Is it possible that God created a unique version of soul for humankind? One that could reflect the image and likeness of God.
You’re probably thinking that sounds like wierwille’s trichotomy. But no - what I am suggesting is different. What if spirit is a unique inseparable part of our soul?
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12 implies you can separate them but it’s extremely difficult - like separating joints from marrow or thoughts from attitudes.
At some point we have to explore what died in the fall of Genesis 3. I made a brief reference to that on another thread - Here-. The point of my counter argument to wierwille’s teaching of humans losing spirit defined as the image of God, is that Scripture indicates humans still retain the image of God.
This thread is for exploring human nature - not only in Biblical theology – but also through other legitimate disciplines. Besides appreciating what the Bible says about the makeup of humankind we also need to seek a comprehensive understanding of that which can undermine what appears to be the original design and purpose of humankind – especially by two of the biggest threats – sin and death.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
Heb. “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute.
The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (dying spiritually, you will then die physically). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks – food for thought – I appreciate everyone’s input:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
I recently posted on another thread-here- and got into one theory on what the forbidden fruit was – I’ve reposted part of it here since it does relate to an aspect of the fall:
PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power.
One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked ( Gen. 3:7 ) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22 states And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
in NICOT…the theory that “the knowledge of good and evil” indicates moral autonomy. The commentary says this view appeals to many OT passages where “good and evil” is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. So, what it’s basically saying:
What was forbidden to humankind is the power to decide for us what is in our best interest and what is not.
Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to address the human condition more directly .
Edited by T-Bone in the day that thou shalt edit it, thou shalt surely repost it
Is it possible that God created a unique version of soul for humankind? One that could reflect the image and likeness of God.
You’re probably thinking that sounds like wierwille’s trichotomy. But no - what I am suggesting is different. What if spirit is a unique inseparable part of our soul?
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12 implies you can separate them but it’s extremely difficult - like separating joints from marrow or thoughts from attitudes.
At some point we have to explore what died in the fall of Genesis 3. I made a brief reference to that on another thread - Here-. The point of my counter argument to wierwille’s teaching of humans losing spirit defined as the image of God, is that Scripture indicates humans still retain the image of God.
So what does death mean?
On 10/25/2022 at 10:01 PM, T-Bone said:
This thread is for exploring human nature - not only in Biblical theology – but also through other legitimate disciplines. Besides appreciating what the Bible says about the makeup of humankind we also need to seek a comprehensive understanding of that which can undermine what appears to be the original design and purpose of humankind – especially by two of the biggest threats – sin and death.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
Heb. “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute.
The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (dying spiritually, you will then die physically). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks – food for thought – I appreciate everyone’s input:
Because death did not immediately befall Adam and Eve on the day of transgression, but took hundreds of years later the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (as it so reads in Gen. 2:17 KJV) must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercyGen. 3:15.
However, the Bible Encyclopedia statesGen. 2:17may be showing a close connection of violating God’s commandment and the resultant consequences thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance and makes the lives of humankind dependent on obedience to God. The religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in the early chapters of Genesis, but we find it is the fundamental thought in the entire Bible and forms an essential element in many of the declarations of salvation.
The Encyclopedia goes on to say some theologians past and present have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection of between ethical and physical life, usually base their opinions on passages that show death as a punishment for sinRom. 5:12Romans 6:23I Cor. 15:21…this opinion has some merit though – since we are made aware of the consequences of the weaknesses and frailty of human nature Job 14:1Eccl. 3:20…For the most part death is portrayed as something natural.
What is the meaning of death?
The Encyclopedia states that we are influenced by the Greek Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal – but such an idea is utterly foreign to the ancient Hebrew concept of death – and is not found in the OT. The whole person dies, when in death the spiritEccl. 12:7or soulI Ki. 17:21goes out of them. Death is not understood to be annihilation – as in complete extermination…utter destruction…obliterated, but rather deriving one of all that makes for life on earth. To the Israelites death meant separation from all that they loved – separation from God, and from His service, His law, His people, His land. The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin.
Edited by T-Bone rebellious editor says: Typos thou art and unto typos thou shalt return
The following are some excerpts from wierwille’s book Power For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, 1971, American Christian Press, chapter 16 Body, Soul, Spirit – Formed, Made, Created pages 229ff:
A very condensed Scripture which we must thoroughly master to understand the origin of man is Isaiah 43:7
Even [for] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
…Are the three words “created”, “formed” and “made” synonymous? Most people in my classes say, yes. If the Word means what it says and says what it means, these words cannot be synonymous…
I Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Are those three words “spirit”, “soul” and “body” synonymous? They are no more synonymous than are created, formed and made.
…what is soul? The soul in man is that which gives the body its life, its vitality. Look again at Genesis 2:7.
