Free Will Meticulously Examined… and Refuted!

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Er it is you playing dumb

asking

"Biblical arguements as it pertains to what specifically?"

What's the topic of the thread ?

Where are the arguments from the video you were challenged to produce ?

You produced nothing
Its not my video. I could care less. Talk to the producer. He can dumb it down for you
 

Sketo

Well-known member
But you're missing the point. It still wasn't God's will for them for them to make wrong choices to end up there.
God’s Foreknowledge is Gods perfect knowledge of the results of his own actions.

If God 100% knows that by creating someone that they will certainly choose to sin, then by taking that act of creating them, he is ENSURING that His foreknown results of that action will happen. Period.

The part that you are missing is God is not “forced” to create anyone that He perfectly knows will sin… therefore by taking the, bare minimum, action of creating, from that foreknowledge, it can be said that it was Gods “will” for them to sin.

“free will” can not change this fact!



It seems Calvinists make this about every extreme thing they can imagine what free will must mean but it's not important to prove mankind has "free will" in however extreme way one wants to define it.

The only imagined thing here is the unjustified claim that the God that perfectly knows the future of his creation, before creation, can also be the same God that “gives” the ability, after creation, to do other than what he perfectly knew.

There is ZERO biblical foundational support for this imaginary idea but you claim it anyway!

Justify your claim…

Some would ask can someone forbid to go to hell if God says they're going there. All say NO thus mankind does not have free will!

Did God know for 100% certainty those who end up in hell, before he created them, would end up there?

If you say yes then the very act of creating them is no different then “God -saying- they’re going” there! Nothing can change this without destroying Gods knowledge before he created!

But advocating free will when it comes to one choosing LIFE is a freedom God HAS PROVIDED.

This is the unjustifiable claim that the Bible does not support! The God who knows perfectly can not also “PROVIDE” freedom to do other than his foreknowledge! Logically impossible!

At what point before, or after creation, can God “PROVIDE” you with the “freedom” to do other than his foreknowledge… without affecting the “fore” part of his knowledge?

It’s unbiblical, unjustifiable, and illogical… this is why every Provisionist is forced to appeal to mystery, because this concept can only exist in the imagination!

Justify your claim!

A parent may give their child the freedom to stay out till 9:00 pm. They have the free will choice to do that and no one can argue that they don't. Do they have the free will choice to stay out till 10? No. But they still had freewill as defined by what they were allowed.

A “parent’s relationship to their child” is to weak of an argument to describe the the metaphysical relationship between God and his creation!

The Bible states…

Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Acts 17:28“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;”

You are describing a “relationship” between a “parent and child” that can exist precisely because the parent is NOT God!

To suggest that any part of Gods creation can be meticulously disconnected from God is suggesting Semi-Deistic Dualism where things are happening by a power other than God… and scripture does not support this anywhere!

If God could create and let go of something such that it functions apart from the power of God then the very moment it starts functioning by that other power God is no longer Omnipotent… this is the heresy of Dualism!
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
God’s Foreknowledge is Gods perfect knowledge of the results of his own actions.

If God 100% knows that by creating someone that they will certainly choose to sin, then by taking that act of creating them, he is ENSURING that His foreknown results of that action will happen. Period.

But not causually. He is ensuring it, but is not the primary instrumentation.

The part that you are missing is God is not “forced” to create anyone that He perfectly knows will sin… therefore by taking the, bare minimum, action of creating, from that foreknowledge, it can be said that it was Gods “will” for them to sin.

“free will” can not change this fact!

In some sense we have to say the very existence of sin is a form of God's will, in that he could disallow it.

But to say God wills to allow things that are not his will seems like a paradox—

However, when we use words like allow and permit we are saying something beyond flat determinism, and determinists should never use these words.

God does will the potentiality of his will not being done without desiring it to be done. So it's multi-layered: God desires to allow but that the allowance be fulfilled. God desires to create potential, without the realization or actualization.

The only imagined thing here is the unjustified claim that the God that perfectly knows the future of his creation, before creation, can also be the same God that “gives” the ability, after creation, to do other than what he perfectly knew.

