Are Humans Free Moral Agents?

[WayneV]

miz3,

Sorry for speaking to you.

Agape`

[miz3]

WayneV,

I was not trying to silence you. I was trying to stimulate you to engage in reasonable dialogue. I was trying to get you to use the Bible to confront my question!!!!!!!

However, you attacked me personally, as well as my position by using "western philosophy", the sayings and writings of Reformation giants, your own logic, etc.

I was hoping for better from you!

To repeat my question: "Are humans Free Moral Agents?" Does the Bible support that they are? It appears that Ellen White mostly does but there are places where she does appears to support that humans are not free moral agents.

Since SDA say that they are a Bible and Bible only religion (organization, people, etc.) how to they use the Bible to support their position that humans are indeed free moral agents as their 27/28 Book on Beliefs states. In the 27/28 book SDA assert they believe that humans are free moral agents but they give no supporting texts from the Bible.

I wanted to see the Bible support for such a doctrine???????? I am still waiting for the answer.

[Woody]

Quote:

However, you attacked me personally

If that actually happened ... it would have been against the rules. And the moderator would have rebuked the author and removed that post.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

To repeat my question: "Are humans Free Moral Agents?" Does the Bible support that they are? It appears that Ellen White mostly does but there are places where she does appears to support that humans are not free moral agents.

Since SDA say that they are a Bible and Bible only religion (organization, people, etc.) how to they use the Bible to support their position that humans are indeed free moral agents as their 27/28 Book on Beliefs states. In the 27/28 book SDA assert they believe that humans are free moral agents but they give no supporting texts from the Bible.

I wanted to see the Bible support for such a doctrine???????? I am still waiting for the answer

Well, sit back, kick up your heels, have a beer and pretzels, get yourself a copy of War and Peace, because you're in for a long wait. There are no specific or even non-specific texts in Scripture about "free moral agents." HOWEVER, if you bothered to look at the Fundamental Beliefs, as published, you will find numerous supporting texts for each and every belief.

What a colossal waste of time for such an argument.

roger, wilco, over & out

[Woody]

Good to see U welcome back Rudywoofs.

[John317]

Quote:

However, you attacked me personally

If that actually happened ... it would have been against the rules. And the moderator would have rebuked the author and removed that post.

The moderator does take time off sometimes for his family,etc., and besides, I can't see all posts. But I will have a look-see after I transfer a post.

[miz3]

To Rudywoofs,

I have a question for you that has been bugging me for years. No one has yet been able to give me a credible answer.

Where in the Bible does it say that humans have a "free will" and/or "freedom of choice" and/or are "free moral agents"? I find no where in the Scriptural Record either these terms or even an indirect allusion that such exists.

Given the above, where do SDA's get that humans are "free moral agents" and/or have a "free will" and/or have "freedom of choice"? The SDA book stating the 27 beliefs on page 85 states clearly that SDA's believe humans are free moral agents, have free will, and freedom of choice. Yet they give no scripture to back up their statement. On page 87 they again state what was said on page 85. Again no Scripture is given to back their assertion. A third assertion that humans are free moral agents is made on page 89 but the referenced texts have nothing to do with "free moral agency", "free will", or "free choice".

So again I ask, where in the Biblical Record does the doctrine of "free moral agency", and/or "free will", and/or "freedom of choice" exist? In addition, if it does not exist in Scripture then where did SDA's get this doctrine?

That quote was the original question. Your statement that every belief has supporting Biblical documentation is not true for this topic!!!!!!!

That is precisely why I asked the question and further stipulated that it must be supported by the Bible and the Bible only!!!

If SDA wants to say that they get this Doctrine from only the writings of Ellen White fine, however, SDA say that they get everything from the Bible and that Ellen White is only secondary repetitive source.

Please Rudywoofs where are those Bible texts. I have yet to see them.

[miz3]

Dear Woody and John317,

I must in the interest of being TOTALLY TRUTHFUL and to be sure that I do NOT give you and others the wrong impression, clarify what I accused WayneV of doing.

It is a question of subjective point of view as opposed to objective criteria.

In a recent post I stated that WayneV personally attacked me. From my point of view that is true. However, from the point of view in general and according to the rules of this website it is a NO!

The reason I say that is because of the nature of the way posts are written and it is correct that the website takes the policy the way they do. I was expressing my own evaluation of what I perceive to be a personal attack.

