Calvinism / pre-destination

[John146]

Hi There!

Thanks for the post!

Good to hear about the Ford and prop, amazing what can be done hey?

Here the verse you spoke of;2 Tim 3: 15 'and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.'

I don't think we'll agree from where faith comes. I can't see that this verse says that faith has it's spring in each individual.

But Paul indicated that our faith comes from our hearts.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

There is no indication here that God gives us faith, but rather that we are required to express faith in Christ with our hearts. That tells me that we each have the capacity in our hearts to decide whether or not to believe without God needing to make that decision for us.

[John146]

I've told you, the old is part of the one new nature, but it cannot be considered a nature by itself any longer because the adition of the Spirit changed the one old nature into something else, a new creature - new nature.. So we stil have a choice to sin but now have the ability to NOT do what we do not want to do because of the Spirit.

So, are you saying you believe it's possible for us to sin but also possible to avoid sinning, depending on the choices we make? You're not saying a saved person is not capable of sinning, right?

[Gadgeteer]

Hi There!

Thanks for the post!

Good to hear about the Ford and prop, amazing what can be done hey?

Here the verse you spoke of;2 Tim 3: 15 'and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.'

I don't think we'll agree from where faith comes. I can't see that this verse says that faith has its spring in each individual.

What'd you think about the contrast between 2Tim3:15 (where someone can study Scripture, come to conviction/wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Jesus) --- and John5:39-47 (where they studied Scripture but refused to come to Jesus, mainly 'cause they didn't love God)?

I choose to believe that 'All our springs are in God.'
I choose to emphasise God's doing in giving me faith, grace, and salvation, and take NO glory for myself.

I believe that God's command to love Him goes hand in hand with Luke 10:22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

I could argue, and cite Scripture, but to what end? If you are secure where you are, resting in Him, then my heart is at peace. I only seek to strengthen people in Christ, that we all "win". It's never a question of "who is right or who is wrong", but rather "who is in Christ and growing". :-)

Love you my brother

And you.

:-)

[keyzer soze]

Who is the one who decided that Israel should defeat Amalek? Moses or God? God, right? So, there's your answer. God was responsible for "working the miracle through Moses". How could Moses be responsible for something like that?

Now, when it comes to salvation, which is what I was specifically talking about before, who is responsible for either accepting or rejecting Christ? Is God at all responsible for that or is man solely responsible for it because God allows man to choose whether to accept or reject Christ? Can God be held accountable if someone rejects Christ? I don't see how He could be. People will be severely punished for rejecting Christ. Just read passages like 2 Thess 1:7-9, Rev 19:11-21 and Matt 25:31-46 and you can easily see that. So, if God was somehow accountable and responsible for them rejecting Christ wouldn't that mean He too should be punished for that? Yes, I think so. Yet we know that is not what is going to happen which means God is not responsible for that. So, I think it should be clear that those who reject Christ are held solely responsible for having rejected Him since they will be punished for doing so. With that being the case, doesn't that mean they were required and expected to have accepted Christ instead? Otherwise, why would they be punished for rejecting Him? If they couldn't help but reject Him then what is the basis for their punishment?

Also, it only follows that if a person who rejects Christ is solely responsible for doing so as evidenced by the punishment that person will receive then a person who accepts Christ is solely responsible for doing so as evidenced by being given eternal life for doing so.

Baaah, I believe we have beaten this horse to a pulp and are not really accomplishing anything any more so I will just finish up by answering your questions above, restating my position on this and then move on studying the word and letting theology take care of itself because I do fully agree that I have responsibility and regardless of God's responsibility, it doesn't change mine. I will attempt to go through your questions without breaking out the quotes.

