Are Humans Free Moral Agents?

[John317]

You just added to the Word of God by making a qualifier! Do you have the right to "qualify" the Words of God?

If we take Jesus' words out of context, it could mean that God can will Himself into non-existence. But is that possible? Of course not. God cannot possibly cease to exist. Do you agree?

Can God be both self-existent and eternal at the same time that He is non-existent?

[miz3]

When you make your qualifiers as you just did by stating:

"God cannot do ..... and God cannot do ...... etc" You are going against the Bible which clearly states that:

NOTHING

is impossible with God.

Why do you engage in this shameful editing and qualifying of God's Sacred Word so that God's Word means what "YOU" want it to be. Is God not capable of qualifying His own Word?

[John317]

You can raise all paradoxes you want. Such paradoxes do not change the Word of God even though your post tried to change the Word of God by inserting your "common sense" and "your paradoxes"!!!!! Can you read God's mind so that you can translate to us what He actually meant as if God did not clarify Himself enough!!!!!! Are you in doing so asserting that God really is not perfect?

Shame on you!!!!!!

God is certainly perfect, but God's perfection doesn't mean what you are claiming it to mean. You are claiming it to mean that there is nothing imaginable that God cannot do. If it was true, it would mean God can make a square circle. That is an absurdity.

Are you claiming that God can do things that are contrary to His character and will?

[teresaq]

What I said in my last post is typical of humans because they want to bring God down closer to themselves and by asserting that they are "free moral agents" humans are elevating themselves to be on a par with the God.

This is typical what the "sinful nature" does in the human entity.

When God truly comes into to the heart of humanity and changes the human to be truly Sanctified then and only then will the human realize the Truth about God and the Truth about themselves.

I see your point and agree with it-up to a point. lol

God has given us the power to choose, but "what" is the question. The demoniac clearly could not choose whether he would sin or not, nor can we. But he could choose Christ Who then freed Him. We can choose Christ Who then gives us the new man by faith.

I'm in a hurry so couldn't spend the time on this as I would have liked...just need to mention that there is much in the writings of Ellen White and our pioneers--and the bible--that we miss...

[John317]

NOTHING

is impossible with God.

Please answer this question:

Can God be both self-existent and eternal at the same time that He is non-existent?

[miz3]

John317,

What makes you the ONE who knows what God can and cannot do?

Who made you His definer?

The text says what it says and it gives no qualifiers!!!!!!!

How do you know that God cannot meet your silly and ridiculous paradoxes?

The text does not add, "except for such and such".

The text makes a flat unqualified statement!!!!!!!

Who are you to add or take away?

[John317]

John317,

What makes you the ONE who knows what God can and cannot do?

Who made you His definer?

All we know about God is in Christ and in the Bible. So the Bible defines it. If you read the text rightly and in its proper context, you will see that it is not saying what you claim it's saying. It is not saying that God can do absolutely anything anyone can imagine. That's how you appear to be reading it.

When the Bible says that God cannot lie or cannot be tempted by evil, it means exactly what it says. Those statements contradict the statement that God can do all things, if you understand the "all things" to include lying and being tempted by evil.

[John317]

John317,

How do you know that God cannot meet your silly and ridiculous paradoxes?

I am asking you if you believe God can be both self-existent and eternal at the same time that He is non-existent.

Is your answer yes?

If you think those question are silly and ridiculous, we could also say it's silly and ridiculous to ask if God can lie and be tempted with evil.

That is my whole point: all three things are silly and ridiculous because of course God cannot do any of them. Yet in the context of what Jesus was saying, the fact that God cannot lie and be tempted with evil, or will Himself into non-existence, doesn't contradict Jesus' statement. It only does so if we are foolish enough to believe this was the intent of Jesus' claim.

[miz3]

John317,

Your thesis is that we must read the text "rightly" and in "context".

The way are stating it that means we are to interpret the text to mean, what you see as "rightly" and/or what you see as "context".

If we don't fit your logic then we are not looking at the text correctly.

Again, who made you the definer of what the plain Word of God states.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If He had a sinful nature like His mother, He would have needed a Saviour himself, just like his mother.

The reason Christ was perfect and sinless was not simply because of the way He was born, but because of His choices. Sin is primarily choice and not nature. If Satan could point to Christ's different nature as the reason for His victory over sin, Satan would triumph, because it would prove that God's law cannot be obeyed by normal human beings. It would only prove that God's law can be obeyed by someone who is exempt.

