PDA

View Full Version : How Free is Free?



Pages : [1] 2 3

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 09:48 PM
I am sure this issue has been hashed about many times here, but, being new here, I was wondering what people's ideas were here concerning free will.

Personally, I am Reformed in doctrine, and, therefore, see free will as a very limited sort of thing. I believe that we have a free will but that, of course, we can only will to do those things that are possible. For the unregenerate (not "born again") person, it is impossible to act in obedience to God or even seek God for salvation. We must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we can use our "free will" to seek God, and, in fact, we will do that if we are regenerate.

So what do others here think?

SonAdore
Nov 30th 2006, 09:53 PM
first off.. welcome to the board.

secondly......
We must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we can use our "free will" to seek God, and, in fact, we will do that if we are regenerate.

you mean we have to be saved in order to be saved?

Does that make logical sense to you really? *hugs*

SonAdore
Nov 30th 2006, 09:55 PM
YOu will need to understand that there is a difference between being drawn by the Spirit, the Spirit being near you, upon you, and In you.

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:08 PM
first off.. welcome to the board.

secondly......

you mean we have to be saved in order to be saved?

Does that make logical sense to you really? *hugs*

It does, though it is complicated to be sure. The reason it seems complicated is that we so often (me included) want to believe that we play SOME part in our salvation. However, the more I study, think and pray about it, the more clear it is that we play no part whatsover.

The Spirit grants us new birth, convicts us of sin, and gives us the faith to reach out to God for mercy. It is all God's work, and none of our own.

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:14 PM
Where have I heard all this before?

:lol:

SonAdore
Nov 30th 2006, 10:15 PM
Though I agree with you that our salvation is purely the work of Jesus and not of ourselves, we do come, being drawn by the Spirit and are given the faith to believe, which motivates us to choose Jesus Christ.

There has to be a willingness on the part of each heart to surrender to Jesus in faith. But as you say, the glory is all His. The choice is ours

Whispering Grace
Nov 30th 2006, 10:19 PM
Where have I heard all this before?

:lol:

It's like deja vu all over again. :lol:

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:22 PM
Where have I heard all this before?

:lol:

As I said, I am sure this is nothing new. And if this is all too much "old news" to discuss, I can certainly stop.

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:24 PM
As I said, I am sure this is nothing new. And if this is all too much "old news" to discuss, I can certainly stop.
Nah... discuss away! It always makes for an interesting discussion!!! :lol:

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:24 PM
Though I agree with you that our salvation is purely the work of Jesus and not of ourselves, we do come, being drawn by the Spirit and are given the faith to believe, which motivates us to choose Jesus Christ.

There has to be a willingness on the part of each heart to surrender to Jesus in faith. But as you say, the glory is all His. The choice is ours

And so we get to the heart of the Calvinist/Arminian divide! And until recently, I would have agreed with you. But I see a big problem here (no, it isn't a "salvation" issue, though I do think that it becomes a sanctification issue). Why did you and I make that choice, while others don't?

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:26 PM
Nah... discuss away! It always makes for an interesting discussion!!! :lol:

What is the "doctrinal leaning" of this board, or is there one?

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:27 PM
And so we get to the heart of the Calvinist/Arminian divide! And until recently, I would have agreed with you. But I see a big problem here (no, it isn't a "salvation" issue, though I do think that it becomes a sanctification issue). Why did you and I make that choice, while others don't?
Why does one man choose to kill another and another man chooses to walk away. Why does one like peas when another doesn't? What does that question prove?

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:28 PM
What is the "doctrinal leaning" of this board, or is there one?
No... in this forum you will find a pretty good mix of folk.

SonAdore
Nov 30th 2006, 10:29 PM
I am neither calvanist or Armenianist. If at all possible, Id like to avoid using them as my proofs. So... Please feel free to use God's word. My heart is always open to truth. ( I think) :)

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:31 PM
Why does one man choose to kill another and another man chooses to walk away. Why does one like peas when another doesn't? What does that question prove?

Questions don't prove anything. However, it seems that if we are to assert that man, in an unregenerate state, can freely choose God, we must have to accept that those who make the choice have within them some inherent superiority in terms Of "goodness," of wisdom. This does not seem to be a Biblical notion.

Whispering Grace
Nov 30th 2006, 10:32 PM
Why does one man choose to kill another and another man chooses to walk away. Why does one like peas when another doesn't? What does that question prove?

I used to throw the the same question about. That was until I realized every single day I was making the purposeful, deliberate, willful decision to follow God and remain obedient to Him.

So I agree....that question proves nothing. We all make choices every single day. Our choice to surrender to and follow God is no different.

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:32 PM
No... in this forum you will find a pretty good mix of folk.

That's good!! I hate to be ganged up on. :D

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:33 PM
I used to throw the the same question about. That was until I realized every single day I was making the purposeful, deliberate, willful decision to follow God and remain obedient to Him.

So I agree....that question proves nothing. We all make choices every single day. Our choice to surrender to and follow God is no different.

With respect, I would have to disagree. Unless you are willing to assert your superiority. If you are, you are consistent, but I would still say unbiblical. We make choices for a reason. And that is important to the overall question.

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:35 PM
By the way, at what point can you use a custom avatar and put in a signature?

watchinginawe
Nov 30th 2006, 10:35 PM
Questions don't prove anything. However, it seems that if we are to assert that man, in an unregenerate state, can freely choose God, we must have to accept that those who make the choice have within them some inherent superiority in terms Of "goodness," of wisdom. This does not seem to be a Biblical notion.If man can not then how can he be judged righteously? How will man understand God's judgment without the ability to recognize God's goodness?

God Bless!

The Parson
Nov 30th 2006, 10:38 PM
I am neither calvanist or Armenianist. If at all possible, Id like to avoid using them as my proofs. So... Please feel free to use God's word. My heart is always open to truth. ( I think) :)You and I are ones of the very few who have said that SonAdore. Amen

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 30th 2006, 10:39 PM
That's good!! I hate to be ganged up on. :D


Hello Doc... Just a note to say hi and also to say that a lot of reformed thinking is usually areas for debate here, particularly when it comes to God's providence in salvation in doctrines of regeneration, election, security, and maybe to a degree, justification reprobation and grace...

You will find that there are those who like to debate this subject and debate it with their life... :lol:

So enjoy being here, and pray that you will be used by God for His glory by each of your posts...

Whispering Grace
Nov 30th 2006, 10:46 PM
With respect, I would have to disagree. Unless you are willing to assert your superiority. If you are, you are consistent, but I would still say unbiblical. We make choices for a reason. And that is important to the overall question.

What superiority? We are ALL drawn by God.

And let's talk about asserting our superiority for a second. What about the belief that one is chosen by God for salvation while others are condemned to hell without so much as a chance to be redeemed?

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:49 PM
If man can not then how can he be judged righteously? How will man understand God's judgment without the ability to recognize God's goodness?

God Bless!

These are the classic questions aren't they! Let me interject that it is refreshing to be part of such a discussion when not having to overcome the rantings of wackos such as is found on other boards which shall remain nameless (theologyonline).

Man can be judged righteously, I believe, because he is evil. He doesn't just do evil, he is evil by nature. God does not owe salvation to anyone, and man can do nothing to "bind God," that is to obligate God in any way. I think that the better question is why would God save anyone? And the answer must be because of His love.

But please answer. You, like me, must know many people of equal education, equal IQ, behave equally well, or badly, etc. They have heard the Gospel, and they reject it. Why did they reject it, and we didn't?

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:50 PM
Hello Doc... Just a note to say hi and also to say that a lot of reformed thinking is usually areas for debate here, particularly when it comes to God's providence in salvation in doctrines of regeneration, election, security, and maybe to a degree, justification reprobation and grace...

You will find that there are those who like to debate this subject and debate it with their life... :lol:

So enjoy being here, and pray that you will be used by God for His glory by each of your posts...

Thanks very much!

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:50 PM
Questions don't prove anything. However, it seems that if we are to assert that man, in an unregenerate state, can freely choose God, we must have to accept that those who make the choice have within them some inherent superiority in terms Of "goodness," of wisdom. This does not seem to be a Biblical notion.
Then you must make that same logical jump with the heathen. What inside makes an unbeliever that doesn't murder, rape and whatnot any better than the unbeliever that murders, rapes, and whatnot?

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:51 PM
What superiority? We are ALL drawn by God.

And let's talk about asserting our superiority for a second. What about the belief that one is chosen by God for salvation while others are condemned to hell without so much as a chance to be redeemed?

Yes, I agree that some are chosen and some aren't (reprobation). I believe that God makes these choices not randomly, but in accordance with His purposes and without any regard to our merit.

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:51 PM
That's good!! I hate to be ganged up on. :D

There will be days when it seems that way and days when it don't! Tis the nature of the boards I think. ;)

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 10:54 PM
Then you must make that same logical jump with the heathen. What inside makes an unbeliever that doesn't murder, rape and whatnot any better than the unbeliever that murders, rapes, and whatnot?

Nothing at all! I don't have a quote in front of me, but Luther addressed this question very well in Bondage of the Will. He said, and I would agree, that our environments, upbringing, the law (secular), etc. play apart in determining how low we will go. But absent any external restraint, we are all capable of all manner of evil.

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 10:55 PM
These are the classic questions aren't they! Let me interject that it is refreshing to be part of such a discussion when not having to overcome the rantings of wackos such as is found on other boards which shall remain nameless (theologyonline).

Man can be judged righteously, I believe, because he is evil. He doesn't just do evil, he is evil by nature. God does not owe salvation to anyone, and man can do nothing to "bind God," that is to obligate God in any way. I think that the better question is why would God save anyone? And the answer must be because of His love.

