Repenting After Death

[bornagainathiest]

well, Pharoah seems not have the choice of choosing when God hardens his heart?

 

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

 

Do you really think that anyone here is persuaded by your words, OC?

 

They read what the scripture says, that God hardened Pharoah's heart, and they draw their own conclusions. Nothing you can write here will change that. If you don't understand why that is or you're at all curious, I can tell why.

 

But you have to ask me.

 

Nicely.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

While I do see your point and agree with you. Still part of me admires Thumby's courage to disagree with most Christians. At some point she realized that the eternal torment things is silly and can't be true. It's a baby step but good for her for making it.

 

She just follows the church she belongs to: The Seventh Day Adventistshttp://www.adventist...ntal/index.html

 

Wow, I really can't communicate when I haven't had my coffee.

 

Well good for 7th Day for figuring out that one Christian dogma was stupid.

 

(The irony is that if I had met Thumby twenty years ago I would be telling myself that she isn't the Real True Christian like me.)

 

Hello MM!

 

Yes, the Agnosticator's right.

 

Thumbelina's a Seventh Day Adventist, but she has never openly admitted to being one, even when asked. (Why does she need to keep that a secret, I wonder?)

 

There's no courage involved when it comes to Thumbelina disagreeing with mainstream Christianity. In fact, quite the opposite. Her brand of fanaticism requires no courage at all. All fanaticism has it's roots in fear. The more fearful a person is about something, the greater the likelihood that they'll fervently embrace something that seems to neutralize their fears. Btw, I use the term 'fanatic' accurately. The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is on record as defining a fanatic as... "someone who will not change the subject and someone who will not shut up." Fits Thumbelina, huh?

 

Over a 1,000 posts from her since March 2010 and, no matter which thread they've been in, the same underlying message is always there...

"You people have misunderstood God but I REALLY know, where you only thought you did. Listen only to me and I'll bring you back to Him." That sound at all familiar?

 

Oh and btw, why don't you ask her how long she thinks it'll take for sinners to be burned to ashes in the Lake of Fire?

You see, her take on hellfire NOT being eternal hinges on the New Testament Greek word... AIONOS

 

http://concordances.org/greek/aio_nas_165.htm

 

Here's how Wikipedia defines it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

 

So MM, please don't go with the half-truth Thumbelina's spinning here. The idea that sinners in the Lake of Fire will be burned in much the same way that human bodies are burned on Earth. Ten or twenty minutes of intense heat in a crematorium and it's all over? No way! In her theology, the damned are in that burning lake for an AGE-LONG duration. That's not minutes, days or decades, but dozens or hundreds of millions of years. Of course, she's never let that (literally) damning piece of information slip out!

 

Think you can trust her even a little bit, MM?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Free will is articulated in scripture by the endless choices it states we have.

 

Jos 24:15

And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.

 

Both Acts 2:23 and 4:28 are compatible with middle knowledge and free will. He predetermined the actualized world in which the choices spoken of were made. The players could have chosen differently, but God would have foreknew such an alternate choice and actualized a different world. Logically it is very simple.

 

So you have ...

1) Clear scriptural indications of our ability to choose.

2) Quoted counter verses that can be interpreted easily within a middle knowledge framework.

 

I don't see the problem. I'm very comfortable both logically and theologically with molinism.

 

OC wrote...

"Free will is articulated in scripture by the endless choices it states we have."

 

The given example is not one of endless choices.

In fact, there are only two. To serve Jehovah, or not.

Whatever form the 'not' option takes is irrelevant. The bottom line in Christianity is that the 'not' option is always punishable by eternal hellfire. So, this is neither an example of endless choices, nor is it even an example of a free one. A truly free choice is one made without the threat of penalty.

 

In God's predetermined, actualized world, any choices but the one made for God will always result in punishment. In every other possible alternative world, the penalty will still be the same. If, in every possible world, I'm penalized with unending fire for not making the ONE right choice, how are any of my potential choices free ones?

 

BAA.

[LivingLife]

Free will does not exist, not even in real life. Period.

 

All you can do is make a choice on predetermined external circumstances outside your control.

 

Show me any choice you made you think was as a result of free will and I will show you either the coercion or the external circumstances.

 

We are not free agents.

[florduh]

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

Chapter and verse, please.

[OrdinaryClay]

Free will does not exist, not even in real life. Period.

 

All you can do is make a choice on predetermined external circumstances outside your control.

 

Show me any choice you made you think was as a result of free will and I will show you either the coercion or the external circumstances.

 

We are not free agents.

 

I disagree circumstances force choices. You and I are both participating in this thread, which is a small subset of shared circumstances in our lives, yet you choose not to believe in Christ and I do. Now naturally you will claim some other circumstances outside this thread have determined the difference in our belief, but we have no reason to believe so based on induction of the small set we share. What magic set determines the difference.