Here is what WayneV actually said that I took personally:

You imply that your position is based only on Scripture. I appreciate your dedication to the Word, but that is impossible. Each of us bring preconceptions and prior theological learning to our interpretation of the Bible, including me, you, and those authorities who have 'discovered' these other perspectives. That's right, they each used the Bible as their 'only' authority, too. So too, I have noted, do all of those who are arguing an opposing view on this thread.

You state that you "do not care what other authorities might say or purpose (sic)". Might I suggest that by standing on the shoulders of giants you can see farther than by trying to ignore them. However, if you like inventing the wheel from scratch just so you can drive the car your way, that is your prerogative. I was only trying to help.

As you can see by the criteria of the website, which I fully support, WayneV does not deserve any chastisement nor did he violate website rules.

The part that I took as personal was WayneV's evaluation of my preconceptions how they affect my views of Scripture. In addition I took exception at the assertion that I need to stand on the shoulders of the Reformers and thus as I took it, I should therefore be silent.

I apologize to WayneV because it was not my intention to get him into trouble.

I further apologize to the Administration for creating a hornets nest about this. It was not intention to add to your burdens.

I write this post as I stated above, so that all will be clear that I am being honest about what I am doing and why. Honesty and Truth are vital to me and that means that I must be as transparent as is reasonably possible. I should have no hidden agendas nor should I twist things to my own advantage. I should have been clearer in my post so that others would not get the wrong idea about WayneV.

I am indeed trying to be provocative in an intellectual sense but I am not trying to be provocative in an evil sense!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!

[miz3]

"miz3,

1) What is sin? How can one be sinless or not if sin had not yet existed? Did sin exist before the fall of Adam? What was the nature of mankind before Adam was formed in the dust?

2) Would you believe me IF I said that Jesus talks to me and gave me revelations and he met me on the way to Las Angeles and told me things? Ha? well, if you wouldn't believe me, then why do you believe Saul/Paul? It's nonsense -- totally nonsense when you put it all together especially when Saul was alive during the time of Jesus and Jesus could have chosen him them! Wake up before it's too late!

3) As with the tree of life, tell me what it is doing in the earth made new? Huh? Adam was flesh and blood. That means he was mortal and was going to die anyway. Just because John317 ASSUMES something does not mean it is right. You and I were not there so everything is a theory anyway.

4) Can't argue with that--as that is exactly what happened. God's plan for restoration was in the works and it still is.

5) As for being ignorant of "Scripture", please define the words "scripture". Jesus called the Law and the Prophects scripture. Interestinly, Jesus didn't even call His words scripture but called them instead, "The Testimony of Jesus". There was no such thing as a "bible" during the time of Jesus and Paul.

5B) Define the word Nature? Just because someone gains knowledge and wisdom does not necessarly change their 'nature'. Look, I don't understand 'gay' people or pedefiles because that is not my 'nature'. How someone could get sexually stimulated by the same type sex partner is totally freeky to me! Same for sex with a child! Personlly, just thinking about it makes me want to puke. Well, the same thing goes for people who are evil. I just cann't stand them! Period! People who believe in lies are just fooling themselves and can't even be honest with themselves.

As for the word "knowing" please prove your case by presenting the evidence backing up your word. Just because you didn't know something one day and then learned another day does not change your "nature". Just because they found out they were naked didn't change their "nature" either.

As for babies, they are not born with the knowledge of good and evil. They must learn it just as they must learn how to talk and walk. But they all are free to choose to obey the Covenant and the testimony of Jesus, or not.

Therefore, show me ONE lie that I believe in--please? If it is proved to be a lie then I will repent and not believe it anylonger."

To Dr. Rich,

1a. The Bible clearly states that "sin" is the "transgression of the law". That is disobedience both in spirit and all other ways of God's wishes.

King John of England, I believe, once said that: "The law is in my mouth!"

Well unfortunately for king John it was not true. For God the Law is indeed in His mouth and the Law is also in every thing that He created from the smallest scintilla to the enormous singularity of the whole Creation. Thus, as the Psalmist and Paul both state we humans are without excuse.

1b. If one has not violated the Law they are sinless. However, if you are talking about an entity's nature then a sinless nature is a nature that is NOT BIAS TOWARD SIN. In fact the bias is toward law keeping. An entity is sinless only so long as sin is not "in them" in any way, shape, or form. Are the sinless "free moral agents"? They could be and they appear to be when we view the experience of Adam and Eve before the "Fall".

