Are Humans Mere Puppets?

[@peterw1642]

Thank you James White! God bless you. Keep the faith!!

[@johnmark3188]

Free will within our nature. Lions won’t bark- birds won’t swim- Sinners can’t please God. Makes sense.

[@apilkey]

Sinners can still freely believe.

[@hondotheology]

@@apilkey based on what

[@Izthefaithful]

@@apilkey if your “dead in trespasses and sin” your dead You need resurrection” like Lazarus for instance. Or if you have a “heart of stone” you need a heart of flesh” like God opening Lydia’s heart to hear what Paul was saying. In every case it’s always God first doing the work, because men cannot of their own chose rightly, the death and sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection prove this. He came for the sick who need a physician not for those who are already well. If God does not first work no one will believe to the saving of the soul. (Saving faith in Jesus)

[@josiaherasquin1029]

@@apilkey The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.

[@michaelclark9301]

So the only way that I can become born again is IF God wants me to become born again?

[@stephengorman1025]

God works all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. I love God and have been called and one of the good things I look forward to is the reconciliation of All things. God is Good.

[@CBALLEN]

When God put our consciences and the works of the law in us,He leaves us all without an excuse for our sin .We all know there is a God and we all sin with knowledge and this makes us all accountable for our own sin no matter what God has decreed .

[@Izthefaithful]

I honestly think people don’t want to believe in a divine decree because they are scared they are not in control like they think they are (ie “free will”)

[@michaelclark9301]

If God decrees all my thoughts in actions then God is the author of those thoughts and actions since they originated in God's mind before I was even born. How could I be the author of my thoughts if God decrees them before I existed? God would be the author.

[@signposts6189]

Morpheus: "Do you believe in fate, Neo?" Neo: "No!" Morpheus: "Why not?" Neo: "Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life." People who don't believe in a divine decree are a lot like Neo in the Matrix. They first confuse the divine decree with fate (Bill Craig certainly does since he often uses the terminology "theological fatalism" to describe it). But more importantly, they're really driven by a strong dislike for anything they FEEL takes control of their life away from them since they like to think of themselves as supposedly free moral agents. Emphasis on the free in "free moral agents." However, this delusional way of thinking goes against the teaching of Scripture, which straight up says: "Just ask the animals, and they will teach you. Ask the birds of the sky, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will instruct you. Let the fish in the sea speak to you. For they all know that my (i.e. Job's) disaster has come from the hand of the Lord. For the life of every living thing is in His hand, and the breath of every human being." (Job 12:7-10 NLT).

[@michaelclark9301]

If all thoughts and movements are decreed by God, then even WLC's views are decreed by God. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, and all beliefs are God's decrees.

[@signposts6189]

@@michaelclark9301 Yes they are. But so what?

[@apilkey]

@@signposts6189 People don’t believe in a so-called divine decree because it’s not biblical that’s why. Has absolutely nothing to do with “feelings.” Sola Scriptura.

[@babylonsfall7]

At 14:25, again, middle knowledge is exhaustive, containing all possibilities. Since it contains all possibilities (i.e. the set of events is infinite), God can truly do whatever HE wants. The only way your argument works is if the subset of middle knowledge is finite, leaving possibilities outside of God's ability to decree.

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

They want to believe they can analyse God. They Don’t have Awe to take their shoes off because the land they are stepping on is sacred. They are not content with the answer : «why do you need my name Moses, my Name is strange” Meaning- you won’t catch me Moses, can’t put me in the pocket. Can’t grasp me with your little mind. But James White is trying. Pride can be so seductive…

[@jonathanchaney5896]

But it is delimited by what man would choose to do, according to WLC. There could not be a feasible world where Peter affirmed Christ instead of denying him three times. So, by what you say, God still can only decree what man has freely chosen to do. God cannot decree otherwise.

[@Cts_99]

@@jonathanchaney5896So you’re putting man in authority of God’s decree?

[@jonathanchaney5896]

@@Cts_99 that’s seems to be the Molinist view, not mine.

[@rolysantos]

Best example of God's Sovereignty and Human Will is Isaiah 10 (IMHO). *GOD sends the King of Assyria to Judah to "trample them down like mud in the streets" *GOD calls the KOA "The rod of MY anger." *God likens Himself one who wields the 'Ax' and the KOA as the 'Ax' *AFTER using the KOA for HIS (God's) Purpose, God PUNISHES the KOA for what he did because HIS INTENTIONS were wicked even though He was serving God's purpose!

[@ivysterofficial5744]

I love the priestly look these days Dr. White.

[@MultiBigelow]

Clearly a Catholic plant, clearly

[@bryanpratt5850]

@@MultiBigelowcould be RCC plant. Hopefully lots of staunch RCC folks are here watching and learning.

[@Zaloomination]

I believe Dr. White has finally found the perfect beard length to complete the look.

[@Bibliotechno]

Does "creaturely will" mean that we only do what we desire to do? That we think we are free but bound up with following intentions, what we think is our own free will?

[@billyr9162]

Creaturely will means what the flesh produces. The creature is made out of flesh. It seeks to fulfill its belly. That's the natural man. The child of God becomes aware of it because Christ beats him and chastens him. If you're not aware of how much self that you seek all day long then you're not a child of God. You're still in the dark. Creaturely will is self will. It's not free. It's wicked.