 

Also, the assertion that we have no free will is to claim we are deterministic machines, which is a scientific claim. The science in this area is very speculative, and such science does not exist at the moment.

[florduh]

...yet you choose not to believe in Christ and I do.

I hate when people do that. Nobody CHOOSES not to believe. We are simply UNABLE to believe any longer. I CHOOSE not to believe in Santa in exactly the same way I CHOOSE not to believe in your Jesus.

[OrdinaryClay]

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument. That God foreknew has already been shown multiple times in this thread, for example, Acts 2:23.

[florduh]

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument.

Yes, but isn't it telling that we need "philosophical arguments" to mutilate or invert the meaning of any plainly written verse that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

[mymistake]

well, Pharoah seems not have the choice of choosing when God hardens his heart?

 

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

 

Do you really think that anyone here is persuaded by your words, OC?

 

Oh my God that is so funny. "Middle knowledge"? Did OC just make that up?

[OrdinaryClay]

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument.

Yes, but isn't it telling that we need "philosophical arguments" to mutilate or invert the meaning of any plainly written verse that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

 

The philosophy comes into play because we have other verses that tell us we have free will also. Reasoning about scripture is fine in the eyes of God.

 

Isa 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, ...

[mymistake]

Thumbelina's a Seventh Day Adventist, but she has never openly admitted to being one, even when asked. (Why does she need to keep that a secret, I wonder?)

 

All the churches I have attended in my life have held the view that SDAs are not real true Christians. Of course since de-converting I find the whole idea silly. Yes Mormons and SDA and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians. They are just as real as any other Christian sect in it's modern form. I had to lose Christianity in order to see clearly.

 

There's no courage involved when it comes to Thumbelina disagreeing with mainstream Christianity. In fact, quite the opposite. Her brand of fanaticism requires no courage at all. All fanaticism has it's roots in fear. The more fearful a person is about something, the greater the likelihood that they'll fervently embrace something that seems to neutralize their fears. Btw, I use the term 'fanatic' accurately. The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is on record as defining a fanatic as... "someone who will not change the subject and someone who will not shut up." Fits Thumbelina, huh?

 

I don't know Thumby that well. She usually ignores me when she isn't insulting me or lying about me. However I use to call myself a fanatic for Jesus so your take would have described me.

 

In her theology, the damned are in that burning lake for an AGE-LONG duration. That's not minutes, days or decades, but dozens or hundreds of millions of years. Of course, she's never let that (literally) damning piece of information slip out!

 

Think you can trust her even a little bit, MM?

 

Even a billion years is better than infinity. I'm wondering what is wrong with the rest of Christianity that they can't see this. Of course the answer is they are like I was years ago. As for trusting her I witnessed what Thumby did to my friend's eximony. I don't trust people who act like that.

[florduh]

Reasoning about scripture is fine in the eyes of God.

If you say so. This case, however, is plainly a twisting of a very clear verse to support the 'free will' assertion in the face of mountains of scriptural evidence to the contrary.

[Ouroboros]

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument. That God foreknew has already been shown multiple times in this thread, for example, Acts 2:23.

Teh Bible has da' answers for all questions, expect for those that philosophers have to make up.

[pratt]

did jesus have free will or will of the father?

 

can he not die? he cannot but to die,,,, HE DONT HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE

[centauri]

1. Acts 2:23 links God's foreknowledge to his ordaining what will occur, which includes human decisions. Acts 4:28 shows that God foreordained (προώρισεν) what he wills. Again, this includes human decisions.

+1

Acts 4:28 is a superb example (along with Eph 1:4-5-11) that God not only knows what will happen, he also determines it in advance according to his will.

 

Acts 4:27-28

For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with [the] nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city

to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel(will) had determined before should come to pass.

 

Whether or not God does this on a constant basis is irrelevant.

All it takes is just one example of this to throw cold water on the universal free will claim.

Free will is articulated in scripture by the endless choices it states we have.

Predestine means to determine in advance.

You don't have endless choices when a particular action has already been selected for you.

God has the endless choices, not you.

The script was already written by God, ahead of time.

 

Jos 24:15

And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.

A truly free choice would not have an ultimatum attached.

Christian theology sits on the foundation of a threat based ultimatum, not unlike that of a Mafia boss.

 

Both Acts 2:23 and 4:28 are compatible with middle knowledge and free will.

You don't have free will when your script was written in advance by an outside power.

 

He predetermined the actualized world in which the choices spoken of were made. The players could have chosen differently, but God would have foreknew such an alternate choice and actualized a different world. Logically it is very simple.

The players could not have chosen differently when a choice isn't theirs to make.

 

Eph 1:4-5,11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

According to whose will?

According to his will, not yours.

 

Rom 8:28-29

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

Predestination = to know and to determine in advance.

 

So you have ...

