ECT Evil Poll ... (4 of 5) ... God made the Devil do it!

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is the devil God's crime boss for hire... or is the devil guilty of rebellion and the ill he contributes to this universe... that's the premise.

Of course the devil is guilty for all that he does.

Free Will...... "As in... a person is able to choose and they are accountable for their actions"

By "able to choose" do you mean able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature? If this is what you mean by "free will", then this portion of the answer would be "No" as no one possesses this version of free will, which is commonly called libertarian free will. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, per this libertarian view, always means that we could have done otherwise.

When asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, libertarian free will proponents will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. The late open theist Clark Pinnock, a well-known defender of this position, asserted that only the kind of freedom, which has the ability to choose the contrary, is genuine freedom. Clark says, “It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forces---nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise.” (Most Moved Mover, p. 127)

In other words, per the libertarian free will position, we could acceptably choose to receive Christ apart from a desire to receive Him. :AMR:

But if you do not mean libertarian free will, but rather the liberty of spontaneity, that is, we choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose, then, yes, the devil possesses free will.

AMR

 

[Truster]

Satan was created mutable. He was also created with beauty beyond and above the beauty of his fellow angels. Inevitably this led to pride (iniquity) being found in him and he fell taking with him all his admirers.
Having fallen from grace into sin Satan could work no good except as a contrast to Elohim being GOOD.

There was now the evil of sin in the spiritual realm that would enter time through Eve and with her Adam who were also created mutable.

The only freedom Satan has is to apply evil whenever and wherever it is required in the will of Elohim to further His good purpose.

 

[jamie]

Yuh reckon he'll know when to fold em?

Scripture does not suggest he will.

Spiritual death is the penalty for sin.

Either Satan accepts Jesus Christ as Savior or he dies forever.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Of course the devil is guilty for all that he does.

Thank you, Sir.

By "able to choose" do you mean able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature? If this is what you mean by "free will", then this portion of the answer would be "No" as no one possesses this version of free will, which is commonly called libertarian free will. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, per this libertarian view, always means that we could have done otherwise.

AMR... sincerely... I understand your perspective... and I do believe you are distinguishing the difference between the will of God, God's enabling and the will of creation. You are indeed a reformed apologist of the highest caliber... and if your words were a little less bound to perpetual reformed Doctrine defense... our trains of thought might not resemble two rams head butting.

However... I see precision in your words... I'm not sure if we agree on what John 15:5 means... in its full consideration... but I understand your perspective inclusion of it and deeply appreciate the time you've taken to clearify your stance. Ps.... I add exposition... many times... to defend Dispensational understanding and Open View... so I'm guilty of my earlier observation... as well... and can't really ignore the three fingers pointing back from my own hand.

When asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, libertarian free will proponents will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. The late open theist Clark Pinnock, a well-known defender of this position, asserted that only the kind of freedom, which has the ability to choose the contrary, is genuine freedom. Clark says, “It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forces---nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise.” (Most Moved Mover, p. 127)

Sir... much study and analysis of the golf swing... "can" impair the swing! Freewill... Susie can choose a red bow or a blue bow. Susie chose the blue one. Susie is now wearing a blue bow. K.i.s. Isn't just a band that bridged rock n roll and disco. (I left the extra "s" out to make it clear I always note your intellect.)

In other words, per the libertarian free will position, we could acceptably choose to receive Christ apart from a desire to receive Him. :AMR:

Let's get to the brass tacks here. I believe Christ enabled all to feel that "desire".... you relegate it to those who are "predestined"... and not "perishing". :idunno: ... this discussion will be argued by theologians right up until "Love goes cold".

But if you do not mean libertarian free will, but rather the liberty of spontaneity, that is, we choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose, then, yes, the devil possesses free will.

AMR

Aha! I'll take it. That... indeed is the biblical deduction and I appreciate the look into your theological expression as you formulated this very valuable contribution to the thread. :e4e:

EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

(Apologies ahead of time, I think this is a bit rambling and somewhat stream of consciousness...)