[@wojak91]

@@billyr9162 That's correct. What Arminians and Molinists sadly miss is the VERY clear teaching in Scripture that man is never "free" to himself, but a slave. He is either a slave of righteousness or a slave of sin. The will itself is not an abstract, independent entity, but a fruit of the abundance of the heart. Just as "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks", so likewise out of the abundance of the heart the will acts, the mind thinks, and the man lives. In Scripture, as was the Hebrew understanding, the "heart" is not what we think of as "feelings and emotions", separate from the "mind" being the intellect and the thoughts. When Scripture speaks of the "heart" it refers to the very being of the whole person: his desires, his thoughts, his emotions, his will. "As in water face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects the man." (proverbs 27:19) The heart is who a man is. The will, just like the thoughts, the speech, the desires, and the emotions of man, are works of the heart. These things, the will included, are revealers of the heart. God says that man in Adam is dead in sin and a slave to sin, "carrying out the desires of the body and the mind", operating purely in obedience to his master, the desires of the flesh. He is a total slave to sin, meaning his heart has a master, and that master reigns over the heart, making it work according to sin. It makes man desire sinfully, think sinfully, WILL sinfully. In Romans 6, Paul expounds this truth and teaches regenerate children of God that they now have a new Master, Christ, and we now are to reckon ourselves dead to our old master and offer ourselves to Christ as slaves of righteousness. "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." - Romans 6:14 Therefore, Arminians and Molinists are in terrible error because their anthropology is worldly and not Scriptural. They do not understand who, and what, man is. Craig has recently borne the fruit of his error, which is always further error. He has denied in an a recent interview: 1) Adam being the first man and thus his federal headship of all his offspring. 2) Original sin. 3) Death being a result of Adam's sin and the penalty for his transgression. Consistent with his erroneous doctrine, he has no choice but to see Genesis 1-3 as mythological allegory, which the Lord Jesus Himself, and Paul, clearly believed to be literal history.

[@billyr9162]

@@wojak91 yes. If they were aware of how wicked they are they wouldn't believe in free will. Yes. That's the Hebrew understanding of the heart. You never hear free will worshipers talk about it. They are ignorant.

[@ChumX100]

Honest question: From a reformed perspective, are the "desires of your heart" that determine your acts independent from God's will or does God ultimately determine those as well at the moment of creation? Seems to me that in one case there would exist things in creation that are not under the control of God, but on the other case God would necessarily be the only genuinely free agent. Seems like the same old contradiction with different words.

[@starsareangels7]

"Use me as you will pull my strings just for a thrill and I know I'll be okay though my skies are turning Grey "guardian angel- red jumpsuit apparatus lol I want my strings pulled to fo what's right even if it's hard. Sorry if I didn't really answer I'm just responding in my adhd way

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

nothing and no one is free from God God is the only one with self determinism and self causality He is the only one with libertarian free will >>Seems to me that in one case there would exist things in creation that are not under the control of God, but on the other case God would necessarily be the only genuinely free agent.

[@terryambrose6260]

For those who have experience with it, what is your opinion of the DA Carson book mentioned? Is it worth the read?

[@billyr9162]

Yes

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Did you end up reading it?

[@babylonsfall7]

At 15:12, a Free moral agent = a person decides what to do for themselves (i.e. they are not being controlled or made to do what they do by God). Simple as that. If you agree, then there is no issue. If you don't agree, then you would need to make an argument that shows that God controls or makes people do the things they do, which would contradict the existence of free moral agents. I think WLC would certainly agree that God bars off some avenues for men, but they are free to decide what to do within the scope of range of what is possible for them to do. Obviously men do only what they want to do, unless they are forced. And both you and WLC agree that men aren't being forced to do what they do by God.

[@godwinrebeiro7852]

Sir, The influence u had on me as an apologist was huge... But when it comes to theology, Even as one from a protestant background, once i was really doubtful of the doctrines of grace proposed by you and others. But Eventually, i became sensitive to those very ideas because of its biblical basis which you helped me grasp to some good extent and eventually embraced reformed theology along with some of the tensions that often heard people from the Non reformed camp raises such as God being the author of sin, Humans devoid of accountability/Moral culpability etc. I know You addressed each of these difficult Questions and provided Answers from biblical perspective. But some impression of incoherence as it appears to me, makes me doubt some of these concepts at least sometimes. One of the basic things i still struggle to understand is, How is Divine decree not causally determining Human actions or events? Correct me at any point if am mistaken.. Because as it seems to me, once god decreed anything, that will come to pass. Here Human decisions may act as means, in some sense secondary cause of what is intended in Gods decree. But when something we indisputably consider as evil takes place, Perhaps an evil which might remain unredeemed to be specific, which we see as apparently executed by sinful humans and when they held accountable for the same, my mind goes like they seem to be accountable as secondary causes of the evil happened. But without the primary cause that is gods decree, They would not even be able to become the means or secondary causes of the evil occured. And as a consistent reformed theologian when you want to say, yes. God decreed it but humans are still culpable for acting out their evil desire, is that a sound position to hold..? It seems to me as When God decrees something, he is causally determining the ends and means. And i think u might also agree, if God causally determined humans to do anything, the praise or blame to be on God himself. I see people misleadingly use the puppet analogy, But i wud like to ask without any sort of trivializing intent, if God is causally determining Humans to act something out i think the puppet impression is undeniable. I believe Christians in general are comfortable speaking about gods decree and him causally determining good things, also in instances of restraining evil. But in the case of evil, to me it becomes an untenable position to defend, how should we understand God decreeing something but not causally determining the same and hence man can be culpable for their actions.?

[@4jchan]

The old puppet analogy to describe God's eternal decree of human decisions is a canard. It completely ignores secondary causes (ie human intentions). Puppets and robots don't have desires whereas human beings make deliberate choices. Libertarian free will implies choices that are not deliberate but random chance accidents. If all of human behavior is a random accident then it follows that people don't have control over their own actions. God decreeing evil is determining or "causing" it. I know some Calvinists like to claim that evil is "allowed" without causing it (which means evil is an accident) but that assumes evil isn't determined by God. In order for evil to have any purpose or meaning it must be decreed by God or it was part of His eternal plan. It is basically the same common argument that if human existence is just an accident or wasn't created by God then life has no purpose. Libertarian free will implies God had nothing to do with evil and hence it can't have any meaning or purpose. Therefore LFW makes God culpable for allowing meaningless evil which ironically is in agreement with the same claim atheists make. But then again if one were consistent evil doesn't exist if LFW is true. Yes, even though God decrees evil He can still still hold people morally accountable based on their intentions. Whereas LFW cannot make sense of human accountability because LFW implies undeliberate choices (ie no motives)

[@id744]

1 Cor 1:30,31 BUT BY HIS DOING you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, SO THAT, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

[@DANIELRODRIGUEZ-yr3et]

The truth is that the nature and character of GOD is at the core of this argument. He is either all knowing or not. All present or not. He is either Holy, or not. The genesis of all things or not. It is very frustrating to constantly watch people trip over this while defaming the name of GOD.