But please answer. You, like me, must know many people of equal education, equal IQ, behave equally well, or badly, etc. They have heard the Gospel, and they reject it. Why did they reject it, and we didn't?ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVER LOVING MIND!!!




































Okay... just giving you a flashback. :lol:

docrob57
Nov 30th 2006, 11:01 PM
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVER LOVING MIND!!!

Okay... just giving you a flashback. :lol:

Yes, sweet memories indeed! Are you also a theologyonline veteran?

Anyway, I have to go for a while. Enjoyed the chat. More later.

SonAdore
Nov 30th 2006, 11:04 PM
You and I are ones of the very few who have said that SonAdore. Amen

Kuddos to you too Parson Copper.... or is that Copper Parson?

;)

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2006, 11:06 PM
Nothing at all! I don't have a quote in front of me, but Luther addressed this question very well in Bondage of the Will. He said, and I would agree, that our environments, upbringing, the law (secular), etc. play apart in determining how low we will go. But absent any external restraint, we are all capable of all manner of evil.
But then we aren't absent any external restraint because we all know God right? Some choose to acknowledge Him as God and some don't. Those that don't are given over to various things and evil results. But did God make them not acknowledge Him as God or did they make that choice themselves? According to Scripture it is man that suppresses the truth thereby incurring God's wrath.

watchinginawe
Nov 30th 2006, 11:11 PM
But please answer. You, like me, must know many people of equal education, equal IQ, behave equally well, or badly, etc. They have heard the Gospel, and they reject it. Why did they reject it, and we didn't?First, rejection isn't a one time deal. If it were, I wouldn't be among the "we didn't". :) Why does man reject the Gospel? I have given some thought on this recently. Here are some possibilities:

They don't believe that God exists
They don't believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ
They reject the Gospel as unnecessary
They believe they have time in the future to accept the Gospel
They are deceived into believing something else
Man can be judged righteously, I believe, because he is evil. He doesn't just do evil, he is evil by nature. God does not owe salvation to anyone, and man can do nothing to "bind God," that is to obligate God in any way.Yes, God is still righteous judge. But is he (will he be) recognized as righteous judge only by those who are justified before him? Will those who are condemned only see God's judgment as arbitrary? In the least, I believe man has the ability to recognize his own corrpuptness. Is despair in recognizing one's corruptness "goodness"? I don't see it in that light.
I think that the better question is why would God save anyone? And the answer must be because of His love.Agreed. Love expressed (offered) as mercy and grace.

God Bless!

poppa_50
Dec 1st 2006, 02:55 AM
I will say it again. I will be the lone duck here. But I agree with Luther in his Bondage of the Will. Man is bound in his nature to use his will only for sin, self- will, in short, to be an agent of the devil until he is released by God's gracious activity to be His agent. Then he is not his own but has been bought with a price. He is not a free agent but now a slave of righteousness. Every new impulse he has, he has from God.

There are only two operating wills in the universe. Satan's and God's. You are simply bound to the one or the other.

Show me anywhere in the Bible where man is floating in a free state, not bound to Satan or God.

If you see the Gospel as a simple proposition of truth that men are free to accept or reject, then this is the point of misunderstanding.

The Parson
Dec 1st 2006, 03:12 AM
Kuddos to you too Parson Copper.... or is that Copper Parson?

;)Hmmm, don't think we use the term Copper but in light of some of the other words used to describe me, I'll accept that one...:D

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 03:19 AM
Hmmm, don't think we use the term Copper but in light of some of the other words used to describe me, I'll accept that one...:D

btw, parson.

I visited your site link on your signature. Nice.

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 03:06 PM
But please answer. You, like me, must know many people of equal education, equal IQ, behave equally well, or badly, etc. They have heard the Gospel, and they reject it. Why did they reject it, and we didn't?


Ecc 3:1 ¶ To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 03:35 PM
Ecc 3:1 ¶ To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

I'm not sure that is really an answer.

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 03:42 PM
I'm not sure that is really an answer.

If you have a crop and it has not come to fruitation, can you pick fruit that isn't there? And who causes the crop to grow in the first place?

Only God can open eyes and ears to His revelation. It doesn't depend on the foolishness of man.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Realist1981
Dec 1st 2006, 03:43 PM
So let me get this straight
You believe that we have to be saved in order to be saved?

The Parson
Dec 1st 2006, 03:48 PM
btw, parson.

I visited your site link on your signature. Nice.Thank you SonAdore...

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 03:52 PM
First, rejection isn't a one time deal. If it were, I wouldn't be among the "we didn't". :) Why does man reject the Gospel? I have given some thought on this recently. Here are some possibilities:

They don't believe that God exists
They don't believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ
They reject the Gospel as unnecessary
They believe they have time in the future to accept the Gospel
They are deceived into believing something elseYes, God is still righteous judge. But is he (will he be) recognized as righteous judge only by those who are justified before him? Will those who are condemned only see God's judgment as arbitrary? In the least, I believe man has the ability to recognize his own corrpuptness. Is despair in recognizing one's corruptness "goodness"? I don't see it in that light.Agreed. Love expressed (offered) as mercy and grace.

God Bless!

As to you first points-why unbeleif exists-these are certainly true. As to the second, I would have to imagine that at the judgment, with the truth of God revealed, that the lost would have to recognize the righteousness of God.

However, this isn't really what I am asking. Why do YOU believe, while others don't?

Since scriptural support for my position was requested, I will present the following, though I am sure it is nothing that folks here haven't seen before.



Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.




Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.




John 10:4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. (Note: they don't know his voice because they follow him).


And this from something I posted recently on that other site.

A.



Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.


This says that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ are carnal, and that the carnal person not only does not but cannot subject himself to God's law. Those in the flesh cannot please God.

For the most part I will quote here from the NKJV, but I want to present the ESV translation of Romans 8:7 here because it makes the phrase the NKJV translates as "subject to" clearer.




7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.


In Hebrews 11:6 we learn that



without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
. The carnal (unregenerate) person cannot please God, and this passage indicates that without faith it is impossible to please God. It would seem reasonable to conclude that the unregenerate person has no faith.

B.



Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.


Again, Paul is dealing with the carnal, unregenerate nature. He indicates again the incapacity to do any good. Note that in both of these verses, disobedience to God is not put forth as a tendency, it is put forth as an impossibility.

C.



Psalm 14:1 They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.

Psalm 5:9 9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; Their inward part is destruction; Their throat is an open tomb; They flatter with their tongue.

Psalm 140:3 They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; The poison of asps is under their lips.


These, of course, are the passages cited by Paul in Romans 3. Immediately preceding these quotes, Paul says



For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
, indicating that his statements are universal, not just confined to a particular group.

It seems clear, therefore, that Paul is speaking of man's total depravity, to coin a phrase.

D.



Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight--


More on the nature of the unregenerate.

[/b]

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 03:57 PM
I think all this sparing isnt doing a thing. I feel that he is trying to direct us to the conclusion that we are all just a bunch of robots.. automations... which God decided before hand who would enter heaven and who would not. He is trying to direct us to say, we have no free will in the matter so why worry; "Eat, Drink, and be Merry".

But we know differently , dont we?

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 03:57 PM
If you have a crop and it has not come to fruitation, can you pick fruit that isn't there? And who causes the crop to grow in the first place?

Only God can open eyes and ears to His revelation. It doesn't depend on the foolishness of man.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

I agree with your point. I just didn't see the connection. Thanks.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 03:58 PM
I think all this sparing isnt doing a thing. I feel that he is trying to direct us to the conclusion that we are all just a bunch of robots.. automations... which God decided before hand who would enter heaven and who would not. He is trying to direct us to say, we have no free will in the matter so why worry; "Eat, Drink, and be Merry".

But we know differently , dont we?

Not at all! What gave you that idea?

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 04:01 PM
So let me get this straight
You believe that we have to be saved in order to be saved?

No, I just believe we have to be saved. I just don't believe that we participate in our salvation.

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 04:03 PM
Personally, I am Reformed in doctrine, and, therefore, see free will as a very limited sort of thing. I believe that we have a free will but that, of course, we can only will to do those things that are possible.


"we have free will to do only that which is possible."

me paraphrasing you.

which is to say. our choice is controlled by some force of limitation placed upon us.

thats how I can say it.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 04:06 PM
"we have free will to do only that which is possible."

me paraphrasing you.

which is to say. our choice is controlled by some force of limitation placed upon us.

thats how I can say it.

Seems like a far cry from being a "robot" doesn't it? You can't jump off of a building and fly yourself, no matter how much you might want to. Does this restriction on your freedom make you a robot?

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 04:14 PM
God said to Adam, "You are free to eat of any tree in the garden but ofthe tree in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat."

paraphrase again. You are free to make any choices you desire but if you choose to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, you will surely die.

meaning. Its up to you. but here is what will happen to you if you choose to disobey me.

God did not restrict our freedom in anyway.

Mograce2U
Dec 1st 2006, 04:14 PM
Romans 1 explains that the natural man does not have an excuse in his rejection of God because God has given him the witness of creation. What he does as a result with this testimony is what makes him responsible.

I think the Reformers did a good work in making a firm stance against the errors of Catholicism in that day. But like all revelation men receive, they then try to box God in with it because men like to have a hard and fast rule to follow. And in doing so they go beyond what scripture has revealed to us about the nature of God.

Here is how God revealed Himself to Moses:

(Exo 34:6-7 KJV) And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, {7} Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

David received this witness also:
(Psa 86:15 KJV) But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.

