Free will, or is it?

The confusion is easily cleared up. I was responding to a piece by you which indicated mormonism to be a works-based religion. I included it with all the other works-based religions thus: The above in contrast to biblical Christianity which would argue that it is alone amongst all world religions in posing that man makes no contribution at all to his salvation / right relationship with God (Christianities "carrots")..
.
.
.
. It might be worth mentioning from the outset that the specific area of freewill whose existance I deny, has to do with mans relationship and position and response wrt God / sin / salvation etc. In areas such as "which colour suit should I wear today" free will is (for want of biblical evidence to the contrary) free to operate. That said, I don't suppose Gods sovereign insistance that you wear the charcoal suit (for it is the one that will best catch the eye of the girl God has in mind for you to meet that day) would be taken as an objectionable intrusion by anyone.Thus, when I said this.... ...I meant it to illustrate how freewilled choices would be made in the category relating directly and indirectly to sin, salvation, God. For example:A lost man is tempted to commit adultery on a business trip away. He struggles with it and finally succeeds in overcoming the temptation. He arrives home unscathed and kiss his wife, conscience clean. The man is said to express his freewill by those who suppose the existance of such a thing in a lost manClearly the area involved is the law of God and the mans response. My argument would differ from your in noting that the man, in arriving home, has not made any free willed choice in the matter of his near-illicit-act, even though that is how he (and you) perceives things to be. What has prevented him from committing adultery is (in fact) a combination of two things:a) God's truth (and the sense behind that truth) revealed to him by God. God has effectively presented argumentation aimed at convincing the man to goodness through the medium of conscience. All without God revealing who is behind God's truth. The man could be a Confucianist from Taiwan coming back from a business trip to Tibetb) Man will not expressing itself. I'm assuming man possessing a depraved nature here. A Calvinistic T (although I am not a Calvinist). A sinful nature the Bible calls it. And the sinful nature, whenever it expresses itself, can express itself only in one way: to move a man to sinful acts. And the mechanism by which it achieves this is described biblically as "suppressing truth". To suppress the truth is to bury the restraining argument supplied by God. Once buried there is no restraint and the persons mind and body slide in the direction the sinful will would desire for it.Hopefully this example makes clear that the good husbands will not expressing itself in this case is not a choice he made. It's his sinful will doing absolutely nothing at all. A will doing nothing at all cannot be said to be chosing either left or right.It follows that in the measure the depraved will is silenced by Gods argument, Gods action will draw men to act according to his truth. It follows also that in the measure the sinful nature suppresses God's truth, the will will push men to act contra to God's truthI've to step out bluejay, hopefully this clarifies things for openers. I'll get back to your post asapEdited by iano, : No reason given.