[@JamesPeterCovers]

Speaking of Ephesians 1:11, there's a very interesting point most Calvinists wouldn't want to touch, just 2 verses ahead: 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, The logical sequence is: we hear the gospel and believe. Thereafter, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. I don't understand how you could even begin to explain how irresistible grace comes into action here, if the prerequisite to be sealed by the Holy Spirit is to first believe. Honestly, after lots of thinking, I don't consider myself in any of the Calvinist, Arminian, Molinist, Provisionist, etc, views because ALL of them have their own unresolved issues and contradictions. The problem here is that Calvinists think their logic is perfect, when in fact we can't even begin to explain and grasp logic at God's level. I feel like there's still something missing in calvinism, and irresistible grace just doesn't do it for me...

[@andrewoverholser491]

Question: do you believe God can only persuade or compel?

[@billyr9162]

That's right. After believing the child is sealed. It doesnt get un done. All of it predestined. Verse 4,5 and 11 before it.

[@loydjenkins2241]

I am a very Bible based believer. John 6, where Jesus said that all that the Father gave him would come to him was the convincing arguement for me about irresistable grace.

[@billyr9162]

@@loydjenkins2241 It's not only in John 6. Psalms 65:4 [4]Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

[@billyr9162]

@NicoCoco Free will belief is caused by the love of self. The very thing a follower of Christ is supposed to hate and deny. It's the lust of the belly. Makes them feel good.

[@babylonsfall7]

At 21:10 you say, "And you don't get it from man's philosophy." Yet earlier on you made a philosophical argument about the incarnation and how it demonstrates that men are not puppets. You said, "If men are puppets, then Jesus was a puppet." This is a philosophical statement, not found in stricture. So by your very own words, none of the viewers can get there with that argument you just made. I actually agree because the argument makes no sense and doesn't follow. Jesus could have been a puppet and it would not have changed the events that took place that led us to this day. It's almost like you are saying Jesus had to have had free will in order to redeem humanity or something like that??

[@Cts_99]

Jesus was truly man, and thus he was not a puppet in his manhood. That’s his point which is if not directly in scripture, directly concluded to in scripture

[@dylanmilks]

I really appreciated the comments about "free moral agents" and the refuting of that claim by looking at what Paul says: anyone who sins is a slave to sin.

[@Izthefaithful]

Yeah it seems to me that we can make “free” choices all the time, it’s just our will is completely subject to bondage in sin. So we could never choose the right good on our own namely “choosing Jesus” hence why we need Jesus to open our heart to the gospel “giving us a heart of flesh and taking away our heart of stone”

[@dylanmilks]

@Mindtrap028 but a slave from the 1500s had parameters to his free will. It wasn't absolute. There were limitations set by his master/owner.

[@apilkey]

@@dylanmilks A slave can still admit he’s a slave and cry out to the only One who can set him free.

[@apilkey]

@Mindtrap028 Exactly they are forced to change how the Bible uses pretty much everything to suit their doctrine. Spiritual deadness is another one. They invent their own doctrine of total inability essentially equating it to physical deadness. If we’re as dead as they say then we wouldn’t even be able to sin. Dead does not relate to your “ability” but to your RELATIONSHIP. *If mankind has the ability to do good, and yet still FREELY chooses to do wrong, then he is FAR MORE depraved than a man who CAN’T do good.* Mankind has total moral depravity, completely separated from God Spiritually and is totally lost and helpless to save himself and would remain in his fallen state 👉IF👈 left on his own and 👉UNLESS👈 God took the first step and initiated the opportunity to be saved. The Good News is we’re NOT on our own anymore ! The Good News is God DID take the first step and Divine Initiative in in sending His Son, sending His Holy Spirit, giving us His Word, speaking to us through other believers as ministers of reconciliation making His appeal through them, speaking to us through creation etc etc etc. Calvinists believe everything God has initiated and done to reach fallen man is insufficient and not good enough. 🤦‍♂️ The scriptures teach total depravity and NOT total inability. There’s not one verse they can show us that teaches total inability. Total depravity yes. Total inability NO. Dead is NEVER SHOWN in the scriptures to mean MORAL INABILITY to respond to God’s truth. Dead means SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from the presence of God due to sin and the only way to get into His presence is through Christ. Scripture supports a totally depraved man that is spiritually separated from God and obviously unable to save Himself. This does NOT mean man is totally incapable of responding to Him. Slaves still have the ability to admit they’re a slave to the only One who can set them free. Nowhere in scripture is spiritual deadness equated to an inability to respond positively to God’s Divine Initiative in sending His Son, sending His Holy Spirit, giving us His Word, speaking to us through other believers as ministers of reconciliation making His appeal through them, speaking to us through creation etc etc etc. There’s not one passage of scripture that supports their claims.

[@riverjao]

Paul later in the same chapter says that now we are slaves to righteousness. So if slave to sin means no fee will then doesn’t that logically mean that slave to righteousness means free will?

[@masontenpenny407]

What are good books on hermeneutics?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Louis Berkhof book on biblical hermeneutics.

[@OC3707]

Isn't it possible that "working all things" can mean 'all kinds of things'. Since that is how we treat the same language elsewhere.

[@elijahrose7913]

Well said

[@fakeyououtdotcom2409]

Question: If there's no limitation on the word all in Ephesians 1:11 (which I agree with you on), then how can you say there's a limitation on the word all in :10 of Ephesians 1?

[@StudioEnergizerMV]

You don't think He will unite all things?

[@fakeyououtdotcom2409]

@@StudioEnergizerMV I believe He will...which includes, by definition, all people. No one is left out.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

did you read the whole verse? 10 for an administration of the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth in Him. things in heaven and things on earth IN HIM

[@fakeyououtdotcom2409]

@@jalapeno.tabasco What's your point hot sauce man? 😋

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

@@fakeyououtdotcom2409 the all is defined in the verse...

