Lon
Well-known member
???After the Fall, no problem with acquiescing, prior, huge issues.
It is conjecture, we only know what and how it happened and the Serpent was instrumental, so much so that Moses describes him as 'more crafty than all the other beasts.' It has strong connotations against a counter ideology.
It would not be a good word in those contexts. Independence also carries an idea of 'able to be apart.' None of the above is in mind with what my point is: An imago deo is a sense of 'other' consciousness. That is, it is a sense that "I'm not God, I'm in a relationship as a separate being which requires relationship for commonality. God made Adam, as a sentient being. The freewill model, again, isn't necessary for what I believe Freewill theists are trying to convey. Freewill is under par for the need of conveyance specifically because of the above problematics definition causes. There is no such thing as unrestrained freewill therefore 'free' in the qualifier is and has been a huge problem in theology discussion with those against it.
Again, there is no such thing. Acts 17:28 John 5:15, Colossians 1:16-20 Philippians 2:13. Further, we are called to 'deny self.' It is against our 'new' (after Fall) nature that needs to self abnegate.
I guarantee this: It isn't what is Christlike in him! It is what isn't!!! We NEVER hate what is Christ-like in another. I guarantee what you love about him is anything that resembles Christ, and that it never, ever, ever, gets on your nerves (unless this is a part where you, in comparison, are convicted, and even yet...
Yes, but I don't buy it. This is why we are in discussion. "To do otherwise" means 'not do God's will.' You've planted us exactly at square one with the assertion. The goal should be to prove, or discuss the merits of disagreement, not end up in circular reasoning. "To do" or 'made capable.' God doesn't empower someone 'to be able to sin.' It is yet the problem, no substantial difference other than 'slightly' less culpable. Imago deo is a stronger position. What it says is man is created with some of God's power, that enables Him to be 'godly' (in His image) on his own when they are apart. The gift is simply an 'ability' only God had, to 'be good without constant connection.' It is what I was driving at by 'independent.' Adam was never totally independent. This is what makes God alone, the only independent, because everything everything everything comes from Him. He is the only entity where this is true. The rest of creation is only a reflection of some aspect of Him and can never be Him. Perhaps this was Satan's fall, that he was made a bit too much like God, that he didn't see the difference. Not a mistake on God's part, but a problem if one loses perspective as a 'dependent' being. This essentially is the point of the Fall of both Satan and man, not the cause, but impetus whereby it happens. It isn't 'an ability' to do otherwise. That was/is created, done, by dependence, not independence. The will, at best, has to be seen as "constrained/made/free" as a descriptor of his original design. He isn't made with a 'switch to do otherwise.' That is created. It is more like an electrician crossing wires, than an actually switch. Man was wired 'to do the will of God.' A rewiring has to happen in order for him to Fall. It is the act of crossing the wires. God rather 'made' the wires correctly. Man and Satan crossed them. It was not God's intent that those wires ever should be messed with thus "do not cross these wires, I know what happens and I don't want it to happen to you!" is akin to "Do not eat of the tree lest on that day you will surely die."
It just makes a positive. They have place in writing to emphasize something. That said, I'd like to hear it again with God and man placed back into the quote. I believe it'd read thus: "I don't think this is a problem as long as the God Himself is capable of not doing otherwise."
So I grasp what you are saying, but I don't grasp 'why.'
After the Fall, yes, because their relationship with God is fully broken. Back to the wire crossing analogy: It is when the wires are 'not' crossed that they are connected to the Source, God. "Free" is actually 'free falling' free-dying' at this point after sin. We are free 'from' life and the source of life. There is a residual electricity left in the system, by analogy, so man 'surely died' but doesn't grasp this well because he has about 120 years of current left, but without connection to God, he(she) has an expiration. Man would have been 'free-er' under God, because He was still plugged in and could/would have done more 'free things.' "Free" then is for the ride and not the best descriptor, in this analogy. It seems to me, the analogy helps explain why 'free' in both cases is problematic. It makes incredibly better sense to me. Again, it is using the freewill argument, that I see this in the first place. Until now, I've never entertained the idea. It may yet have holes, but it looks good on paper at this venture, and I think it does a better job for discussion, in a way not open before. I'd be surprised if nobody ever discussed these specific thoughts before, but to date, I haven't seen anything similar but I've only been on this vein for a week now.