And he Lord God formed man [man’s body] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
…The confusion between the soul and the spirit has caused no end of difficulty for people…
…The modern church has been illogical on this particular issue because it teaches that the soul is eternal life spirit and goes back to God; but then the teachers deny that a cow having a soul life must go back to God…But it isn’t tru, because the soul is not eternal life spirit. The soul is that which gives one breath-life…
Here’s something from Grudem’s Systematic Theology that’s makes me want to rethink what little I do know about the Holy Spirit:
In the realm of nature, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to all animate creatures, whether on the ground or in the sky and sea, for “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:30). Conversely, if God “should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14 - 15). Here we see the role of the Spirit in the giving and sustaining of human and animal life.
Parallel with this is the role of the Holy Spirit to give us new life in regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew (John 3:6 – 7; cf. vv. 5, 8; 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6). He also said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63 NASB; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; Acts 10: 44 – 47; Titus 3:5).
Consistent with this life-giving function of the Holy Spirit is the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary his mother (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). And on the day when Christ returns, it is the same Holy Spirit who will complete this life-giving work by giving new resurrection life to our mortal bodies: “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
I mentioned on another thread- here – wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible. That’s certainly seems the case with his chapter on Body, Soul, and Spirit in the PFAL book - like a lot of things – it appears wierwille didn’t know what he was talking about.
That’s certainly seems the case with his chapter on Body, Soul, and Spirit in the PFAL book - like a lot of things – it appears wierwille didn’t know what he was talking about.
What if... the people who wrote the Bible were doing essentially the same thing(s) the writers of Norse, Roman, Greek, or any other culture's mythologists were doing when they wrote what those cultures accepted as godly insight? What if they were simply, within the context of the culture in which they lived and dwelled, were inspired to make sense of life as they knew it at the time?
To me, that would make a lot of sense and explain the silliness or vanity (or vainness) of:
5 hours ago, T-Bone said:
wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible.
IOW, that pretty much everything Wierwille taught us was -- and putting it this way gives ol' Victor the benefit of the doubt -- was either complete and total bullshonta OR it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him.
Of course, within that framework, what made sense in life was how VP could most efficiently and effectively separate us from our hard earned money.
‘Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.’ These words, along with ‘to everything there is a season’, are among the most famous in the Book of Ecclesiastes, part of the Old Testament. The Bible is full of well-known quotations which are often cited in a way that floats quite free of their original context; so what does ‘Vanity of vanities’ and ‘all is vanity’ actually mean?
There’s a simple answer to this, but it’s also – like many simple answers – imperfect. But let’s begin with this answer, in any case:
1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
In summary, the Preacher who is the author of Ecclesiastes tells us that everything we do is ‘vanity’: empty, futile, and short-lived. It doesn’t matter if you’re wise or a fool, ultimately, because everyone ends up dying. The author goes on to encourage wisdom as something to strive for in order to ensure a well-lived earthly life, but he is sceptical of whether it carries any long-term benefits beyond this life.
9 And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought outandset[c]in order many proverbs.10 The Preacher sought to find[d]acceptable words; andwhat waswrittenwasupright—words of truth.11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of[e]scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many booksthere isno end, andmuch studyiswearisome to the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. 14 ForGod will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
What if... the people who wrote the Bible were doing essentially the same thing(s) the writers of Norse, Roman, Greek, or any other culture's mythologists were doing when they wrote what those cultures accepted as godly insight? What if they were simply, within the context of the culture in which they lived and dwelled, were inspired to make sense of life as they knew it at the time?
To me, that would make a lot of sense and explain the silliness or vanity (or vainness) of:
Great thought food, Rocky – thanks!
Yeah – I think there’s something to that. On another thread- here- I shared some stuff from a study Bible that interprets the metaphysical through the eyes of the worldview/cultures that the biblical writers had.
I tend to lean more toward the philosophy of religion rather than just theology anyway. After all, I did say in my Oct. 25th post I wanted to explore human nature - not only in Biblical theology – but also through other legitimate disciplines. Theologians are usually bound by the tenets of their particular faith, and that puts limits on what they can argue and what conclusions they can reach. They will accept certain concepts and principles on the basis of faith alone – but me, I guess being part technician and part renegade - i like to think outside the theological box and explore the heck out of something as much as I can with what I little I know of standard philosophical/analytic methods.
2 hours ago, Rocky said:
IOW, that pretty much everything Wierwille taught us was -- and putting it this way gives ol' Victor the benefit of the doubt -- was either complete and total bullshonta OR it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him.
Of course, within that framework, what made sense in life was how VP could most efficiently and effectively separate us from our hard earned money.
Well…giving wierwille the benefit of a doubt – taking his work at face value and that it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him – I have some problems with that. He took a lot of liberties when explaining the text of the Bible and often made up his own definitions and concepts – and combined different ideas with logical fallacies. Overall there was a great lack of coherence – some points of doctrine contradicted other elements in his ideology. I guess a crazy man’s viewpoint might make sense to him – but I won’t give him a free pass on his tendency to pontificate over stuff he knows nothing about.
I find there’s a lot more consistency and valid ideas in other religions, other belief systems, and in certain disciplines like psychology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology. I’m kinda openminded in that regard – currently I’m reading some stuff on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.