This and the remainder of the post I've yet to respond to seem to overlap so I'll see if I can cover both here. I wouldn't be familiar enough with Freud to comment. Although there are layers to this thing (..that I haven't even begun to get my head around), the critical and deciding factor would be this duality: Mans (sin-addicted) will vs. God's will. And whose will will finally be done.You ask that I contrast these two points of mine: There are two distinct issues being conflated here: Gods general interaction with all lost men and the specific individual belief a person arrives at regarding Gods existance*.Regarding the former. The 'parable' of the good husband has limited scope even if it has widespread application. It refers simply to Gods general action upon all lost men with a view to world management and order as well as being a vital tool applied to the problem of a mans eternal destination: be it salvation or damnation.It begins to describe why lost men do any good at all (in the case where mans sinful will is not exercised). And why all lost men do evil (in the case where mans sinful will is exercised). We should imagine this simplistic model to be a far more sophisticated in practice, with each "scene" in the life of a man being made up of dozens of 'frames' involving God's restraint vs. mans will seeking expression unto sin. In a slightly more complex parable to the good husband one, a mugger brutally beats his victim but "manages" to "stop himself" short of murdering her - reckoning it to be a step he just cannot take.
.
.
.
This "model" happens to answer an objection to Calvinisms T (less clunkily than Calvinism itself manages - from what I can gather). The objection queries why men, if totally depraved, are not as bad as bad can be? That is: why aren't all men like Hitler? The answer should be apparent: Gods restraint acts effectively preventing all men being a evil as Hitler or worse. It would follow too that state of the world at any given moment is the sum total of the expression of Gods will for man and mans will for man.
.
.
.
Conflation occurs when supposing this general, daily interaction between God and all lost men to equate to the circumstance by which a mans belief in Gods existance* occurs. It is not. Although this general interaction is part of the overall strategy of God - leading eventually to a mans damnation or salvation - it is not the same arena in which belief in Gods existance takes place - if it is to occur at all.It may be helpful if I fast forward to remark on the-point-of-belief-in-Gods-existance. This leaves a large gap between the general activity of God and that specific point. But it might be useful to draw the a distinction between the two for the purposes of overviewI have said that it is unreasonable and irrational for God to ask a man to believe in that for which he has no (or insufficient) evidence. Be that as it may, there are many Christians who suppose just that. They exhort people to "Just believe in God" or "Believe that Jesus died for you" as if it was simply a question of the persons choosing. We both seem to agree that such a belief would be a bootstrap belief.Common sense should tell us that the only way a person can truly believe that God exists is if God actually shows up personally. All other beliefs are but blind beliefs of one sort or another - differing only in order of the magnitude of blindness. They could not compete with the quality of belief that would arise in a person to whom God personally revealed his existance.God must reveal himself to man before man can believe God exists. And the only way for this to occur is to have the barrier which exists between God an all fallen men removed. This barrier is removed when a man is saved so it follows that a man must first be saved before God will reveal himself to man. Which is to say that a man must be saved (by God) before he can believe God exists."You must believe" is not something you must first do in order that you be saved. Rather, "You must believe" is a characteristic state of the saved. In order to be saved you must indeed (be in a state of ) believe.* by "believe that God exists" I mean believe in the sense relevant to belonging to the saved. Not in the sense that enables the demons (who are not saved) to believe. Nor the sense that has people believe in God's existance on religious or intellectual grounds.It's late bluejay and I gotta get to bed so will come back more on the remainder of this post. I hope the above deals with the remainder of your last post and that separating things out lays the land out a bit better.From your post-before-last there is this outstanding: I would agree with aspects of Calvinisms Total Depravity in the sense of man being addicted to sin and totally dark of mind and nature. There is nothing in man that could possibly respond to man if left to own devices. He certainly has no choice potential arising out of his self - as a mans choosing can be considered a work and work is biblically excluded (I hold). I wouldn't see man as punishable for being born in this state however. It's sin that is punished, not the state of being a sinner.I would think that had God not acted in an attempt to restore man then there would be no just reason to punish man for his sin. You might as well