It may be for you. The problem is in the details of 'capable of doing otherwise.' Certainly they 'were' capable or wouldn't have fallen. Intricate to the story is the 'crafty serpent.' It took one who knew what would happen, like the kid who tells the other kid to jam a paperclip into the light socket.
Your relationship with your dog isn't imago deo. Your relationship with God is. I'm confused by even the entrance of the thought of dogs at this venture. It seems a fly ball in left field or out of the park altogether. I'm not sure how I'd say it with electric currents, other than 'that's DC, we are talking about AC.
Actually, I'm saying Freewill theists are doing the confusing: They are mistaking imago deo (wired one way) with an 'ability' to rewire. Certainly Adam is 'capable' of doing the act, that isn't what we are talking about. We are rather talking about if he is made with any kind of inkling whatsoever to 'want' to mess with his own wiring. Because "Now, the serpent was more crafty than any other beast" is given so clearly, the 'idea' doesn't come from Adam. He isn't made with an 'idea' to rewire. It also, by analogy answers the question: Does Adam 'need' to rewire to be connected to God? Absolutely not. In this sense, free will implies God saying "sure, you an rewire, but you aren't going to like it." That would be 'free' will/decision.' That is problematic. Rather, man is created with an 'ability' but no inclination to 'rewire.' Satan, in speculation, would have been made more independent ('free' not the best term, nor the above three definitions). It only is said to mean a 'sense of self.' Satan, unlike us, didn't surely die. It wasn't his point of sin. Some other kind of sin because he has to be thrown in the Lake of Fire and has no expiration date. It means Satan had to fall in a different manner, in my estimation.
Whatever 'common sense' you have is not in my workchest. He is 'required' as you speak, by His own nature in the same way He 'cannot disown Himself and is faithful.' Example: I am a man. There is no way I'm going to be a woman. Why? Because my 'nature' is man. It is as simple as this. In the same manner, God is Love 1 John tells us clearly. When something is your identity, that is what you do. You'll never convince me (because there is no verse in all of scripture) that God isn't love or can 'not love.' "He is willing that none should perish." The same one who tells you to 'love your enemies and do good to them' command this out of His own nature and being.
The "Of course God can 'not love' us is beyond any thing I know of reality. For me, it is 'of course God cannot stop being God, therefore He is faithful, and loves." You might ask 'is throwing Satan into the Lake of Fire, loving?' My answer is 'yes.' Maybe not for Satan, because God cannot love 'not-love' by the same token of logical reasoning. Some of these question become above my paygrade, but I do not at all believe God can or would change His nature. It is partly where immutability comes into play: God cannot change, at least in nature, and every open theist I've talked to believes the same thing in regard to a 'qualified' immutability. IOW, most of them agree with me regarding God's nature as unchangeable.
I believe the exact opposite else He would have answered His Son in the garden and taken the cup away. He could not stop being God, even then, and because of His nature, Christ was crucified 'from the foundation of the world.' My answer has to be a qualified 'no, you aren't correct' from everything I've ever learned in scripture.
Because I disagree strongly and emphatically with you!
Much like the electric current analogy, plugged in carries with it all the things that come with 'being plugged in.' In essence you are arguing that wires 'must be crossed' as well as a consistent duality (evil) to be in the universe for good to exist. I've long rejected that because Revelation 20 clearly says all (all) sickness, tears, and sadness will be 'wiped away.' In short: It will not exist. Granted you cannot conceive of such a thing, but I believe scriptures speak of it exactly this way. It is why the wolf will lie down with the lamb. How will a wolf survive without meat? (it is an analogy, trying to explain clearly that evil is going to be entirely wiped out, forever). Moreover, imagine a world where you will not 'choose' to love me, but 'in which fashion' you will choose to display an attitude that will and can never be selfish again. In finality, I will never struggle with hurting you or any brother or sister in Christ again. Robot? Hardly. I'll never 'want' that 'switch' in wiring again. Read 1 John 3:2 "When we see Him, we will be like Him, because will see Him as He is." Old you, that 'can choose to sin' will be gone. The switch will be forever gone. Automaton? Hardly, it will be everything I've ever dreamed of and hoped for. I don't 'want' to do 'my' thing ever after this. I'd hate myself (and rightly so) to have any desire, for eternity, for a 'switch to do otherwise.' I will, necessarily, love better because I'll be plugged into nothing "but' love without any need whatsoever for the contrast. Perhaps we will remember, barely, what it was like as a contrast, but what would be the point or need, then? To relive a not-so-loving past when I'm finally doing it all perfectly? My whole desire is to never want sin again. Shoot, put my wires in an impenetrable box! I never want them crossed again. Thus 'desire' is a better descriptor and contrast to love, than 'not-love' is. Not love has no place and no meaning.
