It is a discretionary decision by God. Things are the way they are, not because He cannot do it another way, but because He will not.

In the language you prefer, God could not keep sinners alive because it goes against His character. It's not that He lacks the ability or the resources to keep sinners alive, but that He lacks the willingness. His character is revealed by the things that He is willing or unwilling to do - His choices. (Just like the character of sinners is revealed by their choices.)

The eternal death of the wicked is inevitable because God chose it to be that way, in accordance to His character.

This is what I said. It's like God cannot lie or sin.



God's character is revealed in that He does not lie or sin. He "cannot" do these things, according to Scripture. It's not that He lacks the ability to sin or lie, but it's not something He would actually do. In the same sense, God could choose to keep the wicked alive, but, to use Scripture's example as a guide, one could say as well "God cannot keep the wicked alive" since it's not something He would actually do.



One could say this about anything, couldn't one? Everything is the way it is because God chose it to be that way. Sounds like Calvin. Or Augustine.

Hi Arnold,

If what you say is true then is it also true that each individual's saved-ness or lost-ness is also inevitable because God chose it to be that way?

And is sin here because God chose it to be that Way?

I think Tom is right that this thinking is bordering on Calvinism. Predestination is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of "absolute foreknowledge" whether we admit it or not.

scott

I don't really care if it sounds like Calvin or Augustine or anyone else. It is right, and I refuse to allow any kind of bigotry to cloud my judgment. I will not disagree with a concept just based on someone else's agreement or disagreement with it, because that is a logical fallacy.


Regardless of whatever your hangups may be about it, what you just said there is the basic definition of discretionary decision or choice.

Why is it that the wicked will not have eternal life? Is it because they lack to ability or resources to do otherwise? No. It is because of their choice.

We are made in God's image, with free will. Yes, God also has free will. Your failure to see the fact that God makes choices is a huge flaw in your paradigm.

You must have missed this from post 101586:
God chose what the ramifications will be for our choices - the end of each path. It remains with us to choose which path we will take.

To answer your question, God chose what will happen to the saved and what will happen to the lost. You get to choose if you will be one of the saved or the lost.


Sin is here because sinners choose it to be that way. Sins consequences, OTOH, are because God chose it that way.

Your ideas of what God chooses and what we choose seem to be very different. To put my paradigm in game show language: God decides what's behind each door and He tells us what's behind each door and He tells us which is the wise choice, but it is up to us which door we will choose.


He could have connected life with evil, but that would suck for all involved. He's a nice God, not because He must but because He wills. And that makes His niceness that much nicer. Forced benevolence is not as comforting as chosen benevolence.

So what happens when we sin is an arbitrary choice determined by God? If God had so chosen, He could have had sin result in eternal life, and righteous result in death, and it's just an arbitrary choice that makes things result the way they do? This is the correct paradigm? (by "correct" I mean correctly representing your paradigm)

Do you care if it is like Calvin's or Augustine's view? If it just sounds like their view, but it's really different, you can clarify how it's different. If it's the same, then that helps to know too.



When you say "it" do you mean the view of Augustine and Calvin, or Arnold?



You're saying you won't disagree with the idea you have just because Augustine or Calvin agree with it? Am I understanding you correctly?



God allows people to have the result of their choice. If He wanted to, He could overrule that and force them to receive something else instead. Saying this is the basic definition of discretionary decision or choice seems weird to me.

One could say that God could overrule anything that happens and cause something else to happen instead, so that, because of this, everything that happens is because of a discretionary decision of God. This seems to be what you are saying. This seems to me to be an odd way of looking at things.



This mostly agrees with what I've been saying.



You think I don't see that God has free will? That seems odd to me. What have I written that gives you the impression I don't see that God has free will? Also, why do you think I don't see the fact that God makes choices?

Isn't it obvious that God has free will and makes choices? How would it be possible for this not to be the case?

Yes, arbitrary in the sense the it depends on God's discretion, His absolute authority, and His unlimited power. But it was definitely not tyrannical, nor convenient, nor capricious, nor unreasonable.

As we had discussed previously, God has the ability to make things work differently, but He did not choose any of those ways.


Assuming God stays the same, then sin can never result in the eternal life Jesus described in John 17. However, He can keep a sinner from dying indefinitely, like Satan. He can also end the life of anyone, including the righteous, and make him disappear as if he had never been.

Things work the way they do because that's what God decided was the way He wanted it. And He wanted it that way because that's the way He is - His character.

I'll show my ignorance by admitting that I don't know what Calvin or Augustine taught. I tried to read Augustine once, but I couldn't understand what he was trying to say.

So if what I say sounds like what they said, OK. That's fine, but it doesn't matter to me.


"It" in this context is what I said, especially since I don't know what the other two guys said.


What I'm saying is that another's person's view does not determine mine one way or the other.

That reminds me of some people I have debated who would essentially say, "That's what Augustine taught. Therefore it is wrong." They never search the Scriptures to see if these things are so; they only do it to show that these things are not so.

This is from DA 764:



It seems to me that if you look at the context, the word "arbitrary" must mean "individual discretion" as opposed to "tyrannical, nor convenient, nor capricious, nor unreasonable." She is arguing that the destruction of the wicked is not due to the discretionary decision of God, but rather the choice of the individual. I don't see how else this can be understood. If she had meant "arbitrary" in the sense of "capricious" or "unreasonable," then she would have argued why God's decision was reasonable. But she didn't. Instead she argued that it wasn't God's decision at all, but the decision of the wicked.