God's sovereignty and justice is tempered by His mercy and love for His creation. He desires a relationship with us. We are not here in a vacuum, rather God has provided every aid needed to know that He exists and to know His power over His creation. He has given us a will to live forever and a desire to investigate this world in which we live:

(Eccl 3:11 KJV) He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world [aka eternity] in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Even the curse upon the ground that came with Adam's sin was a gift from God in that it keeps man humble and dependent upon his Creator. Emnity with the devil also serves to help man not be deceived by him. Blessings and consequences therefore work to turn man to God. All these things work to pull a response from man so that his faith will be in his Creator.

So when Calvin says that man is so depraved that left to himself he will not choose God, what he is saying is wrong; because God has not left man alone - no not ever.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 04:24 PM
God said to Adam, "You are free to eat of any tree in the garden but ofthe tree in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat."

paraphrase again. You are free to make any choices you desire but if you choose to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, you will surely die.

meaning. Its up to you. but here is what will happen to you if you choose to disobey me.

God did not restrict our freedom in anyway.

Well, the situation with Adam was a little different than the rest of us. Also Lucifer. Adam's nature was corrupted through his action, and through that we inherited the sin nature.

If God does not restrict our freedom, than that would imply that we, not God are sovereign, wouldn't it?

Toolman
Dec 1st 2006, 04:29 PM
No, I just believe we have to be saved. I just don't believe that we participate in our salvation.

Doc,

I'm not sure that is the best way to express the reformed belief of sovereign election.

It is not that man does not participate with God in the process of salvation but that man, by his own regenerated will, willfully chooses to trust and follow the Saviour.

Man does participate but only after God has changed His will from slavery to sin to desire of the Son.

That may sound like splitting hairs but I think it an important distinction to recognize.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 04:34 PM
Doc,

I'm not sure that is the best way to express the reformed belief of sovereign election.

It is not that man does not participate with God in the process of salvation but that man, by his own regenerated will, willfully chooses to trust and follow the Saviour.

Man does participate but only after God has changed His will from slavery to sin to desire of the Son.

That may sound like splitting hairs but I think it an important distinction to recognize.

No, you are right, that is an important distinction, and I would certainly agree.

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 04:38 PM
ahhhh... Thank you toolman.

Man does participate..........

Fini

watchinginawe
Dec 1st 2006, 04:46 PM
Doc,

I'm not sure that is the best way to express the reformed belief of sovereign election.

It is not that man does not participate with God in the process of salvation but that man, by his own regenerated will, willfully chooses to trust and follow the Saviour.

Man does participate but only after God has changed His will from slavery to sin to desire of the Son.Really? :hmm: Can man then choose not to participate? Or is it a 100 out of 100 deal that he always chooses to participate once his limit of participation has been lifted? (or something like that :lol:)

God Bless!

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 04:46 PM
ahhhh... Thank you toolman.

Man does participate..........

Fini

Try not to "claim victory" prematurely. First off, and again, if God does not restrict free will, then who is in control, God or man?

And to say that man "participates" (and I am still uncomfortable with that, because what toolman did not mention is that once God has regenerated you and calls you, you will not refuse, though it is a "free choice") in the sense that toolman means it is not the same as you mean it. Absent the work of God, man is not capable of participation.

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 04:57 PM
I agree with your point. I just didn't see the connection. Thanks.


God is the connection and humanity is the crop.:saint:

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 05:00 PM
then who is in control, God or man?

Before regeneration, man has declared himself seperated from God, and prounces himself as his own god. That man/women serves the one whom he obeys. He chooses what is Nature for him. That is sin.

A regenerated man/women surrenders to God and declares that he can do nothing apart from God. He worships God and serves God when he obeys God. This is that man/womens new nature.

When a regenerated man/women disobeys God , thereby sinning, that one is acting outside his nature and as his old man once acted.

The difference between them is that an unregenerate man can only act in unregenerate ways. A regenerated man has been given the Holy Spirit to enable them to choose not to act in unregenerate ways.

God in his sovereignty has given man the freedom to choose life or death.
Man will either serve one or the other by their own choice.

Toolman
Dec 1st 2006, 05:01 PM
Really? :hmm: Can man then choose not to participate? Or is it a 100 out of 100 deal that he always chooses to participate once his limit of participation has been lifted? (or something like that :lol:)

God Bless!

Well, the reformed protestant view of the will of man (held by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli , Edwards, Spurgeon, etc.) is that man's will is in slavery to sin. That man will always willfully reject God's Son 100% of the time because the flesh will never choose God, because it loves darkness and sin.

Only after God changes the will does man have the desire to trust in the Saviour. God changes (He is creator) the desire from sin to the Son. Once the desire is changed it is changed for God's glory and the benefit of the creature.

This is my understanding of reformed soteriology.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 05:03 PM
Before regeneration, man has declared himself seperated from God, and prounces himself as his own god. That man/women serves the one whom he obeys. He chooses what is Nature for him. That is sin.

A regenerated man/women surrenders to God and declares that he can do nothing apart from God. He worships God and serves God when he obeys God. This is that man/womens new nature.

When a regenerated man/women disobeys God , thereby sinning, that one is acting outside his nature and as his old man once acted.

The difference between them is that an unregenerate man can only act in unregenerate ways. A regenerated man has been given the Holy Spirit to enable them to choose not to act in unregenerate ways.

God in his sovereignty has given man the freedom to choose life or death.
Man will either serve one or the other by their own choice.

How do your last 2 sentences follow from the premises that you established? I certainly agree with the premises (unless I missed something :))

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 05:04 PM
Well, the reformed protestant view of the will of man (held by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli , Edwards, Spurgeon, etc.) is that man's will is in slavery to sin. That man will always willfully reject God's Son 100% of the time because the flesh will never choose God, because it loves darkness and sin.

Only after God changes the will does man have the desire to trust in the Saviour. God changes (He is creator) the desire from sin to the Son. Once the desire is changed it is changed for God's glory and the benefit of the creature.

This is my understanding of reformed soteriology.

Side note: Are you a Rich Mullins fan toolman? I notice that you are a "ragamuffin."

Toolman
Dec 1st 2006, 05:08 PM
Side note: Are you a Rich Mullins fan toolman? I notice that you are a "ragamuffin."

I have a great respect for Rich and his music. I think he was the Keith Green of our time.

But that said, my tag comes more so from Brennan Mannings book The Ragamuffin Gospel (http://www.amazon.com/Ragamuffin-Gospel-Bedraggled-Beat-Up-Burnt/dp/1590525027/sr=8-1/qid=1164992753/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7104133-3823823?ie=UTF8&s=books), which Brennan was a big influence on Rich and Rich has a testimony in that particular book. Great Book IMO, though some don't care for it because Manning views God's Grace as too large for some folk's taste.

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 05:12 PM
Brennan Manning's book "The Ragamuffin Gospel", and others , are my favorite reads.

What an amazing man. He really does understand "Grace".

I'd love to meet him and work with him.


but I digress.....

Premise? did I have a premise? hahaha

I continually amaze myself. Here I thought I was just talking.

watchinginawe
Dec 1st 2006, 05:14 PM
Well, the reformed protestant view of the will of man (held by Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc.) is that man's will is in slavery to sin. That man will always willfully reject God's Son 100% of the time because the flesh will never choose God, because it loves darkness and sin.Man participates but chooses wrong 100% of the time.
Only after God changes the will does man have the desire to trust in the Saviour. God changes (He is creator) the desire from sin to the Son. Once the desire is changed it is changed for God's glory and the benefit of the creature. Man continues to participate but chooses right 100% of the time.

In this scenario, IMO, it would be just as accurate to say man does not participate at all. You could probably throw a quarter over the two positions and I am not sure whether there is any distinction at all outside of terminology. Man's will is said to be in slavery with no desire (or at the least any purposeful thought) in being elsewise. Man therefore would then be 100% content in either scenario (really any, or the universe of all scenarios).

God Bless!

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 05:16 PM
I have a great respect for Rich and his music. I think he was the Keith Green of our time.

But that said, my tag comes more so from Brennan Mannings book The Ragamuffin Gospel (http://www.amazon.com/Ragamuffin-Gospel-Bedraggled-Beat-Up-Burnt/dp/1590525027/sr=8-1/qid=1164992753/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7104133-3823823?ie=UTF8&s=books), which Brennan was a big influence on Rich and Rich has a testimony in that particular book. Great Book IMO, though some don't care for it because Manning views God's Grace as too large for some folk's taste.

I love Rich Mullins. I will have to get the book.

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 05:21 PM
Being from New Orleans, I would think that you live pretty near to Brennan Manning.

:)

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 05:27 PM
Try not to "claim victory" prematurely. First off, and again, if God does not restrict free will, then who is in control, God or man?

Ultimately God is in control, but He doesn't have to control free will that is already under His control. IOW there are already restrictions in place for the free will given to operate within. He need not place further restrictions. It's already set in motion by Him.


And to say that man "participates"

I'm a synergist, so I believe there is participation or what is the point.


Absent the work of God, man is not capable of participation.


Sure, since there wouldn't be anything to participate in without God.:spin:

If I understand you, your saying that without revelation, man is incapable of participation. If that is what you mean, I disagree. Man is capable, but not willing, meaning his will does not desire the things of God.

All humanity has God given potential.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 06:17 PM
I'm a synergist, so I believe there is participation or what is the point.