Halfway there.
Look, when it is SO unapproachable and detestable, it is odd that you even will want the contrast to reflect upon. It will make a lousy counter to love, when love is all you want to do. The more time you spend thinking, even, about things 'not-loving' will be a complete waste of time.
Because it is necessary after the fall. Of course in Christ, the law of liberty (freedom) is when you actually do have freedom. ONLY "He whom Christ sets free, is free indeed!" Isn't it odd, to freewill theology, that freedom as a gift and definition, is only prior to the Fall and after being a new creation in Christ? It isn't the choice to do otherwise that should get any glory, it is the choice to be 'in Christ.' When 1 John 3:2, we will love like Christ, finally.
You'll have to keep it. I've completely rejected this 'will to do otherwise.' Jesus in the Garden wanted to do otherwise but incredibly clearly "not My will, but Thine. It wasn't the choice 'to do otherwise' that signalled love, but the 'choice to do' that is what love is all about. Do you and I appreciate His love because we understand 'to do otherwise?' Yes, but even without the struggle, simply doing it shows love. IOW, the contrast, at this point in time, where we are not in the center of knowing love, helps us move more into the bullseye of what it actually is, but once in a thing, the contrast is no longer needed. It rather helps you reach the target and will one day be unnecessary. I don't believe in a yin/yang universe and the promises in scripture steer far from the presence nor need of evil for contrasts.
Let me give a today analogy: I do the dishes for you at your house. You will feel loved and absolutely do not need 'I could have done otherwise' to feel loved. Love is its own expression. "If" I had something to do when I did the dishes, and you see something of a greater sacrifice, well and good for your 'appreciation level' but that isn't the same thing as needing the contrast to feel loved. I assert you do not! It is totally unnecessary that you know 'I could have done otherwise.' Rather it is the act of obedience, alone, that comes from the center of what love is, that is the thing.
Better is crossed wires, never made to be crossed and dangerous to do so. We were made 'able' to cross wires by power, but with no inclination, simply a warning "don't cross these wires, don't eat of that tree."
An electrician is the only one that should monkey with wires. God had the knowledge of Good and Evil (what would happen if you put a paperclip into a light socket).
No, I've already rejected the freewill premise because of all the implication we've more than sufficiently covered. If this part of the conversation has left you out, then we can be done. I believe at this venture 'freewill' is shoddy description and problematic for good theology. Granted now, that the majority of theists are 'freewill' theist, my years of reading 'deny self' passages have me ever looking at problematics of elevating myself, my choices, and my 'freedom' on any par with 'how I was made.' I was made by and for the Potter (Romans 9, Jeremiah). I am His non-autonomous vessel and 'choice' has a lot of issues. Yes I choose but everytime, (every time) 'obedience' would have been better thus my position is and has been a long time "how do I thwart freewill and rather simply do one thing: follow Christ. I hate the dilemma that has me 'wanting to do the good I know to do and not doing it" (Romans 7) and 'knowing what I shouldn't, and this I do! Who will save me from this body of wrath!!!" when I first read Paul, this was ever the desire, then 'not my will but thine' and 'die to self and take up my cross and follow.' Literally, 'free will to do otherwise' is 'why' I'm in a sin mess practically, with a desire to daily follow Christ and love one another. It comes as a 'negation' of freewill, not an exercise of it, else I'd be 'free to do otherwise.' Thus, "the love of Christ 'CONSTRAINS' us, and freewill 'may' give some appreciation of the presence of love, but it certainly doesn't define it. In Him -Lon