1) Clear scriptural indications of our ability to choose.

So you also have...

Clear scriptural indictations that God predestines at least some humans to a particular action, role, or condition.

 

Rom 9:11-13

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

Who determines physical deformities? God does.

The individual has no choice in the matter.

 

Exo 4:11

And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

 

God subjected creation to a curse, against its will, because God wrote the script in advance.

 

Rom 8:20-21 (NLT)

Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope,

the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

 

Rom 8:20

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

At best, one can only claim that God may give choice in some matters but not in others.

The slighest amount of predestination being present is enough to render claims about universal free will as merely subjective exercises in pushing jello around a plate.

 

2) Quoted counter verses that can be interpreted easily within a middle knowledge framework.

That's right, and there are plenty of verses that easily shot to pieces claims about universal free will and endless choices.

 

I don't see the problem. I'm very comfortable both logically and theologically with molinism.

You don't have to see a problem.

You can believe anything that makes you feel comfortable.

Christian theologians have never been able to agree on these issues.

That's because there is no proper interpretation of theological word salad which conflicts with itself.

It has no more resolution that trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[centauri]

well, Pharoah seems not have the choice of choosing when God hardens his heart?

 

God through His middle knowledge knew the circumstances needed for Pharaoh to act the way He did through his own free will. Same case with Pilate.

And scripture undermines the notion about free will in these cases.

God determined the position of Pharaoh, as he does with all human authority on earth (Rom 13:1-3).

Not according to their will, but by his will and purpose.

 

Rom 9:15-17

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

 

God then promises to take affirmative actions to harden the heart of a fixture that he set in place, as part of God's plan to glorify himself to the world.

 

Exo 4:21

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

 

This is the same God that will purposely send delusions and evil spirits to influence human behavior.

 

2 Thess 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[centauri]

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument.

Yes, but isn't it telling that we need "philosophical arguments" to mutilate or invert the meaning of any plainly written verse that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

 

The philosophy comes into play because we have other verses that tell us we have free will also. Reasoning about scripture is fine in the eyes of God.

 

Isa 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, ...

But that's not the Christian God.

 

The Christian God is this:

 

"Come now, let me tell you what you need to do to avoid my wrath."

"If you want to engage in reasoning, make sure you reach the proper conclusion....or else."

[LivingLife]

We are not free agents.

 

I disagree circumstances force choices. You and I are both participating in this thread, which is a small subset of shared circumstances in our lives, yet you choose not to believe in Christ and I do. Now naturally you will claim some other circumstances outside this thread have determined the difference in our belief, but we have no reason to believe so based on induction of the small set we share. What magic set determines the difference.

 

Also, the assertion that we have no free will is to claim we are deterministic machines, which is a scientific claim. The science in this area is very speculative, and such science does not exist at the moment.

 

We are not deterministic. You are not a free agent to even remotely affect the pre-outcomes of choice.

 

I had no choice to be born in Africa. Ergo everything since my birth was choice based on that/those circumstance(s). Had I been born in the US or visa versa with you, your life would have followed a totally different path.

 

Free will in relation to belief of a mythical/imaginary being are of no consequence and is pointless debating it. There are no consequences linked to belief or lack thereof, mere speculation.

 

You pretty much see a pre-deterministic model by reflection of your past however taking this to a philosophical level is pointless as then you enter the realm of space time continuums and the like and mostly a lot of if onlys.

 

Very simple example. Had I stayed on in Zimbabwe another decade, I would have met another wife and my current and only wife another husband. I would have other kids or none and likewise with my wife. Does that mean we were destined to meet; her 1000km from her home town and me more than 1500km from mine?

 

No, her circumstances finding her way to the town we stay in and mine were radially different. Mine esp. followed a path of drug abuse and to get clean I had to forcibly extract my self out of the city where I knew all the dealers as I was one myself. Plus I needed a job and my dad could organise one for me, he was in recruitment.

 

My religious conversion came some 7 years later.

[bornagainathiest]

Free will does not exist, not even in real life. Period.

 

All you can do is make a choice on predetermined external circumstances outside your control.

 

Show me any choice you made you think was as a result of free will and I will show you either the coercion or the external circumstances.

 

We are not free agents.

 

I disagree circumstances force choices. You and I are both participating in this thread, which is a small subset of shared circumstances in our lives, yet you choose not to believe in Christ and I do. Now naturally you will claim some other circumstances outside this thread have determined the difference in our belief, but we have no reason to believe so based on induction of the small set we share. What magic set determines the difference.

 

Also, the assertion that we have no free will is to claim we are deterministic machines, which is a scientific claim. The science in this area is very speculative, and such science does not exist at the moment.

 

And if it existed tomorrow and demonstrated that we ARE deterministic machines, OC, would you have any choice in selectively denying that science?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument.