One has a sinful nature because their nature is biased toward sin. That is they automatically do sin. These are NOT FREE MORAL AGENTS because the Bible says they are not "free moral agents". In fact the Bible states that it is only possible for the person with a sinful nature to do and be sinful.

[see all the texts I have quoted in this whole thread as to where I get this Principle!] [The texts quoted are my authority because I believe they were inspired by God!!!!]

1c. Again from the Bible sin did exist before the Fall.

"And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." Revelation 12:7-9.

1d. This is a stupid question: Before Adam was formed in the dust no human (mankind) existed. Thus, it is impossible for the nature of mankind to exist before mankind itself existed. Duh!

2a. Of course I wouldn't believe you but by your statement you already knew that. At least I wouldn't believe you based on what I know about you at this point. If you demonstrated evidence later on, depending what that evidence said, I might believe God performed a miracle in you. It would depend.

2b. Why do I believe Saul/Paul instead of you? That is too easy! Saul/Paul has demonstrated that he is inspired and sent from God and you haven't demonstrated that yet. The witnesses of Saul/Paul's day at first did not "believe" either but as time went on and Saul/Paul demonstrated in his life the Power of God he gained credibility!!!!!!

2c. You pose an interesting question and conjecture! Why didn't Jesus Christ confront Saul/Paul before the Damascus Incident?

No one but God knows the answer to that any more than why did Jesus Christ heal only "one" person at the Pool of Bethesda when there were many more suffering ones there? Now there is a question to post on this website!!!!!!!

God's timing and methods are His own! We cannot answer why God did this and not this in every case. God did what He did because He did!!!!!!!! Who are you to assert that God should have done this or that or not do this or that? You a mere human questioning the Lord God Almighty. God is not on trial. You my friend, Dr. Rich are very arrogant to question God in this regard. You should be concerned about your own skirt rather then trying to assert that you know better than God when and what He should have done because doing it your way makes more sense to you. God cares nothing about whether it makes sense to you a human because He is not down on your level.

May I further suggest, my dear Dr. Rich, that you wake up before it is too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3a. There are 4(four) texts that say the Tree of Life is in Heaven. They are:

a. Revelation 2:7.

b. Revelation 22:2.

c. Revelation 22:14.

d. Revelation 22:19.

Only Revelation 22:2 states that reason it exists in Heaven is for the healing of the nations.

If that is not sufficient reason for you Dr. Rich take it up with God because that is all He has given me.

3b. You seem to assert that just because an entity is "flesh and blood" that means the entity is "mortal". Such an assertion is not Biblical.

"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:24-31.

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high" Luke 24:36-49.

Jesus Christ after His Resurrection was "flesh and blood" but He is not going to die (He already did that---besides His flesh and blood is without sin so God gives such immortality).

No where does the Bible state that Adam would die while in the sinless state. God only told them they would die if and only if they ate of the forbidden tree. Read it in Genesis its all there.

4, No comment because we are agreed here.

5. Jesus referred to the Old Testament as Scripture.

As to what I trust, have faith in, believe in to be the Inspired Word of God is what we call the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) minus what has been referred to as the Apocryphal Writings.

5B. When I speak of "Nature" I am referring to all that exists because the Bible states that God made everything.

Now if you want to know what the "sinful 'nature' " is that is a different question. In this case I mean (I get my definition from Saul/Paul) the entity that is the center the very root of what it means to be what we as humans are. How that "nature" is will determine how the whole human entity is!!!!!

Given that you cannot stand people who are evil, I guess that means you cannot stand yourself. However, you may think that sin does not reside in you. I am trying real hard to be careful here but it seems to me that you have a "huge plank in your eye" and yet you are so concerned about the "speck" in others eyes. That is only my observation of the "fruit" which appears to come from your person.

If am wrong and you are "perfect" and "sinless" then living on this planet must be real painful for you.

6. The word "knowing" has many shades. One shade which you seem to cling to concerns "intellectual fact awareness". "Intellectual fact awareness" is indeed a limited factor. However, "intellectual fact awareness" does indeed affect other parts of the human totality. The fact is they clearly knew by "intellectual fact awareness" that they had disobeyed God and they remembered what God has said about punishment. Although we do not know ourselves how far this "intellectual fact awareness" went in regard to consequences we do know they were indeed afraid (a new feeling for them) which means they would be reluctant to find out what those consequences actually meant---"at minimum!" They could have known more but the Bible does not say that they knew more. That is why they thought they could hide from God even though God knew where they were all the time. It does not take a genius to figure this much out because the facts are there in Scripture.