Understanding that I write from a strictly human perspective, I don't believe there is anything that catches God off guard (in any sense or to any degree). I also don't believe God has been - nor indeed is - sorting out humanity's desires and actions so as to achieve the maximum benefit. God either decrees or reacts. A Creator that reacts to His creation is working with the cards He has been dealt (so to speak). But who dealt the cards? With a mere word, the whole host of the heavens was set in motion and continues to this day in the same course set by God. Those heavenly bodies were set there for times and for seasons. There is no one to change this established order save God Himself. The nations are as a drop in the bucket to Him and are counted as the small dust of the balance! We are dealing with something - Someone - whose very words form galaxies, root up nations and plant kings. This isn't a matter of the strong vs. the weak (or forced...whatever) this is our very Maker saying it is so (us being a part of that decree) and it becoming so. Who can stay His hand? Who has been His counselor? He is the beginning of all that is and the end. It is not that it is somehow beneath such a God to react, but it is unfathomable that He would decree anything and part of it would come to pass and part of it would be cast to the ground. To believe that could be so would be to reject what several scriptures says about His will. And yet...we are not automatons. Judgment is very real. There is a reckoning to be had and I am certain we will find out that things are not much like we thought they were. In our fallen state, we are far less free than those who are not in bondage to sin. We are slaves to unrighteousness as children of Adam. So what happens that causes us to question God's Sovereignty makes us try to distance Him from all that goes on. But that is the perspective of blind, dead, fallen, unrighteous, self-centered man. Man who is so easily led astray by the tempter (as Eve so ably demonstrated). We think it makes Him responsible for sin when in reality it shows His judgment upon it - upon us (going back to Eden). Not that one bad action deserves another, but that this is our reality apart from full fellowship with our Creator. So WE don't have what I would call free will - just the illusion of it. Man plans his ways but God directs his steps.

So to Satan, he is declared to be judged in Isaiah 14 and in much of Revelation. So the end is very clear. And the reason is also clear (deceived the nations, made the nations tremble etc...). But to go to beginnings when we weren't there is to assume too much. We are told that Satan was a liar AND a murderer from the beginning - and is the father of lies. God doesn't lie, but He most certainly gives men over to lies and deception. For His own good reasons. So He has no compunction (as seen with Job) with directing Satan to do what we find distasteful (to say the least) and receive glory from it. And as far as Satan carries out what God points him to (that is, to satisfy his evil desires) he is being God's servant but not desiring to do God's will. He is an unwitting servant - but a servant nonetheless.

What I still can't comprehend is how Satan is a liar and a murderer from Day 1. Didn't God create him? But he was beautiful until sin was found in him. Where did it come from? If free will, then there is no guarantee that a future heavens and earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness" will not undergo the same downward spiral under a newly discovered deposit of rebellion.

Is Satan responsible for rebellion and subject to eternal judgment for it? Yes. Is he God's servant? Absolutely. Only that's not what he sets out to be. He is bound by his rebellion.

Your stream of consciousness is very valuable to this thread... and I'll spare highlighting the parts I appreciate the most... but they're there.

Thank you for the time you took in thinking this out and verbalizing it.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Satan was created mutable. He was also created with beauty beyond and above the beauty of his fellow angels. Inevitably this led to pride (iniquity) being found in him and he fell taking with him all his admirers.
Having fallen from grace into sin Satan could work no good except as a contrast to Elohim being GOOD.

There was now the evil of sin in the spiritual realm that would enter time through Eve and with her Adam who were also created mutable.

The only freedom Satan has is to apply evil whenever and wherever it is required in the will of Elohim to further His good purpose.

I read your other thread and wonder... why do you note that God created Satan "beautiful", "wise" and "powerful"... ?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Day after the poll... I'm shifting dialogue a bit. The poll remains... but... dialogue is possible by the many excellent contributions present...

Gratitude to each of you.

 

[Truster]

I read your other thread and wonder... why do you note that God created Satan "beautiful", "wise" and "powerful"... ?

Are you attempting to derail your own thread?

If you have questions about what I've stated elsewhere please deal with them elsewhere.

I know pops used the term power or powerful and it's easier for me to pass by his stupid remarks than deal with them and I would not have used the term wise in regard to Satan.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Susie can choose a red bow or a blue bow. Susie chose the blue one. Susie is now wearing a blue bow.

