Please sort this out...

You're right, Exile. However, I do think we have free will but I'm not sure how to define it. Exactly what can I choose to do? I can choose to do what I want? I want to be in Paris at this very moment. Hmm. Didn't happen. In fact, a whole lot of things I might want I can't do. I'm limited by strength, longevity, knowledge, transportation, etc., etc.
Well, I'm free to choose to eat chocolate ice cream if I want to if I have some. But I never chose to want to eat chocolate ice cream.
If I make a choice that is consistent with my own nature, a choice that I wanted to make, then that is a free will choice, regardless of whether or not I could have chosen otherwise.

 

Granny,

I think it is wonderful you at least tried to answer his comments.

After having kids, I have no problem accepting free-will and foreknowledge. There are many times I wish my kids would make certain choices, but I know my kids, and I know that they won't make those choices. So, I wait around to pick up the pieces from their "learning" experiences.

 

The Bible as I understand it teaches the truth of election/predistination and it also teaches the free will of the hearer. While I am personally inclined toward the soveriengty of God side of the spectrum, it is difficult in our human rational minds to co-exist these two biblical truths.

What makes limited or no sense to man's finite mind makes perfect sense to God's infinite being. So, while it is a worthwhile discussion to hold, I can be at peace with my limited ability to discern all of what Scripture teaches. All of that will ultimately be fully revealed when we get to Heaven.

 

Hello again Granny. I don't believe you followed the plan. Did you ask if He believed the Bible? I've talked to many of this nature, and they do not believe the Bible, and normally know more scripture than the average Christian. You are wasting your time, for you cannot win. Their purpose in life is to put doubt and frustration into your life.

They are not worth it. No pearls of wisdom are recognized by these. In a parting shot of love for the person tell them to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and they will be saved, otherwise they are going to hell. That is all we can do. Just teach the plain truth. That's called spreading the gospel, of which I know you wish to do. If Christ wants him in His Body, He will see it is done. Just you're truth may start the ball rolling.

For a number of years I didn't understand the reason for Mar's Hill in His Word. It is for this very purpose, I believe. Paul just left the unbelieving intellectuals, and any that were interested in finding out more followed Paul down the Hill.

We Christians can debate among ourselves, and give out the Word to the lost that are interested, and help others grow. But debating one that does not believe the Bible is a complete waste of time.

Of course it is your call. Chances are the guy knows many "catch" scriptures that will tie you in knots if you don't know the Word of God inside out. But you will find regardless of how well you understand your faith; you cannot dent his faith of unbelief. When you start with nothing, you have nothing to loose. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Granny:
I agree with some of the posts above -- some people don't want to believe, and you can't make them.

That said, my response to your latest quote of his is this:
1. See my response above. I didn't quote scripture, but responded in basic logical terms. I even named the fallacy that he used.

 

Here's the rest:

Give him that, and ask him why he hasn't answered the logical problem we pointed out.

2. Total agnosticism is self-refuting. To say "I don't know anything about God" is actually saying that "I've done an investigation, and I've learned enough about God to know that I don't know anything about God." So total agnosticism refutes itself.

3. The only way we know the concept of "truly evil" is that there is some common reference point for "truly good". Put it this way: Deep down, no one really believes that Hitler was just as good as Mother Theresa. But how do we all come to this conclusion, unless we all have an objective standard for what is good? Therefore, if we're admitting that evil exists, then we have to admit that we all have some concept of what is truly good. Where did this come from? The atheist has no answer. A total relativist must say that Hitler is just as good as Mother Theresa, which they won't say publicaly. Only the Theist (Christians) can have an answer for why evil exists. So the argument of "good vs evil" backfires on the skeptics to prove that God exists.

Of course, these statements won't satisfy your critic. But you should repsond to his statements because of the other people who read the forum, and who might be persuaded by his faulty logic.

But you can refer the people in the paper to a book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist" by Geisler and Turek. This book deals with all the type of issues brought up by this man, in much more clarity and detail than can be done here.

Bless

 

For everyone reading Granny who made up their mind "not to believe," there is probably one reading who will understand and be drawn closer to the Lord. I think Granny did an awesome thing.

 

Exile:

You are correct in that God can (and does) intervene to direct things in the universe. I didn't get into that in this context, since this Godless skeptic didn't bring it up. I've just found it easier to answer the critic's question at hand, without giving them more ammo. So you are absolutely correct in that God can direct various episodes to suit His purposes. Scripture teaches so.

However, that immediately brings up more facets of the "why is there evil?" issue, which are best left to believers.....this context was in a public square with non-believers. It's a judgement call. I'm open to be corrected in the strategy.

However, to your point: I guess I wouldn't define free will as "autonomous self-determination" which I would likely agree with you is not possible with a sovereign God. I think free will is closer to "ability for contrary choice" which IS necessary for moral responsibility. Without some choice on our part, then we end up with God causing evil, which is heresy. But don't get me sucked into Calvinism/Arminianism, there's another thread for that.

 

Humblesmith

 

Bye, although I'm not the one who's going anywhere.

Granny can this gentleman post here in the non-Baptist forums?

HankD

 

Granny, he could always read the answers given without registering. I'd 'read' for a full year before I registered.

BTW.... if someone tells us they're atheists, they are not approved for membership.

 

This guy wasn't legit in the first place. He began by throwing around labels like "fundamentalists." He wasn't seeking truth, he was looking for ammunition. He wasn't involving anyone in dialogue. His mind was made up. His response was already written before anyone said anything to him. No matter what anyone said to him, he would have responded, "See! Those people just don't know anything but they want to tell everybody else what to believe." Nevertheless, I was glad to be challenged by his question. These are deep questions and I don't know the answers. "See! Those people just don't know anything but they want to tell everyone else what to believe." I guess he was right.

 

Granny here is my take on it. Right or wrong.

God may know what we are going to do but, when it comes down to it, he gave us the free will to make that choice,. We are all capable of living in greatness and doing exactly what we should do. But, sometimes we don't. God knows that. Sure he's going to know what we do before we do it. He knows how many tries it's going to take before we finally understand that which is in us. He knows wether we are going to stand up and do what's right, or go with the crowd. It's why he gives us so many changes to get it right. If we weere bound to do just one thing, we wouldn't have free will. I hope that makes sense