The history of human kind in the Old Testament and New Testament that say in many statements about the human condition being evil (see Paul's quotes and also Paul's own statements) means that the very central nature of humankind changed from pre-fall sinless to post-fall sinful. That means there was a fundamental change in the human entity. That is what "knowing" is about.

7. My dear Dr. Rich I amazed that you clearly are extremely ignorant about babies. I say amazing because the evidence for my point of view is SELF-EVIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I await your statements of REPENTANCE!!!!!!!!!!

[WayneV]

miz3,

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate your efforts to provoke biblical discussion. This discussion has been going on since (and probably before) Arminius and Calvin. While I am certain you will get the discussion you are desiring, it is not my wish to engage in a centuries-old discussion with no foreseeable resolution. My original post to you was meant to be helpful to what I believed your assertion to be. My apologies that you did not see it as such. However, please, do not consider me a part of the discussion.

Agape`

Dear Woody and John317,

I must in the interest of being TOTALLY TRUTHFUL and to be sure that I do NOT give you and others the wrong impression, clarify what I accused WayneV of doing.

It is a question of subjective point of view as opposed to objective criteria.

In a recent post I stated that WayneV personally attacked me. From my point of view that is true. However, from the point of view in general and according to the rules of this website it is a NO!

The reason I say that is because of the nature of the way posts are written and it is correct that the website takes the policy the way they do. I was expressing my own evaluation of what I perceive to be a personal attack.

Here is what WayneV actually said that I took personally:

Originally Posted By: WayneV:

You imply that your position is based only on Scripture. I appreciate your dedication to the Word, but that is impossible. Each of us bring preconceptions and prior theological learning to our interpretation of the Bible, including me, you, and those authorities who have 'discovered' these other perspectives. That's right, they each used the Bible as their 'only' authority, too. So too, I have noted, do all of those who are arguing an opposing view on this thread.

You state that you "do not care what other authorities might say or purpose (sic)". Might I suggest that by standing on the shoulders of giants you can see farther than by trying to ignore them. However, if you like inventing the wheel from scratch just so you can drive the car your way, that is your prerogative. I was only trying to help.

As you can see by the criteria of the website, which I fully support, WayneV does not deserve any chastisement nor did he violate website rules.

The part that I took as personal was WayneV's evaluation of my preconceptions how they affect my views of Scripture. In addition I took exception at the assertion that I need to stand on the shoulders of the Reformers and thus as I took it, I should therefore be silent.

I apologize to WayneV because it was not my intention to get him into trouble.

I further apologize to the Administration for creating a hornets nest about this. It was not intention to add to your burdens.

I write this post as I stated above, so that all will be clear that I am being honest about what I am doing and why. Honesty and Truth are vital to me and that means that I must be as transparent as is reasonably possible. I should have no hidden agendas nor should I twist things to my own advantage. I should have been clearer in my post so that others would not get the wrong idea about WayneV.

I am indeed trying to be provocative in an intellectual sense but I am not trying to be provocative in an evil sense!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!

[miz3]

Thank you WayneV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May God bless you greatly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

miz3

[WayneV]

Thank you WayneV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May God bless you greatly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

miz3

Same to you, but more of it!

Agape`

[John317]

OK, thank you very much for that post. It is very much appreciated. :-)

I will let your post stay on the site as an example of a Christ-like attitude.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

To Rudywoofs,

Originally Posted By: miz3

I have a question for you that has been bugging me for years. No one has yet been able to give me a credible answer.

Where in the Bible does it say that humans have a "free will" and/or "freedom of choice" and/or are "free moral agents"? I find no where in the Scriptural Record either these terms or even an indirect allusion that such exists.

Given the above, where do SDA's get that humans are "free moral agents" and/or have a "free will" and/or have "freedom of choice"? The SDA book stating the 27 beliefs on page 85 states clearly that SDA's believe humans are free moral agents, have free will, and freedom of choice. Yet they give no scripture to back up their statement. On page 87 they again state what was said on page 85. Again no Scripture is given to back their assertion. A third assertion that humans are free moral agents is made on page 89 but the referenced texts have nothing to do with "free moral agency", "free will", or "free choice".

So again I ask, where in the Biblical Record does the doctrine of "free moral agency", and/or "free will", and/or "freedom of choice" exist? In addition, if it does not exist in Scripture then where did SDA's get this doctrine?

That quote was the original question. Your statement that every belief has supporting Biblical documentation is not true for this topic!!!!!!!

That is precisely why I asked the question and further stipulated that it must be supported by the Bible and the Bible only!!!

If SDA wants to say that they get this Doctrine from only the writings of Ellen White fine, however, SDA say that they get everything from the Bible and that Ellen White is only secondary repetitive source.

Please Rudywoofs where are those Bible texts. I have yet to see them.

Dear Miz3,

I looked up in the Church Manual to see what you could be referring to (someone should have done that long ago) regarding humans being free moral agents. I saw the points on which you had question.

My post to you regarded the published numerical Statements of Doctrine in the Manual. There is nothing in those that refer to humans being free moral agents. But all of the Statements of Doctrine DO have accompanying biblical texts.

It seems that the specific wording of free moral agents in the Church Manual comes from Ellen White's Great Controversy primarily. However, the term "free moral agent" appears in numerous denominations, including the LDS Church. See: http://smallsimple.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/free-agency-vs-moral-agency/

The Lutheran Church puts it this way:

Quote:

Jesus claims that "If the Son makes you free, you are really free." Is Jesus talking about freedom from, or freedom for, the law? The context of his words makes it perfectly clear. The Judeans who challenge him are claiming "freedom for." Jesus has the chutzpah to call that freedom slavery. To be "really free" is something else. It's liberation from the slavery of "freedom for."

source

The only Protestant denominations that reject "free moral agency" are Calvinists.

Quote:

The Calvinist said, God is an Absolute Sovereign, therefore man cannot be free; he lost his freedom in the Fall. The Wesleyan said, Man is a free moral agent, therefore God cannot be the Absolute Sovereign the Calvinists imagine him to be. How God can be a Sovereign Father who safeguards as their most precious possession the freedom of his children is a problem which theology has not yet solved. But we shall not possess the perfect truth until we have found the solution.

source

The Catholic Church also rejects "free moral agency"..

Ellen White came from a Methodist background; it would be natural for her to use the concept of "free moral agent".. She was not the originator of the philosophy. There is nothing "shameful" about "free moral agency."

The point I'm trying to make is that all, with the exceptions of Calvinists and Catholics, Christian denominations adhere to the philosophy of "free moral agent." They also believe in sola scriptura. Confusing? Possibly. It certainly seems so in your mind. (No finger-pointing intentionally directed at you - from the vast array of internet articles on this subject, you are not alone.)

"Free moral agency" is not part of the 28 Beliefs of the SDA Church. It is part of tradition - such as what one should/should not do on the Sabbath. Humans are free to choose what to do. Jesus said do good on the Sabbath. That is, moral. Whether one chooses to do something immoral, is choice. Free choice.

God lets us choose.

This is as I see it. It is an ongoing debate between Calvinist/Catholics and the rest of the Protestant world. It is not a salvational issue. And Satan loves nothing better than to work up dissension amongst Christians. It's a divisive measure that he uses to perfection. Just take a look at this forum.

woof

[skyblue888]

Please take a look at this statement from The Desire of Ages, p.550, and notice the passages of Scriptures in it and see if they do not shed light on this subject:

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'" Rom.14:12,5.

Do not these passages of Scripture speak of human beings as free moral agents?

sky

[miz3]

To Rudywoofs and Others,

My original post looked at the Book 27/28 Beliefs. You introduced a new source "The Church Manuel".

The Church Manuel has a section just on the "NATURE OF MAN".

I quote it here;

7. The Nature of Man

Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)

400-10GS SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH MANUAL -

CHURCH MANUAL REVISION

VOTED, To revise the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual to read as follows:

Revised 08-03-10tkb

I looked up all of the referenced texts and NONE of them says nary a word about humans being "free moral agents" either in point or concept. Yet when reading the paragraph it clearly states the Church's position is that humans are "free moral agents".

Why does the Church Manuel not quote Ellen White here as the source of this Doctrine? In other parts of the Church Manuel Ellen White is quoted quite freely.