- How would Moses be responsible: Moses lowered his hands and they started to lose. Did Moses have the "free-will" to lower his hands if he wanted to and if so when Israel started to lose and people die, is Moses responsible or God? Did God know ahead of time if Moses could figure out to prop up his hands or did God put all of Israel's future in jeopardy of Moses's free will? (My point is that somehow BOTH are, God doesn't need Moses to hold his hands up to fight a freaking battle but for God's purposes God chooses to use man when He clearly doesn't have to)
- We HUMANs are responsible for accepting Christ
- God be held accountable? NO (but remember my default position is that ALL reject Christ without God much like everyone dropped off in the middle of the ocean with no boat WILL DROWN. Now if I take a boat out and save 5 of the 10 in the ocean am I now responsible for the 5 I didn't save?)
- Jesus be punished? NO
- People are punished from sin and separated from God for sin, a person DOES NOT NEED Christ to get to heaven if they are perfect.
- I do recognize where you are going here, I totally do and I have told you my paradox answer but I know you don't like it. In the past couple of months of dwelling on this topic and praying and researching it, I still fall on the fact that there are 2 truths that seem to be in conflict. We must choose and we must be chosen. However, I believe that NONE who seek will not be chosen. That is all the further I believe the Bible explains it to me.

Here is a question back at you using your logic for blaming God for not saving everyone: Is Jesus to blame for every lame or blind person that was not healed that crossed Jesus's path? Meaning, do you hold Jesus accountable for healing 100% of the people he encountered because he could have healed them? Therefore if Jesus encountered a blind man and didn't heal them we can now point at the blind man and say he is blind because of Jesus? For me the answer is NO because the man was already blind and Jesus healing is a GIFT of GRACE, not a mandatory responsibility of God. God cursed the earth after the fall, by doing that God knew there would be blindness, lameness and death. I am NOT claiming that it is a clean, cut and dry understanding that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I see it being very similar. Fact is God is all powerful and all loving and yet people are going to go to hell. This will remain a mystery to me until I meet the only one that I believe can explain it fully in a dumb-downed way that I can comprehend it.

have a good day.
-

[keyzer soze]

More on my boat saving example because I don't think I did it justice. Lets replace my analogy with this.

10 people guilty of murdering children are sentenced to death by being dropped off in the middle of the ocean to drown. I grab a boat and drive out and save 5 of the 10 murderers and in doing so the 5 get to go free on account that they can't be tried again but I am sentenced to death for my part. Now is anyone complaining about the 5 I saved or the 5 I left to suffer the judgement they deserved?

[John146]

- How would Moses be responsible: Moses lowered his hands and they started to lose. Did Moses have the "free-will" to lower his hands if he wanted to and if so when Israel started to lose and people die, is Moses responsible or God? Did God know ahead of time if Moses could figure out to prop up his hands or did God put all of Israel's future in jeopardy of Moses's free will? (My point is that somehow BOTH are, God doesn't need Moses to hold his hands up to fight a freaking battle but for God's purposes God chooses to use man when He clearly doesn't have to)

You say both are responsible but I'd like to know what exactly you think Moses was responsible for as far as those who died and those who survived the battle are concerned. Do you think he was at all responsible for choosing who would live and who would die? I don't. I don't believe God would put that kind of responsibility on any man. That's His responsibility alone. The way He brought things about might have been a bit unorthodox for reasons that maybe only He knows, but it was still His choice as to who won and who lost that battle.

- We HUMANs are responsible for accepting Christ

In what sense? Responsible to use our free wills to choose to accept Him rather than reject Him? If so, I agree. If not, please explain what exactly you believe is the human responsibility in accepting Christ.

- God be held accountable? NO (but remember my default position is that ALL reject Christ without God much like everyone dropped off in the middle of the ocean with no boat WILL DROWN. Now if I take a boat out and save 5 of the 10 in the ocean am I now responsible for the 5 I didn't save?)

But would He be accountable if it was up to Him whether or not they accepted or rejected the gospel? I don't see how it couldn't be. See, people are not condemned for having a natural tendency to sin, they are condemned for consciously and willingly rejecting Christ. Just read 2 Thess 1:7-9 and John 3:18. Whether or not someone accepts or rejects Christ has to be a choice that people make and there is nothing to suggest that people could not help but reject Him unless God basically forced them to accept Him. And there's nothing in scripture to suggest that some are fully incapable of accepting Him. So, if someone rejected Christ because God did not give them any capability of accepting Him how would God not be responsible for them rejecting Him in that case?