‘Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.’ These words, along with ‘to everything there is a season’, are among the most famous in the Book of Ecclesiastes, part of the Old Testament. The Bible is full of well-known quotations which are often cited in a way that floats quite free of their original context; so what does ‘Vanity of vanities’ and ‘all is vanity’ actually mean?
There’s a simple answer to this, but it’s also – like many simple answers – imperfect. But let’s begin with this answer, in any case:
1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
In summary, the Preacher who is the author of Ecclesiastes tells us that everything we do is ‘vanity’: empty, futile, and short-lived. It doesn’t matter if you’re wise or a fool, ultimately, because everyone ends up dying. The author goes on to encourage wisdom as something to strive for in order to ensure a well-lived earthly life, but he is sceptical of whether it carries any long-term benefits beyond this life.
2 hours ago, Rocky said:
The Whole Duty of Man
9 And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought outandset[c]in order many proverbs.10 The Preacher sought to find[d]acceptable words; andwhat waswrittenwasupright—words of truth.11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of[e]scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many booksthere isno end, andmuch studyiswearisome to the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. 14 ForGod will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
Yeah, Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books. Wish I understood it better. The preacher sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but the way it hits me – and I’m just guessing here – the writer sounds a little like a Stoic –meaning is not found in what is here – it must be found elsewhere…the metaphysical
giving wierwille the benefit of a doubt – taking his work at face value and that it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him – I have some problems with that. He took a lot of liberties when explaining the text of the Bible and often made up his own definitions and concepts – and combined different ideas with logical fallacies. Overall there was a great lack of coherence – some points of doctrine contradicted other elements in his ideology. I guess a crazy man’s viewpoint might make sense to him – but I won’t give him a free pass on his tendency to pontificate over stuff he knows nothing about.
Of course. IMO, Wierwille was a selfish man who developed a niche within a religious context. Reflecting back to M Scott Peck's thesis in People of the Lie, the essence of evil is deception, or lying. From that angle, I certainly don't give him the benefit of the doubt. It has now been about 30 years since I read People of the Lie.
From Goodreads: "People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these people of the lie work in the lives of those around them."
The preacher sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but the way it hits me – and I’m just guessing here – the writer sounds a little like a Stoic
Let’s think about life. Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from that which does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life.From Wikipedia
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Have you ever wondered what are the practical consequences of viewing humanity as threefold beings versus twofold beings?
According to trichotomy doctrine a person is incomplete if they are just body and soul. The Way International is not the only group that believes in the trichotomy view of human nature.
But from what I remember when I was involved with TWI, this fomented a rather denigrating opinion of anyone who we thought was not a born-again Christian. Considering them as having only 2 of the 3 components – just body and soul – top TWI-leadership labeled them in a very derogatory phrase - “empties floating by”.
And just to clear the air, we’re not discussing a complicated surgical operation for separating conjoined twins. As a Christian, I’m of opinion it really doesn’t matter if one leans toward a trichotomy view or a dichotomy view as long as we interact with others in an appropriate biblical manner and having a Christlike attitude – whether evangelizing folks who are not Christian or counseling someone who is.
And thinking sensibly – it’s probably best to leave it up to God as far as He’s the only one who really knows what’s going on inside a person. I know at times we might have a tendency to feel overconfident, assuming the Holy Spirit is leading us to push an idea. For all we know the Holy Spirit may have already been working in this person’s life and might even be active in their heart right now as you speak to them.
Back when I was in TWI most of us had a cookie-cutter approach to evangelizing and counseling. The PFAL class was considered a guaranteed formula for resolving any problem. We believed the PFAL class was the best way to get someone born again. And once a person was a grad of the class in many one-on-one counseling situations a typical solution to propose would often be some pat answer from the PFAL class. Trouble with finances? – give money to God (i.e., the ministry) and God will bless you back with even more money. Don't like your Twig coordinator? Renew your mind.
Also, I’m not an advocate of “believers” taking on the role of a qualified counselor. There are legitimate folks out there – pastors, rabbis, clerics, trained counselors, and other professional mental health care personnel who are educated and experienced in helping people deal properly with certain complicated issues of life…But, for us "regular folks" whether evangelizing or helping a friend through a difficult situation – having the 2 great commandments – love God and neighbor – as your modus operandi should at least get everyone going in the right direction - which might even point to more help from qualified counselors.
And when it comes right down to it, one could view human nature as trichotomy, dichotomy, or even a type of monism:
existence monism there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things…substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of substance exists, although many things may be made up of this substance, e.g., matter or mind…dual-aspect monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance…neutral monism believes the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
For considering which view is best – in the context of one person helping another – the goal should be to help the whole person.
