ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Idolater]

... only if you presume that our hearts are static and determined entirely outside of our control. If I extend the analogy to a machine built by a novice builder, that builder may make a machine without realizing its flaw, but the master builder who observes the machine being built will know what that machine will ultimately do (or fail at) before the novice activates it.

Even here the master builder cannot know for sure what will happen because the novice has a mind of his own. The flawed machine would fail... but what if that novice says to the master "I don't trust my own skill here, will you please help me fix this?"

I just presume that we make choices based upon the conditions we're presented with, however they came about, combined with our hearts. God knows both intimately.

Beyond this, there are two logical choices. One is that we are completely determined, and the other is that we are not completely determined, and the difference being, is analogous to a mechanical system that is either mechanically predictable, or is at least at times, random (not determined, iow by analogy the system 'has a mind of its own'). So if we are completely random, I believe that God knows upon whom or what 'the lot' will fall (Ac1:26KJV), and if we are determined, then He knows what we will do in that case also. So no matter where we fall between these two extremes, God can (and does, imo) know what we will do before we do it, and before we know what we will do additionally.

And again, this is all apart from whether or not God actually brings things about Himself, through His own either direct or indirect means, working with our bona fide freedom, with our conditions (even causing them to be), and with our hearts.

Perhaps now I should share again the Catholic instruction on 'divine providence,' that influences my thoughts:

"Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, [human beings] can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings."

Excerpted from Text 307​

The idea expressed here is that God does not require our cooperation to bring about 'the divine plan,' but that we have the constant choice, of whether or not to be 'unconscious' or 'deliberate' in our unavoidable collaboration with Him. This to me wraps up the matter of God's unlimited power, and our bona fide free will, tidily. I subscribe completely to this explanation.

Conditioned responses (including force of habit) are a repetition (or revealing) of choices that we have made beforehand. If you are conditioned to respond in anger at provocation, it is because you have allowed yourself to respond as such in the past and have not exerted active will sufficient to overcome your own conditioning. True repentance does involve effort.

1. I did address this with my "there are many such commonly experienced conditions [that limit our freedom and that are beyond our immediate control]...that while they can be caused by our prior free choices, present conditions that render our true free choices in any given moment less than truly voluntary." If I have developed, through my own prior free choices, a bad routine that today, right now, hinders my freedom in this moment, then while I am responsible for my current condition, through my own prior free choices to develop the bad routine, I am also in this moment, less than free in the choice that I am going to make right now.

2. Will power is clearly lacking in most people, when it comes to changing bad routines that we have developed previously. This isn't scriptural, but observational, wrt how people actually are.

3. Your position is far stricter than that of the Catholic bishops, though it might be in line with how many Orthodox bishops teach the faith, just fyi. Bishops are primarily concerned with I think, protecting the sanctity of the Eucharist, and ensuring that any who partake of the Lord's table (being the body and blood of the Lord) do so 'worthily' (cf. 1Co11:27KJV & 1Co11:29KJV). The Catholic instruction is to not receive Holy Communion if you are conscious of anything that renders you less than fully united with the Church; usually serious sin, or disagreement over some tenet of the Creed.

There wasn't an answer displayed in the part you showed me.

The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' teaches the whole Christian faith. That line from Text 309, "There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil," was self-referential/recursive. It means that, contrary to what one must believe to be a Christian (which is less), in order to find satisfaction in the Church's solution to the problem of evil, one must know the entirety of the faith, every 'single aspect' of it addresses the problem of evil.

I myself do not of course know the whole faith as intimately as it can be known, and is known by hopefully all of the bishops, but what I do know, instills some faith in me that they do know what they're talking about when they teach on matters of faith/doctrine and morals, and this answer in Text 309 is the right answer to the problem of evil.

I understand that you don't agree with that, this is my own position and my own justification for that position, and I'm just answering your question.

If you believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16) then I can see why you would say that Abraham's testing was done (and recorded) for our benefit.

Trivially, really.

On the other hand, if you believe that God loved Abraham and that "the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold..." (1 Peter 1:7) and "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth" (Hebrews 12:7) then you should also believe that Abraham's testing was for Abraham's benefit, and that because God loved Abraham, this was also for God's benefit.

Fair enough.

Those two statements and beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

 

[7djengo7]

Faith is NOT of yourself.
Faith is God's gift to you. It gives assurance of things not seen, of things hoped for.