- Jesus be punished? NO
- People are punished from sin and separated from God for sin, a person DOES NOT NEED Christ to get to heaven if they are perfect.
- I do recognize where you are going here, I totally do and I have told you my paradox answer but I know you don't like it. In the past couple of months of dwelling on this topic and praying and researching it, I still fall on the fact that there are 2 truths that seem to be in conflict.

I would say your current view is in conflict with scripture rather than one truth of scripture being in conflict with another. If two things are in conflict then both cannot be true. All scripture harmonizes together without conflict. If there is conflict in our views then we need to change our views, not scripture.

We must choose and we must be chosen. However, I believe that NONE who seek will not be chosen. That is all the further I believe the Bible explains it to me.

But isn't it everyone's choice whether to seek the truth or not?

Here is a question back at you using your logic for blaming God for not saving everyone: Is Jesus to blame for every lame or blind person that was not healed that crossed Jesus's path? Meaning, do you hold Jesus accountable for healing 100% of the people he encountered because he could have healed them?

No. But if you are trying to compare that to spiritual salvation I don't think that is appropriate. Physical healing and spiritual healing/salvation are two completely different things. Scripture says that God desires for all people to be saved but I don't see any scripture that says God desires for all people with physical ailments to be healed.

Therefore if Jesus encountered a blind man and didn't heal them we can now point at the blind man and say he is blind because of Jesus?

Of course not.

For me the answer is NO because the man was already blind and Jesus healing is a GIFT of GRACE, not a mandatory responsibility of God.

But did Jesus heal any blind people who did not have faith that He could do it? No. So, while the healing was certainly a gift of grace that does not mean there was no responsibility on their end required in order to receive the gift.

God cursed the earth after the fall, by doing that God knew there would be blindness, lameness and death. I am NOT claiming that it is a clean, cut and dry understanding that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I see it being very similar. Fact is God is all powerful and all loving and yet people are going to go to hell. This will remain a mystery to me until I meet the only one that I believe can explain it fully in a dumb-downed way that I can comprehend it.

One thing that I would think would help you understand things a bit better is that things like faith and love cannot be forced. Yes, God is all loving but that doesn't mean He is obligated to not send people to hell if they reject Him. He is all loving but is also a jealous God who demands our worship, and, while He is slow to anger, He does get angry eventually if people continue to resist Him and refuse to repent. What other choice does He have but to send people to hell if they refuse to ever repent? Just because He sends people to hell does not take away at all from the fact that He is all loving. There is more to His character than just the fact that He is loving and you have to take that into consideration.

[John146]

More on my boat saving example because I don't think I did it justice. Lets replace my analogy with this.

10 people guilty of murdering children are sentenced to death by being dropped off in the middle of the ocean to drown. I grab a boat and drive out and save 5 of the 10 murderers and in doing so the 5 get to go free on account that they can't be tried again but I am sentenced to death for my part. Now is anyone complaining about the 5 I saved or the 5 I left to suffer the judgement they deserved?

That depends. What was your basis for saving 5 of them and leaving the rest to die? Did it have anything to do with the attitudes of the hearts of those people or did you just randomly pick 5 of them to save?

[Noeb]

So, are you saying you believe it's possible for us to sin but also possible to avoid sinning, depending on the choices we make? You're not saying a saved person is not capable of sinning, right?

Yes, that's what I am saying. We have a choice.

[John146]

Yes, that's what I am saying. We have choice.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that's what you were saying because a few of your comments seemed to indicate otherwise.

[Gadgeteer]

Exactly what does that mean, "Noeb"? If one "lets sin reign in his body", can it still be said "his sin-nature is DEAD and he's a new creation"? Absolutely not!!!

