The Apostle Paul's thoughts about evil: " *God* has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. … From him and through him and to him are all things." (Romans 11:32,36a). "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, *but because of him who subjected it,* in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21).
Conviction here is that there is no personal self with a freewill attachment.that we react only to all situations accordingly.and had no control over what our conditioning is or our genetics from which we resond
The point about 'free will' is not a capacity in isolation. It is so that we can freely be in relation with God. It is probably better for one person to know God for eternity, and all the rest not to than for none to. That would make the gift of being able to love God worth it...if you want to take a utilitarian tack. However, that is not the game. The game is relationship with God. Without his new life we live in rejection of that relationship and in a cosmos that reflects that rejection. So we don't even want God, until the dissonance pricks us and we turn to him in repentance -- that is reject the rejection -- and faith (that he can resolve the dissonance). Evil, then is being 'not-God'. It is living in repudiation of God and rejecting him. Evil doesn't exist per se but only as the inverse of love; and being so the creature takes the creation down with him. Our consistent experience of 'not-God' is the great alarm bell to communicate that we are in 'not-God' to tell us that things ain't right. We detect that live is not what it should be. We detect the fault and, one hopes, seek to repent from it. or proudly insist in remaining in it...that'll 'show God'. As a 5 year old thinks by holding her breath in anger.
So, I missed the criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research from you. Great video, but fair use? Not trying to be adversarial here, but you could have just posted a link to his video.
Did Adam and Eve love God before the fall? Did freewill come from God? If so, then why did God command Adam to eat of every tree of the Garden but not of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Does a command come with an option? Does a subordinate have the right to choose to follow an order (command) or not especially when it is followed by a most devastating and dire warning? Does the Bible point out who it was that turned the command into an option?
God can't do evil, so He doesn't have a free will capable of sinning. Our ability to sin makes us unlike God, not like Him, so this ability has nothing to do with us being made in His image.
@@mjtonn God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? - Numbers 23:19 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. - Malachi 3:6 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. - James 1:17 Imo, God is the best that can be and so are His plans that He must see through. He is changeless and good. We are as yet changeable and tainted by evil.
@@mjtonn: I don't know about Bible verses, but the idea of Yahweh being omnibenevolent is a common one, and it seems obviously in conflict of the idea of him having libertarian free will to me.
@@jamesc3505 I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "libertarian" free will, versus regular free will. I refer to free will just in the sense of being able to make choices, or having the freedom or liberty to make a choice. The question comes to mind that if we are made in the image of God, and we have free will, doesn't have mean that YHWH also has free will? He cannot give us something that He doesn't possess Himself (similar to how we can love because He first loved us). Plus, if God does not have free will, then He would be locked into some fatalistic system as well, and actually be controlled by something else. Thinking on that, this image came to mind. (It's a just a way to look at the issue). Imagine a room. Inside that room is being within God's law. Outside that room is sin (because sin is defined as lawlessness). Can God walk out of that room? [This also begs the related question - is God's law literal a part of who He is (which some argue as part of His righteousness) or is it outside of who He is (thus, lex rex)? ] If God does not have free will, He cannot leave that room - that is, He cannot sin. But if God cannot sin, then Jesus really wasn't tempted. There was no possibility of Him ever falling into temptation. This cannot be true. He was tempted just like we are, but He overcame sin. He had the ability, the freedom to sin, but He never sin. God has free will to leave the room and sin, but He never has and never will sin. But there is the potential for Him to do so. That's why it is that much more amazing - that God could be tempted with sin, but never will.
@@davidmukarovsky2044 I wrote some on this in my response to the other person on this thread. But as to those verses you cited, they don't speak about whether God has the ability or potential to sin. Sin is lawlessness - anything that contrary to the law of God. Thus God will not break His own law. But is that because He will not or because He can not? If He can not, does that mean God's law is in some sense "higher" than Him? Or is His law somehow a part of Him? And I absolutely agree with all those verses you cited. God cannot lie, He does not change His nature or character (He never stops being God or changes into anything else, but Jesus is both God and man).
Why do so many, including Mike, misunderstand what free-will involves theologically? It simply and specifically only relates to the ability of man, after the fall, to "see the kingdom of God." Man is dead. Dead men do not come to faith. Man *must* be born from above. i.e. regeneration must occur prior to the recognition of sin, confessing it and, by the gift of faith, confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Red herring argument.