The Bible doesn't say (what you said) that faith "gives assurance of things not seen, of things hoped for," but, rather the Bible says that faith "IS the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Contrary to what you said, faith doesn't give assurance; faith IS assurance.

 

[7djengo7]

Another assertion and I dont even know what it's in response to. What was my faulty premise? Seems an easy question. Honestly, for decades now it's the same thing, intense tap dancing around simple straight forward queries.



The phrase "in his very being" is expansive. What does it mean? That the knowledge is intuited (it's not)?



I don't, and you can say yes I do; there's no moving forward from there... Seems convenient.



Mind reading isn't a thing. Many think they can do it. You can't.

Here. It's amazingly simple. How can someone be faulted for choosing wrongly? How can chaff be faulted for being chaff?

It was stated that "we all know God exists," and your response to this was "I don't." So, you are saying "I don't know that God exists." Now, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word 'God', here? Are you referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', or not? I ask this because, if you're not referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', then, indeed, as you say, "there's no moving forward from there", since you are not talking about what Christians are talking about. So, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word, 'God', when you say "I don't know that God exists"?

 

[MennoSota]

The Bible doesn't say (what you said) that faith "gives assurance of things not seen, of things hoped for," but, rather the Bible says that faith "IS the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Contrary to what you said, faith doesn't give assurance; faith IS assurance.

You ignore the fact that faith is entirely a gift from God, which is the point I have made.

 

[glorydaz]

Another assertion and I dont even know what it's in response to. What was my faulty premise? Seems an easy question. Honestly, for decades now it's the same thing, intense tap dancing around simple straight forward queries.



The phrase "in his very being" is expansive. What does it mean? That the knowledge is intuited (it's not)?



I don't, and you can say yes I do; there's no moving forward from there... Seems convenient.



Mind reading isn't a thing. Many think they can do it. You can't.

Here. It's amazingly simple. How can someone be faulted for choosing wrongly? How can chaff be faulted for being chaff?

Have you ever heard the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes"?

You'll come across your own foxhole one of these days, and then we'll see if you're telling the truth or not.

 

[glorydaz]

You ignore the fact that faith is entirely a gift from God, which is the point I have made.

You're made a point that you can't prove. opcorn:

 

[Rosenritter]

I just presume that we make choices based upon the conditions we're presented with, however they came about, combined with our hearts. God knows both intimately.

Beyond this, there are two logical choices. One is that we are completely determined, and the other is that we are not completely determined, and the difference being, is analogous to a mechanical system that is either mechanically predictable, or is at least at times, random (not determined, iow by analogy the system 'has a mind of its own'). So if we are completely random, I believe that God knows upon whom or what 'the lot' will fall (Ac1:26KJV), and if we are determined, then He knows what we will do in that case also. So no matter where we fall between these two extremes, God can (and does, imo) know what we will do before we do it, and before we know what we will do additionally.

You gave a second case of of us being at least partially self-determined ("random" or not perfectly "predictable")... but based on that circumstance you concluded that God perfectly predicted us regardless. I don't understand your reasoning... or what you meant to illustrate with Acts 1:26. In the instance of the casting of the lot, it was God choosing the outcome rather than God predicting the outcome.

 

[Rosenritter]

It was stated that "we all know God exists," and your response to this was "I don't." So, you are saying "I don't know that God exists." Now, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word 'God', here? Are you referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', or not? I ask this because, if you're not referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', then, indeed, as you say, "there's no moving forward from there", since you are not talking about what Christians are talking about. So, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word, 'God', when you say "I don't know that God exists"?

The very nature of apologetic argument should be able to handle a starting circumstance of "I do not know that God exists" as well (there is moving forward from there.)

 

[MennoSota]

You're made a point that you can't prove. opcorn:

Apparently you reject Ephesians 2:8-9, which proves my point. [emoji897]

 

[7djengo7]

You ignore the fact that faith is entirely a gift from God, which is the point I have made.

Again, Polly beggin' for a cracker, I see.

We're all well aware of your non-fact, the falsehood, that "faith is entirely a gift from God". The point you have made is that (as you, and I, and all the rest know well) you cannot defend your falsehood against reason.

Why do you just make stuff up and then lie about it by saying that what you have made up is from Scripture?

You just made up, out of thin air, that faith "gives assurance of things not seen"; why don't you try telling us exactly where you read that in the Bible, since it's not Hebrews 11.

 

[7djengo7]

The very nature of apologetic argument should be able to handle a starting circumstance of "I do not know that God exists" as well (there is moving forward from there.)