As far as what model best reflects human nature from a biblical point of view, I lean toward the dichotomy concept. Grudem notes in his Systematic theology, chapter 23, The Essential Nature of Man, pages 472ff:
Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably:
New International Version “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. John 12:27
Whereas in a very similar context in next chapter Jesus is said to be unsettled in the spirit:
New International Version After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.” John 13:21
~ ~ ~ ~
at death, Scripture says either the “soul” or the “spirit” departs:
King James Bible And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. Genesis 35:18
New International Version Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, LORD, my faithful God. Psalm 31:5
Man is said to be either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”:
New International Version Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
New International Version hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. I Corinthians 5:5
And Paul said that purging ourselves from defilement of the soul or spirit takes care of the metaphysical part of our life:
New International Version But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. Romans 8:10
New International Version For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. Colossians 2:5
~ ~ ~ ~
Since they appear to be synonymous, it is said that either soulorspirit can sin:
New International Version Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. II Corinthians 7:1
New International Version and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I Corinthians 7:34
English Standard Version Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. Acts 17: 16
~ ~ ~ ~
And note the transcendent / immanent Holy Spirit affirms with our spirit – it implies our mind knows:
New International Version The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Romans 8:16
Edited by T-Bone revision vs double vision vs tunnel vision vs X-ray vision
The Garden of Eden narrative is universally compelling because it tells of a paradise within humanity’s potentialities. The gut-wrenching decision of the first couple, so very “human” in its impulsiveness yet so very tragic in its consequences, grieves us, infuriates us, leaves us pining for “paradise lost.”
Beneath the surface narrative, however, the story poses the crucial problem of human existence; unaided human beings cannot create paradise. Flawed and limited, they cannot oversee and ensure justice and wholeness; they cannot even tame the monster within themselves. Paradise comes at a cost. To live there, one must submit to the rule of an other, the owner of the garden. This is an essential feature of paradise; Do we choose to live in the garden and submit to the master?
Or do we choose our own reign and face expulsion? Those willing to submit find wholeness and intimacy; those who choose otherwise echo the defiant sentiment of the fallen archangel, who in John Milton’s words proclaims, “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.”
Decision theory studies individual decision-making in situations in which an individual’s choice neither affects nor is affected by other individuals’ choices;
while game theory studies decision-making in situations where individuals do affect each other.
Decision theory asks questions like: what does it mean to choose rationally? How should we make choices when the consequences of our actions are uncertain? Buying insurance and deciding which job to take are examples of the kind of decisions studied by this discipline.
Game theory instead applies to all decisions that have a strategic component. The choices of an oligopolist, voting strategies, military tactical problems, deterrence, but also common phenomena such as threatening, promising, conflict and cooperation are its subject matter.
In a strategic situation, the goal is not just to choose rationally, but to choose in such a way that a mutual solution is achieved, so that choices ‘coordinate’ in the right way. The formal methods developed by game theory do not require that the subject making a choice be an intentional agent: coordinated interaction between animals or computers can be successfully modeled as well.
…determinism is appealing because it implies that our world and our beliefs are a natural and inevitable product of history…History cannot be explained deterministically, and it cannot be predicted because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that extremely small variations in the strength of the forces and the way they interact produce huge differences in outcomes.
From a Christian perspective I believe the universe is inhabited by intelligent free agents.
~ ~ ~ ~
In an article by J.I. Packer, free agency is described in more detail:
Free agency is a mark of human beings as such. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions as to what they will do, choosing as they please in the light of their sense of right and wrong and the inclinations they feel. Thus, they are moral agents, answerable to God and each other for their voluntary choices.
So was Adam, both before and after he sinned; so are we now, and so are the glorified saints who are confirmed in grace in such a sense that they no longer have it in them to sin. Inability to sin will be one of the delights and glories of heaven, but it will not terminate anyone’s humanness; glorified saints will still make choices in accordance with their nature, and those choices will not be any the less the product of human free agency just because they will always be good and right.
Free will, however, has been defined by Christian teachers from the second century on as the ability to choose all the moral options that a situation offers, and Augustine affirmed against Pelagius and most of the Greek Fathers that original sin has robbed us of free will in this sense. We have no natural ability to discern and choose God’s way because we have no natural inclination Godward; our hearts are in bondage to sin, and only the grace of regeneration can free us from that slavery. This, for substance, was what Paul taught in Romans 6:16-23; only the freed will (Paul says, the freed person) freely and heartily chooses righteousness. A permanent love of righteousness—that is, an inclination of heart to the way of living that pleases God—is one aspect of the freedom that Christ gives (John 8:34-36; Gal. 5:1, 13).
It is worth observing that will is an abstraction. My will is not a part of me which I choose to move or not to move, like my hand or my foot; it is precisely me choosing to act and then going into action. The truth about free agency, and about Christ freeing sin’s slave from sin’s dominion, can be expressed more clearly if the word will is dropped and each person says: I am the morally responsible free agency; I am the slave of sin whom Christ must liberate; I am the fallen being who only have it in me to choose against God till God renews my heart.
and from another post with some revision and hyperlinks added:
this touches on aspects related to the Fall and our Salvation. TWI made a big thing about God does not change - and wierwille said verses that have God repenting or angry or hating he attributed to figure of speech condescension - but I now disagree with that wooden idea of the nature of God.
when passages talk about the immutability of God - that He does not change I believe it’s in reference to His righteous benevolent character. He is also a social being after all He created sentient beings like angels and humankind!