I now remain more amazed than ever about this Doctrine!!!!!

[John317]

Why does the Church Manuel not quote Ellen White here as the source of this Doctrine? In other parts of the Church Manuel Ellen White is quoted quite freely.

I now remain more amazed than ever about this Doctrine!!!!!

Ellen White isn't the source of the doctrine that man is a free moral agent. She's not the source of any of the church's fundamental beliefs. There are some beliefs that the church holds, however, that are not supported by the Bible, but they are supported clearly by Ellen White. But those beliefs aren't fundamentals.

As to the doctrine that humans are free moral agents, I believe you have a major misunderstanding of what it means to be a free moral agent. SDAs aren't saying that humans are completely and absolutely free in every way. Nor do we believe that humans are free to live a good life apart from Christ. We recognize that humans, apart from God, are slaves to sin and Satan. What makes humans free moral agents is that they are able to choose their motives and are able to accept or reject Christ. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be responsible for our choices, and humans wouldn't be accountable to God for rejection of Christ. If we can't choose, there would be no sense in appealing to people to make a choice between Christ and Satan. God sends the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and turn us toward Christ, but many people choose to reject the Holy Spirit's pleading. God doesn't make that choice for us. We're not puppets on God's string. He influences, yes, but He doesn't force the will.

[miz3]

John317,

As to the doctrine that humans are free moral agents, I believe you have a major misunderstanding of what it means to be a free moral agent. SDAs aren't saying that humans are completely and absolutely free in every way. Nor do we believe that humans are free to live a good life apart from Christ. We recognize that humans, apart from God, are slaves to sin and Satan. What makes humans free moral agents is that they are able to choose their motives and are able to accept or reject Christ. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be responsible for our choices, and humans wouldn't be accountable to God for rejection of Christ. If we can't choose, there would be no sense in appealing to people to make a choice between Christ and Satan. God sends the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and turn us toward Christ, but many people choose to reject the Holy Spirit's pleading. God doesn't make that choice for us. We're not puppets on God's string. He influences, yes, but He doesn't force the will.

I am afraid that what you have written is indeed the SDA position on the Subject.

This is what makes me confused because in your statement you are trying to have it "BOTH WAYS".

You state that we are slaves to sin yet at the same time you state that humans even in this polluted (which Paul clearly states that this polluted state cannot choose anything but evil Romans chapter 8) state have an "untouched by sin" something that allows them to choose God and Jesus Christ and also allows them to choose not to do evil. You further state that because of "that pristine choice" after the fact of "choice" God honors our choice by appropriating His power for us to actually "do" what we have chosen to do and be.

I see such an analysis of the human state as not being Biblical! No where in the Bible is such a concept, let alone a specific reference, given for any such a thing. I could see the writings of Ellen White as asserting such a concept.

I also see nothing wrong with SDA using her as the basis, including the sole basis, for such a position. Others may disagree with that position but it is a viable and reasonable position because SDA can have whatever they want to as their AUTHORITY provided they are consistent. Again, others may not like SDA's choice of AUTHORITIES but if SDA are consistent with their AUTHORITIES it is then viable.

For example: Islamists believe the Qu'ran is the last word and is the AUTHORITY upon which Islamist everything hinges. It is a consistent position even if others of us don't see the Qu'ran as an AUTHORITY at all. Of course in my view Islamists don't even follow their own AUTHORITY consistently but twist their own word to suit themselves.

I remain puzzled as to why SDA words do not meet their actions consistently. In other words, SDA are always quoting Ellen White as an argument stopper, SDA are always interpreting what the Bible says through the lens of Ellen White, and SDA are always stating that "EVERY SINGLE WORD ELLEN WHITE WROTE IS INSPIRED"!!!!!!

If Ellen White is indeed inspired as SDA say she is, then why the reluctance in public to use her as the AUTHORITY? Why state that everything they believe is based on the BIBLE when in fact it is not?

The "world" sees these inconsistencies and frankly it hurts!!!!

[Dr. Rich]

miz3, You have brought up a good point; "authority". Didn't they question the authority of Jesus? If your authority is the bible and the qu'ran is the authority for the Muslims, then how can one have a serious debate?

How come there are so many Christian denominations? Why don't they believe the same IF their authority is the bible?

I have evidence from the bible and science that humans were created many thousands of years before Adam and that they were created in the 6 day creation. But yet you don't see what I see and by 'faith' believe that Adam was the first human created.