Knowledge is not causal, this can easily be illustrated.

We could bring up a different objection in the case of responsibility, that is, we could object that God is somehow responsible for everything he foreknows will happen, because he has an obligation to act on his knowledge.

Did God know for 100% certainty those who end up in hell, before he created them, would end up there?

If you say yes then the very act of creating them is no different then “God -saying- they’re going” there! Nothing can change this without destroying Gods knowledge before he created!

But this is not an argument, this is an assertion.

You need to realize the above statement is not a logical argument but a bald assertion.

This is the unjustifiable claim that the Bible does not support! The God who knows perfectly can not also “PROVIDE” freedom to do other than his foreknowledge! Logically impossible!

But this is not necessary for true freedom.

True freedom in fact entails within its definition the impossibility of doing other than you freely choose.

Let's take a scenario where God does not have any omniscience or foreknowledge, and even in this case, a free choice can not logically choose more than one option available. Only one option can be chosen—so only one option will be chosen.

It makes more sense to argue the impossibility of libertarian autonomy from the existence of logic alone, than to argue that omniscience disproves it.

At what point before, or after creation, can God “PROVIDE” you with the “freedom” to do other than his foreknowledge… without affecting the “fore” part of his knowledge?

It is not necessary for the definition of freedom for God to enable us to do other than he knows.

All that is necessary is that our free decision is not logically necessitated or determined by God's knowledge.

It's a real chicken or egg problem—and because God is outside of time, his knowledge does not have to logically be prior to a decision.

It’s unbiblical, unjustifiable, and illogical… this is why every Provisionist is forced to appeal to mystery, because this concept can only exist in the imagination!

Justify your claim!

I'm no Provisionist, rather a Classical Arminian, but all theologies appeal to mystery at some point.

You need to understand that you are utilizing logic in a way that cannot be derived from reading the Bible, so your arguments necessarily cannot be derived from the Bible alone. The Bible is not a logic textbook, so all logic is a presupposition we take to the Bible.

To suggest that any part of Gods creation can be meticulously disconnected from God is suggesting Semi-Deistic Dualism where things are happening by a power other than God… and scripture does not support this anywhere!

This is not necessary for free will. God is the one who upholds and empowers free will.

If God could create and let go of something such that it functions apart from the power of God then the very moment it starts functioning by that other power God is no longer Omnipotent… this is the heresy of Dualism!

Logical fallacy, an incorrect ad hoc definition of omnipotent.

Power is not necessarily used by definition.

God could blow up the world right now, but he is not less omnipotent for declining to use that power.
 

Rockson

Active member
In some sense we have to say the very existence of sin is a form of God's will, in that he could disallow it.
I do like your post but I'd say the existence of sin was never God's will, what was his will was the mere allowance of man going a different direction that LIFE. What was his will was that he maintain his character of LOVE, that is if you love something allow it to have freedom.
God desires to create potential, without the realization or actualization.
Well said. And he created the potential for he is LOVE and with LOVE there MUST be Liberty.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
what was his will was the mere allowance of man going a different direction that LIFE. What was his will was that he maintain his character of LOVE, that is if you love something allow it to have freedom.

Well said. And he created the potential for he is LOVE and with LOVE there MUST be Liberty.

But there is more than a factor of love here, because why do the consequences for rejection/sin necessarily have to be so severe?

This is why many Christians are falling to annihilation/conditional immortality, they don't like the severity of the consequences.

For this I think we need the explanation of holiness, and not love.

I do like your post but I'd say the existence of sin was never God's will

I did qualify with "in a sense," the sense he could have prevented the possibility.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
The only imagined thing here is the unjustified claim that the God that perfectly knows the future of his creation, before creation

There is ZERO biblical foundational support for this imaginary idea but you claim it anyway!