I disagree. Every human being was created with an inborn sense of right and wrong, with discernment of what is fair and unfair. We cannot violate this God-given morality without justification. We see this all the time because even unbelievers can recognize fairness versus unfairness, right from wrong, and justice versus injustice. That is why some people accuse God of being cruel or nonexistent because they correctly recognize unjust, unfair, and bad things happening, and God seems to do nothing about them. God will not tamper with our freedom of choice in this life or the next for two extremely important reasons. First, if there were no free will we would be robots and, therefore, not responsible for our actions. That is because robots are not responsible for their actions-the one who programmed them is responsible. In other words, if there is no freedom of choice, then you cannot hold a person responsible for their actions. It would not be right for God to judge the world if humans did not have free will. If there was no free will in humans, then God would be responsible for the evil in the world. This is why we don’t see God intervening every time man does a horrible act because that would be manipulating free will. Now the world does not like that. They want immediate justice from God against evil. But if God rendered immediate justice for every evil act, then all of humanity would be dead and on their way to hell. Not only that, but God gave man dominion over the earth. And since our progenitor Adam sinned, all humanity is suffering because we are all separated from God from birth. Second, and more importantly, if we did not have free will, we could not genuinely love anyone. This is because love is a choice and choices can only be made by beings of free will. Yes, you can make a robot and program it to love, but the love of a robot is forced and not voluntary. Would you really want to be loved by a robot who was made to love you without a choice for eternity? Neither does God. If He wanted beings without free will, then why would He make us with free will go through the pain and suffering of this life only to take it away in the next life? Truly genuine and satisfying love is given to another as a voluntary gift from the heart between beings of free will. It is putting another’s interests above one’s self. To trick, manipulate, scare, or force someone into love is a selfish act that ends up destroying the love that is being sought. God wants people to love Him because they want to, not because they have to. Isn’t that what we want too? When both parties want to love each other, the relationship will last. However, when one party is forced to love by fear or manipulation, there may be outward actions of love, but their inward heart is not in the relationship and will eventually want to rebel and leave. So, free will is required to have the capacity to love (which is unselfishness), but with it comes the capacity to choose selfishness. And once it is chosen, selfishness grows irreversibly, relentlessly, progressively to higher and higher levels. Then, the being justifies their selfish behavior with self-justifying reasons that allow them to override the God-given morality system that is trying to tell them they are doing wrong. As the progression of sin goes to higher levels of selfishness, the being becomes so fixated on pursuing what they want and what they THINK is right that they can no longer see the damage they are doing to themselves, the ones they love, and others. And that is where moral evil comes from.
@@roberthill4581 You too show a disregard for the biblical teaching concerning specifically what man's ability is concerning his turning back to God after the fall. "You MUST be born again" or IMHO, a better translation, "be born from above." Just has we have no capacity to produce our physical birth, even so our spiritual rebirth. That is why Paul's conclusion is "It's all from Him, through Him and to Him."
@@leefury7 Jesus said twice that no one can come to me except the Father draws Him. Humans are helpless to save themselves apart from God. It is by the grace of God that our hearts are touched to enable us to see the truth and accept Christ. But humans do know right from wrong. They may not recognize it as sin, but they know right from wrong. Even in our unsaved state, we instinctively know right from wrong. People are doing what is “right” by this moral law when they are unselfishly doing unto others as they would have others do to them. People are doing “wrong” by this moral law when they do what is selfish and consciously or unconsciously do things that benefit “me, myself, and mine,” without realizing or caring about the negative effects on others. God wants humanity to learn by experience that despite man recognizing the truth about sin and his self-determination to be good, sin inside of man inhibits the ability to be good. Paul recognized this and explained that the seed of sin lives in our flesh, preventing us from doing good. Romans 7:14-25. I was disagreeing with your statement "regeneration must occur prior to the recognition of sin." Sorry, I should have stated more clearly what I was disagreeing about.
So you can't sin now then either, right? You are dead to sin according to Paul. Dead is different in this verse? You Calvinists only want to believe you are elect....
Free will defense has been refuted. God is perfect is just a claim. Also, God was surprised and shows surprise and shock when his people sin in other books of the bible. God even changed his mind in Genesis.
God evidently didn’t know everything. Take for example god’s command to not eat of the tree of knowledge. And yet Eve & Adam were too imperfect to obey… right? Did A & E create themselves? Nope. So who should’ve best known A & E’s imperfect character? God of course. Since they were imperfect from the very moment of creation then even their free will was created imperfect. But again, who’s the cause of that? God !! But who gets all the punishment? Created beings who had no say in their creation.
I agree with you. Who needs or wants evil AT ALL? Who WANTS to be able to sin? It is soooo horrible. God help us. Jesus save us. Holy Spirit, comfort us. We are wretches!