Absolutely!!! As long as they are in Christ. If God has not given up on them yet you bet everything God gave them is still theirs.

Now wait, this is important. Not just that, it's critical. The very essence of salvation is "Christ-in-you". It is an indwelt fellowship of love.

There are three positions of "Once Saved Always Saved":
1. Antinomianism/Gnosticism -- sinning flesh, saved spirit.
2. Eternal Security -- unlimited atonement, but once "in" either too changed to leave or God keeps.
3. Calvinism/Predestined-Salvation/Reformed-Theology -- limited atonement, regeneration/heart-change before belief, God decides all.

To perceive that one can be "letting sin reign in his body", but still be saved, does not understand the very foundation --- dead to sin and alive go God through Christ, Christ and the Spirit truly indwelling the believer. It would be as if Jesus and the Spirit would participate in that "reigning-sin"! They will not. This is OSAS #1, "Antinomianism". Other terms for the position include "backslidden-but-saved".

1Cor6:9-11 is absolute; so is Eph5:5-6, and Gal5:19-21 --- those who DO these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God! There is no waiver or exemption; Jesus and the Spirit do not inhabit one who walks in sin.

Can we come to agreement on this foundational principle?

This is perfect harmony with what I've said; it's a constant thing --- do not KEEP sinning. The whole chapter opens with:

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Never! How shall we who have died to sin still live in it?"

The absolute opposite.

You declare it is the opposite, but what is the reason? How do we sweep away all these Scriptures?

No, it's in his his one and only new nature.

Not if he starts walking in sin again --- then he no longer has a new nature.

Why? You have a new nature to contend with. The old is gone. The new nature is the old + the Spirit.

I look forward to your thoughts on the founding principle --- [b]that a person is EITHER "in Christ", OR "in sin". There is no middle-ground.

There is no "sinfully-in-Christ".

Paul wasn't walking in Him in Romans 7 but it was still true.

We really have to come to agreement on 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, and Gal5:19-21. "Those who DO these things SHALL NOT inherit". Period. Romans7 is explaining the war between the old and the new natures; and chapter 8 is the solution to the war. in chapter 8, "if we walk according to the flesh-nature, we must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the flesh, we will live."

"Die", is not compatible with "being saved".

That was only until Paul realized he was delivered by Jesus, and how.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Romans 7 is not an excuse for believers to continue to constantly battle the same sins and lose. That is completely contrary to the gospel.

Well, it's certainly not an excuse to WALK in sin either!

Sorry but as I just posted, Romans 7 "Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

The delivery is in chapter 8, and it is 100% "not walking in the flsh, but putting to death the flesh by the Spirit".
I know it is but how I have said it is which is opposite of how you have said.

Because the new nature includes the old, but it's not just the old, that's why the old no longer exists.[/quote]You're espousing "Antinomianism" n--- walking-in-sin-saved. That is not what Jesus brought.
Right, based on the present reality that you were crucified and therefore the old is dead and you are now a new man.[/quote]If the old sinful man is dead and we are new, then we do not walk in sin.

I've told you, the old is part of the one new nature, but it cannot be considered a nature by itself any longer because the addition of the Spirit changed the one old nature into something else, a new creature - new nature.. So we stil have a choice to sin but now have the ability to NOT do what we do not want to do because of the Spirit.

But you still perceive a place of "sinning--saved". How can I convince you that's not possible?

[Gadgeteer]

But Paul indicated that our faith comes from our hearts.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

That's right. And God responds to obedience in Heb5:9, and obedience comes from our hearts Rom6:17.

There is no indication here that God gives us faith, but rather that we are required to express faith in Christ with our hearts. That tells me that we each have the capacity in our hearts to decide whether or not to believe without God needing to make that decision for us.

Really, the whole discussion boils down to "which direction does faith flow?"