Deep topics like foreknowledge, God’s sovereignty, predestination and such are too complicated for my pea brain to take in - even systematic theologies I’ve looked into barely scratch the surface of stuff in my opinion is too profound for us finite beings to grasp.
BUT
I can understand that decision and game theory stuff of my previous post - when I said the universe is inhabited by intelligent free agents - I included God in that idea
see also other hyperlinks below - and note I often put sources that might present different perspectives on a topic rather than just supporting one view...as an aside - I personally lean toward open theism - but can't resolve some issues with it compared to classic theology that incorporated some Greek philosophy...the Wayne Grudem video below brings up some good points against open theism - I admired his work and have his systematic theology - but I leave this clip here - in good faith - for Grease Spotters to make up their own mind on the topic...as for me I'm comfortable with being flexible in my belief system - if something makes sense to me and doesn't seem to contradict the Scriptures that's okay in my book...it may just mean I need to expand my concept of something from the Bible:
Recommended Posts
T-Bone
Is it possible that God created a unique version of soul for humankind? One that could reflect the image and likeness of God.
You’re probably thinking that sounds like wierwille’s trichotomy. But no - what I am suggesting is different. What if spirit is a unique inseparable part of our soul?
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12 NIV
Hebrews 4:12 implies you can separate them but it’s extremely difficult - like separating joints from marrow or thoughts from attitudes.
At some point we have to explore what died in the fall of Genesis 3. I made a brief reference to that on another thread - Here-. The point of my counter argument to wierwille’s teaching of humans losing spirit defined as the image of God, is that Scripture indicates humans still retain the image of God.
So what does death mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I did an online search asking, Are soul and spirit the same thing?
Here’s a few links I thought were interesting:
Crosswalk: is your soul the same as your spirit
Wikipedia: soul
Difference Between Info: soul and spirit
Huff Post: The Spirit and the Soul Are Not the Same Thing - Here's Why
Got Questions org: What is the difference between the soul and spirit of humanity?
Christianity com: Difference between soul and spirit
Quora: what’s the difference between soul and spirit?
Edited by T-Bonethe heart and soul of editing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This thread is for exploring human nature - not only in Biblical theology – but also through other legitimate disciplines. Besides appreciating what the Bible says about the makeup of humankind we also need to seek a comprehensive understanding of that which can undermine what appears to be the original design and purpose of humankind – especially by two of the biggest threats – sin and death.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
Notes on verse 17 in my Net Bible: Second Beta Edition read:
Heb. “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute.
The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (dying spiritually, you will then die physically). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks – food for thought – I appreciate everyone’s input:
Wikipedia: death
Plato Stanford Edu: death
Thomas Aquinas Edu: Philosophy is a Preparation for Death: Why We Study the Phaedo
Philosopher’s Mag com: Death and Its Concept
Rethink Now org: what does the Bible say about death?
Bible Study Tools: 10 Important Things the Bible Says about Death
Chaim Ben Torah: Hebrew word study of death
Bible Hub: Hebrew "maveth" Strong’s # 4194
Chabad Org: Jewish meaning of death
Truth Watchers: does death mean separation?
Bible Study Tools dictionary: death
My Jewish Learning: defining death on Jewish Law
Teaching the Word org: What Is the Biblical Definition of Death?
Edited by T-Boneall typos must die !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I recently posted on another thread - here - and got into one theory on what the forbidden fruit was – I’ve reposted part of it here since it does relate to an aspect of the fall:
PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power.
I’ve been reading a commentary of Genesis and on pages 163ff of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series – Genesis chapters 1-17 it mentions several theories that scholars have proposed as to what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was.
One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked ( Gen. 3:7 ) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22 states And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
in NICOT…the theory that “the knowledge of good and evil” indicates moral autonomy. The commentary says this view appeals to many OT passages where “good and evil” is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. So, what it’s basically saying:
What was forbidden to humankind is the power to decide for us what is in our best interest and what is not.
Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to address the human condition more directly .
Edited by T-Bonein the day that thou shalt edit it, thou shalt surely repost it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The following is a summary of some stuff about death that I read in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Kindle Edition - location 45009ff – sorry no page numbers this is Kindle version
…anyway, here’s some stuff I thought was noteworthy.
Because death did not immediately befall Adam and Eve on the day of transgression, but took hundreds of years later the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (as it so reads in Gen. 2:17 KJV ) must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy Gen. 3:15 .
However, the Bible Encyclopedia states Gen. 2:17 may be showing a close connection of violating God’s commandment and the resultant consequences thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance and makes the lives of humankind dependent on obedience to God. The religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in the early chapters of Genesis, but we find it is the fundamental thought in the entire Bible and forms an essential element in many of the declarations of salvation.
The Encyclopedia goes on to say some theologians past and present have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection of between ethical and physical life, usually base their opinions on passages that show death as a punishment for sin Rom. 5:12 Romans 6:23 I Cor. 15:21 …this opinion has some merit though – since we are made aware of the consequences of the weaknesses and frailty of human nature Job 14:1 Eccl. 3:20 …For the most part death is portrayed as something natural.