Yes, but isn't it telling that we need "philosophical arguments" to mutilate or invert the meaning of any plainly written verse that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

 

The philosophy comes into play because we have other verses that tell us we have free will also. Reasoning about scripture is fine in the eyes of God.

 

Isa 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, ...

 

Reason together?

 

Isn't that God-speak for...

 

"I will punish you at the end of your life with eternal hellfire for not making the choice I want you to make. All other choices you can make are penalized in just the same way. So you are free to make any choice you like, but only the one I want you to make is free from everlasting torment."

 

Sounds to me like an uncreated, all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal God coercing His finite, limited and mortal creations (you or me) into doing what He wants. The only choice we have is...

 

Believe or Burn!

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

The doctrine of middle knowledge is a philosophical argument.

Yes, but isn't it telling that we need "philosophical arguments" to mutilate or invert the meaning of any plainly written verse that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

 

The philosophy comes into play because we have other verses that tell us we have free will also. Reasoning about scripture is fine in the eyes of God.

 

Isa 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, ...

 

Reason together?

 

Isn't that God-speak for...

 

"I will punish you at the end of your life with eternal hellfire for not making the choice I want you to make. All other choices you can make are penalized in just the same way. So you are free to make any choice you like, but only the one I want to make is free from everlasting torment."

 

Sounds to me like an uncreated, all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal God coercing His finite, limited and mortal creations (you or me) into doing what He wants. The only choice we have is...

 

Believe or Burn!

 

BAA.

 

Yet another valid argument that OrdinaryClay will ignore or "misunderstand".

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I disagree circumstances force choices. You and I are both participating in this thread, which is a small subset of shared circumstances in our lives, yet you choose not to believe in Christ and I do. Now naturally you will claim some other circumstances outside this thread have determined the difference in our belief, but we have no reason to believe so based on induction of the small set we share. What magic set determines the difference.

 

 

 

Hello OC, I read your link to Wikipedia on Molinism, plus two others on Catholic websites. Interesting...

 

I can only make a few brief responses right now.

 

1. I agree with Centauri and others who have provided scripture to show that God's decision precedes the decisions of creatures. Esp. important are those that say that God decides the contrary of what the creature "wills."

 

2. I also have not seen you demonstrate that "free choice" in the Molinist sense is a conception articulated in scripture. I have only seen you emphasize that creatures make choices. No one denies that. You have not shown that God is not the first in a string of causes that determine the creature's choice; I think you've just made assertions about this. Molinists might be able to argue that being made in the image of God entails "free" will in their sense, but that needs to be demonstrated, since "in his image" is so vague that lots of conclusions can be picked out of it.

 

 

3. I still think the result is bizarre. It puts God's sovereignty in a position of reaction to the choices of creatures. Doesn't this just strike you as a bass-ackward view of GOD? As the Catholic sites I looked at say, from the point of view of theologians who opposed Molina and his followers, the M position leaves God's particular (not common or whatever) grace not free. It is no longer acc. to his gracious will that he selects creatures but acc. to theirs, to which he reacts. This diminishes divine grace. It's no wonder that Arminians (I do not say Molinists are A's) have a piety that treats Jesus as their pal more than as their Lord.

 

4. I can't work this out now, but I think there is ambiguity in key terms like "creature" and "free choice" that needs to be unpacked. the M argument may be vitiated by an equivocation or excluded middle term.

Let's call the person making the "free decision" Ruth. God's middle knowledge knows all the possible decisions of Ruth, including the one God likes, and God creates a world in which that one will be actualized. So by his middle he knows lots of counterfactual Ruths and the one actual Ruth whom he creates, and by his free knowledge he knows the actual Ruth as actual.

But the actual Ruth is not identical to any of the counterfactual Ruths because not all that is true of the actual Ruth is true of them (and vice versa). So when the Molinist says, "God knows all the decisions Ruth would make in all possible worlds and chooses to create the world in which Ruth will make the choice he wants," the first "Ruth" in this sentence is not identical to the second "Ruth." There's an equivocation lurking in here. Similar reasoning with the "free choices."

 

5. Your first sentence in what I quoted from your reply to LL seems to undermine Molinism. One of the points of Molinism is to explain how God can get guaranteed, desired choices from creatures. Any given choice is determined by the chain of causes that goes back to God's creative act. Once God creates the universe, ALL choices are determined. Perhaps your use of the word "forced" is the problem. Let's take it out. You agree that circumstances determine choices without fail? Molinism falls apart if you deny this, as far as I can see. But if you agree, then LL is correct.

 

Thanks a lot, OC, for distracting me from the work I should be working on!

[Ouroboros]

Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. 19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; 20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.”

 

Don't sounds like an invitation to reason but rather a threat. "Let's reason here. I'll kill you if you resist and rebel, but if you obey, I'll take care of you."

 

God is an asshole.

[bdp]

OC: