The 4th question the Arminian can't answer

[Colossians]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?

[Kevin Wayne]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?




Ah, I've been waiting for this one... :teeth:



Because we will be in the prescence of the Living God. We will no longer "see in a mirror dimly," but we will then see "face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (I Cor12:13)


We will have come through the testing, and be at the end of the promise that "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Php 1:6) We wiil be "made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb 3:14)



Putting it quite simply, God's work will be done.


That's all I have to say regarding the matter. I'll let the others deal with the pretext of your question (free will as "an eternal property of man.") Toodles.

[seer]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?

My deepest desire is to love and serve God. Yet three things get in the way - the flesh, the world, and the Devil. None of which will be present in the world to come. Along with this we will have knowledge - a perfect picture of history and the grief and sorrow man's sins caused. Why would any of us want to go back to that?

[Kenite]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?No-one can set it all off again.

'It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.' (Heb 6:4-6 NIV)

[themuzicman]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?

Apparantly Colossians hasn't read 1 Cor 15, where we become incorruptible. Maybe he should put down the Calvinist Reader and pick up a bible.

Michael

[yxboom]

Apparantly Colossians hasn't read 1 Cor 15, where we become incorruptible. Maybe he should put down the Calvinist Reader and pick up a bible.

Michael
ouch.

[studyhound]

Apparantly Colossians hasn't read 1 Cor 15, where we become incorruptible. Maybe he should put down the Calvinist Reader and pick up a bible.

Michael
:thumb:

[john-philip]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?
Go read some Plantinga.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Apparantly Colossians hasn't read 1 Cor 15, where we become incorruptible. Maybe he should put down the Calvinist Reader and pick up a bible.

Michael

Please do not lump all of us Calvinist together like that!!

I for one found this question paricularly silly from a Calvinist persepctive (at least in a Calvninst who beleives in compatabilistic free will as do I) the "problem" exist for us as well. And can be resolved in much the same way as the Arminians here have answered. (I especially liked Seer's answer, sound like somethin RC Sproul would say :hehe: )

[Xmansmommy]

Please do not lump all of us Calvinist together like that!!

I for one found this question paricularly silly from a Calvinist persepctive (at least in a Calvninst who beleives in compatabilistic free will as do I) the "problem" exist for us as well. And can be resolved in much the same way as the Arminians here have answered. (I especially liked Seer's answer, sound like somethin RC Sproul would say :hehe: )

Thank you Faramir. It's always good to see someone admit that their view has some of the very same problems as another view. :thumb:

[themuzicman]

Please do not lump all of us Calvinist together like that!!



Sorry, Faramir, I wasn't lumping all Calvinists in with him, but making a reference to Colossian's apparant inabiliity to do anything but spout what he's heard another Calvinist (vis a vis his Reader) said.

Michael

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?
The will of the Christian is to serve God. Christians continue to sin only because of the sin nature inherent in our corruptible bodies. When Christ returns, however, Christians will be given new, incorruptible bodies, and there will be no more sin nature. Furthermore, Christians are aware of the shame that sin causes in the presence of God, and will have memory of such; this would only reinforce the desire to obey God completely.

Now, you may try to bring up Satan's rebellion. Lucifer, as you are no doubt aware, is not a man, but an angel. After seeing Lucifer's demise (who was once the most powerful angel), what angel would do likewise?

Wow, that was tough. :duh: (and I'm not even an Arminian)

[yxboom]

Wow, that was tough. :duh: (and I'm not even an Arminian)
my condolences.

[betzerg]

Perhaps this question the Arminian can't answer, might be better called "the most important question the Arminian can't answer", for it concerns eternity.

The question:
"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man, one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?

This is EXACTLY the purpose of free will. To LOVE G-d freely means that we understand our own sinfulness and inadaquacy and have BELIEVED G-d...that he alone is HOLY. IF we are just predestined to automatically recite the sinners prayer, we can never really KNOW THIS>

Question? How could Satan rebel without free will? HOw could ADAM sin without freewill?

These two things are an impossiblity...unless you just say G-d is an evil task/master play/writer who has produced a G-dawful drama at the expense of HIS OWN CREATION. IF there is no PURPOSE for creation, then G-d is not the G-d that I have come to know and love.

Actually, if there is no such things as moral free will then we might as well chuck the entire BIBLE...who would really need it.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Sheepdog]

here we go again.

"Given that you declare that free will is an eternal property of man,...

who says it's an eternal property of man?

i might be unusual for an Arminian, but i see freewill as a secondary attribute, as opposed to an essential attribute. God didn't have to create man with freewill, in other words, He just chose to out of His own freewill.

... one which he, if he is saved, will take with him into heaven, what guarantee can you offer that he will not once again use his free will to rebel against God some time after he has entered heaven, and so set the whole problem off all over again"?

well, i'm not even sure we take our freewill into heaven. i just haven't really studied up on post-resurrection life, so i'm not sure what it will be like.

but, i see no reason why we wouldn't have freewill there as well. i believe seer and others have given a good argument, but if i may develop it further, libertine freedom only requires the possibility of foregone choices, not that the content of those choices have to be a certain way. specifically, one could still have freedom even if one lacks the ability to commit sin. the only criteria is that there would have to be multiple options available, even if all of these options honor God in some way (and therefore is not sin).

[john-philip]

Right, free will is not an attribute of the will per se but an attribute of a choice. If an agent performs one libertarianly free action we can say that LFW is true and that that agent had LFW (at least, with respect to that choice.) It is entirely possible, then, that we have LFW in heaven but that we are not free (or that it is logically, or ontologically impossible) to sin.

[themuzicman]

Free will doesn't imply unlimited ability.

Just because we will be unable to sin in heaven doesn't mean that we give up free will.

Michael

[smaller]

Free will doesn't imply unlimited ability.

Just because we will be unable to sin in heaven doesn't mean that we give up free will.

Michael

But but but, IF you can't make a wrong choice how free is that choice and of course the presumption here is that wrong choices will not be available in heaven hence NO freewill.

You can't play that freewill card both ways with a straight face.

! !

[themuzicman]

But but but, IF you can't make a wrong choice how free is that choice and of course the presumption here is that wrong choices will not be available in heaven hence NO freewill.

You can't play that freewill card both ways with a straight face.

! !

Free will is only the ability to choose freely from the available options. It's like saying that I don't have free will when I go to the Ice Cream store, because the 30 flavors that are available do not include chocolate chip cookie dough.

If sin isn't an option, it's not an option. We will freely choose from those options which are avaialbe to us!

Michael

[seer]

But but but, IF you can't make a wrong choice how free is that choice and of course the presumption here is that wrong choices will not be available in heaven hence NO freewill.

You probably could. But who would want to - knowing the sorrow and misery centuries of sin caused?

[Colossians]

Kevin Wayne,
Because we will be in the prescence of the Living God. We will no longer "see in a mirror dimly Cor12:13)
Just like Lucifer did before he decided he liked his own face better.
Now give us a guarantee that you will not use your famed “agent causation” to do likewise.

I'll let the others deal with the pretext of your question (free will as "an eternal property of man.").
You mean you can’t deal with it.





Seer,
My deepest desire is to love and serve God. Yet three things get in the way - the flesh, the world, and the Devil. None of which will be present in the world to come.
The devil wasn’t present before he was the devil either. If anything, hardship makes one hang on to Christ, not reject him. David fell into sin through ease of living.

You probably could. But who would want to - knowing the sorrow and misery centuries of sin caused?
By the same token, why would you want to fall away from God between now and death? You already know how much misery was caused, yet you tell us you might personally fall away from God.
So no guarantee from you either.






Kenite,
No-one can set it all off again.
'It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.' (Heb 6:4-6 NIV)
This verse has nothing to do with the subject.
PS: The Non-Inspired Version is not a good reference source.






Muzicman,
Apparantly Colossians hasn't read 1 Cor 15, where we become incorruptible. Maybe he should put down the Calvinist Reader and pick up a bible.
Oh that must be it.
Apparently you don’t understand that providing a bible verse does not answer the question. You have to give us a guarantee that you will not use your agent causation (whatever fluff it is) to decide to choose agains God.






Faramir,
I for one found this question paricularly silly from a Calvinist persepctive (at least in a Calvninst who beleives in compatabilistic free will as do I) the "problem" exist for us as well.
You are not a Calvinist, no matter how much you think you are.







Onebadpig,
The will of the Christian is to serve God.
So what’s to stop that changing?

Christians continue to sin only because of the sin nature inherent in our corruptible bodies.
No. Christians sin because there spirit likes to join up with there flesh.

Christians are aware of the shame that sin causes in the presence of God, and will have memory of such; this would only reinforce the desire to obey God completely.
This is simply preclusive argument. All you have said is that we won’t because we won’t want to. That is no guarantee of not wanting to.

Now, you may try to bring up Satan's rebellion. Lucifer, as you are no doubt aware, is not a man, but an angel.
No difference. Free will is free will, no matter who it resides in.
Man is at bottom a spirit now, and will live as a spirit in the after life. The angel in Revelation 19:10 declared to John that he was of his brethren.

After seeing Lucifer's demise (who was once the most powerful angel), what angel would do likewise?
So we can now take it that Lucifer is sorry for what he has done. My my.
And I take it that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham was wrong in advising the rich man that no matter what signs the evil were given, they wouldn’t believe. You seem to think that man chooses for God because he is really one who wants the best for God.






Betzerg,
Question? How could Satan rebel without free will?
Question. What’s to stop you doing the same as he did once you get there?






Sheepdog,
well, i'm not even sure we take our freewill into heaven.
So you don’t want to be a Calvinist down here, but you don’t mind once you get to heaven.





John Philip,
Right, free will is not an attribute of the will per se but an attribute of a choice.
You seem to be a pseudo philosopher with a bizarre logic that gets invented as you go along.
Your idea, along with your agent causation, is a load of rubbish. Free will is no more an attribute of choice than one's legs an attribute of one's walking.
Walking is a function of the legs, and choice is a function of the will.
You are confusing and redefining carts and horses as at will.




Smaller,
But but but, IF you can't make a wrong choice how free is that choice and of course the presumption here is that wrong choices will not be available in heaven hence NO freewill.
You can't play that freewill card both ways with a straight face.
Smaller has finally said something that is void of his universalism. What’s more, he’s right!






Muzicman,
Free will is only the ability to choose freely from the available options. It's like saying that I don't have free will when I go to the Ice Cream store, because the 30 flavors that are available do not include chocolate chip cookie dough.
Invalid analogy. Confusing objects of choice, with freedom of choice.

If sin isn't an option, it's not an option.
We will freely choose from those options which are avaialbe to us!
All you have said is “I won’t be able to choose to sin, because that is one of the things I won’t be able to choose”.
So you have begged the question.

[Kevin Wayne]

Kevin Wayne,
Because we will be in the prescence of the Living God. We will no longer "see in a mirror dimly Cor12:13)
Just like Lucifer did before he decided he liked his own face better.
Now give us a guarantee that you will not use your famed “agent causation” to do likewise.


"Agent causation?" Who are you talking to.

I repeat Colossians God's work will be done. That's why I can guaruntee.


I'll let the others deal with the pretext of your question (free will as "an eternal property of man.").
You mean you can’t deal with it.


No, I mean that it's a philosophical question and others here are more into it than I am. Also, I never said it was "an eternal property of man" so I have no need to defend it.


And... I don't deal with immature children who sit there and taunt "you mean you can't deal with it." :smile:

[One Bad Pig]

Onebadpig,
The will of the Christian is to serve God.
So what’s to stop that changing?
Our joy will be complete, and we will be satisfied in every way. Who would walk away from that?

Christians continue to sin only because of the sin nature inherent in our corruptible bodies.
No. Christians sin because there spirit likes to join up with there flesh.
Poor grammar aside, you'll need to elaborate on that; where do you get this idea?

Christians are aware of the shame that sin causes in the presence of God, and will have memory of such; this would only reinforce the desire to obey God completely.
This is simply preclusive argument. All you have said is that we won’t because we won’t want to. That is no guarantee of not wanting to.
But why would we want to? Sin would separate us from God, and would rob us of our joy. At this point, we would have perfect knowledge of what the consequences are, and sin just wouldn't be worth it. We would have exchanged our corruptible bodies for incorruptible ones, so we would no longer do that which we don't want to do.

Now, you may try to bring up Satan's rebellion. Lucifer, as you are no doubt aware, is not a man, but an angel.
No difference. Free will is free will, no matter who it resides in.
Man is at bottom a spirit now, and will live as a spirit in the after life. The angel in Revelation 19:10 declared to John that he was of his brethren.

But there IS a difference; angels, as far as we know, cannot be redeemed. Furthermore, we will be not only spirit, but flesh (incorruptible flesh at that).

After seeing Lucifer's demise (who was once the most powerful angel), what angel would do likewise?
So we can now take it that Lucifer is sorry for what he has done. My my.
I don't think Lucifer is yet sorry; he has not yet been cast into hellfire.

And I take it that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham was wrong in advising the rich man that no matter what signs the evil were given, they wouldn’t believe.
No, I have no problem with that; I don't see it as incompatible with Molinism.

You seem to think that man chooses for God because he is really one who wants the best for God.
What gives you that idea?

[john-philip]

John Philip,
Right, free will is not an attribute of the will per se but an attribute of a choice.
You seem to be a pseudo philosopher with a bizarre logic that gets invented as you go along.

Ad hominem

Your idea, along with your agent causation, is a load of rubbish.

Dogmatic assertion.

Free will is no more an attribute of choice than one's legs an attribute of one's walking.

Then you are strawmanning.

Walking is a function of the legs, and choice is a function of the will.
You are confusing and redefining carts and horses as at will.