suppose it just to punish a cat for catching mice. However, God does act to restore man and this action of his turns out to be a double edged sword. Man can suppress Gods truth and this suppression, this act of will in the face of Gods truth revealed to him renders man culpable - in a way that a cat is not.TULIPs U is problematic. Calvinists cannot say what criterion God has for chosing the one and not the other (for salvation). They accept he does have some criterion - and say they do not know what that is. But if you don't know what the criterion of Gods choosing is, then you cannot say it is unconditional and independant of anything in man. It might not be by a mans work. It might not be by a mans choosing for it. But they are but two conditions the Bible (arguably) excludes - which is a far cry from saying that all possible conditions are excluded.I would hold that salvation is conditional: if man does nothing** in face of Gods attempt to save him then he will be saved.** everyman will struggle to escape God - it's in mans nature to do so. The question is whether the fish wriggles itself off each and every hook attempting to land it. God will save everyone whose will won't finally be done. The lost are only those who insist their sinful will be done - to the point where God says "Enough - your will be done"Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We seem to be agreed that God doesn't manipulate in the sense of determining that we must be saved irrespective of our will in the matter. You hold "free will" to apply and I hold "no free will" need apply. Nevertheless, both our systems maintain our involvment in our salvation in some way: yours contributing to it, mine not contributing to it.Both can be said to be counter-Calvinism - which is a result of sortsRegarding God's manipulation in a non-determining way. "The law is a schoolteacher to lead us to Christ" is the kind of scripture which informs me that God uses the fact of our lawbreaking in his attempt to save us. The work of the Holy Spirit is to convince a man of sin and righteousness and judgement and it follows that this conviction process can be aided when there is sin available to convict a person of. An easy way for God to activate this aspect of the salvation attempt is to withold his restraining force from a man. His doing that ensures that that man plunges headlong into sin - like a straining dog on a leash, released.Call it "God hardening our hearts", call it "God handing us over to our sin". Once God witholds restraint, sins antagonism to the law of God, stirs up our sinful natures. Sin is sure to follow. And conviction material is generated for the Holy Spirit to work with. This process could go on for years as God wars with the sinful, suppressing, denying nature of manGod manipulating. To salvation or damnation. That double edged sword again. This is the Christian viewpoint too. The sanctification process is aimed at changing our characters to be evermore Christ-like. The essential difference however, is that this only applies to a person who is born again (there being no such thing as a Christian who is not born again). To be born again is to be adopted as a child of God. Only then can this parent/child relationship be said to exist.You are probably familiar with the Christian view that you are not born a child of God, but that you are born-again as a child of God. One of the aspects of this gift is the restoration of a persons free will. Now in relationship with God, a man can choose to respond to and grow in relationship with God - his salvation is already behind him, never to be lost. Might I suggest that the point of your existance here is to establish (with your input, to whit: doing nothing) where you will spend eternity? That is: eternity with God or without God. So long as the mechanism for establishing that is fair and just then no one need have a complaint. The mechanism I pose is fair and balanced - it just doesn't require free will to be involved at all. There is more than one way to crack a nut...The fact that you cannot render yourself righteous with God by your effort is neither here nor there. Indeed the attempt to do so is merely the fruit of the sinful nature and will only end in a mans damnation if left unchecked. God doesn't require that a man make himself righteous in his sight - only God can make a man perfect in his sight again. Whilst it was possible for man to rupture the relationship he had with God - it doesn't follow that man is in a position to restore that relationship himself. It's easy to smash an eggshell, but impossible to reverse the process to original and even-better-than-original.No wonder "all your (attempts at) righteousness are like filthy rags". Imagine offering up your attempt at piecing together a smashed eggshell saying, "all is now well. It's been restored"All God needs to know is whether your heart can be his. That your will is prepared to take up the position he has for it - not the position your fallen will demands for it (which includes earning it's own righteousness so as to maintain a semblance of independance from God). Once your heart desire is established for God, the barrier is broken down, the war is over, you have peace with God.You are born again. Me you too. ThanksEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The devil is (literally) in the detail. And the details are such as to open out onto unbridgeable canyons between our respective beliefs. But it's good to discuss. Unfortunately we cannot reference the book of Mormon in this discussion - given that I don't hold it in any way authoritive. Nor am I sure what the Mormon position is on the Bible. If I recall correctly, the Bible is considered corrupted in places? (rendering it untrustworthy).Whilst I don't think your view on pre-birth sonship is a biblical one I wouldn't disagree that we are created in the eternal realm "before" this life. Or rather "outside" this life. Talk of "before" and "eternity" in the same sentence is trying to mix oil and water. In what way differently? I think we respect each other enough to know that no offence should be taken were one to say that they held others view to be false. Dispassionately speaking, the Christian view of all other religions (including Mormonism) is that they are inspired by satan - who controls and rules over fallen mankind. Which means that all religions are his lies in one form or the other.One way in which to have a lie flourish is to keep it close to truth, so we should expect similarities / parallels between at least some religions and Christianity. And seeing as the lie comes from the same source, it wouldn't be a too surprising if similarities existed between the various incarnations of the lie. I think you are right. Free will and no free will lead to different conclusions.It is self-evident that a man without free will is completely and utterly reliant on God to draw him towards and into salvation - if he is to be saved. Naturally, man would also be reliant upon whatever provision God has for ensuring a mans salvation.That fact is the major difference between biblical Christianity and all other religions, including Mormonism. As soon as you introduce man having free will you have man having to save himself. We do both operate on the assumption of our having free will: you having it from the get go, me having it restored to me on being born again. Both of us assume ourselves subject to the influences of both evil and good with the option of choosing for either direction. Where we might have to part company is in the motivation for our choosing for good.Because Mormonism is a works-based religion, your motivation for living and doing good is inextricably tied up with the sense of having to earn whatever carrot Mormonism offers. You have to save yourself and if "doing good and not doing evil" is the currency that saves then good you will do your best to do. You will have other motivations too. But this one is inextribably tied up in your view. In terms of being "indistinguishable", your viewpoint aligns only with all other works-based religions.In comparison, my viewpoint holds that a "favorable afterlife outcome" is already mine and cannot be lost from the point of my gaining it (and I did nothing to gain it). On gaining salvation, I am made free to chose to do good instead of evil. The motivation becomes increasing love and respect for this graceful and beautiful God who saved me despite my sin.There is no hint or tinge that my motivations are the result of coercion or fear of what might happen should I drop the ball. I cannot be lost no matter what I do.This distinguishing feature: motivation for doing good/evil couldn't be more stark. And they are connected to this detail called free will or no. The canyon widens. No real problem there. As you point out later, there is an element of ego unrelated to selfish or moral issues. The bit that choses a blue or charcoal suit. Or choses to become an entomologist. That bit of us I have already agreed has got free will.All that seems to be left is this:- the remaining ego that seeks to satisfy selfish desires.- the super-ego which encourages the ego not to satisfy selfish desires (Holy Spirit / conscience effect)- id. encouraging the ego to satisfy selfish desires (satan tempting)The above set-up would be problematic from your point of view. This, because we have two protagonists working in opposition (the holy spirit and satan)... and you (the relevant section of ego) between them "seeking to satisfy selfish desires". The trouble arises because this description of ego equates to a totally depraved will. "Seeking to satisfy selfish desires" is what totally depraved wills do. Freud would appear to support my position...But I assume your actual position sees you otherwise. Not predisposed in a direction, rather neutrally positioned at a fork in the road. At that fork there is God urging you in one direction and satan urging you in the other. And you freewillingly chosing which way to go. Fast forwarding we see that you effectively save yourself through your choice.In my position a depraved, non-freewilled person will surely being saved by Gods effort - unless they reject Gods attempt to save them. Though not a freewilled choice is is an "effectively freewilled" choice supplied by God to sin-skewed people. It is as balanced as the fork-in-the-road scenario presumably is. The key difference between systems is that biblical Christianity has man saved by God, relying on God, giving all the glory to God and being freed by God to love God - unconditionally.