It's always very telling when somebody starts bringing up the idea of robots, when nobody believes that God makes robots. Strawman. It's also very telling when people use the term "free will" in a way that the Bible never uses it. No theological position in Christianity says that we have no free well. The words have to be defined. What do you mean by free? And what do you mean by will? The Bible says that all mankind in the fall of our first parents fell with them when they send, and therefore receive the death penalty in our bodies and in our spirits. We are born into this world enemies of God by nature, lovers of sin, haters of good, refusing to come into the light, blinded and ruled by Satan, unable to please God. Does that sound like someone with a free will to you? But we have unthinking Christian teachers, who sell us the idea that we are not born into this world enemies of God, spiritually dead, but rather that we are all born as blank slates, with no inclination towards good or evil, but rather being neutral. This is utterly antithetical to everything written in the Scriptures.
"God is the only perfect being?" Why is God worshipped and adored when it is mentioned in the bible that He murdered around 4 billion people? (there are many estimates of the pre-flood world population - they seem to average around 4 billion). And that doesn't include all the innocent (without sin) animals that were drowned just like cats in a bag that get thrown into a river. I can imagine people desperately praying to a God to save them - the same God who is killing them. And the end result is that eight people who received preferential treatment are bobbing up and down watching human and animal bodies floating for many days. Only fanatics and sickos would consider that behavior "perfect."
All one with the movie, dream called life.all down the rabbit hole like everything else is where all is fictional and in duality which is all false and within us.not to mention does not exist.
The only way anyone can judge the “perfection” of anything is by the physical evidence. Going by that criteria and evaluating the cosmos as a whole, it appears that “perfect” being didn’t utilize perfection very well in the creation of everything. And who gets credit for the ways the real world is ?? God. That’s wrong. Either god didn’t know what was being created or god didn’t care how perfect the world is. Right down to the physical properties of human beings. Not to offend anyone, but look at the way virtually all animal life has in common. Were I to have created man in my own image I would’ve avoided giving living creatures heads that are easily separated from a body. I mean… a neck is the perfect place to easily end another creature’s life… cutting off their head. Another anatomical “mistake” god made was placing mammal genitalia to within inches from the spot used for defecating. Can you conjure up any worse spot for giving birth ??? Another oversight on God’s part is why in the world would god create Adam or any male with nipples ?? They’re pointless. But what it does indicate is that ALL humans evolved from lower animals that at some time in the past nipples may have been an advantage to the male of the species. Who knows. But it doesn’t make sense for a “creator” to have placed nipples on males. Is anyone grasping this? When one looks at human anatomy it’s obvious god could’ve made better choices about creation. And the fact that god didn’t should give every believer pause about “humankind being created in god’s image”. What is that supposed to mean anyway ?? Point being, it’s pretty obvious that god the designer was either a novice, or god’s Not perfect, or there is no god regardless of what weak human being might want.
If a "Perfect" Tri-Omni God creates an "Imperfect" being (That's Us), then God CANNOT be a "Perfect" Tri-Omni God. God would be a Vivisectionalist. He is treating us as Playthings. But, IN REALITY, ALL GODS ARE IMAGINARY. The ONLY Miracle is "That anyone still belives in this GARBAGE".
..we don't have many attributes of god.. ..if we did we would be god.. ..we have to have free will to have the same imagery of god.. ..ok.. ..are we omniscient omnipotent as well.. ..not a very good argument as to why we don't have free will..
With all the frauds and lies of evolution in the last century I'd say science is continually trying to prove the lie is true. In physics, scientists continually try to prove God doesn't exist. All of science in evolutionary biolobgy and physics is dedicated to that premise. As a Christian, If I was continually trying to prove I'm wrong in my faith, I'd be a fool. Jesus rose from the dead. Many saw Him cruicifed and later risen. I can't try to prove what I know is true is a lie. I'd be very confused to do so. I don't know about other religions which are of the devil, but Christianity will defend itself against sceptics. And this defense is to glorify God and allow Him to work through us to the saving of people from Hell.
They are actually very similar. Those who follow Christ know he’s the truth and their lives are the constant disproving of what they think bc God is tried and true every time. Every thing always works out/goes the way He said it will, no matter what we think or do
@huntercostello9036 Again, this only proves the arrogance of religion. The interesting thing about yours and others statement of "knowing", is that, it is never followed up with evidence.
Heiser is wrong on this. Many of God's attributes are incommunicable: Divine Simplicity, aseity, omniscience, omniscience, etc. There are several ways to demonstrate that the free will defense for theodicy is intuitive, but false.
My major problems with the free will defense are: 1. It's (free will) just never given as an explanation for evil, or anything else for that matter. It's an understandable intuitive leap. But there are explanations given for evil in the Bible, and it should be telling that free will is never one of them. 2. It doesn't explain anything. Our raw capacity to make sin and non-faith decisions (or those decisions being available to us) doesn't explain why we do, either now or in the case of Adam and Eve. 3. This is almost always framed with "we are not robots" language, which pretty much everyone agrees with. It still has to be recognized as an intuitive leap to say from that God can't make non-robots without them doing evil.