Well I am a monergist (obviously), however, given that you can pronounce Tchoupitoulas correctly, I won't hold your synergism against you. :D

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 06:44 PM
Well I am a monergist (obviously), however, given that you can pronounce Tchoupitoulas correctly, I won't hold your synergism against you. :D

Merci. :saint: For some reason that reminds me, I've gotta find my Justin Wilson rendition of Rudolph. :lol:

Just to be clear, I don't mean synergism in the sense that humanity can do something to get God to respond. That would be pagan.:spin:

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 06:51 PM
Merci. :saint: For some reason that reminds me, I've gotta find my Justin Wilson rendition of Rudolph. :lol:

Just to be clear, I don't mean synergism in the sense that humanity can do something to get God to respond. That would be pagan.:spin:

Yes and for the pagan perspective see [Link Removed by Qbee _ rules_ Item III g.]

RogerW
Dec 1st 2006, 07:25 PM
Greetings All,

How does free will reconcile this apparent contradiction? God commands man to believe, but then we are shown that no man can believe.

1Jo*3:23 ¶ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

We are commanded to believe but then we are shown that no one can believe because no one seeks God.

Ro*3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro*3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

The reason we cannot obey the command to believe is not only that we have no desire to seek God, but we are spiritually dead.

Eph*2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph*2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph*2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

This command presents a challenge for free will, how do you answer this challenge?

RW

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 07:34 PM
We are commanded to believe but then we are shown that no one can believe because no one seeks God.

Ro*3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro*3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Taking a couple verses out of the context of the rest of the verses they go with proves nothing. The verses speak of all falling short of the glory of God. I doubt anyone would disagree with that, as we are created beings and He is not.



The reason we cannot obey the command to believe is not only that we have no desire to seek God, but we are spiritually dead.

Eph*2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph*2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph*2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

This command presents a challenge for free will, how do you answer this challenge?

RW

Those Ephesians verses don't say we are spiritually dead. That chapter is telling you how to get from one place to the other and what your faced with in doing so.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 07:41 PM
Taking a couple verses out of the context of the rest of the verses they go with proves nothing. The verses speak of all falling short of the glory of God. I doubt anyone would disagree with that, as we are created beings and He is not.



Those Ephesians verses don't say we are spiritually dead. That chapter is telling you how to get from one place to the other and what your faced with in doing so.

That is precisely what they say! They say that we were spiritually dead and that God made us alive. There is no sysnergistic suggestion in this at all.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 07:44 PM
Well, the reformed protestant view of the will of man (held by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli , Edwards, Spurgeon, etc.) is that man's will is in slavery to sin. That man will always willfully reject God's Son 100% of the time because the flesh will never choose God, because it loves darkness and sin.

Only after God changes the will does man have the desire to trust in the Saviour. God changes (He is creator) the desire from sin to the Son. Once the desire is changed it is changed for God's glory and the benefit of the creature.

This is my understanding of reformed soteriology.

I basically agree, but I must admit (as I said before) the idea that we "participate" even at this level is problematic. By the same token, we are endowed with a (non-libertarian) free will, and I guess the idea is that once we are regenerated and receive the effectual calling, we freely choose God at that point. We will not do otherwise, but this does not necessarily mean that we could not do otherwise.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 07:46 PM
[Link Removed by Qbee _ rules_ Item III g.]

Oops, sorry. :blush:

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 08:10 PM
That is precisely what they say! They say that we were spiritually dead and that God made us alive. There is no sysnergistic suggestion in this at all.

Where does it say "spiritually dead"?
It just means you were as good as dead going in that direction, IMHO.:saint:

Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 08:26 PM
Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience(ESV)


Granted, it doesn't say "spiritually dead." But that phrase would seem to be synonymous for "dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked."

I am writing a book on this, by the way, which when/if it gets published I will be happy to sell to you!! ;)

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 08:27 PM
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Absolutely!! I am glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking.

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:28 PM
Where have I heard all this before?

:lol:The bible?

;)........

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:32 PM
And so we get to the heart of the Calvinist/Arminian divide! And until recently, I would have agreed with you. But I see a big problem here (no, it isn't a "salvation" issue, though I do think that it becomes a sanctification issue). Why did you and I make that choice, while others don't?That's a question that has been asked before ... and I have yet to see an answer other than something to the effect of "I wanted to and he didn't" ... which isn't really an answer :rolleyes:

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:34 PM
If man can not then how can he be judged righteously? How will man understand God's judgment without the ability to recognize God's goodness?

God Bless!
Romans 9:19-20

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:39 PM
What superiority? We are ALL drawn by God. Hmmm ... how are some drawn? By the Word that saves? Or by some inward spiritual "feeling"? Are those who have NEVER heard the word drawn? How then, are they saved ... if it is the GOSPEL that is the power of God unto salvation? If one person spends his entire life isolated (it happens I'm sure) from everybody, and never has even seen a bible ... is he drawn and given an opportunity to believe the gospel that he has never heard?


And let's talk about asserting our superiority for a second. What about the belief that one is chosen by God for salvation while others are condemned to hell without so much as a chance to be redeemed?How is it asserting superiority to say that God chose me?

Is it not asserting God's purpose according to the election? Is it not exalting God in His Sovereignty?

I'm still humbled by the very thought that God saved a wretch like me. Grateful ... joyful!

Mograce2U
Dec 1st 2006, 08:43 PM
Granted, it doesn't say "spiritually dead." But that phrase would seem to be synonymous for "dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked."

I am writing a book on this, by the way, which when/if it gets published I will be happy to sell to you!! ;) Hi docrob57,
Did you see my post? #51 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1067045&postcount=51)

The spiritually dead are not without ability to choose since that would negate God even being able to bring them to a place where they could respond in faith to His truth. Just because man has a will that is limited by God, he is still free within those limits to choose for himself. If it were not so, then what you are proposing is that God zaps men to faith against their will. For one to be made willing requires a cooperation and response from the zappee. This is the impossible thing that only God can do in a man's heart - change his mind. He doesn't coerce the dead man, He woos him. You cannot make me love you, but by loving me you may be able to get me to respond in the same manner. One need not be a Calvinist nor an Arminian in order to grasp these things. We love Him because He first loved us! It is when the knowledge of that truth is made known to us that we then have an opportunity to believe it. And God in His sovereignty makes that opportunity come about.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 08:45 PM
That's a question that has been asked before ... and I have yet to see an answer other than something to the effect of "I wanted to and he didn't" ... which isn't really an answer :rolleyes:

It is really a critical question, because whether the synergist wants to admit it or not, there can be no other answer then that they beleive there is something good within them that responds to God which is not present in others.

I don't say that to be critical, but there really is no other logical answer.

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:45 PM
God said to Adam, "You are free to eat of any tree in the garden but ofthe tree in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat."

paraphrase again. You are free to make any choices you desire but if you choose to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, you will surely die.

meaning. Its up to you. but here is what will happen to you if you choose to disobey me.

God did not restrict our freedom in anyway.
Yes, Adam was free.

But since Adam was humanities first representative, and chose to enslave himself to the sin of disobedience, unless you disregard the doctrine of original sin, you too are enslaved to sin. Where is the freedom in slavery?

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 08:47 PM
ahhhh... Thank you toolman.

Man does participate..........

FiniNotice that Toolman said that his own regenerated will participates. It takes God to first regenerate for man to respond. Does God regenerate everyone?

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 08:48 PM
Hi docrob57,
Did you see my post? #51 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1067045&postcount=51)

If it were not so, then what you are proposing is that God zaps men to faith against their will.

First, though I wish I could take credit for it, it really isn't me who proposes this. And that in fact IS what I am saying! THough I might word it a bit differently.

Mograce2U
Dec 1st 2006, 08:55 PM
First, though I wish I could take credit for it, it really isn't me who proposes this. And that in fact IS what I am saying! THough I might word it a bit differently.Then perhaps you need to go back to the Garden and read your bible again! ;) I don't find that testimony there nor does it match my own testimony. If your doctrine doesn't fit my experience which am I supposed to question?

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 09:01 PM
Then perhaps you need to go back to the Garden and read your bible again! ;) I don't find that testimony there nor does it match my own testimony. If your doctrine doesn't fit my experience which am I supposed to question?

If the doctrine is Biblical, then of course you must question your experience!

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 09:02 PM
If your doctrine doesn't fit my experience which am I supposed to question?
Your experience .....

We should never equate truth to what we experience.

Mograce2U
Dec 1st 2006, 09:06 PM
Your experience .....

We should never equate truth to what we experience.


"For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."

1 Thess 1:4-5
That is my experience.

qbee
Dec 1st 2006, 09:22 PM
...................... OK back to the topic :)

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 09:38 PM
...................... OK back to the topic :)

Before we get back to the topic, let me just say that it is a great joy to "meet" some of my Reformed brethren on this board. There appears to be somewhat of a resurgence of the reformed faith going on, and that is a great thing.

I am also very happy to meet my Arminian brethren here. I would be even more happy if you weren't so darned annoying! ;)

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 09:43 PM
It is really a critical question, because whether the synergist wants to admit it or not, there can be no other answer then that they beleive there is something good within them that responds to God which is not present in others.

I don't say that to be critical, but there really is no other logical answer.

I wouldn't say there is good in some and not others. We are equal in God's eyes. The measure of faith He has given each person should be developed.
God told Adam after the fall, he would have to till the ground. Meaning his own soil/soul. Keeping out stones and weeds to clutter up the things of God in humanities nous.

God created us with potential. There is that noetic factor that He relates to us thru.;)

And since He created everything good, there must be potential for good also within us. He brings out the best in us.

Toolman
Dec 1st 2006, 09:49 PM
I wouldn't say there is good in some and not others. We are equal in God's eyes. The measure of faith He has given each person should be developed.
God told Adam after the fall, he would have to till the ground. Meaning his own soil/soul. Keeping out stones and weeds to clutter up the things of God in humanities nous.

