdown and "true" self is revealed.
graceandpeace
New member
I agree with this. God cannot become unholy. There is a reason why. There is also a reason why He has a choice in the matter.
God has freewill.
You said that christians cannot compare themselves to one another and I totally agree with that, but they can become defiled...(unholy).
ONLY before they have been made complete, after Christ finishes IN us what He started; even christians cannot become unholy; because they WOULD not desire to.
The choice is always still there, however. We are talking apples and oranges.
Oh they will recieve it. And they will have no excuse. The other day somebody said to the heathen, why are you here? Easy. He was raised up and they are drawn to him.
graceandpeace
New member
This is what I am trying to say.
graceandpeace
New member
Godrulz does not uphold a gospel of self righteousness. You do lie.
He just knows that once God comes to live in a man that God works...you on the other hand, believe a lie, that God comes to live in dead men so that dead men remain dead.
:hammer:
The spirit of God worketh by LOVE/ and it is ACTION.....not our works, of the law of moses that your false theology has Israel justified through.
You are the one in need of milk.
thanks for the reply
Logic, man’s logic, which you express, (seen it hundreds of times, especially from atheists) is born of man’s desire for the knowledge and understanding of, predictable and unpredictable in man’s view. That he may judge what is good and what is evil, for himself. What is predictable is:
Gen:2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Therefore fundamental Trust in the Word of God is required.
Hence those who call themselves Christian, like dogs, returning to their vomit, when they have been restored into the Presence of God and are able to eat from the Tree of Life, and instead, return to eating at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you eat thereof then you agree to the speaker there at (serpent). If you eat at the Tree of Life then you agree to the Giver of Life through the Word of God. Man’s logic confounds no one, unless some one seeks to satisfy man’s logic, which comes from what? He who is of the ground has knowledge of the ground, but Heaven, he knows not. What confounds man’s logic is God’s Mercy to restore man, into His Presence.
Theology is for the expression of the Lord God’s view, philosophy is for the expression of man’s view. Therefore Theology is not required to fit man’s view (philosophy). Theology is be sound in scripture according to the Lord’s view. And that view is in Jesus Christ.
Man decides to occupy his mind with his own thoughts of logic, and reason. But God gave man mind that it be occupied with the mind of Christ. Man’s heart is given to fulfillment in the flesh, in the life of the flesh. But God’s Heart (Law and Commandments) are written on the heart of His People who Love Him. Which is given to the hearts of men to occupy the hearts of men. Therefore fulfillment therein is desired, and expected, which is in Christ Jesus. And the Soul shall always be required by God no matter what the case may be.
That which is of the ground shall return to the ground which has no life therein.
Gen:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Of the Tree of Life gives Life. The fruits of the Tree of Life give Life where there was no Life. The seeds thereof are planted and the ground submits to the instructions in the seed. The seed requires of the ground, that there be life, and the fruits of life, above the ground. The ground doesn’t require of the seed, for life to be. For that which is of the ground knows not Life unless the presence of the seed therein, requires of it.
Oh, here we go, another idiot who tosses all logic aside when he gets caught saying something stupid. You're type are a dime a dozen.
You cannot say that God is everywhere and then say that He is not everywhere and have people conclude that this is "God's logic" not man's.
The fact is, you are stupid, and even "God's logic" reveals it.
graceandpeace
New member
he also said this:
Just because God is free to choose does NOT mean He would or could.
I hope you get it soon.
:thumb: Take away the choice and you make God a robotic entity, and that is not the God I know and serve; that is the calvinistic God.
Knowledge of good and evil is about self righteousness and the law.