There it is. Sketo affirms the premise behind open theism
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Shouldn't cut quotes out of context.
The context is there

Anyone can read it

Is there any doubt he supported the premise upon which open theism resides

Mind you this is not a claim he is an open theist

only that he supports the premise of open theism
 

Sketo

Well-known member
There it is. Sketo affirms the premise behind open theism

Wow… is this how you also treat Gods word…
You are better than this Tom…

(My quote in context…)
The only imagined thing here is the unjustified claim that the God that perfectly knows the future of his creation, before creation, can also be the same God that “gives” the ability, after creation, to do other than what he perfectly knew.

There is ZERO biblical foundational support for this imaginary idea but you claim it anyway!

Justify your claim…

The “free will” position’s claim is that God can be the “perfect knowerbefore creation, and also be the “free to do other than giverafter creation!

This is the unbiblical, unjustifiable, illogical, claim!
 

civic

Well-known member
Shouldn't cut quotes out of context.
Go and do likewise when you accuse me of saying something I did not say and also do not quote what you claimed I said but in reality never said what you claimed.

Shouldn't cut my quotes out of the context either when you reply or start a thread with a fallacious argument about me.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Wow… is this how you also treat Gods word…
You are better than this Tom…

(My quote in context…)


The “free will” position’s claim is that God can be the “perfect knowerbefore creation, and also be the “free to do other than giverafter creation!

This is the unbiblical, unjustifiable, illogical, claim!
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Go and do likewise when you accuse me of saying something I did not say and also do not quote what you claimed I said but in reality never said what you claimed.

Shouldn't cut my quotes out of the context either when you reply or start a thread with a fallacious argument about me.

I didn't, you false accuser. And you can't prove I did.

Your not being consistent, is not me quoting you out of context.

Me not agreeing with the logical conclusions you insist have to be, is not me quoting you out of context.

Me not phrasing things exactly to your liking, is not me quoting you out of context.


I don't think you are thinking straight because of spiritual strongholds in your life and so I won't hold it against you.

But if you had integrity, you would apologize.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Just one more time... how "free" is your will " REALLY "

Does God make you sin every time you sin?

Does the devil make you sin every time you sin?

Who is left?

You.

But we have people on here claiming that saying the devil made me sin is wrong, and claiming God made me sin is wrong, yet claiming I have any real free will is wrong.

And they don't even see their own inconsistency and how they constantly contradict themselves, then make up false accusations of misrepresentation like the devil.

Strongholds.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
Everybody is responsible for their own sins, and cannot foolishly blame anyone else. Now in regards to the will, Jesus said no one can serve two masters, but will serve one or the other. And if they have a master, that means they are a slave to that master. This is found in Matthew 6:24 and Romans 6:16ff.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Sketo said:
Wow… is this how you also treat Gods word…
You are better than this Tom…

(My quote in context…)


The “free will” position’s claim is that God can be the “perfect knowerbefore creation, and also be the “free to do other than giverafter creation!

This is the unbiblical, unjustifiable, illogical, claim!

It is only illogical if you confound foreknowledge with necessity and determination
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Does God make you sin every time you sin?

Does the devil make you sin every time you sin?

Who is left?

You.

But we have people on here claiming that saying the devil made me sin is wrong, and claiming God made me sin is wrong, yet claiming I have any real free will is wrong.

And they don't even see their own inconsistency and how they constantly contradict themselves, then make up false accusations of misrepresentation like the devil.

Strongholds.
Good point

You

Even if the Calvinist opts for permission

What is God permitting but the free will of a creature
 

civic

Well-known member
I didn't, you false accuser. And you can't prove I did.

Your not being consistent, is not me quoting you out of context.

Me not agreeing with the logical conclusions you insist have to be, is not me quoting you out of context.

Me not phrasing things exactly to your liking, is not me quoting you out of context.


I don't think you are thinking straight because of spiritual strongholds in your life and so I won't hold it against you.

But if you had integrity, you would apologize.
get over yourself

I have strongholds ?

I will bet you a 1000/1 not a single Arminian on CARM will agree with you.

Are you sure you are an Arminian ?

Doctrine doesn't make you an Arminian, one has to put those beliefs into practice or have you forgotten about that part of your religion ?
 
Top