I have evidence from the bible that proves Saul/Paul was a false apostle, yet your opinion is different but also comes from the bible. Actually, I could argue both sides and this is what caused the confusion in the first place.

Does a dog, or any animal other than a human have a sinful nature? If not, then why do some of them kill? Some of them kill and eath their own kind. Is that a sin?

By the way, Luke was not an eyewitness of Jesus and was a gentile follower of Paul. The only place where you can find that Jesus was flesh and blood (after resurection) is in his words--which are not validated by the eyewitness accounts.

It is because of this confusion of the bible and because of the bible, that I have chosen to follow ONLY the words of Jesus and the Law and the Prophets as Jesus validated them only. Am I wrong to do this?

[skyblue888]

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'" Rom.14:12,5.

Do not these passages of Scripture speak of human beings as free moral agents?

No comments???

sky

[miz3]

miz3, You have brought up a good point; "authority". Didn't they question the authority of Jesus? If your authority is the bible and the qu'ran is the authority for the Muslims, then how can one have a serious debate?

How come there are so many Christian denominations? Why don't they believe the same IF their authority is the bible?

I have evidence from the bible and science that humans were created many thousands of years before Adam and that they were created in the 6 day creation. But yet you don't see what I see and by 'faith' believe that Adam was the first human created.

I have evidence from the bible that proves Saul/Paul was a false apostle, yet your opinion is different but also comes from the bible. Actually, I could argue both sides and this is what caused the confusion in the first place.

Does a dog, or any animal other than a human have a sinful nature? If not, then why do some of them kill? Some of them kill and eath their own kind. Is that a sin?

By the way, Luke was not an eyewitness of Jesus and was a gentile follower of Paul. The only place where you can find that Jesus was flesh and blood (after resurection) is in his words--which are not validated by the eyewitness accounts.

It is because of this confusion of the bible and because of the bible, that I have chosen to follow ONLY the words of Jesus and the Law and the Prophets as Jesus validated them only. Am I wrong to do this?

Dr, Rich,

1. You are correct they did question the authority Jesus. His answer was that if they knew God (Father) then they would know Him. In fact Jesus stated that they were of their father, the devil. These are indeed strong words and probably would not be allowed on this forum. Why didn't they see the Truth?

People of Christ's day are no different from our day or any other day. They were given the Light and most REJECTED the Light.

2. As to your question regarding AUTHORITY. If you have two competing AUTHORITIES the issue indeed cannot be settled between the two human entities. This is where as in the days of Jesus Christ, as in the days of Noah, as in the days of Moses, as in the days of Jewish kings and prophets, as in the days of the Apostles, as in the days and days on up to you and I, the only settler is the Holy Spirit!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not my job, nor has God given me the job, of being the "convincer" or "closer" in this sharing of Truth. I am an instrument in God's hands and a tool of the Holy Spirit. I am not the AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I only speak what the AUTHORITY (God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible) has taught me and what they direct me to share.

In other words even though you and I may have different AUTHORITIES I can still share with you the Truth. God, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible will be your JUDGE!!!!!!!!!! God (the Father) if you intend to be technical concerning the Book of Revelation is the JUDGE from which there is no appeal.

You will have to convince Him that your AUTHORITY whatever it is, is OK with Him.

3. How come there are so many Christian religions. A better question would be, How come there are so many different AUTHORITIES?

The answer is God made every human being.

A. He dictated when and where they were born.

B. In that context God, as His Word (Bible) states God has given everyone the Light. The magnitude of that Light depends on God and what God's plans are (both in the micro sense and in the macro sense). These plans of God take in the enormous (in fact incalculable to us) complexity that exists at every level of existence.

C. It is precisely because the magnitude of Light given to humans is not the same for every human that you have such enormous and complex differences.

D. Regardless of how much Light shines on you, you are accountable for the Light you have been given.

E. God may or may not increase the Light given to you from conception (yes conception Psalm states since we were conceived). God has many methods of communication: to name some, Nature (in this case I mean what God created), the Bible, other humans, history, science, visions, dreams, etc. However and whatever God uses among His infinite "tool box" you have been told by God and are accountable for that Light!!!!!!! Does the Light continue to operate in you without your consent or are you going to REJECT the Light.

This Dr. Rich is why there are so many AUTHORITIES.