Did Christ inherit the same genes as his mother, who had a sinful nature just like the rest of humanity? If so, he inherited genes after thousands of years of sin. Was he really related to David and Rahab and Abraham? If so, then Jesus inherited their genetic makeup.

The reason Jesus didn't need a Savior is that whenever He was faced with a choice whether to obey God or not, Jesus always chose to resist sin and obey God.

ESV | Ro 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Was Jesus under condemnation when He was born? If not, why not?

[miz3]

John317,

I have noticed a pattern in the way you determine what a particular text says.

You determine what it is saying based on what makes sense to you at the time you read it.

This is why you have so much trouble accepting what the Bible is saying without any qualifiers. You have developed a list of qualifiers based on:

1. What makes sense to the logic of your mind at the time.

2. What makes sense to you as the SDA Church has qualified the text.

3. What makes sense to you in regard to what you believe Ellen White has stated in her writings.

Without these qualifiers you would be and are indeed at a loss as to what the Bible is actually saying. If anyone does not accept your view based on these qualifiers then they are Babylon and/or the voice of Satan. This why you see yourself and other SDA who read Scripture as you do as the remnant of the remnant!!!!!

[doug yowell]

John317,

I have noticed a pattern in the way you determine what a particular text says.

You determine what it is saying based on what makes sense to you at the time you read it.

This is why you have so much trouble accepting what the Bible is saying without any qualifiers. You have developed a list of qualifiers

If anyone does not accept your view based on these qualifiers then they are Babylon and/or the voice of Satan. This why you see yourself and other SDA who read Scripture as you do as the remnant of the remnant!!!!!

Actually,I think your synapsis of John's motive and method of interpreting Scripture is probably just the opposite of what has been occurring. I see John as reading a text and comparing it with other texts that state just the opposite.These texts may serve as legitimate qualifiers. His line of question attempts to clarify how either or both of these seemingly contradictory texts can be harmonized or whether one of them is being misunderstood.And on this particular issue I would be willing to bet that his understanding mirrors the Scriptual understanding of 98% of all Christian thinkers. This is not an SDA creation.Of course, that doesn't automatically make John's interpretation right but it does drastically increase the size of his remnant of the remnant.

[doug yowell]

Again, who made you the definer of what the plain Word of God states.

Apparantly you have no trouble being the definer. How bout giving John the same slack as you give yourself?

[doug yowell]

[size:14pt][color:#006600]What I said in my last post is typical of humans because they want to bring God down closer to themselves

Nothing inherently wrong with that, in fact, God seems to have the same idea: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us..." "I will be their God...and will live among them." "Do not say in your heart,Who will ascend into heaven?(that is to bring Christ dowm from above)."But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is the word of faith which we preach): "And He has made from one blood every nation of men and has determined their preappointed times and the boundries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for HIm and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;" Since God has revealed that no one seeks after God He became responsible for initiating the process and thinking - thus opening to man the freedom to choose to serve Him.

[miz3]

I read the text as it is stated and do NOT add a bunch of qualifiers.

For example:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.

The words are very plain and unambiguous.

Reading with qualifiers:

1. The text really is that Jesus Christ created not the Father God.

2. As far as the earth was concerned there was no pre-existing material there.

3. Ellen White says "such and such".

Thus we would interpret the text differently than if we took the words just as they are. These qualifiers modify, sometimes qualifiers even completely change the text. This leads to many mistakes. SDA are particularly vulnerable because they have Ellen White and they misuse her as well. Secondly, SDA belief that they are the "last day people" which causes them to use that concept as a qualifier of Scripture. Mormons do the same with Joseph Smith. Roman Catholics do the same with their "tradition" as well as with their Papal announcements. Thus the human entity is frequently bringing in such biases along with their sinful nature bias when reading the Scripture.

This why we pray to God to send the Holy Spirit so that He will not let those preconceived biases interfere with our hearing what God is saying in His Word. We can then read EXACTLY what the Bible says just as it is written. NO QUALIFIERS!!!!!!!

[doug yowell]

I read the text as it is stated and do NOT add a bunch of qualifiers.

For example:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.

The words are very plain and unambiguous.