[@edmcinnis4715]

21:25 = is Craig's comment specific to BONDAGE or the NUMBER OF YEARS? That is, the certainty of bondage or the length of bondage....

[@OC3707]

How does Dr White understand God knowing the future? Can he actually "see" what will happen, or is it ONLY because he is in control of all events? Trying to get a good understanding of his position.

[@adamjett7947]

I know this is old haha, but my understanding of White is that God’s foreknowledge comes from his divine decree. He knows it will be because he wills it to be. That said, this isn’t a limitation on God, just a different category than other concepts like middle knowledge.

[@jackjones3657]

It is a good thing to see Christian leaders, like Dr. White, calling out Christian intellectuals who have said very concerning things that would cast aspersions upon the Word of God as it is written. Those in modern Christian academia often stumble over the inability to explain and quantify the miraculous and thereby discount and even mock It in the attempt to explain It with their own fallible reasoning.

[@FackitAllman]

Jesus was indeed a puppet for a time. Upon glorification imho, he was set free. Just as we are when god regenerates us to believe in him. For through faith all things are possible to one that believeth. This is contingent, and since the natural man won't believe without regeneration, they seem to be actual puppets. That is why you were dead and the believers are now alive, in unconditional light. Born again. ect.. The list goes on You're welcome ;)

[@theschrocks2405]

Ask Leighton flowers how that would work😂I’m curious how answer…

[@douglasmcnay644]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWeteZR4i96GiqM

[@misse8787]

Leighton? Nah, why waste your time on such humanism.

[@Isaaaaac]

He's to scared to talk to Leighton face to face now.

[@truth7416]

This Catholic father endorses the puppet theory below “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5) “…we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7)

[@billyr9162]

You actually posted the truth for once. Hallelujah.

[@oracleoftroy]

@Nathaniel J. Franco Where's the violation of Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the _ultimate_ standard, not the _only_ standard (Solo Scriptura). And the only one who said Calvin is infallible is you.

[@haroldgamarra7175]

@@oracleoftroy dude. Sola means literally only.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@haroldgamarra7175 Yes it means "only". The question is in what way it is "only". It is not "only" in that it is the "only authority", it is "only" in being the only *inerrant* authority for knowledge about God. Pastors and scholars and theologians past and present are all authorities, but scripture is the ultimate authority and the only inerrant authority. Do some research on how the Reformed use the phrase, especially on the difference they make between "sola" and "solo" scriptura.

[@nunu4evaaa]

I say , yes we ARE all but mere puppets!

[@babylonsfall7]

At 16:50, I do not understand your argument about the incarnation being a defense against men being puppets. It's almost like you don't understand the argument and so defend it with something that doesn't make sense. The argument would be something like this: 1.) If God controls and makes people do what they do, then they are puppets. 2) Men are not Puppets (as evidenced by the incarnation?? Ok I guess). 3.) Thus God does not control or make people do what they do. 4.) Thus people are Free moral agents.

[@kreefoster]

So God decreed sin, then Jesus came to redeem from the Sin that God decreed?

[@signposts6189]

Is there a problem with God decreeing sin?

[@kreefoster]

@@signposts6189 Are you ok with Sin being God's will for you?

[@signposts6189]

@@kreefoster Okay? God is the supreme being. What I think is okay is irrelevant. The simple fact is, "The Lord does whatever pleases him throughout all heaven and earth, and on the seas and in their depths." (Psalm 135:6 NLT). For example; "He (God) DESTROYED the firstborn in each Egyptian home, both people and animals." (Psalm 135:8). Are you okay with God destroying that firstborn Egyptian male infant or toddler? Are you going to tell the Almighty He was wrong to destroy the firstborn Egyptian little boys? And also, "O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. Happy is THE ONE WHO TAKES YOUR BABIES AND SMASHES THEM AGAINST THE ROCKS!" (Psalm 137:8-9). Are you okay with God smashing Babylonian babies against the rocks? Does it even matter what you think is okay in this regard? Pompous and smug Atheists certainly often presume to have "better morals" than the Almighty when they read such things. Do you?

[@kreefoster]

@@signposts6189 So decreeing Sin pleases God?

[@signposts6189]

@@kreefoster God decreed the cruel death of His own begotten Son Jesus Christ at the hands of wicked people. What do you think in light of Isaiah 53:10? Was He pleased to decree it?

[@JohnQPublic11]

lol! Reformed Theology has, both knowingly and unknowingly, taught for 500 years that the Calvinist God is the puppet master of human puppets.

[@billyr9162]

Obviously somebody's pulling your strings.

[@pinknoise365]

Try and keep up Johnny. Lol

[@dalestevens3332]

You obviously no nothing of Reformed Theology and certainly didn't watch or weigh the contents in this video.

[@SaltyApologist]

Is there a stream of text running through scripture showing human autonomy? That God reacts to the choices of men? No. So these arguments that try to deny the ordaining sovereignty of God are completely unbiblical

[@michaelclark9301]

Jesus would not be a mere puppet because he is the Creator. However, according to Calvin, all thoughts and movements are inspired by God. That means all thoughts and movements originate from God; as independent from anything. If this is true, then God is the author of all thoughts and movements. If God is the author of my thoughts and movements then how does this not resemble mere puppetry?

[@billyr9162]

What do you do without God? Tell me Breathe? Go to the store? Eat? Pet your dog? What?

[@michaelclark9301]

You would have to ask an atheist that question.

[@billyr9162]

@@michaelclark9301 Lol You believe in free will?

[@michaelclark9301]

Before I say this is what I believe, it is important for me to define what I subscribe to. My view of "free will" is, our thoughts and movements are our own. God does not inspire or direct all thoughts and movements. Calvin taught that "whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God" (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion). If whatever we conceive in our minds is directed by the secret inspiration of God, then God is the author of all thoughts.