Oh, geez, Colossians, give it up. You demonstrate time and again that you do now know what Arminianism or libertarian free will even asserts, let alone, entails. Your posts are barely worth responding to. Your analogy misses the whole point. Yes, I agree, choice is the function of a will. Where did I say otherwise? What I am saying is that the thesis for libertarian free will (which you are attempting to attack) is not a thesis strictly of the will, it is a thesis about the functionings of the will: the choice! Which is exactly what you said. So a particular function was either free or not. With regard to your analogy, in certain circumstances I am not able to walk on the ground, for example, if I am in a plane. That does not mean that I am not able to walk in any circumstance. In turn, just because a particular choice of the will is not free does not mean that the will as a whole is never free. To deny this is to miss the entire thesis of LFW which you have clearly done, you unbelievable blowhard. You would at least need an argument to say that if the will is not free with respect to choice A, then the will is not free at all. Can you give such an argument? It sounds simple enough. Why not start there?

[Kevin Wayne]

So we can now take it that Lucifer is sorry for what he has done. My my.

I don't think Lucifer is yet sorry; he has not yet been cast into hellfire


You would think he'd improve his reading comprehension before trying to beat us over the head with deep Theological questions.... :ahem:

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog,
well, i'm not even sure we take our freewill into heaven.
So you don’t want to be a Calvinist down here, but you don’t mind once you get to heaven.

thank you for ignoring the substance of my reply. troll.

i didn't even assent to the possibility that we won't have freewill in heaven. i only propose the possibility.

why don't you actually deal with my answer to your unanswerable question?

[Colossians]

Sheepdog,

specifically, one could still have freedom even if one lacks the ability to commit sin.
Sort of like "heads I win, tails you lose".
But tell us how would one with complete free will lack the ability to sin? I’m all ears.

[john-philip]

Sheepdog,

specifically, one could still have freedom even if one lacks the ability to commit sin.
Sort of like "heads I win, tails you lose".
But tell us how would one with complete free will lack the ability to sin? I’m all ears.
"Complete free will" is your terminology. Why would Arminians need to defend it?

And you never responded to my post.

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog,

specifically, one could still have freedom even if one lacks the ability to commit sin.
Sort of like "heads I win, tails you lose".

not really. if one of the sets (i.e stuff you can do that is not sin) has subsets within it containing multiple options, then freewill is still a valid possibility.

But tell us how would one with complete free will lack the ability to sin? I’m all ears.

who said anything about "complete freewill," and what is this "complete freewill" as you define it? that is critical.

one needs only to have choices where one has multiple options where it is truely possible for one to choose one or choose another. for instance, given that there is a circumstance where eating ice cream us not a sin, if one can freely choose to eat vanilla ice cream, and one can freely choose to eat chocolate, then one has freewill.

we only need to expand that out over the future eternity before which we will be raised "imperishable." we will be done with the lusts of the flesh. yet, there is no reason to suppose that there is one and only one thing we can ever do in that state. i admit it is possible, but with the various means of golrifying God in this world, it is safe to suppose there will be only more options once we are freed from all sin forever.

and all of that can be the case even if, while we are in the imperishable bodies we will inherit, there no longer exists any means by which we may sin. therefore, we can indeed have libertine freedom in the afterlife.

[Xmansmommy]

not really. if one of the sets (i.e stuff you can do that is not sin) has subsets within it containing multiple options, then freewill is still a valid possibility.

who said anything about "complete freewill," and what is this "complete freewill" as you define it? that is critical.

one needs only to have choices where one has multiple options where it is truely possible for one to choose one or choose another. for instance, given that there is a circumstance where eating ice cream us not a sin, if one can freely choose to eat vanilla ice cream, and one can freely choose to eat chocolate, then one has freewill.

we only need to expand that out over the future eternity before which we will be raised "imperishable." we will be done with the lusts of the flesh. yet, there is no reason to suppose that there is one and only one thing we can ever do in that state. i admit it is possible, but with the various means of golrifying God in this world, it is safe to suppose there will be only more options once we are freed from all sin forever.

and all of that can be the case even if, while we are in the imperishable bodies we will inherit, there no longer exists any means by which we may sin. therefore, we can indeed have libertine freedom in the afterlife.

Awesome post!

[Colossians]

Sheepdog,

if one of the sets (i.e stuff you can do that is not sin) has subsets within it containing multiple options, then freewill is still a valid possibility.
Question begging.
Why is not sinning an option all of a sudden?
You are simply playing “heads I win, tails you lose”. You can’t have it both ways. Even Smaller has pointed this out to you. And deep down inside, where your bias is located, you are aware of your contradiction.



i admit it is possible,
There you go. That wasn’t so hard now was it?
And Satan agrees with you. He did something similar, along with about 1/3 of heaven’s angels who also thought it was a good idea.
So then give us an absolute guarantee that you as an Arminian who has free-will to personally choose against God (just for the heck of it) before you die and so lose your salvation, won’t do so after you get to heaven, just like Lucifer did. Better still, give the guarantee to God.

[Kevin Wayne]

give the guarantee to God.


We DID... "God's work will be done."