In name only. There is no substance. The title of my post, and the content therein was an attempt to divert you from the notion that there was any. Me following the word of the Lord (on account of my being saved already) vs. you following the word of the Lord (because you hope/expect/trust/gamble) to be saved by doing so, have no practical similarity. We might be walking in the same apparent direction but are on different sides of a grand canyon.- The order so provided is itself an interpretation and any perceived discrepancy arises relativistically.-

quote:

---

Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (v 19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26).

---

One other query arising from your comments on the Bible. Assuming the book of Mormon was considered 100% reliable, what % reliability would the LDS Bible achieve? Is it reliable only insofar as determined by the book of Mormon?- On being saved I am made free-to-chose, by God. Technically speaking, the old spiritual me is killed off (Freuds self-seeking ego) and a new spiritual me is born. This new me (or new creation as the NT puts it) embarks on the free-willed section of overall 'game'. I would be similar to the way you consider yourself to be at the moment: free willed and subject to influence. Of course we still are on different sides of the canyon: me on the free-willed side and you on the think-you-are-freewilled side (or so the discussion goes)Until a person is born again, the sole direction of will expression is unto sinfulness (blind people don't see this of course). The technical way in which a depraved will follows it's nature is to suppress the truth revealed to it by God through conscience. Sinful actions will follow (in order to satisfy the sinful wills desire). Of course, if the will doesn’t exercise itself then it remains exposed to truth and good actions follow- Saying "God needs to know....that your will is prepared" might give the impression that the will contributes by conceding willingly. This notion has been consistantly rejected by me in this thread - just in case you think I'm saying that. What I am doing is using a figure of speech to reflect the fact that a choice of sorts is made. Not a free-willed one like sinless/moral-less Adam had but one designed to be suitable for sin-enslaved, post-fall beings like us. God cuts the choice cloth to suit the application to hand.The wills choice for God is inferred (by God) indirectly. It goes something like this: God's work attempts to convince the will onto it’s knees - to surrender and become inactive, silent. This for obvious reasons: an active depraved will is only ever rejecting. Naturally, if a will has been silenced, rejection has been silenced too and the person has effectively - if not via the free will method - chosen for God. That is: a person chooses for God when they cease rejecting God. Once this choice is made, that part of the "game" is over and the person is born again / saved / declared righteous etc.It's only the will that refuses to be silenced that will continue to reject. Only the will which will not be brought to it’s knees can remain having it's will done. It's will ever rejecting, that will damns itself."Thy will be done".- Count it up:- your Freudian-part ego must die - life can be a painful process.
- you are immediately reborn.
- Christ must die for you.
- the father must pour out his wrath on his son in order to forgive you.The cost is stupendous- Let’s look at the case of Rahvin (knowing that I argue this to be the case for all lost men and that Rahvin shouldn’t see this as a comment upon himself in particular).You don’t know Rahvins heart. His exhibiting patience over the course of (what I am assuming is) a testing discusson consists of one or more of the following elements.1) Rahvin’s good work is the result of Gods truth. Rahvins sinful nature would naturally like to rip his opponant apart but God’s truth gives him reasons not to. Compassion and love are shone into Rahvins heart and hold Rahvin in truth. Rahvin perhaps sees his opponants immaturity and is able to forgive the barbs.2) Rahvin’s good work is the result of plain pragmatism which lies outside good/bad considerations. He decides that he would prefer a board that didn't slide into slanging matches and decides to lead by example. It’s a blue/charcoal suit gig. Simple preference.3) Rahvins good work is the result of depraved will expression. His will would love to rip his opponant to shreds but figures he can also make his opponant look stupid by remaining calm. He migh tbe able to infuriate his opponant in to getting himself banned. He might be held up in esteem by other men such as yourself for his apparent to others "good" . Seeking the praise of other men is pride and the depraved will is nothing if not proud.Whatever the case, there is no reason to respect Rahvin for his patience.1) It is God who must be credited with any genuine good that a depraved will does.2) There is no reason to respect a persons preferring a blue suit to a charcoal suit.3) There a no reason to respect a person motivated by pride or hate or anger- It can be seen from the above points that there is only one relevant area of the will which is concerned with righteousness. It is not the area where God’s truth results in good - for the will does nothing. It is not the blue/charcoal choice either. The only area left is the depraved will acting. The filthy rags righteousness of that will in action has been made apparent at 3) above.- Think of works-based religions as a black box. The input is your work. The output is salvation gained (the carrot in our particular religions). What goes on inside the black box is not all that relevant. Your work does save you in that it's being inputted turns whatever black box wheels and levers that output salvationHow does this strike you? This fact that mormonism shares this most critical of features with all other religons - bar one.- Hopefully you will see that there is no need to see God as self-important anymore. The key is viewing things from the depraved will perspective. It might help if you realise that the system Christianity proposes achieves the exact same thing as does yours: it provides man with a choice for God / against God. The only difference between your postion and mine is that the choice in Christianity is set up so that sinful man cannot contribute to his own salvation. And for good reason..Salvation by grace alone is the only way that man can be brought to be able to love God unconditionally. The only way that man can fulfill the greatest command given him

quote:

---

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love (agape) the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

---

No politician can take large sums of money from big business and say that his decisions are uninfluenced by his benefactors largesse. No person can work for his salvation and trust that his motivations exclude fear of the consequences of not working. Such a person cannot love God unconditionally for any love they might suppose themselves to have is tainted by Gods coercion. Coerced love is not a currency of love acceptable in the land of the kingdom of God.The land that God has planned for those who love him unconditionally. Edited by iano, : No reason given.