God created us with potential. There is that noetic factor that He relates to us thru.;)

And since He created everything good, there must be potential for good also within us. He brings out the best in us.

And here we see the "rub" once again between the Augustine/Pelagian mindsets.

One sees the absolute depravity of man and his sinfulness against God. Which is biblical.

The other sees something of worth and beauty in man, created in God's image, that has inherent worth to God evidenced by the death of His Son. Which is biblical.

Is there a balance between the two? Can it be found? Do I have a clue what I'm talking about? :)

Just an observance. Take it for what it's worth.

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 09:50 PM
Granted, it doesn't say "spiritually dead." But that phrase would seem to be synonymous for "dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked."

I am writing a book on this, by the way, which when/if it gets published I will be happy to sell to you!! ;)

It makes a difference as the word nekros (noun and adjective) can have different meanings depending on how it is used in different connections.

docrob57
Dec 1st 2006, 10:04 PM
It makes a difference as the word nekros (noun and adjective) can have different meanings depending on how it is used in different connections.

Okay, well tell us more!

Pleroo
Dec 1st 2006, 10:07 PM
And here we see the "rub" once again between the Augustine/Pelagian mindsets.

One sees the absolute depravity of man and his sinfulness against God. Which is biblical.

The other sees something of worth and beauty in man, created in God's image, that has inherent worth to God evidenced by the death of His Son. Which is biblical.

Is there a balance between the two? Can it be found? Do I have a clue what I'm talking about? :)



Is there? Can it? Do you? Do share. :)

Toolman
Dec 1st 2006, 10:21 PM
Is there? Can it? Do you? Do share. :)

I think so. If there is I'm sure it can. Probably not. :)

I'm really just thinking out loud Pleroo, that it seems to me that the Church has historically been divided, to one extent or another, on one side or the other on this issue of man's depravity (unworthiness) and man's worth (created in God's image), expressed here by Doc and Teke.

It seems to me there is biblical truth on both sides and serious ditches to fall into if either is taken too far, at the neglect of the other. I can only personally try to find a balance between what I believe are those biblical truths as I strive to grow in knowledge of Him and His grace.

When I read men like Edwards proclaiming that God abhors people as one would a spider, I see a ditch. When I read others who say we are inherently good or even divine, I see a ditch.

As I allow my theology to flow through the revelation of Christ (what Luther meant by his Theology of the Cross I believe) then I can't help but see that yes we are a sin enslaved people, willfully so, who are as lost as Cooter Brown (as we say it here in Texas ;)) but I also see that we are a creation created in His image that He loves (all not a few IMO) and finds worth dying for. Of course worth of a creation always ties back to the creator but nonetheless there is worth there.

Ramble ramble.

Hope some of that makes some sense :blush:

RogerW
Dec 1st 2006, 10:42 PM
Greetings,

When a person believes man has free will it is important to try and help them to understand that God is sovereign in every area of life, including salvation. One way that has helped some to better see this is telling them that the Bible says that God commands all men to believe (Acts 16:31; Ro. 10:9). But, the Bible also says that it is impossible for any man to believe (Ro. 3:10). How then can anyone believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation?

God must enable us if we will believe, He does this through His Word.

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Ro 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The Word is the power unto life to all who believe.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

But the preached Word must be mixed with faith in order to profit the hearer. Yet, not all who hear the preached Word receive faith to believe.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Faith is given through grace, and it does not come from us. It is the gift of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

The only ones who receive this gift of faith through grace are those who are given to the Son from the Father.

Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

These are all whom were chosen before the foundation of the world, and predestined to receive eternal life.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

We are predestined according to the purpose of God, Who works all things according to HIS WILL.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

When one receives faith to believe it is not because we received, or accepted it. It is Christ Who seeks and accepts us, and this is how we should state it. Christ came to seek His lost sheep. He received and accepted me, and this is how I describe my salvation.

Hope this helps.

RW

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 11:05 PM
Okay, well tell us more!

Just look at the dative. I'm not trying to convince you.
Decide if it is a dative of reference or respect or more likely cause or instrumentality, which would be a much better fit.

In english we would say, as good as dead. Not meaning your dead, but you will be, as your heading in that general direction.

humbled
Dec 1st 2006, 11:07 PM
Just look at the dative. I'm not trying to convince you.
Decide if it is a dative of reference or respect or more likely cause or instrumentality, which would be a much better fit.

In english we would say, as good as dead. Not meaning your dead, but you will be, as your heading in that general direction.What is the difference between "as good as dead in sins" and "dead in sins"?

Either you ARE or you are NOT dead in sins. Before you were born again, were you spiritually alive?

This seems to me to be an attempt to minimize the sinfulness of mankind before regeneration. Perhaps it is not your intent, but that's how it looks.

Blessings

Teke
Dec 1st 2006, 11:31 PM
What is the difference between "as good as dead in sins" and "dead in sins"?

Either you ARE or you are NOT dead in sins. Before you were born again, were you spiritually alive?

This seems to me to be an attempt to minimize the sinfulness of mankind before regeneration. Perhaps it is not your intent, but that's how it looks.

Blessings



Why does it have to be an either or. Pauls usage is in the sense of both at the same time, like in Romans 5 (I think).

So answer how we are both dead and alive in Christ. Paul uses this same type of thought in his letters.

SonAdore
Dec 1st 2006, 11:32 PM
**SonAdore grumbles for missing the conversation 5 pages back***


I think its gone to far for me to catch up, so enjoy yourselves. See ya around the block!

ProjectPeter
Dec 1st 2006, 11:54 PM
That's a question that has been asked before ... and I have yet to see an answer other than something to the effect of "I wanted to and he didn't" ... which isn't really an answer :rolleyes: What does it prove? I mean same can be said why do you choose Ford and I choose Chevy? What man chooses he chooses for a variety of reasons and there isn't one answer to that. Like I have asked... why do some heathens choose to murder, rape, pillage and burn and others choose not to do things that way? Are they just "more good" than the other heathen?

The question isn't valid in that there is no answer that fits every person other than what Paul said in Romans. They refused to acknowledge Him as God even though they knew God. And he gave them over to.... and over to.... and then ultimately some are given over to a reprobate mind.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:48 AM
What does it prove? I mean same can be said why do you choose Ford and I choose Chevy? What man chooses he chooses for a variety of reasons and there isn't one answer to that. Like I have asked... why do some heathens choose to murder, rape, pillage and burn and others choose not to do things that way? Are they just "more good" than the other heathen?

The question isn't valid in that there is no answer that fits every person other than what Paul said in Romans. They refused to acknowledge Him as God even though they knew God. And he gave them over to.... and over to.... and then ultimately some are given over to a reprobate mind.Well Ken, if it's such a simple, innocent question, you should have no problem answering it ... even if it doesn't prove anything.

But your examples here merely sidestep the question. Choosing the light over the darkness when we are blind and hate the light is not the same as choosing a car.

Choosing life when we are dead ... and dead men are incapable of raising themselves from the dead (Lazarus) ... is not the same thing as comparing one unregenerated heathen's level of sin to another's.

So why does one person acknowledge Him as God and another doesn't? If you cannot answer it then that's cool.

But to be fair to you, I don't choose Ford .. I'm a Chevy man ;)

And one heathen will murder while another will not because one is 'less good' than another. Yes. Upbringing has a lot to do with it ... natural demeanor .. this is psychology 101 here, my man. But these are a FAR cry from choosing what the bible says men by their very nature don't want to choose.

So I ask you ... please ... can you answer the question? Will you? oh ... and be sure to provide Scripture references that says why some choose and others do not.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:53 AM
Why does it have to be an either or. Pauls usage is in the sense of both at the same time, like in Romans 5 (I think).

So answer how we are both dead and alive in Christ. Paul uses this same type of thought in his letters.I'm not sure I follow you here, Teke

Are you saying that we can be both alive and dead at the same time?

Now I'm no doctor ... but that just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't know of anyone who is dead AND alive in Christ ... I don't know of any Scripture that says so either. The closest I can think of is to be carnally minded ... or to think about the cares of this life. But that's a far cry from being dead (in Christ?).

If you could be more specific on your Scripture reference, I'd like to discuss it with you.

Grace and peace

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:54 AM
1 Peter 2:7, 8
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
"THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and,
"A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

ProjectPeter
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:01 AM
Well Ken, if it's such a simple, innocent question, you should have no problem answering it ... even if it doesn't prove anything.I said nothing about it being a simple question with a simple answer. I said it means nothing because people choose things for a variety of reasons.




But your examples here merely sidestep the question. Choosing the light over the darkness when we are blind and hate the light is not the same as choosing a car.

Choosing life when we are dead ... and dead men are incapable of raising themselves from the dead (Lazarus) ... is not the same thing as comparing one unregenerated heathen's level of sin to another's.

So why does one person acknowledge Him as God and another doesn't? If you cannot answer it then that's cool.It wasn't a sidestep at all. It was telling you, as I said earlier in the thread, that the question proves nothing nor would the answers because the answers would prove different for different people based on many different things.



But to be fair to you, I don't choose Ford .. I'm a Chevy man ;)

And one heathen will murder while another will not because one is 'less good' than another. Yes. Upbringing has a lot to do with it ... natural demeanor .. this is psychology 101 here, my man. But these are a FAR cry from choosing what the bible says men by their very nature don't want to choose.