What is the meaning of death?
The Encyclopedia states that we are influenced by the Greek Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal – but such an idea is utterly foreign to the ancient Hebrew concept of death – and is not found in the OT. The whole person dies, when in death the spirit Eccl. 12:7 or soul I Ki. 17:21 goes out of them. Death is not understood to be annihilation – as in complete extermination…utter destruction…obliterated, but rather deriving one of all that makes for life on earth. To the Israelites death meant separation from all that they loved – separation from God, and from His service, His law, His people, His land. The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin.
Edited by T-Bonerebellious editor says: Typos thou art and unto typos thou shalt return
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here’s something from Grudem’s Systematic Theology that’s makes me want to rethink what little I do know about the Holy Spirit:
In the realm of nature, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to all animate creatures, whether on the ground or in the sky and sea, for “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:30). Conversely, if God “should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14 - 15). Here we see the role of the Spirit in the giving and sustaining of human and animal life.
Parallel with this is the role of the Holy Spirit to give us new life in regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew (John 3:6 – 7; cf. vv. 5, 8; 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6). He also said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63 NASB; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; Acts 10: 44 – 47; Titus 3:5).
Consistent with this life-giving function of the Holy Spirit is the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary his mother (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). And on the day when Christ returns, it is the same Holy Spirit who will complete this life-giving work by giving new resurrection life to our mortal bodies: “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
From page 636 of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem
I mentioned on another thread - here – wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible. That’s certainly seems the case with his chapter on Body, Soul, and Spirit in the PFAL book - like a lot of things – it appears wierwille didn’t know what he was talking about.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What if... the people who wrote the Bible were doing essentially the same thing(s) the writers of Norse, Roman, Greek, or any other culture's mythologists were doing when they wrote what those cultures accepted as godly insight? What if they were simply, within the context of the culture in which they lived and dwelled, were inspired to make sense of life as they knew it at the time?
To me, that would make a lot of sense and explain the silliness or vanity (or vainness) of:
IOW, that pretty much everything Wierwille taught us was -- and putting it this way gives ol' Victor the benefit of the doubt -- was either complete and total bullshonta OR it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him.
Edited by RockyOf course, within that framework, what made sense in life was how VP could most efficiently and effectively separate us from our hard earned money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
‘Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.’ These words, along with ‘to everything there is a season’, are among the most famous in the Book of Ecclesiastes, part of the Old Testament. The Bible is full of well-known quotations which are often cited in a way that floats quite free of their original context; so what does ‘Vanity of vanities’ and ‘all is vanity’ actually mean?
There’s a simple answer to this, but it’s also – like many simple answers – imperfect. But let’s begin with this answer, in any case:
1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
In summary, the Preacher who is the author of Ecclesiastes tells us that everything we do is ‘vanity’: empty, futile, and short-lived. It doesn’t matter if you’re wise or a fool, ultimately, because everyone ends up dying. The author goes on to encourage wisdom as something to strive for in order to ensure a well-lived earthly life, but he is sceptical of whether it carries any long-term benefits beyond this life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The Whole Duty of Man
9 And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set[c] in order many proverbs. 10 The Preacher sought to find [d]acceptable words; and what was written was upright—words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of [e]scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd. 12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great thought food, Rocky – thanks!
Yeah – I think there’s something to that. On another thread - here - I shared some stuff from a study Bible that interprets the metaphysical through the eyes of the worldview/cultures that the biblical writers had.
I tend to lean more toward the philosophy of religion rather than just theology anyway. After all, I did say in my Oct. 25th post I wanted to explore human nature - not only in Biblical theology – but also through other legitimate disciplines. Theologians are usually bound by the tenets of their particular faith, and that puts limits on what they can argue and what conclusions they can reach. They will accept certain concepts and principles on the basis of faith alone – but me, I guess being part technician and part renegade
- i like to think outside the theological box and explore the heck out of something as much as I can with what I little I know of standard philosophical/analytic methods.
Well…giving wierwille the benefit of a doubt – taking his work at face value and that it was simply him explaining life the way that made sense to him – I have some problems with that. He took a lot of liberties when explaining the text of the Bible and often made up his own definitions and concepts – and combined different ideas with logical fallacies. Overall there was a great lack of coherence – some points of doctrine contradicted other elements in his ideology. I guess a crazy man’s viewpoint might make sense to him – but I won’t give him a free pass on his tendency to pontificate over stuff he knows nothing about.
I find there’s a lot more consistency and valid ideas in other religions, other belief systems, and in certain disciplines like psychology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology. I’m kinda openminded in that regard – currently I’m reading some stuff on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah, Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books. Wish I understood it better.