If God GIVES us faith, then we are passive recipients --- and men are judged for what God decided and did. But God responds to faith -- His justice is in respnse to faith in Rom3:26. God responds to faith in Heb11:6. God's response to revering/seeking-righteousness/faith is Peter in Acts 10:34-35, where God favoring people BEFORE they turn to Him (which is what "predestined-salvation" is all about), is partiality/bias that God is not!

[CFJ]

Hi, "CFJ"!
I think 2Tim3:15 is an excellent answer to your question --- sacred Scriptures are able to give us wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Christ Jesus. So someone studying the Bible can become convicted and believe. Now, contrast this with John5:39-47, where the Jews studied Scripture but refused to believe --- and Jesus told us exactly why they would not believe:

"You are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life; God has not elected you and changed you so that you CAN (will!) believe, it's just too far for you and too difficult."

Is that what Jesus said? Nope! He said their unwillingness was because they sought their own glory rather than God's, because they refused to believe Moses, and overall because they did not love God. All of Jesus' statements reflect "men-moving-towards-God", don't they? There is nothing of God-moving-towards-men. He accuses them of "unwillingness", as if they COULD be willing but WON'T. Do you agree that this completely goes against "sovereign predestination"? Together these verses reflect that "men can move either way, towards beleief or not", don't they? Isn't that the same thing that Hebrews6:7-8 asserts? One field can produce EITHER good fruit (belief) and be blessed, or can produce thorns (unbelief) and be cursed/burned.

Hi Gadgeteer,

Why would one be unwilling and the other willing?

There must be a reason, don't you think? Who made these men willing or did they do it themselves?

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5)

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
(Luk 1:15)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
(Gal 1:15)

If you choose to walk in the power and might of God, is it not still you first choosing? Look at what Paul says in 2Tim1:12-14:

I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.
Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

The treasure is eternal life; holf-fast the teachings, and guard the treasure by the Spirit's power. Our choice? Yes --- His power, our choice and faith.

Again, why would one choose and the other not? Who gets the glory, if it is YOU choosing?

I would like to pose a real life sample of the choices we make and/or do not make and see how time, circumstances and ability means in a certain sense, absolute nothing.

An old man living his life as an inmate and criminal, a gangster who have raped, murdered and robbed from a very early age, gave his life to Jesus at age 83. He choose Christ and thank God for giving him enough time to be able to do it, enough undeserving grace and mercy, which really have been beyond his own control.

A copy of this old man while still being only 16 years old, doing exactly what this old man did at the same age, is not that 'lucky'. He died in a gun fight while on a high because of drugs and alcohol and 3 others died in the same shoot-out due to him shooting them. He did not choose Christ, did not get the same time to think things over and the question is this, why would God gave one 83 years to choose, beneficial circumstances and ability and the other one could not even think straight while being shot and obviously have no choice in this (having enough time at hand and having circumstantial benefits and ability too)?

Rude when you think about this, because at age 16 they've both deserve the same judgement, but do we and could we understand this or should we just accept God's control...?

[Gadgeteer]

Hi Gadgeteer,

Why would one be unwilling and the other willing?

There must be a reason, don't you think? Who made these men willing or did they do it themselves?

Hi, "CFJ". For there to be a "Final Judgment", men have to be judged on their own choices. Look again at Rom2:4-8 --- God's kindness leads to repentance, but stubborn unrepentance stores up wrath for themselves, and each is judged according to his own choice.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5)

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
(Luk 1:15)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
(Gal 1:15)

Again, why would one choose and the other not?

Imagine you have set up a scale; on one side you have "God-chooses", on the other "men choose". You start separating Scriptures and putting them on the scales. It is clear after only a little time that the scales tip towards "men-choose". Then you might be inclined to return to the verses on the "God-chooses" side to re-examine them, and find they really go over on the "men-choose" side.

For instance --- one of the "God-chooses" passages is Luke8:13-15. A soil can only choose according to its nature, right? Bad soil can only produce bad fruit, and good soil can only produce good fruit.

Right?