So I ask you ... please ... can you answer the question? Will you? oh ... and be sure to provide Scripture references that says why some choose and others do not.You have answered your own question John. If upbringing effects a persons being "more good" than another... then they have something "more good" in them than the other. There is one example that you yourself have given in answer to your own question.

As to Scripture... it just says they have to choose life or death. As to why... as I said before.... there are many reasons I figure.

Mograce2U
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:13 AM
Greetings,

When a person believes man has free will it is important to try and help them to understand that God is sovereign in every area of life, including salvation. One way that has helped some to better see this is telling them that the Bible says that God commands all men to believe (Acts 16:31; Ro. 10:9). But, the Bible also says that it is impossible for any man to believe (Ro. 3:10). How then can anyone believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation?

God must enable us if we will believe, He does this through His Word.

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Ro 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The Word is the power unto life to all who believe.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

But the preached Word must be mixed with faith in order to profit the hearer. Yet, not all who hear the preached Word receive faith to believe.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Faith is given through grace, and it does not come from us. It is the gift of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

The only ones who receive this gift of faith through grace are those who are given to the Son from the Father.

Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

These are all whom were chosen before the foundation of the world, and predestined to receive eternal life.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

We are predestined according to the purpose of God, Who works all things according to HIS WILL.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

When one receives faith to believe it is not because we received, or accepted it. It is Christ Who seeks and accepts us, and this is how we should state it. Christ came to seek His lost sheep. He received and accepted me, and this is how I describe my salvation.

Hope this helps.I think it does :)

SonAdore
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:13 AM
Bare with me in this and consider my thinking.... though it may be just thinking and not truth.

We enter heaven and for the first time we are confronted with all the errors in our thinking. We are so overwhelmed with the arrogant words we speak as if we hold the truth and all others are somehow decieved. God must confront us and humble us and show us.. just how ill prepared and ignorant we are to his ways.... and we fall flat on our faces in humble surrender. Within that instant, he comforts us, changes us, and removes our shame.

Consider this because I think we are all.. full of arrogant misunderstandings and all his ways are past finding out.

and though this may be just a hypothetical confuzzlement, dont you ever wonder how much of what you say, is actually a misunderstanding on your part instead of the person your trying to convince?

kind of humbling already isnt it?

ProjectPeter
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:18 AM
1 Peter 2:7, 8
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
"THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and,
"A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
Prophecy and fulfilled prophecy to boot.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:29 AM
In some of the replys in this thread, I see a certain few claiming to be synergists, and then a few others claiming to be monergists, and this in my opinion is what creates the confusion.

Both Monergism and Synergism play a part in the process of conversion.

Monergism is in effect until a person is regenerated. Once a person has been monergistically regenerated, then begins the part where synergism plays a part. Each individual has to synergistically repent and believe. That is the point where synergism takes place.

In Regeneration, God confers the power to repent and turn, conversion is the exercise of that power. Regeneration makes conversion possible.

And I probably should add regeneration is not the same thing as conversion. They are two separate terms, with separate and differing definitions

SonAdore
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:38 AM
Both Monergism and Synergism play a part in the process of conversion.

I never heard of either of them.

I think I would rather be like Paul. I determine to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified..........

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:41 AM
I said nothing about it being a simple question with a simple answer. I said it means nothing because people choose things for a variety of reasons.

It wasn't a sidestep at all. It was telling you, as I said earlier in the thread, that the question proves nothing nor would the answers because the answers would prove different for different people based on many different things. Sorry about the implication, then. I simply thought you were avoiding an answer for some reason. Guess I was mistaken!


You have answered your own question John. If upbringing effects a persons being "more good" than another... then they have something "more good" in them than the other. There is one example that you yourself have given in answer to your own question. No actually I have not answered anything about salvation in any way whatsoever. It is a given that there are 'more good' people and 'less good' people in the world, and it is a given that upbringing has a lot to do with that outward social behavior.

As for good in the eyes of God ... there are none who do good in the eyes of God but Jesus Christ. Anything not done in faith is sin. Without faith it is impossible to even please Him.

So some people are more mean or less mean to other people on a horizontal plane depending on their own personality. ALL people are sinners and worthy of hell in the eyes of God ... and ALL would go if not for what? Ultimately ... what is the reason that some go to heaven? Is it because, in the final analysis, they chose Christ?


As to Scripture... it just says they have to choose life or death. As to why... as I said before.... there are many reasons I figure.Yes, Scripture does command us to choose, and it does command us to repent and believe ... does an imperative necessitate ability? Can you say that because someone tells you to do something, that you are automatically able to do it? And don't wiggle out with the 'fairness' card. Try to be completely objective in your reply (if you choose to do so ;))

And as for reasons, name one -- just one ... maybe your reason.

pal
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:47 AM
God gave us a freedom of choice, but not necessarily a free will by any means. That is, we are free to make choices and decisions, but those choices are only bound to circumstances and experiences beyond our control, but totally within God's control. And because God knows in advance the choices that we will make, He Himself is in sovereign control of all choices that we make.

Adam did not "choose"' or "will" to be created. He did not choose to be placed in the garden of Eden. He did not choose to share the garden with the serpent. He did not create the serpent. He did not choose to possess eyes and a heart that desired to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He did not create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil make it to be pleasing to the human eye. However, he did choose to eat from the tree.

So, Adam's choice to eat from the tree was caused by many circumstances outside of his will and control. Hence, no free will for Adam.

These were all circumstances brought about by God the creator. Of course God knew in advance that Adam would disobey the command. Therefore, Adam eating from the tree, though he was commanded to do otherwise, was right in accord with God's divine purpose, intention, and plan.

The most convincing scripture that shows the truth of this point is found in Romans 8:

19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it

God also orchestrates circumstances to change our will, without us even realizing it. This is another example of how we don't possess free will.

The best example I can think of for this truth is Saul/Paul. Saul's will was by no means in accord with God's will. Saul's will was to "breathe out murderous threats" against the disciples, and to persecute and imprison followers of Christ. That was Saul's will. So, did Saul, by his own free will, choose to become an apostle of Jesus Christ? Of course not!

Saul would have kept right on doing what he had been doing if had not been God's will to convert him on the road to Dimascus. Did Saul make a choice to follow and obey Christ? He sure did. But that choice was only available to him because it was God's will to make it available to him. And since God already knew beforehand that Saul would choose to serve him, it was God who brought about the circumstances necessary in order for Saul to choose to follow him.

So no free will for us. We have freedom of choice, but every choice we make is in conjuction with God's ultimate plan and purpose.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 02:52 AM
Bare with me in this and consider my thinking.... though it may be just thinking and not truth.

We enter heaven and for the first time we are confronted with all the errors in our thinking. We are so overwhelmed with the arrogant words we speak as if we hold the truth and all others are somehow decieved. God must confront us and humble us and show us.. just how ill prepared and ignorant we are to his ways.... and we fall flat on our faces in humble surrender. Within that instant, he comforts us, changes us, and removes our shame.

Consider this because I think we are all.. full of arrogant misunderstandings and all his ways are past finding out.

and though this may be just a hypothetical confuzzlement, dont you ever wonder how much of what you say, is actually a misunderstanding on your part instead of the person your trying to convince?

kind of humbling already isnt it?I appreciate the sentiment here, my friend.

But I don't think that we will feel shame when we see our God face to face. Our shame was nailed to the cross 2000 years ago .. along with our sin.

As for arrogance and error in doctrine, well ... all of that is sin. Again, nailed to the cross.

We will bow down in gratitude and adoration before our Lord ... not shame, I would think.

1 John 3:2

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

Amen!

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:00 AM
I never heard of either of them.


Basically and simply

Monergism means God alone is at work

Synergism means man is co-operating with God

Both are true. The question therefore is at which point is monergism true, and at which point does synergism become true

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:08 AM
In some of the replys in this thread, I see a certain few claiming to be synergists, and then a few others claiming to be monergists, and this in my opinion is what creates the confusion.

Both Monergism and Synergism play a part in the process of conversion.

Monergism is in effect until a person is regenerated. Once a person has been monergistically regenerated, then begins the part where synergism plays a part. Each individual has to synergistically repent and believe. That is the point where synergism takes place.

In Regeneration, God confers the power to repent and turn, conversion is the exercise of that power. Regeneration makes conversion possible.

And I probably should add regeneration is not the same thing as conversion. They are two separate terms, with separate and differing definitionsI agree with you here completely :)

This leads me to ask you two questions ... (1) do you believe that everyone is regenerated ? (2) do you believe that once someone is regenerated, that they can or even would want to reject God? (I'm not speaking of 'losing salvation' but initially ... when they are first regenerated)

Mograce2U
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:08 AM
Basically and simply

Monergism means God alone is at work

Synergism means man is co-operating with God

Both are true. The question therefore is at which point is monergism true, and at which point does synergism become trueAt the point when the man responds in faith - then it is known to him as well.

SonAdore
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:15 AM
I appreciate the sentiment here, my friend.

But I don't think that we will feel shame when we see our God face to face. Our shame was nailed to the cross 2000 years ago .. along with our sin.

As for arrogance and error in doctrine, well ... all of that is sin. Again, nailed to the cross.

We will bow down in gratitude and adoration before our Lord ... not shame, I would think.

1 John 3:2

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

Amen!

Of course...

and this probably will do best in another thread... But am I alone in this feeling that we waste alot of time haggling over words, and having the higher learning, or use of bigger words, when we should be thinking of the Spirit and not the words.....

I for one get really tired of the endless battle over words and the idea that I need to broaden your understanding because quite frankly, you dont know as much as I do... attitude.