The preacher sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but the way it hits me – and I’m just guessing here – the writer sounds a little like a Stoic –meaning is not found in what is here – it must be found elsewhere…the metaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course. IMO, Wierwille was a selfish man who developed a niche within a religious context. Reflecting back to M Scott Peck's thesis in People of the Lie, the essence of evil is deception, or lying. From that angle, I certainly don't give him the benefit of the doubt. It has now been about 30 years since I read People of the Lie.
From Goodreads: "People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these people of the lie work in the lives of those around them."
That quote certainly describes Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Makes sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Have you ever wondered what are the practical consequences of viewing humanity as threefold beings versus twofold beings?
According to trichotomy doctrine a person is incomplete if they are just body and soul. The Way International is not the only group that believes in the trichotomy view of human nature.
But from what I remember when I was involved with TWI, this fomented a rather denigrating opinion of anyone who we thought was not a born-again Christian. Considering them as having only 2 of the 3 components – just body and soul – top TWI-leadership labeled them in a very derogatory phrase - “empties floating by”.
And just to clear the air, we’re not discussing a complicated surgical operation for separating conjoined twins. As a Christian, I’m of opinion it really doesn’t matter if one leans toward a trichotomy view or a dichotomy view as long as we interact with others in an appropriate biblical manner and having a Christlike attitude – whether evangelizing folks who are not Christian or counseling someone who is.
And thinking sensibly – it’s probably best to leave it up to God as far as He’s the only one who really knows what’s going on inside a person. I know at times we might have a tendency to feel overconfident, assuming the Holy Spirit is leading us to push an idea. For all we know the Holy Spirit may have already been working in this person’s life and might even be active in their heart right now as you speak to them.
Back when I was in TWI most of us had a cookie-cutter approach to evangelizing and counseling. The PFAL class was considered a guaranteed formula for resolving any problem. We believed the PFAL class was the best way to get someone born again. And once a person was a grad of the class in many one-on-one counseling situations a typical solution to propose would often be some pat answer from the PFAL class. Trouble with finances? – give money to God (i.e., the ministry) and God will bless you back with even more money. Don't like your Twig coordinator? Renew your mind.
Also, I’m not an advocate of “believers” taking on the role of a qualified counselor. There are legitimate folks out there – pastors, rabbis, clerics, trained counselors, and other professional mental health care personnel who are educated and experienced in helping people deal properly with certain complicated issues of life…But, for us "regular folks"
whether evangelizing or helping a friend through a difficult situation – having the 2 great commandments – love God and neighbor – as your modus operandi should at least get everyone going in the right direction - which might even point to more help from qualified counselors.
And when it comes right down to it, one could view human nature as trichotomy, dichotomy, or even a type of monism:
existence monism there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things…substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of substance exists, although many things may be made up of this substance, e.g., matter or mind…dual-aspect monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance…neutral monism believes the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
From: Monism - Wikipedia
For considering which view is best – in the context of one person helping another – the goal should be to help the whole person.
As far as what model best reflects human nature from a biblical point of view, I lean toward the dichotomy concept. Grudem notes in his Systematic theology , chapter 23, The Essential Nature of Man, pages 472ff :
Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably:
New International Version
“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. John 12:27
Whereas in a very similar context in next chapter Jesus is said to be unsettled in the spirit:
New International Version
After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.” John 13:21
~ ~ ~ ~
at death, Scripture says either the “soul” or the “spirit” departs:
King James Bible
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. Genesis 35:18
New International Version
Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, LORD, my faithful God. Psalm 31:5
Man is said to be either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”:
New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
New International Version
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. I Corinthians 5:5
And Paul said that purging ourselves from defilement of the soul or spirit takes care of the metaphysical part of our life:
New International Version
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. Romans 8:10
New International Version
For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. Colossians 2:5
~ ~ ~ ~
Since they appear to be synonymous, it is said that either soul or spirit can sin:
New International Version
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. II Corinthians 7:1
New International Version
and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I Corinthians 7:34
English Standard Version
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. Acts 17: 16
~ ~ ~ ~
And note the transcendent / immanent Holy Spirit affirms with our spirit – it implies our mind knows:
New International Version
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Romans 8:16
Edited by T-Bonerevision vs double vision vs tunnel vision vs X-ray vision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The Garden of Eden narrative is universally compelling because it tells of a paradise within humanity’s potentialities. The gut-wrenching decision of the first couple, so very “human” in its impulsiveness yet so very tragic in its consequences, grieves us, infuriates us, leaves us pining for “paradise lost.”
Beneath the surface narrative, however, the story poses the crucial problem of human existence; unaided human beings cannot create paradise. Flawed and limited, they cannot oversee and ensure justice and wholeness; they cannot even tame the monster within themselves. Paradise comes at a cost. To live there, one must submit to the rule of an other, the owner of the garden. This is an essential feature of paradise; Do we choose to live in the garden and submit to the master?
Or do we choose our own reign and face expulsion? Those willing to submit find wholeness and intimacy; those who choose otherwise echo the defiant sentiment of the fallen archangel, who in John Milton’s words proclaims, “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.”