@@brianwagner781 I think the intent of the Free Will defense is to assign moral culpability to one and only one agent, namely man, and absolve God from moral culpability. That's intuitive, and for man-to-man relationships, it is definitely correct. There are many instances in the Bible where we see that culpability follows intent and knowledge: for example, if a farmer knows that his Ox has a habit of goring people, then he is morally culpable for not properly protecting his Ox from getting out and goring people. But I'm not convinced that moral culpability works that way when it comes to a Being who is omnipotent and omniscient. There are a number of examples in the Bible where God ordains for a person to do evil. And in those cases, it is always that person, not God, who is held morally culpable for that behavior.
@@timffoster yeah, that and justifying God's decision to make a world where so much evil will happen. Free will and evil is greater than no free will and no evil. That sort of thing. I think your argument illustrates why we shouldn't put so much faith in an explanation that isn't provided in the Bible. It's just an understandable intuition.
@@robertpillowjr.1672 I think I get why it does. But can you point to a place in the Bible where free will is ever given as the reason for moral evil? "Makes sense" isn't really the best basis for forming beliefs about God. Especially when he's actually revealed knowledge to us in the Bible.
Great guy. Many excellent insights. But here...he is defending against an argument no one is making. Who says "Humans are robots"? This is not a Reformed position. It is a great mystery of which he doesn't explain away saying man is not a robot. Total Depravity doesn't mean what he thinks it means...another example of a straw man. But...he has so much good to say.
@@J42337 I've never heard a Calvinist say such. I suppose you are trying to equate hard determinism atheism with Calvin's teaching. What I suspect you are missing is the mystery. God is Sovereign, (how can any Christian deny this?) and yet man is responsible. Read the first 2 chapters of Acts. Pretty clear. In the Westminster Confession it deals with it pretty clearly, God is sovereign yet not to be blamed for evil. Man is responsible. God ordains the atonement through Jesus, man is responsible for killing the God/Man. If you have ever heard a Calvinist claim we are robots, I'd love to hear you quote the person who said that. I suppose it's possible but then again it's possible for some "Christian" to say God isn't sovereign. Or any number of wrong things.
@@dannewcomb7631 With all due respect, if atheistic determinism makes people into robots so does Christian determinism. Just because the cause is different doesn’t make the effect different. If you appeal to mystery what you are saying is there is a contradiction in your system you don’t know how to solve, that is the mystery. Calvinism is a minority view of Christians historically and present day. The Orthodox Church made it a full on heresy hundreds of years ago. The Catholic Church, who adore Augustine, also deny this deterministic view. Augustine got his determinism from Manichaean ism which he used to be a part of. It is no where found in any church fathers before him and still rarely after him. Calvinism makes God the author of evil because He is the author of everything. You can say the evil is done by beings who do what they desire but God determined what they desired. The programmer is responsible for what the non free robot does because the robot has no ability to act freely. They fulfill a program and then they end. Calvinism makes God the programmer of the evil in men’s hearts and then blames the men for having evil hearts. If God wrote the code of evil that would make him the author of that evil. Thank the Lord that this is not true. It truly is as close as you can get to a salvation risking heresy without denying the core doctrines of Christianity. To attack the character of God in such a way under the veil of trying to raise Him up higher is so misguided and gross. God doesn’t do what you say and doesn’t want you putting Him in that place. God created free creatures that were to reflect His character to the world and we as believers are to deny temptation and freely choose to walk as He walked, to restore the Edenic ideal. Free people choosing to obey the commands of God above their own. Calvinism destroys that core story of reality and makes a mockery of it by giving nonsensical reasons for a God to want to reflect His image in people who aren’t in any way separate from His decision making faculties. Reject Calvinism, join traditional Christianity, feel the love and mercy of God full blast and deny yourself and pick up the cross.
God is sovereign. Too what degree does he exercise His sovereignty over man. Did He in His sovereign power decree that Adam and Eve were to eat of the tree. Does his sovereignty only allow some the gift to understand their sinful need of a savior. Is our God inconsistent in whether He gives men choices?
@@dannewcomb7631 starting your argument by "i have never heard a Calvinist say such" is erecting a strawman of your own, and a disingenuous one at that. Of course, no Calvinist will explicitly say that, and they don't have to. Their claims/beliefs/assumptions about "predestination" and such inevitably lead to an inference that can be summarized as "humans are essentially robots = not having free will" using modern terms.