Forgive me, but I have not the foggiest idea of what (if anything) you are trying to say, there. Your phrase, "a starting circumstance of "I do not know that God exists"", is, so far as I can tell, nonsensical. I simply asked the guy a question:

To what (if anything) are you referring by the word, 'God', when you say "I don't know that God exists"?

No answer to it from him yet, so far as I can discern. And, it's, of course, really a question open to anybody to try to answer who is irrational enough to say, "I don't know that God exists," or "I don't believe that God exists," or "God doesn't exist," or "There is no God," etc.

 

[7djengo7]

deleted accidental duplicate of #231

 

[Rosenritter]

Forgive me, but I have not the foggiest idea of what (if anything) you are trying to say, there. Your phrase, "a starting circumstance of "I do not know that God exists"", is, so far as I can tell, nonsensical. I simply asked the guy a question:

No answer to it from him yet, so far as I can discern. And, it's, of course, really a question open to anybody to try to answer who is irrational enough to say, "I don't know that God exists," or "I don't believe that God exists," or "God doesn't exist," or "There is no God," etc.

Hint: why don't you start by demonstrating the existence of God then? Start with the general sense, then move to the specific sense.

 

[7djengo7]

Hint: why don't you start by demonstrating the existence of God then? Start with the general sense, then move to the specific sense.

What, exactly, do you mean by "demonstrating"? What (if anything) are you asking me to do? What would you say it is for a proposition to go from being not demonstrated to being demonstrated?

 

[glorydaz]

deleted accidental duplicate of #231

Hint: why don't you start by demonstrating the meaning of accidental? Start with how to duplicate something then move from there. :chew:

 

[Rosenritter]

What, exactly, do you mean by "demonstrating"? What (if anything) are you asking me to do? What would you say it is for a proposition to go from being not demonstrated to being demonstrated?

You said it was so obvious and that anyone could see it, and you have someone here who says he doesn't see it. This isn't a meaningless exercise: I'm asking you to demonstrate this for his benefit and to his understanding rather than criticizing him.

 

[7djengo7]

You said it was so obvious and that anyone could see it, and you have someone here who says he doesn't see it.

I beg your pardon. I don't even know to what post of mine you are referring, here. If you are referring to something I wrote, can you please directly quote what I said, and give a link to it? I don't remember saying that something "was so obvious"; I don't remember saying of something that "anyone could see it."

This isn't a meaningless exercise: I'm asking you to demonstrate this for his benefit and to his understanding rather than criticizing him.

Again, I do not know what (if anything) you are expecting me to do when you say "demonstrate this", since you've not told me what you mean by "demonstrate". If you didn't mean anything by "demonstrate this", then, indeed, what you wrote is meaningless. If you did mean something by "demonstrate this", why, then, rather than criticizing me, you could just tell me what you mean by it.

 

[Rosenritter]

I beg your pardon. I don't even know to what post of mine you are referring, here. If you are referring to something I wrote, can you please directly quote what I said, and give a link to it? I don't remember saying that something "was so obvious"; I don't remember saying of something that "anyone could see it."

Again, I do not know what (if anything) you are expecting me to do when you say "demonstrate this", since you've not told me what you mean by "demonstrate". If you didn't mean anything by "demonstrate this", then, indeed, what you wrote is meaningless. If you did mean something by "demonstrate this", why, then, rather than criticizing me, you could just tell me what you mean by it.

This post (see below):

It was stated that "we all know God exists," and your response to this was "I don't." So, you are saying "I don't know that God exists." Now, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word 'God', here? Are you referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', or not? I ask this because, if you're not referring, by the word 'God', to what Christians are referring to, by the word 'God', then, indeed, as you say, "there's no moving forward from there", since you are not talking about what Christians are talking about. So, to what (if anything) are you referring by the word, 'God', when you say "I don't know that God exists"?

If Winston doesn't have belief in the existence of [the Christian] God that should not be a "no moving forward from there" point. That should be an "introduce God" with evidence and reason sufficient to form a belief point.

I cannot find the "obvious" remarks. Maybe someone else was saying that.

 

[Idolater]

deleted accidental duplicate of #231

'One of your smarter posts, good for you. :thumb:

 

[Winston Smith]

Your question seems to be tap dancing.

The flaw in your question seems to be that you mean to say "guess" rather than "choose." We can be faulted for choosing wrongly,

Ok. How? (have no idea what the "I mean to say guess" stuff is about) If you don't have an answer right now, that's fine; I'm not going to jump out and say, gotcha!