Reading with qualifiers:

1. The text really is that Jesus Christ created not the Father God.

Isn't this a perfect example of a proper qualifier? Isn't there a good reason why this qualifier is necessary, where the facts are made clearer by the qualifier?

[doug yowell]

I read the text as it is stated and do NOT add a bunch of qualifiers.

For example:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.

The words are very plain and unambiguous.

Reading with qualifiers:

2. As far as the earth was concerned there was no pre-existing material there.

Thus we would interpret the text differently than if we took the words just as they are. These qualifiers modify, sometimes qualifiers even completely change the text. This leads to many mistakes.

This would be an example of a qualifier that is improperly applied because it is not stated elsewhere in the Bible.It's a man made qualifier as opposed to the previous example(#1)which was a God made qualifier. Agreed?

[Musicman1228]

Try this.

Free Will - Creations Crowning Achievement.

[fccool]

I'll make it simple. Free = unconstrained in such context. I've yet to find out how's the choice of people who can't choose without some sort of direction by the Holy Spirit is a free choice. Likewise most of the examples given is akin to to being asked to choose your life or your wallet at gun point.

[doug yowell]

I'll make it simple. Free = unconstrained in such context. I've yet to find out how's the choice of people who can't choose without some sort of direction by the Holy Spirit is a free choice. Likewise most of the examples given is akin to to being asked to choose your life or your wallet at gun point.

Still a choice,just not a great selection of options.

[fccool]

Let's stop calling it free will then. There's nothing free about it. Do people have a choice to be born in poverty and hunger? Perhaps they have a choice non to be born to abusive parents or company of peers who only do terrible things for survival?

If there's a God, he can see through those things. The choices we make right now are very much determined by our environment. There's very little freedom involved. There's a very little free choice between not paying taxes and some jail time.

[miz3]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: miz3

I read the text as it is stated and do NOT add a bunch of qualifiers.

For example:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.

The words are very plain and unambiguous.

Reading with qualifiers:

1. The text really is that Jesus Christ created not the Father God.

Quote:

Quote by Doug "Isn't this a perfect example of a proper qualifier? Isn't there a good reason why this qualifier is necessary, where the facts are made clearer by the qualifier?

The problem I see with using this as a qualifier is that the text does not say anything about Jesus Christ. It uses the term "God". Now if we have other "Biblical" texts that allow us to state that Jesus Christ was also involved with the Father then we have more latitude. Unless we have other texts that qualify the original text in the clearest of tones then I believe the text stands as it is!!!!!!!!!!

Thus, taking the text cited alone "Jesus Christ" is not a correct qualifier. If we have other texts that are clearly related then we can use it as a correct qualifier.

The second point about "pre-existing material" is a bad qualifier because the text does say anything about it and we do not have any other Biblical evidence that states there was pre-existing material. Could there have been pre-existing material there? Of course there could. If there was God made it. We do not know whether or not the earth was made with pre-existing material or not. Genesis 1:1 is not the place that asserts this in any way, shape, or form!!!!!!!!!!!!

[miz3]

fccool,

You have grasped one of the nubs of the issue. A "choice" under duress or life threatening circumstances, such as a gun to the head, is not a choice, let a lone a free choice.

In fact even in American law such duress is not called a choice but is correctly called 'coercion'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any agreements made under such circumstances would be declared null and void!

Is it Love (as others on this thread have defined it) so far for God to give us such a "choice" by making it under duress.

Like you stated so pointedly and correctly this is anything but "Free Choice" and it certainly does not make us "free moral agents".

[John317]

...If anyone does not accept your view based on these qualifiers then they are Babylon and/or the voice of Satan. This why you see yourself and other SDA who read Scripture as you do as the remnant of the remnant!!!!!

This is not true. You need to ask members if they believe a particular way and not tell them. This is one of the rules of the Forum-- that we not put words in people's mouths that they have not said. If you made this kinds of statements about anyone else, they would be deleted.

[doug yowell]

Let's stop calling it free will then. There's nothing free about it. Do people have a choice to be born in poverty and hunger? Perhaps they have a choice non to be born to abusive parents or company of peers who only do terrible things for survival?

If there's a God, he can see through those things. The choices we make right now are very much determined by our environment. There's very little freedom involved. There's a very little free choice between not paying taxes and some jail time.

I think the thread is about free moral agencies,cool. Being born into any situation is not a moral choice or a moral issue, whereas paying taxes seems to be one by Biblical injunction.