Whatever Susie chose is the choice made from her greatest inclinations at the moment she so chose. What was chosen was what she was most inclined to choose, else she would not have chosen, else she is but an automaton making arbitrary or random choices.

The mind chooses and the will is the power by which this is accomplished. The will and desire never run counter to each other. "Freedom" is the power, opportunity or advantage that people have to do that which they please.

The will is that by which the mind chooses something. Hence, when we speak of willing we mean to say the mind choosing. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will—the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Our inclinations (motives) arise from conjunctive elements such as: circumstances, upbringing, maturity, degree of sanctification, the means of grace we avail ourselves of, and so forth. Motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Arminians, open theists, and others, claim that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and the property of eternality can only be ascribed to God. Clearly, we are not gods, hence when we will there is a cause for our willing. The driving cause behind our willing is our motives. The lost possess no motives to glorify God, hence all their willing is at enmity with God.

AMR

 

[Truster]

Susie can choose a red bow or a blue bow. Susie chose the blue one. Susie is now wearing a blue bow.


Susie's will was not free in this choice it was subject to the colour blue.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Whatever Susie chose is the choice made from her greatest inclinations at the moment she so chose. What was chosen was what she was most inclined to choose, else she would not have chosen, else she is but an automaton making arbitrary or random choices.

The mind chooses and the will is the power by which this is accomplished. The will and desire never run counter to each other. "Freedom" is the power, opportunity or advantage that people have to do that which they please.

The will is that by which the mind chooses something. Hence, when we speak of willing we mean to say the mind choosing. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will—the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Our inclinations (motives) arise from conjunctive elements such as: circumstances, upbringing, maturity, degree of sanctification, the means of grace we avail ourselves of, and so forth. Motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Arminians, open theists, and others, claim that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and the property of eternality can only be ascribed to God. Clearly, we are not gods, hence when we will there is a cause for our willing. The driving cause behind our willing is our motives. The lost possess no motives to glorify God, hence all their willing is at enmity with God.

AMR

Fair enough. I see your perspective... I'm just saying... "Susie chose the bow." Her "origin" clearly deemed the will to "choose" valuable.

Check this out... Susie (1) chose (2) the (3) red (4) bow (5). 5 words. We know God created "Susie" with the ability to choose.

It doesn't matter what person I'm speaking to... as long as "reformed apologetics" aren't involved... they get it.

It's using terms that even a 5 year old can grasp... and after all...

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.​

Why the need to add volumes to what is simple? :idunno:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Susie can choose a red bow or a blue bow. Susie chose the blue one. Susie is now wearing a blue bow.


Susie's will was not free in this choice it was subject to the colour blue.

:doh: Check AMR's work... he's way more correct than you, Sir.

 

[Truster]

:doh: Check AMR's work... he's way more correct than you, Sir.

The will is subject to all the senses including sight. Eve saw that the fruit was good to eat. Just as Susie saw that blue was nice.

I don't follow men, but truth in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The will is subject to all the senses including sight. Eve saw that the fruit was good to eat. Just as Susie saw that blue was nice.

I don't follow men, but truth in the Holy Spirit.

Truster... there is Divinely Purposeful Autonomy authored into Creation! We're not on God's puppet table... while God plays GI Joe with us!

God created "genuine beings"! Is this really so difficult? Did God Will a person to pick their nose... every time they pick it?

Sheesh!!! You seem to see God as rather.., petty!

Spoiler

Control is the illusion.... Free Will is real! People die for "freedom" all of the time! Heck! Jesus died for ours! If the Son sets you "Free"!"

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yuh reckon he'll know when to fold em?

Scripture does not suggest he will.

Spiritual death is the penalty for sin.

Either Satan accepts Jesus Christ as Savior or he dies forever.

Couldn't help myself....

Spoiler

. It's 1Mind's fault!

 

[Truster]

Truster... there is Divinely Purposeful Autonomy authored into Creation! We're not on God's puppet table... while God plays GI Joe with us!

God created "genuine beings"! Is this really so difficult? Did God Will a person to pick their nose... every time they pick it?

Sheesh!!! You seem to see God as rather.., petty!

Spoiler

Control is the illusion.... Free Will is real! People die for "freedom" all of the time! Heck! Jesus died for ours! If the Son sets you "Free"!"