[@billyr9162]

@@michaelclark9301 If you're an atheist then you don't believe God inspires any thoughts or movements. Because there's no God. You believe the same thing as the christians who believe in free will. But they believe God does inspire but it's more like a cheerleader. Like another man talking to them.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

I am a mirror puppy

[@bradadamson7296]

I thought you final comment was really good and true, we must start with scripture as it is Gods revelation to us. However, much of what you are saying does not make coherent sense of the scriptures, you are saying that we are not puppets and yet implying with your theology that we are not free moral agents and if we are not free moral agents then we cannot be justly held accountable to our sins as we did not choose to disobey God. That is why some differ in their interpretation and invoke middle knowledge (which your objection to makes no sense) in an attempt to faithfully interpret scripture in a coherent way. I respect what seems to be a passion for you to stick tightly to scripture, i do not respect the condescending tone in your speaking though.

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

19:55 Well, yeah.. there are words indeed in the NT. “ We once were Slaves of inequity and now SLAVES of righteousness” 🤔

[@BuildingApologetics]

What does that have to do with the existence/nonexistence of free will?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@BuildingApologetics Given that the debate is around whether the will is libertarian free or whether free will is compatible with God's determinations and our bondage to sin, it sure does put strain on any libertarian philosophy of free will given that the Bible calls us slaves.

[@BuildingApologetics]

@@oracleoftroy You are absolutely correct that libertarian free will is not boundless or unaffected by sin. There are certainly constraints placed on our will in this text and others. Let use take a deeper dive into Romans 6 to discover what the term "slave" means in that context. Don't consider this to be a refutation or anything, but more of a thoughtful examination of the text. As far as I can tell, there are at least 3 possible aspects of first century slavery that Paul may be drawing upon: 1) Slavery refers to who you serve. 2) Slavery refers to who owns you. 3) Slavery refers to who controls you. Slavery in the first century clearly included all 3 of these aspects. It is also important to note that these aspects are certainly distinct, but they are obviously not mutually exclusive. The question then becomes, which of these aspects is Paul drawing upon for his comparison. Does Paul mean to imply that every aspect of slavery should be imported into his slavery metaphor? 1) It is undoubtable that the first aspect of slavery is indeed in view by Paul. In fact, this is probably the most heavy aspect of Paul's metaphor: "you are slaves of the one whom you obey". Paul's point is that you can either orient your life towards sin and serve it or towards Christ. Thus far, this is perfectly in line with libertarian free will. It is precisely libertarians who argue that you can choose to either orient your life towards sin and serve it or towards Christ. 2) It also seems pretty clear that Paul is also drawing upon the ownership aspect of slavery. The term "present yourselves" clearly implies obedience, but it also implies a choice to be owned by Christ. Otherwise, it would make little sense for Paul to say "having been set free from sin". 3) It is very difficult to tell in this passage if Paul means to suggest control. If Paul does believe sin controls us, I don't think that is the message of this passage. The logical question on which the debate hinges is this: Does God honestly offer escape from the slavery to sin to everyone or just some? It is clear from the text that we cannot set ourselves free. Therefore, the question we must ask is, who does Christ choose to set free? In fact, what does it even mean to be set free? Since we reject sinless perfectionism for believers, we should not read this as the ability to never sin. This is an ability that our wills certainly do not possess, even as Christians. Perhaps it simply means that we are free from the penalty for our sin. While this is certainly true, this cannot be the whole story for the metaphor, since, as I have gone over, it also refers to a transfer from serving sin to serving Christ. Yet, if we no longer serve sin, but we still sin, what does "serving sin" even mean? I would argue that the best way to understand this term is to say that serving sin means that we orient our lives towards something other than Christ. Christ then "frees us" from this bondage to sin by "doing something" to allow us to orient our lives towards him. Clearly the passage is about our believing loyalty to the Messiah rather than anything else because of "something" that this messiah did. So what is the "something" that Christ did to grant us freedom from sin? He died on the cross for the sins of everyone and sent his messengers to preach this message of salvation to the whole world. Because of this work that He as done, he has allowed freedom for anyone who merely wishes to take it. We may now serve him and participate in the enacting of His glorious kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven! Interestingly, when the text itself talks about Christ setting us free, it uses no such language about God affecting our wills so that we may believe (although this is certainly something he does), the text actually says things like this. Romans 6:5-6: "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." The decisive act that "sets us free" within the context of the passage is not some sort of inward grace that changes our wills. Paul describes nothing of the sort in the entire chapter. Rather, what sets us free is the fact that we are united to Christs death. Therefore, the "setting free" is accomplished at Calvary, and applied at the moment of justification, not regeneration. Although regeneration and justification are simultaneous, it is the justification that sets us free in the Romans 6 sense, not regeneration. In conclusion, although our wills are indeed bound by sin, the passage is not about this. It is about how we are able to live new lives in service to God because of the forgiveness that was purchased on the cross. It is not about the alteration of our wills. And to clarify again, I agree that we cannot believe without an inward work of the Holy Spirit, and I also agree that we are changed at the moment of regeneration, however, this passage is about neither of these facts.

[@danielmosel9787]

Definition by Merriam Webster: Fatalism "a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them." Like it or not the doctrine that James White teaches is a form of fatalism. Sure there are more ways to define fatalism, but this is one of the definitions.

[@wojak91]

Except Scripture itself REJECTS the pagan definition of "fatalism", as though people end up in hell even though "they really didn't want to". This isn't a final destination movie, where poor humans are trying desperately to escape something they don't want to happen to them. Every man of his own evil desire and hatred of God, rushes headlong into hell in his evil. Scripture teaches that an infinitely wise and righteous God has a PURPOSE, namely the glory of His grace in His Son, to which He is working all things towards, according to the counsel of His will. There is no fatalism. Yahweh has a righteous purpose and design in all things He does.

[@Daniel-tq3tk]

@@wojak91 my friend, would you be so kind to answer a couple questions? 1. According to your understanding, is there anything that happens that God does not meticulously dictate? 2. Let's say an individual takes a piece of wood and purposefully dictates the wood to create a false idle. Just because he had a purpose in the way he manipulated the wood does that negate that he is the very cause of everything that happens to the piece of wood?

[@paulperez6167]

That still doesn't conflict with our making choices and being accountable for them.