...No. We add in Heb6:7-8, and find that a soil (one soil!) is tilled TO produce good fruit, but it can produce either. If it produces good fruit it is blessed; but if it produces thorns and thistles it is cursed and burned. This forces us to go back to Luke8:12-15 and recognize that the LABEL is the consequence of their choices, not that their choices were the consequence of the "God-decided-nature". So a passage we might have had on the "God-chooses" side of the scale [i]now goes solidly on the "men-choose" side.

Who gets the glory, if it is YOU choosing?

God. Indeed, in Jesus' own words in Jn5:39-47, men WHO choose their own glory do not really love God, and are unwilling to come to Him to have life. Those WHO seek God's glory believe --- and Jesus calls them "wise" (Matt7:24-27).

No one has ever explained why MEN can be wise for believing Jesus, or foolish for not believing, if belief is really God's decision...

I would like to pose a real life sample of the choices we make and/or do not make and see how time, circumstances and ability means in a certain sense, absolute nothing.

An old man living his life as an inmate and criminal, a gangster who has raped, murdered and robbed from a very early age, gave his life to Jesus at age 83. He choose Christ and thank God for giving him enough time to be able to do it, enough undeserving grace and mercy, which really have been beyond his own control.

A copy of this old man while still being only 16 years old, doing exactly what this old man did at the same age, is not that 'lucky'. He died in a gun fight while on a high because of drugs and alcohol and 3 others died in the same shoot-out due to him shooting them. He did not choose Christ, did not get the same time to think things over and the question is this, why would God gave one 83 years to choose, beneficial circumstances and ability and the other one could not even think straight while being shot and obviously have no choice in this (having enough time at hand and having circumstantial benefits and ability too)?

In the same vein, what chance did Indians and Aztecs and Incas and Eskimos and Aborigines and Bushmen have before missionaries? Did God conveniently not predestine any of them?

Rude when you think about this, because at age 16 they've both deserve the same judgement, but do we and could we understand this or should we just accept God's control...?

I look forward to your thoughts.

[keyzer soze]

Hi Gadgeteer,

Why would one be unwilling and the other willing?

There must be a reason, don't you think? Who made these men willing or did they do it themselves?

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5)

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
(Luk 1:15)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
(Gal 1:15)

Again, why would one choose and the other not? Who gets the glory, if it is YOU choosing?

I would like to pose a real life sample of the choices we make and/or do not make and see how time, circumstances and ability means in a certain sense, absolute nothing.

An old man living his life as an inmate and criminal, a gangster who have raped, murdered and robbed from a very early age, gave his life to Jesus at age 83. He choose Christ and thank God for giving him enough time to be able to do it, enough undeserving grace and mercy, which really have been beyond his own control.

A copy of this old man while still being only 16 years old, doing exactly what this old man did at the same age, is not that 'lucky'. He died in a gun fight while on a high because of drugs and alcohol and 3 others died in the same shoot-out due to him shooting them. He did not choose Christ, did not get the same time to think things over and the question is this, why would God gave one 83 years to choose, beneficial circumstances and ability and the other one could not even think straight while being shot and obviously have no choice in this (having enough time at hand and having circumstantial benefits and ability too)?

Rude when you think about this, because at age 16 they've both deserve the same judgement, but do we and could we understand this or should we just accept God's control...?

Funny you should use this example CFJ. Coming from an RCC background I can recall my first perplexing conversation with my pastor, in my current bible teaching church, that I had been invited to set down with many years ago. He was explaining to me this concept of being saved through faith and salvation not being tied to sacraments or anything that I do to earn/receive grace AND throw in that I could have a personal relationship with God...