:D

or am I alone in this sentiment?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:21 AM
I agree with you here completely :)

This leads me to ask you two questions ... (1) do you believe that everyone is regenerated ? (2) do you believe that once someone is regenerated, that they can or even would want to reject God? (I'm not speaking of 'losing salvation' but initially ... when they are first regenerated)

Concerning question 1 - Yes
John 1:9 He was the true Light which enlightens every person coming into the world.

On question 2 - Yes
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Regenerating grace is irresistable, grace to believe is resistable.

ProjectPeter
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:40 AM
Sorry about the implication, then. I simply thought you were avoiding an answer for some reason. Guess I was mistaken!

No actually I have not answered anything about salvation in any way whatsoever. It is a given that there are 'more good' people and 'less good' people in the world, and it is a given that upbringing has a lot to do with that outward social behavior.

As for good in the eyes of God ... there are none who do good in the eyes of God but Jesus Christ. Anything not done in faith is sin. Without faith it is impossible to even please Him.

So some people are more mean or less mean to other people on a horizontal plane depending on their own personality. ALL people are sinners and worthy of hell in the eyes of God ... and ALL would go if not for what? Ultimately ... what is the reason that some go to heaven? Is it because, in the final analysis, they chose Christ?

Yes, Scripture does command us to choose, and it does command us to repent and believe ... does an imperative necessitate ability? Can you say that because someone tells you to do something, that you are automatically able to do it? And don't wiggle out with the 'fairness' card. Try to be completely objective in your reply (if you choose to do so ;))

And as for reasons, name one -- just one ... maybe your reason.Well if it was already chosen... there would be no need for anyone to choose. They either would obey or they wouldn't obey. And yes... they either receive Him or they reject Him.

John 12:46 "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.
47 "And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.
50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:59 AM
Concerning question 1 - Yes
John 1:9 He was the true Light which enlightens every person coming into the world.

On question 2 - Yes
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Regenerating grace is irresistable, grace to believe is resistable.Thank you for your replies.

I do not believe enlightenment and regeneration are the same thing. Enlightenment is the giving of knowledge (Hebrews speaks on this) but not the giving of spiritual life (IMO).

Grace and peace

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 04:06 AM
Well if it was already chosen... there would be no need for anyone to choose. They either would obey or they wouldn't obey. And yes... they either receive Him or they reject Him.

John 12:46 "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.
47 "And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.
50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."I have no problem with what you say here, but the answer to my questions are where exactly?

I can't make sense out of your reply either way ... (maybe its the pain killers) but what do you mean "if it was already chosen"? It just seems inconsistent to our discussion since I asked you why some choose and others don't and if ability is implied in a command. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

Here are the questions:

Does an imperative necessitate ability?

What is one reason men choose Christ -- perhaps you would be willing to share yours?

Thanks

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 04:10 AM
Of course...

and this probably will do best in another thread... But am I alone in this feeling that we waste alot of time haggling over words, and having the higher learning, or use of bigger words, when we should be thinking of the Spirit and not the words.....

I for one get really tired of the endless battle over words and the idea that I need to broaden your understanding because quite frankly, you dont know as much as I do... attitude.

:D

or am I alone in this sentiment?You're not alone, my friend. I have struggled with arrogance (and still do at times) but one thing I know for sure ...

iron sharpens iron, and I have grown far more by discussions on this and other boards than by anything else.

There's a place for this in our growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Good points, tho ... it can be tough sometimes being humble and respectful, especially since text is rather difficult to get 'tone of voice' across ... plus body language is missed.

But we make due and I think the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Grace and peace my friend

ProjectPeter
Dec 2nd 2006, 04:41 AM
I have no problem with what you say here, but the answer to my questions are where exactly? There... you just can't see them. ;)



I can't make sense out of your reply either way ... (maybe its the pain killers) but what do you mean "if it was already chosen"? It just seems inconsistent to our discussion since I asked you why some choose and others don't and if ability is implied in a command. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

If God already set this in place by putting you in the elect pile and putting Billy in the fire pile... then there is no choice necessary. That would truly be like me not being able to choose to be born or what color my eyes are or etc. etc. It would just be. I am not offered those choices either because there is no choosing those things that are already chosen for me.




Here are the questions:

Does an imperative necessitate ability?Translate? If you are asking does a command force one's ability to do something... not necessarily but possibly. Depends on how that is being used and the context of it. If I command a group of trained soldiers to take out a bunker then sure. But if I did the same with the little league baseball team... no. I figure there is a lot of logical mumbo-jumbo that a person could run with that... but it ultimately don't mean nothing if you can't back it up with the Book eh?



What is one reason men choose Christ -- perhaps you would be willing to share yours?

ThanksYou know I won't share mine so not sure why you are making it a point to ask. I don't critique other people's testimony and I am not going to put mine out here for folks to pick it apart. That's off limits in my eyes and you've been around long enough to know that John.

As to a reason men choose... they believe.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:05 AM
There... you just can't see them. ;)Would you be so kind as to point them out for me? Cuz I looked ... and honestly don't see it.




If God already set this in place by putting you in the elect pile and putting Billy in the fire pile... then there is no choice necessary. That would truly be like me not being able to choose to be born or what color my eyes are or etc. etc. It would just be. I am not offered those choices either because there is no choosing those things that are already chosen for me.Do you deny that Scripture speaks of election?


Translate? If you are asking does a command force one's ability to do something... not necessarily but possibly. Depends on how that is being used and the context of it. If I command a group of trained soldiers to take out a bunker then sure. But if I did the same with the little league baseball team... no. I figure there is a lot of logical mumbo-jumbo that a person could run with that... but it ultimately don't mean nothing if you can't back it up with the Book eh?It is all supported with Scripture. And if you consider logic to be 'mumbo-jumbo' then that's your loss. It's irrefutable.


You know I won't share mine so not sure why you are making it a point to ask. I don't critique other people's testimony and I am not going to put mine out here for folks to pick it apart. That's off limits in my eyes and you've been around long enough to know that John.I had no idea that you were unwilling to share your testimony, Ken. Sorry I asked! I wasn't trying to cross any boundaries with that question, honestly. I just figured that you said there were many reasons that people choose ... I asked for one that I knew you would know for sure so you wouldn't play the 'I'm not gonna speculate' card ;)


As to a reason men choose... they believe.Why does one person believe while another does not? Just smarter? Was the gospel explained more clearly to them?

There has to be a reason. Scripture says what the reason is ...

poppa_50
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:23 AM
To go outside of God's will is sin. It is hardly "freeing". It is an illusion. This is the state of natural man. He thinks he has the right to live as he pleases.

The girl in Luke 8 was raised from the dead by Jesus. I do not see our Lord reaching out to her, "If you could only accept Me, I could do something for you if you wanted me too. Participate just a little!"

She was dead. He could have waited a thousand years and she would still be dead. At what point did the little girl accept Christ? When someone brings you back to life, is there anything but WOW! I owe you EVERYTHING. I don't think you begin thinking in terms of a "cognitive free will construct" because you feel left out.

Not even Jesus had "free will" in the truest sense. I know this is really pushing here. But the simple point is that He came to do the will of His Father. Even as Lord, He was obedient to the will of the Father. He was not "free" to do His own thing and follow His will before the Father's.

Adam did not have free will in the sense that he was bound to either obedience or consequence. When your father told you to obey him, did you tell him about your free will? 'Hmmmm....let me think about that one and I'll get back to you." KAPOWWW!!!! How about that you are a free agent and can do anything you want? That is when he told you, "SON, as long as you are in my house, you will do what I say." Choosing obedience or consequence is not what I call free will. It is called living at home versus living on the street.

Again, where is man ever in a state of independence that he is a free agent, not bound by obedience or consequence, not bound to God or Satan?

Look at Abraham. He had to learn to die to himself and self-will. When he tried to help God out, it was a huge disaster. He told lies. He rejected Sarah as his wife because he feared man. Free will at its best. Then he came up with the brilliant idea. God needs our help. He wants a son. Let's give Him one. Great idea. NOTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

The appointed son was to come from Sarah. God waited for Abraham to be a "good as dead" so it would be shown that his son was born not by flesh but by the will of God. Sound familiar?

"Is anything to difficult for the Lord?"

Every puppet imagines there are no strings. It is their creed. Obedience or consequence. Those are the strings. How else will we get to the place where God is "all in all"? When WE let Him be God?

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:21 PM
I'm not sure I follow you here, Teke

Are you saying that we can be both alive and dead at the same time?

Yes, that is what scripture teaches.


Now I'm no doctor ... but that just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't know of anyone who is dead AND alive in Christ ... I don't know of any Scripture that says so either. The closest I can think of is to be carnally minded ... or to think about the cares of this life. But that's a far cry from being dead (in Christ?).

If you could be more specific on your Scripture reference, I'd like to discuss it with you.

Grace and peace

You don't have to be a doctor to understand that scripture says your either alive to sin and dead to Christ, or alive to Christ and dead to sin.
I'm sure you understood what your baptism meant, right. That your dead to sin, and raised alive in Christ. Before your baptism it was the other way around.

Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:2, says, God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:4 says, not only are you dead, but buried as well.
This all started with the Ephesians 2 verse. But it is trademark of Paul to speak this way in his letters.

So this isn't complicated. What do you not understand?