[@danielmosel9787]

It depends on how you define responsibility. If you define responsibility as someone who is punishable even though they could only do what was determined for them to do then yes, people are responsible in theological fatalism/Calvinism. However, that is not a proper definition of responsibility. When a father tells his son to pick up his toys, the son has a responsibility to obey his father. Genuine responsibility requires that the child could obey, or disobey. If the child is punished for disobedience it is because he was responsible to pick up the toys but he did not. So yes, if you redefine responsibility you can make it fit into the calvinistic system. However, when most people think of responsibility they are not defining it the way that calvinist are. With kindness in my heart, when a when someone who is “Reformed” says people are responsible it is dishonest. Unless they clearly state what they mean when they say people are responsible.

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

Do you mean, that the new creation in Christ is totally under God’s control and the fleshy man still has the free will? And how do we use it then? Do we cling with our old nature to Christ or do we just switch the channels and remain in our New nature?

[@billyr9162]

That is explained in Romans 6,7 and 8. The new creature is being chastised and straightened by Christ the inner man. It takes a lifetime to beat the self will out of the man. Is God causing things in your life to happen to make you straighten up and obey him?

[@apilkey]

@@billyr9162 It takes a lifetime to beat God’s divine decree out of you? 🤦‍♂️

[@Richard_Rz]

Wow, he doesn't realize he is using philosophy to come to the opinion of Sola Scriptura? It reminds me of Stephen Hawking starting a book saying Philosophy is dead, a philosophical conclusion. Good philosophy is just a tool people can use, not a worldview. Like science vs scientism. I have heard so many sermons and biases from pastors over the years and it is glaringly obvious they don't know HOW to think but stuck to some 3rd party confession. Dr Craig is wrong in many ways, but this one point could foster anti intellectualism and improper exegesis. Dr. White could use a lesson like all of us in philosophy rather than disparaging it. We need it to approach the Bible correctly and on its own terms - not depending on warm fuzziest like Mormons.

[@tophatt5706]

How and where did he use philosophy to come to the conclusion of sola scriptura?

[@Luiz__Silva]

I remember that book refutation was made by Dr. Craig years ago. It's indeed a good point when it comes to scienticism. However I don't think it has anything to do with this case. Dr. White just points out that philosophers in general tendo to put some extra biblical assumption over scripture. The point is to be consistent and biblical, not negating the proper interpretation and correct presuppositions. I also agree with Dr. White that professional philosophers usually lack proper theological and exegetical consistency. The thing is people conflate philosophy as a broad term and philosophy as taught in the academy. Nobody would disagree with pursuing knowledge, questioning things, using reason and logic. However, when people start bringing their secular, humanistic, or pagan presuppositions to it, then we have a problem.

[@Richard_Rz]

@@Luiz__Silva Hi Luiz, thank you for your response -very helpful. You wrote, " The point is to be consistent and biblical, not negating the proper interpretation and correct presuppositions.". I 100% agree with you and think Dr. Craig has fallen into this - using the lens of Philosophy to color his Theology. I think Dr. White has a valid, defensible point as well. However we all believe there is Truth, the Logos, The Word. How do we know that Truth and how we arrived there should be of no small order. We tend to understand Truth as a list of propositions and unless we understand the ontology we are on shaky soil. For most mature Christians, I think they would fare better with a weeklong course in Philosophy than a weeklong course in Theology, my point was broader but presented ham-fistedly. I meant, "Please don't disparage Philosphy!" First of all, we would choose a course of Theology that aligns with conclusions wey've already arrived at in our comfort zone. Secondly we would interpret any outlying facts in Biblical text of our current worldview using post-hoc rationalizations. The accrual more facts confirming our worldview isn't as transformational as disconfirming other worldviews using the Logos. We tend to create false categories and syntax/semantics which God never created and may not serve us well in every way. God didn't create Theology or Philosophy. He IS the Logos. It is to our own detriment that we disparage such academic pursuits as psychology, science, and philosophy and place everything on "Biblical exegesis" as we can begin to make that our "Idol" and not just a pointer to our loving Heavenly Father who will produce meekness, love, and charity. I liked the tone of this particular snippet and it seems that he is getting better in this area. I can't excuse calling a brother a tall gremlin, being a pastor at a church with someone who unrepentantly curses vulgarity from a pulpit, and unnecessarily quoting Greek to parlay his own credibility. I read Koine, I'd say 95% of the time there is no difference in what he is saying in Greek vs. our common English ESV. If he understood and practiced Philosphy, he would be soooo much more effective as a defender of the faith by quickly recognizing self-appeals to authority etc.. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Thank you! :)

[@tomhitchcock8195]

Sola Scriptura over philosophy

[@civilwar41]

I feel like this video answered nothing

[@UserName-vv5vs]

Calvinism: shut up, you dont have free will.

[@josiaherasquin1029]

I don't know why this is so hard for Arminians to grasp. Is God the author of the washing machine? Did he invent the TV? Normal people without an agenda will say no. If we so naturally separate God as the primary cause and humans as the secondary cause for human inventions, why make an exception for the human invention of sin?

[@michaelclark9301]

I just had a lengthy discussion with someone in the comments where he was arguing that God creates evil as a Potter molds his clay.

[@josiaherasquin1029]

@@michaelclark9301 I'm starting to believe them when they say "i'm predestined to be arminian"

[@billyr9162]

@@michaelclark9301 Amos 3:6 [6]Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? If the word done is the word asah. The same word used in The Bible as the Potter who forms the clay. Or when God formed the Earth. So it's not my belief. It's actually what The Bible says. If you don't know what the trumpet means I can explain that to you. It helps to understand what is being said.

[@michaelclark9301]

I get it...you believe that God does evil. However, if a person (even God) does evil that makes the person evil.

[@billyr9162]

@@michaelclark9301 God said he did. But I know how to read it in Hebrew. So maybe I look at it different than you. I told you what the Hebrew word meant. When someone ignores me sometimes I figure they're just being rude to me. Are you being rude to me?