From page 249 of Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach by Bruce K. Waltke & Charles Yu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Since it’s relevant to this thread I thought I’d repost something I said on another thread here and here ... anyway here it is:
Decision and Game Theory versus Determinism
I read an article in Amazon.com: Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 9780415223645: Routledge Staff: Books , the following excerpts are from page 195ff, Decision and Game Theory:
Decision theory studies individual decision-making in situations in which an individual’s choice neither affects nor is affected by other individuals’ choices;
while game theory studies decision-making in situations where individuals do affect each other.
Decision theory asks questions like: what does it mean to choose rationally? How should we make choices when the consequences of our actions are uncertain? Buying insurance and deciding which job to take are examples of the kind of decisions studied by this discipline.
Game theory instead applies to all decisions that have a strategic component. The choices of an oligopolist, voting strategies, military tactical problems, deterrence, but also common phenomena such as threatening, promising, conflict and cooperation are its subject matter.
In a strategic situation, the goal is not just to choose rationally, but to choose in such a way that a mutual solution is achieved, so that choices ‘coordinate’ in the right way. The formal methods developed by game theory do not require that the subject making a choice be an intentional agent: coordinated interaction between animals or computers can be successfully modeled as well.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
This correlates to a quote from page 240 of the book Amazon.com: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind: 9780062316097: Harari, Yuval Noah: Books that I mentioned in an earlier post > here
…determinism is appealing because it implies that our world and our beliefs are a natural and inevitable product of history…History cannot be explained deterministically, and it cannot be predicted because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that extremely small variations in the strength of the forces and the way they interact produce huge differences in outcomes.
From a Christian perspective I believe the universe is inhabited by intelligent free agents.
~ ~ ~ ~
In an article by J.I. Packer, free agency is described in more detail:
Free agency is a mark of human beings as such. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions as to what they will do, choosing as they please in the light of their sense of right and wrong and the inclinations they feel. Thus, they are moral agents, answerable to God and each other for their voluntary choices.
So was Adam, both before and after he sinned; so are we now, and so are the glorified saints who are confirmed in grace in such a sense that they no longer have it in them to sin. Inability to sin will be one of the delights and glories of heaven, but it will not terminate anyone’s humanness; glorified saints will still make choices in accordance with their nature, and those choices will not be any the less the product of human free agency just because they will always be good and right.
Free will, however, has been defined by Christian teachers from the second century on as the ability to choose all the moral options that a situation offers, and Augustine affirmed against Pelagius and most of the Greek Fathers that original sin has robbed us of free will in this sense. We have no natural ability to discern and choose God’s way because we have no natural inclination Godward; our hearts are in bondage to sin, and only the grace of regeneration can free us from that slavery. This, for substance, was what Paul taught in Romans 6:16-23; only the freed will (Paul says, the freed person) freely and heartily chooses righteousness. A permanent love of righteousness—that is, an inclination of heart to the way of living that pleases God—is one aspect of the freedom that Christ gives (John 8:34-36; Gal. 5:1, 13).
It is worth observing that will is an abstraction. My will is not a part of me which I choose to move or not to move, like my hand or my foot; it is precisely me choosing to act and then going into action. The truth about free agency, and about Christ freeing sin’s slave from sin’s dominion, can be expressed more clearly if the word will is dropped and each person says: I am the morally responsible free agency; I am the slave of sin whom Christ must liberate; I am the fallen being who only have it in me to choose against God till God renews my heart.
From : Inability: Free Will Vs. Free Agency | Monergism
~ ~ ~ ~
and from another post with some revision and hyperlinks added:
this touches on aspects related to the Fall and our Salvation. TWI made a big thing about God does not change - and wierwille said verses that have God repenting or angry or hating he attributed to figure of speech condescension - but I now disagree with that wooden idea of the nature of God.
when passages talk about the immutability of God - that He does not change I believe it’s in reference to His righteous benevolent character. He is also a social being after all He created sentient beings like angels and humankind!
Deep topics like foreknowledge, God’s sovereignty, predestination and such are too complicated for my pea brain to take in - even systematic theologies I’ve looked into barely scratch the surface of stuff in my opinion is too profound for us finite beings to grasp.
BUT
I can understand that decision and game theory stuff of my previous post - when I said the universe is inhabited by intelligent free agents - I included God in that idea
see also other hyperlinks below - and note I often put sources that might present different perspectives on a topic rather than just supporting one view...as an aside - I personally lean toward open theism - but can't resolve some issues with it compared to classic theology that incorporated some Greek philosophy...the Wayne Grudem video below brings up some good points against open theism - I admired his work and have his systematic theology - but I leave this clip here - in good faith - for Grease Spotters to make up their own mind on the topic...as for me I'm comfortable with being flexible in my belief system - if something makes sense to me and doesn't seem to contradict the Scriptures that's okay in my book...it may just mean I need to expand my concept of something from the Bible:
Open theism - Wikipedia
What is open theism? | GotQuestions.org
Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)
What is Open Theism? The future is open and God does not know all (carm.org)
that's all for now, folks
Edited by T-Boneediting extravaganza !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.