4. Your assertion that you have evidence that humans existed long before Adam and in a 6day week is fascinating. I do not know what "evidence" you are driving at. However, it sounds to me something like a merger between Creationism and Evolution. I have written a paper on this subject. The debate between Creation vs Any thing else must be on the point of Origins. What I mean is, one moment there was nothing and the next moment there was something!!!!!!! Any discussion apart from that one point is meaningless because the evidence after that point is useless and does give many different conclusions. What we need is "EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS AT THE MOMENT WHEN NOTHING BECAME SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is a feat. Dr. Rich again if you can do that you will again become the most famous person alive. Such evidence does not exist. The only evidence we have is the "after stuff" and in it there is no clear 'FACT'!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever you have you have by FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. As to whether you are wrong to have the AUTHORITY you have or not is not for me to judge in the sense of being SAVED OR LOST. That is God's work.

However, in my opinion the AUTHORITY you use is not entirely correct and is very foolish and will lead you away from God and away from the Truth.

6. Animals are not moral agents of any kind. Christ did not come to die for them. He died only for the human entity.

7. You can stipulate that Luke was not a contemporary of Jesus Christ. He was a contemporary of Saul/Paul and could have easily been a contemporary of Jesus Christ. From the Book of Acts we know that many who did not believe in Him pre-cross believed in Him post-cross. Therefore Saul/Paul and/or Luke among others could have known Jesus Christ on both sides of the Cross time line.

[skyblue888]

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'" Rom.14:12,5.

Do not these passages of Scripture speak of human beings as free moral agents?

No comments???

sky

Still no comments!!!

If I remember correctly, someone asked to show from Scripture that human beings are free moral agents. These two passages of Scripture seem to indicate just that, don't they?

Sky

[miz3]

skyblue888,

In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'" Rom.14:12,5.

Do not these passages of Scripture speak of human beings as free moral agents?

First, you did not give the source of the Ellen White quote. Second, Ellen White is not Scripture. Third, even the SDA Church does not "officially" subscribe to the notion that Ellen White writes and is Scripture.

On that basis your paragraph does not count as proof of position.

Next:

Romans chapter 14 was given also.

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." Romans 14:5.

Paul is talking to Christians who are on the Sanctification road. This text supports what I wrote to Dr. Rich recently on this thread about how God's Light shines in different magnitude to different humans. This is why although humans may seemingly have the same AUTHORITY they do not yet all agree. However, whatever it is, you better be sure that you and God are on the same page in regard to His Light!!!!

"So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God." Romans 14:12.

Paul is saying whatever Light God has given you makes you accountable to Him and what He expects from you. None of these texts is about "CHOICE", "FREE MORAL AGENCY".

Why not, miz3? The reason it is not is because God sheds His Light where and when He pleases and that Light does its work (the Holy Spirit is God's Light see John chapter 3 when Jesus tells Nicodemus about the work of the Holy Spirit) without our consent. We can REJECT the work of the Holy Spirit (the Light) but doing so does not make us "free moral agents".

Thus, nothing in Romans chapter 14 is asserting that humans are "free moral agents". Romans chapter 14 is asserting that we Christians have received God's Light in different magnitude and as such we are not all on the same learning curve. Having said that verse 12 of Romans 14 is a warning not to play games with such because God who knows everything will know if we are true or not true. If we are not true then we "burn in hell". If we are true and have not REJECTED God's Light then we are "saved"!

[lengjing]

Building Lord point of view I quite agree with you, ha ha. I know a site, it is to provide mobile phone the auction, buy cell phones,have GSM cell phones, cheap cell phones and wifi cell phones, all sorts of design, if you are interested in can go and have a look.

[Dr. Rich]

miz3, you say your authority is the bible, right? But what IF the bible has the seeds of Satan in them along with the seeds of Jesus? (Matthew 13:24-30) If this is what caused the confusion that we see today, then why do you believe that following only the words of Jesus and the Law and the Prophets is a bad idea?

As for humans being created in the 6 day creation thousands of years before Adam, here is what I wrote: http://web.mac.com/spiritoftruth/STM/Must_Read/Entries/2008/9/14_In_the_Beginning.html

miz3, please let me know how I can read what you wrote on this issue. Thanks. What I don't know is if the humans created before Adam had the same free choice as did Adam. It appears that they did, but Satan had deceived them into believing that he was their god.