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

Ok, but maybe the way of life of orthodox Christians at least you consider to be better than that of Calvinists? Cause those people in Russia for instance don’t need to shout: “ Stop this insanity with the Alphabet communities!!” Can you elaborate on this? I am undecided, I see that Protestant world gave us such “diversity”. But I can’t say if it’s Gods plan or it’s a bad thing. If you protest against it, and you do- you consider it to be bad…

[@zachdavenport8509]

Imagine someone said they were orthodox, but rejected the clear teaching of the church about homosexuality. If they refused to repent, they would be excommunicated and no longer considered a part of the church. Protestants (at least those protestants that genuinely and in practice hold to the 5 solas) do this as well, just with the teaching of scripture. When we argue with people who say homosexuality is not okay, we do so not as two groups in one church, but as those in the church and those outside the church. Just like orthodox christians would argue with an excommunicated individual hoping to show them the error of their ways and see them return to the church. The difference is that "Protestant" is not an organization, but an umbrella term, so the categories must be more carefully defined. Not all "protestants" are in the church.

[@hondotheology]

WLC believes his reason superior to God's revelation. the man is insane

[@yesnomaybeso5755]

nah he just understands that Calvinism is nonsense. Mr.Craig isn't perfect in theology but at least he understands that the God of the bible is different than the god of the Quran.

[@michaelclark9301]

Do you think God decreed WLC to have these beliefs?

[@Brenda-qo4ko]

@@yesnomaybeso5755 It's the "nonsense" that scripture plainly teaches.And if don't see that the sovereign God of the Bible who has ordained everything that has come and will come to pass is different than the God of the quran then you either don't understand what the quran teaches aboutr Allah or you don't understand the Biblical revelation of the one true God.

[@hondotheology]

@@michaelclark9301God has decreed everything including the existence of false teachers. Read Deut 13

[@bobpeterson1123]

The fatalistic determinism of some Calvinists automatically brings you there. If every single aspect of creation has been meticulously and absolutely predetermined, (even down to the bubbles of co2 that come out of your diet coke- John Piper), then it is just sophistry cloaked in selected Bible verses that brings a person to any other conclusion other than every person is a puppet.

[@signposts6189]

So does God govern the bubbles of CO2 that come out of your diet coke or does He not? Are the bubbles therein free of God's rule over them existing outside His scope of holding all things together by the word of His power? Is there a single thread of hair on your head or body He has no clue about or doesn't pay any attention to keep intact just because you don't seeing as the Spirit of God is probably holding more important material things together across the universe than one tiny seemingly insignificant thread of hair on your person? Please do tell using Scripture albeit without selected Bible verses.

[@bobpeterson1123]

@@signposts6189 Why would you criticize or question what God has predetermined before the foundation of the world what I typed in a KZbin comment? These keystrokes are His will, and I am only fulfilling His master plan.

[@signposts6189]

@@bobpeterson1123 No need to deflect from answering the questions with a silly appeal to God made me do it before the foundation of the world. You already admitted in the same line of questioning no less saying, "what I typed in a KZbin comment." That "I" who typed makes all the difference. You know? And that "I" who typed in this KZbin comment section is whom I'm questioning, not God. I'm asking a creature not the Creator. So be a good lad and hit those keystrokes and do what you were made to do for such a time as this, which by design is to say what you're really thinking, Keeping in mind that no matter what you say here this truth still stands, "Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, Lord, You know it all." (Psalm 139:4 NASB).

[@bobpeterson1123]

@@signposts6189 Joshua 24:14 "Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Did they have a genuine choice, or are they predetermined puppets?

[@signposts6189]

@@bobpeterson1123 You tell me. What the heck does Joshua have to do with whatever this thing you call a "predetermined puppet" is or whatever you mean by "a genuine choice." In any case, I'm still waiting for the answers to the previous questions asked of you before any of this Joshua stuff where he's talking to elders and leaders representing each tribal group within Israel about making up their own minds for themselves and the underlings they're representing to serve the Lord. Please do tell....

[@berglen100]

Imagination is the only God in man, you think God needs saved when wake is what happens inside man like Paul not from man that looks outside.

[@donhaddix3770]

working all things together doe not mean controlling all thigs

[@ogloc6308]

how does it not? God orchestrates everything together to happen the way that He wills for it to happen.

[@Richard_Rz]

Could someone explain why the God of James White isn't omniscient? He doesn't have enough mental know how or just isn't good enough at math/statistics to know something with less than infinite variables 8000 years ahead of time? That is a terrible argument and pretty offensive to me as I am evaluating Christian worldviews and this brand seems more Vedic or Buddhist in this 1 point. Much Truth in other parts.

[@Brenda-qo4ko]

I have absolutely no idea how you got from anything Dr. White said that he said the God of the Bible isn't omniscient and perfect knowledge of all future events.

[@Nolongeraslave]

I think from his argument, he is the one who affirms the Omnisciency of God more than those who oppose him.

[@Luiz__Silva]

I guess the confusion is in this: Dr. White didn't say God could not compute an infinite number of variables when he states that God decrees what is going to happen. God certainly can do that as the Bible states he maintain all things. The difference is that computing probabilities is a passive action. Like if you could predict which team would win the championship bit you didn't really make it happen, you just watch. God has ordained all things since eternity. So he's not only capable to know what is going to happens but it's like he also wrote everything in a book and was the cause of everything at all times. Using an analogy, it's more like you bet on a team, but gen you hire the tem, train them personally, feed them, and Doo Al things until they win. Just a limited analogy to make it clear that making things to happen as you desire involves multiple orders of magnitude more of power than just predicting it.

[@pinknoise365]

Hey Richard Are you an Open Theist? Because it sounds like you’re inferring Prognostication not the knowledge of God as portrayed through omniscience.

[@Richard_Rz]

@@pinknoise365 Not sure I understand all the baggage that comes with adopting that label, nor do I have a flag in the ground. As of right now, I think the common view of God can know the past present and future all at once, including counterfactuals. His Omniscience is limited only by Himself in that he cannot create a married bachelor, squared circle, etc. He doesn't need to traverse time as we do as he is transcendant. Since time IS space and God is Omnipresent, that means He is likely Omnitemporal. Unless you subscribe to the B theory of time I can't see why God can't know the future either way, prognosticating or being extant in all points. I'm gonna have to claim ignorance. I just know I love Him and He changed my life since I believe 1 Cor 15 a couple of years back. Until then I was a luke warm Christian bordering on coldish :(.