You are irreverent, unregenerate, unrepentant and uninspired.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.​

Why the need to add volumes to what is simple?

The appeal to simplicity often masks misunderstanding. The passage in question as a case in point. The point being that these men hindering these children, were supposed to be more than their dullness, men of little faith. The point is also that children are important in the grand scheme of things, moreover the surrender and the dependency of children in all things given to them as children are exemplary of the same surrender and dependency that must accompany our faith.

Now you can quote a verse and claim it is just plain and simple as can be, but that seems to be the method often used to ignore the full counsel of what is actually intended in the "simple" statement.

At no point, at anytime, and in anyplace have I denied God creates us with the will to choose. We agree. Where disagreement lies is in the meanings that lurk behind these "simple" statements. I have taken pains to lay out these meanings as they relate to me and those that may disagree with me.

In response, you offer

"Check this out... Susie (1) chose (2) the (3) red (4) bow (5). 5 words. We know God created "Susie" with the ability to choose.

It doesn't matter what person I'm speaking to... as long as "reformed apologetics" aren't involved... they get it."

To the contrary, it most certainly does matter, else why bother with the poll at all?

Waving me off with the "reformed apologetics" bit seems to be signaling you have no appreciation of the issues at hand (or perhaps you are just going to ignore the issues), for you assume that the many and varied truths contained in naked statements, such as "God created Susie with the ability to choose" are universally understood by all, since "they get it."

If everyone gets it when you type out words into sentences, then consider the job done. Move along. Nothing more to say. No clarifications are needed. No tests of the veracity of what you have formed into sentences is needed. No unstated presuppositions need be driven into the light for examination.

If you want a simple statement, here is one on behalf of all persons irrespective of creed, color, religion or race:

Claiming we all operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore understand what you understand about what we understand leaves no hope for honest discussion.

AMR

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

You are irreverent, unregenerate, unrepentant and uninspired.

Awwwwwwww.... Truster... I love you, too. It's taken me a while to understand your "love" language.

 

[Truster]

Awwwwwwww.... Truster... I love you, too. It's taken me a while to understand your "love" language.

I sincerely despise you and the filth you spread. The holy will sing praises when you are cast from their midst into the Lake of Fire.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The appeal to simplicity often masks misunderstanding. The passage in question as a case in point. The point being that these men hindering these children, were supposed to be more than their dullness, men of little faith. The point is also that children are important in the grand scheme of things, moreover the surrender and the dependency of children in all things given to them as children are exemplary of the same surrender and dependency that must accompany our faith.

Now you can quote a verse and claim it is just plain and simple as can be, but that seems to be the method often used to ignore the full counsel of what is actually intended in the "simple" statement.

At no point, at anytime, and in anyplace have I denied God creates us with the will to choose. We agree. Where disagreement lies is in the meanings that lurk behind these "simple" statements. I have taken pains to lay out these meanings as they relate to me and those that may disagree with me.

In response, you offer


To the contrary, it most certainly does matter, else why bother with the poll at all?

Waving me off with the "reformed apologetics" bit seems to be signaling you have no appreciation of the issues at hand (or perhaps you are just going to ignore the issues), for you assume that the many and varied truths contained in naked statements, such as "God created Susie with the ability to choose" are universally understood by all, since "they get it."

If everyone gets it when you type out words into sentences, then consider the job done. Move along. Nothing more to say. No clarifications are needed. No tests of the veracity of what you have formed into sentences is needed. No unstated presuppositions need be driven into the light for examination.

If you want a simple statement, here is one on behalf of all persons irrespective of creed, color, religion or race:

Claiming we all operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore understand what you understand about what we understand leaves no hope for honest discussion.

AMR

When people speak plainly... with clear vernacular... and redefinition and addition to the meaning of words comes in to play... it signals "unpacking" that must occur. To be concise... that is far too much theological "baggage" for me.

If it works for some... so be it.

For me... all the desire to "redefine" words is far too open to answers that detract from sincere response.

It reminds me of ... "what the definition of is... is."

If redefinition of words that have clear meaning is "required" to "speak"... then the clearify is "removed" and deception can occur.

When I say something... I mean what I say... unless I made a typo. But,., that's just me.