It was very confusing to me how any of this could make sense because I was hearing it for the first time at age 28 so at some point I turned to him and said, "this can not be true for had I DIED before this meeting (and I could remember a few instances like being in a car wreck that could have made that happen) I would be in hell, no way God allows that, my family of RCC are a bunch of good people who do a lot of good for the community!" Then throw in the fact that I was processing whether or not everything I had been taught was wrong, the RCC road to salvation was a sham AND throw on it the fact that the church across the street was a Mormon church and I kept thinking, wouldn't I be hearing the same thing over there with a twist? I would be hearing that my RCC faith was wrong (I should add that my pastor never focused on the RCC teachings, but I was obviously picking up the fact that they were in direct conflict of what he was saying) and here is what God really wants us to know... But my biggest hang up was the fact that I knew friends/family that died in the RCC faith and I could have died as well so I was stuck wondering if this was blind chance or did God have a plan. Then my pastor said, "KS, you are not dead, you are right here listening to the gospel and have a choice." I remember processing this for WEEKS and the implications of it. Was this real? Was I a function of blind LUCK to be sitting there having the gospel explained to me clearly for the first time with the ability to ask questions? I was stumped.... and I had to decide, was God in control or was this just another human circumstance...

[keyzer soze]

You say both are responsible but I'd like to know what exactly you think Moses was responsible for as far as those who died and those who survived the battle are concerned. Do you think he was at all responsible for choosing who would live and who would die? I don't. I don't believe God would put that kind of responsibility on any man. That's His responsibility alone. The way He brought things about might have been a bit unorthodox for reasons that maybe only He knows, but it was still His choice as to who won and who lost that battle.

In what sense? Responsible to use our free wills to choose to accept Him rather than reject Him? If so, I agree. If not, please explain what exactly you believe is the human responsibility in accepting Christ.

But would He be accountable if it was up to Him whether or not they accepted or rejected the gospel? I don't see how it couldn't be. See, people are not condemned for having a natural tendency to sin, they are condemned for consciously and willingly rejecting Christ. Just read 2 Thess 1:7-9 and John 3:18. Whether or not someone accepts or rejects Christ has to be a choice that people make and there is nothing to suggest that people could not help but reject Him unless God basically forced them to accept Him. And there's nothing in scripture to suggest that some are fully incapable of accepting Him. So, if someone rejected Christ because God did not give them any capability of accepting Him how would God not be responsible for them rejecting Him in that case?

I would say your current view is in conflict with scripture rather than one truth of scripture being in conflict with another. If two things are in conflict then both cannot be true. All scripture harmonizes together without conflict. If there is conflict in our views then we need to change our views, not scripture.

But isn't it everyone's choice whether to seek the truth or not?

No. But if you are trying to compare that to spiritual salvation I don't think that is appropriate. Physical healing and spiritual healing/salvation are two completely different things. Scripture says that God desires for all people to be saved but I don't see any scripture that says God desires for all people with physical ailments to be healed.

Of course not.

But did Jesus heal any blind people who did not have faith that He could do it? No. So, while the healing was certainly a gift of grace that does not mean there was no responsibility on their end required in order to receive the gift.

One thing that I would think would help you understand things a bit better is that things like faith and love cannot be forced. Yes, God is all loving but that doesn't mean He is obligated to not send people to hell if they reject Him. He is all loving but is also a jealous God who demands our worship, and, while He is slow to anger, He does get angry eventually if people continue to resist Him and refuse to repent. What other choice does He have but to send people to hell if they refuse to ever repent? Just because He sends people to hell does not take away at all from the fact that He is all loving. There is more to His character than just the fact that He is loving and you have to take that into consideration.

I can't answer all your questions because I have a job and a family. I like to answer them, but you can't ask so many on every post and expect me to have time. I offer this story up to the issue of does one NEED FAITH for Jesus to have healed them.

Jesus Heals Ten Men With Leprosy

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”
14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.

15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.

17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

Then I have a question for you. Do you believe that at the end of time the world and everything that transpired will be the best possible situation or do you think that there could have been better? Meaning, does God giving us "free-will" which allows us to sin, people to reject Christ and spend eternity in hell, do you think this is the best possible of outcomes of this world or do you suppose that God could have designed/planned/willed a BETTER world that could have glorified His greatness better?

Have a good one.