[@michaelclark9301]

Does James White claim that God decrees evil?

[@billyr9162]

Yes Amos 3:6 [6]Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

[@christsservant583]

Yes, James White does believe that

[@michaelclark9301]

@@billyr9162 this translation presents the LORD as doing evil. If the LORD does evil, then God is not Holy.

[@billyr9162]

@@michaelclark9301 You haven't thought it all the way through. Don't read the translation. Learn Hebrew and read it in Hebrew. It says the same.

[@michaelclark9301]

@@billyr9162 , so the Hebrew says the LORD (YHWH) does evil? If YHWH does evil then YHWH is evil, not Holy. The only way around it is, that YHWH does not do evil.

[@Isaaaaac]

Ok.. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people perceive Exhaustive Divine Determinism. You can't just say we aren't puppets and then affirm EDD. Because people assume EDD makes us puppets. You have to explain why that assumption is wrong. Can you do that so we have a legitimate answer to this question?

[@marcuslobato5977]

Well, how do you define freedom, which is essential in this subject of being or not puppets?

[@Isaaaaac]

@@marcuslobato5977 I believe God is capable of creating first action beings. I don't think God is limited by this creation and can still do whatever he wants with his creation. But he still created first action beings .

[@oracleoftroy]

@@Isaaaaac Err, where did White affirm _"Exhaustive Divine Determinism"_ ? As far as I can tell, that is Leighton's false theory about our belief, not something that actually follows from anything we confess. As you say, EDD makes us puppets, yet Reformed Christians reject that we are not puppets, thus we reject EDD. EDD says we have no free will. White's confession has a whole chapter affirming human free will (London Baptist Confession chapter 9). Thus White rejects EDD. EDD is a strawman.

[@marcuslobato5977]

@@Isaaaaac Thank you for responding, but, for me, I think you did not define freedom. Or your definition of freedom is "first action"? If this be the case you didn't clarify the terms yet, it is still confusing

[@Isaaaaac]

@@oracleoftroy 18:50 how is that not exhaustive divine determinism? He says the decree of God determines everything and no that doesn't make us puppets because that doesn't make sense with the incarnation. Ok I agree it doesn't make sense but he still affirmed that God decreed whatsoever comes to pass right?

[@riverjao]

The Bible on Virtually Every Single Page: Humans, make choices, decide things, do this, do that, will this, will that, and on and on and on Calvinists: You don’t have free will. You’re just not as smart as we are to know that. And apparently God hasn’t sovereignly decided to make you not believe in free will yet.

[@riverjao]

@Eucharist Angel Or as 0 verses prove.

[@billyr9162]

Where do you get free will out of men making choices?

[@riverjao]

@@billyr9162 I do prefer the term freedom of choice as I do believe our wills are impacted by sin. But total depravity is wildly inaccurate from a scriptural perspective.

[@riverjao]

@Eucharist Angel 👍

[@billyr9162]

@@riverjao You said free will. How do you get "freedom of choice" from people making choices in The Bible?

[@jacobwittmer2479]

You’re thinking in regards to this topic has made me suspect of your thinking in other subjects. I’m pretty sure I have your King James only controversy book and pretty sure I have at least one other. I’m not saying I’m discarding it all, just I’m now weary of other works of yours because of how bad you don’t even remotely understand your opposing viewpoint and that is what you are criticizing

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

Trust me he does know the opposing opinion

[@j.nelson2811]

Yes, Calvinists believe we’re just puppets.

[@billyr9162]

James white is a Calvinist and he just explained why he doesn't think so. So you just say they do anyway? Do you have an anger issue or something?

[@j.nelson2811]

@@billyr9162 I’m not angry, are you? James White as always just contradicts himself . He said “this realm is not a realm of puppets” and then, not even 30 seconds later he said “the decree of God… determines all events in time”. A puppet master decides every single event and action a puppet does, the puppet cannot choose anything just like you believe we can’t choose anything because God already decided what everyone will do in every in second of history. So yes, Calvinists do believe we’re mere puppets.

[@billyr9162]

@@j.nelson2811 But you said what he believed. He doesn't believe puppets. He said so. It might be like you said, But he doesn't believe it to be so. Therefore you can't say he believes it. Because he doesn't.

[@billyr9162]

@@j.nelson2811 A person who lacks empathy can not put himself in the other guy's shoes and see it from his angle. When you put yourself in his shoes you see it from your angle not his. You see what you think he ought to see not what he actually sees. That's a lack of empathy. Usually caused by anger.

[@billyr9162]

@@j.nelson2811 Do unto others as you would like them to do to you. Would you like some one to say you don't believe in free will when you do? Even if free will is wrong they can't say you don't believe it. That would be a lie.

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

If Calvinism is right then God gives just a make believe of a choice. And God is not a liar.

[@andrewoverholser491]

That’s not the view. We always have a choice but no one chooses God in their natural state.

[@КлюевСергей-э5с]

@@andrewoverholser491 you mean, not having been born again?

[@andrewoverholser491]

@@КлюевСергей-э5с faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of Christ. No one really knows when they were born again we just know it must take place to see the kingdom of God. Since this does not come by our own will and comes from the Spirit who can truly argue against it happening prior to faith or after? Also, can someone have faith before this takes place? Maybe, but in this case it would only be in the sense that demons have faith. Either way the Spirit gives the new birth and we do not decide when this happens…

[@billyr9162]

@@andrewoverholser491 That's right. God decides when it happens. That's explained in Galatians 3: 20 to 27

[@apilkey]

@@andrewoverholser491 Everyone who has ever “chosen God” has done so in his natural state.

[@berglen100]

Dave another allegory did every suffering copied by jesus you think was a person came 2000 years ago is funny. If you want to wake read Neville Goddard if you can..