Do you believe we are dead, then brought to life to die again and be raised with Christ? Cause I don't think the scriptures are gonna justify that view.;)

Jalopy
Dec 2nd 2006, 01:39 PM
POPPA to say that Jesus didnt have a free will you miss the whole point of the Gospel. What was this whole deal about in the garden of Gethsemane? Was Jesus just play acting? You must understand that Jesus could have got up and went back to his disciples and said ...come on boys ..lets go fishing. But He didnt..He choose to go to the cross to save our worthless hides from eternal damnation. And to answer another question ask here as why we choose Jesus...because we understand that and believe that Jesus choose the cross for us personally.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:14 PM
I do not believe enlightenment and regeneration are the same thing. Enlightenment is the giving of knowledge (Hebrews speaks on this) but not the giving of spiritual life (IMO).


Are you referring to the following text from Hebrews
Heb 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;

Secondly, when you say that "Enlightenment is the giving of knowledge" what type of knowledge are you referring to?

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:22 PM
What does it prove? I mean same can be said why do you choose Ford and I choose Chevy? What man chooses he chooses for a variety of reasons and there isn't one answer to that. Like I have asked... why do some heathens choose to murder, rape, pillage and burn and others choose not to do things that way? Are they just "more good" than the other heathen?

The question isn't valid in that there is no answer that fits every person other than what Paul said in Romans. They refused to acknowledge Him as God even though they knew God. And he gave them over to.... and over to.... and then ultimately some are given over to a reprobate mind.

It proves much more than you apparently realize. If you insist on free will, and you insist that you make a free choice to receive Christ as Savior, then in MUST, of necessity, follow that you claim superiority to those who do not make this free will choice. In this, you would have reason to boast in yourself and not in Christ, which Paul teaches against throughout his epistles.

Even worse, your free choice is clearly a "work." Arminians tend to claim that we are saved by faith not works, except for this one. Aside from the problem of putting forward at least a partially works-based salvation, this also raises the question of, if you are capable of this one good work, why not others? And you start sliding toward Pelagianism.

IMHO, the reason Arminians cling to free will is ultimately a pride issue. They do not want to admit their total dependency on God. Now, we all have sin issues, including pride issues, and in recognizing these we rejoice that we have a Savior. But this Arminian issue is at least one that is readily recognizable and which, when recognized, can be prayerfully overcome.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 03:26 PM
Bare with me in this and consider my thinking.... though it may be just thinking and not truth.

We enter heaven and for the first time we are confronted with all the errors in our thinking. We are so overwhelmed with the arrogant words we speak as if we hold the truth and all others are somehow decieved. God must confront us and humble us and show us.. just how ill prepared and ignorant we are to his ways.... and we fall flat on our faces in humble surrender. Within that instant, he comforts us, changes us, and removes our shame.

Consider this because I think we are all.. full of arrogant misunderstandings and all his ways are past finding out.

and though this may be just a hypothetical confuzzlement, dont you ever wonder how much of what you say, is actually a misunderstanding on your part instead of the person your trying to convince?

kind of humbling already isnt it?

I can see where this would be really embarrassing for those of you whose thinking is in error!! ;)

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 04:36 PM
If you insist on free will, and you insist that you make a free choice to receive Christ as Savior, then in MUST, of necessity, follow that you claim superiority to those who do not make this free will choice.

Acts 16:30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved

God does not believe for us, but commands us to personally believe.
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ

Likewise, God does not repent for us, but commands us to personally repent.
Acts 17:30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent.

As far as I know, commands demand a response. The individual response can be to either obey or disobey. Those are the two obvious choices.

If there were no human will, there would be no need for such commands.

We don't "claim superiority to those who do not make this free will choice." as you suggest. They use their human will to reject the universal offer of salvation.

If God ordains everything, then following that logic, He would be the author of sin as well.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 04:53 PM
Acts 16:30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved

God does not believe for us, but commands us to personally believe.
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ

Likewise, God does not repent for us, but commands us to personally repent.
Acts 17:30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent.

As far as I know, commands demand a response. The individual response can be to either obey or disobey. Those are the two obvious choices.

If there were no human will, there would be no need for such commands.

We don't "claim superiority to those who do not make this free will choice." as you suggest. They use their human will to reject the universal offer of salvation.

If God ordains everything, then following that logic, He would be the author of sin as well.

Let's hold off on ordaining sin for now.

God commands us not to murder, not to commit adultery, etc. Taking into consideration the Sermon on the Mount, can we, of our own free will, obey these commands?

Mograce2U
Dec 2nd 2006, 05:23 PM
Let's hold off on ordaining sin for now.

God commands us not to murder, not to commit adultery, etc. Taking into consideration the Sermon on the Mount, can we, of our own free will, obey these commands?It would seem that DSK has a point. We know that law stimulates the sinfulness of man. Paul said he would not have known covetousness except that the law said do not covet. Because the law is holy it makes the sinfulness of sin greater, and brings us knowledge of what is wrong in God's sight. This is part of how God gives us knowledge of Himself. When we disobey we incur guilt and our conscience is defiled - and we know we have done wrong. Consequences also work in bringing this knowledge to pass. God presents the remedy to the man who sorrows over his sinful condition and asks for mercy. This is the response that is evoked by God in man. God utilizes the free will He has given to man to bring him to the place where a choice can be made.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 05:31 PM
Yes, that is what scripture teaches.


You don't have to be a doctor to understand that scripture says your either alive to sin and dead to Christ, or alive to Christ and dead to sin.
I'm sure you understood what your baptism meant, right. That your dead to sin, and raised alive in Christ. Before your baptism it was the other way around.

Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:2, says, God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:4 says, not only are you dead, but buried as well.
This all started with the Ephesians 2 verse. But it is trademark of Paul to speak this way in his letters.

So this isn't complicated. What do you not understand?

Do you believe we are dead, then brought to life to die again and be raised with Christ? Cause I don't think the scriptures are gonna justify that view.;)When you put it that way, it makes sense what you were trying to say. I thought you meant we could be both spiritually alive and dead at the same time. (alive AND dead to Christ) ... but alive to Christ dead to sin is absolutely true ...

Next time just say what you mean :P

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 05:45 PM
Are you referring to the following text from Hebrews
Heb 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;

Secondly, when you say that "Enlightenment is the giving of knowledge" what type of knowledge are you referring to?I was actually speaking of this part:

Hebrews 5:11 - 6:6

11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.

14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

6:1-6

1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

3 And this we will do, if God permits.

4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

You see, these hebrews were given the knowledge of the elementary principles of Christ. They were told about who He is and what He has done and what they need to do. But they fell away from that knowledge when they didn't believe. Now, without getting into one's eternal security (which this doesn't speak of, anyway), I am just saying that you can be given knowledge without being regenerated. I believe that is likely one of the first mistakes you are making which leads you to believe that salvation can be lost. Many people are enlightened (given knowledge) but not responsive to that knowledge ... so they are not regenerated.

Regeneration would be shown if they believed. Unbelief demonstrates that a person is unregenerated.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:00 PM
Many people are enlightened (given knowledge) but not responsive to that knowledge ...

What sort of knowledge were they given?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:02 PM
Let's hold off on ordaining sin for now.

God commands us not to murder, not to commit adultery, etc. Taking into consideration the Sermon on the Mount, can we, of our own free will, obey these commands?

If we can't make a choice then why the command to repent and believe?

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:05 PM
It would seem that DSK has a point. We know that law stimulates the sinfulness of man. Paul said he would not have known covetousness except that the law said do not covet. Because the law is holy it makes the sinfulness of sin greater, and brings us knowledge of what is wrong in God's sight. This is part of how God gives us knowledge of Himself. When we disobey we incur guilt and our conscience is defiled - and we know we have done wrong. Consequences also work in bringing this knowledge to pass. God presents the remedy to the man who sorrows over his sinful condition and asks for mercy. This is the response that is evoked by God in man. God utilizes the free will He has given to man to bring him to the place where a choice can be made.Man's will is free to the extent that we are given the freedom to do what we want to do.

Men WILL do what they WANT to do. I think the idea of 'autonomous free will' that many people try to ascribe to humanity is taken from the constitutional idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Men WANT to do whatever they want to do.

This is a fairly simple concept that people tend to overcomplicate. IF you want to SIN more than you want to OBEY God, you WILL sin. If you want to OBEY more than you want to SIN, you WILL obey.

So no matter what the choice is, 100% of the time, you WILL do what you WANT to do the most. If you are given a detestable choice between whether you or your spouse were to die (two choices you don't want) you still will choose the one you want more. For example, if you want your spouse to live ... you will choose to be the one to die.

Now you are not forced to make any of these choices (even the bad one) .. you are merely choosing what you want to do.

Man's will is in bondage to his desires. Plain and simple. A person who wants to sin is a slave to sin. A person who wants to obey God is a slave to righteousness.

So having said all this, if God left it up to unregenerated man who HATES God and is in love with the darkness, they would never choose God. Because they don't want to. God must come in and replace that heart of stone with a heart of flesh so that the person WANTS to obey and WANTS to follow. Then, and only then, they WILL.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:07 PM
What sort of knowledge were they given?


You see, these hebrews were given the knowledge of the elementary principles of Christ. They were told about who He is and what He has done and what they need to do......................

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:15 PM
You see, these hebrews were given the knowledge of the elementary principles of Christ. They were told about who He is and what He has done and what they need to do.

Could you please elaborate for us, on what you believe is meant by "the elementary principles of Christ?"

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:15 PM
If we can't make a choice then why the command to repent and believe?

No offense, but I will be happy to answer your question if you would be so kind as to answer mine.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:15 PM
If we can't make a choice then why the command to repent and believe?Would you say that ANYTHING God commands us to do is to be considered a Law? I sure would!

If the Law is only given to show us our sin (Rom 3:20) and as a tutor to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24) then why are the commands given to us?

The Law is NOT given with the express intention for us to obey ... but it is given just the same.

I am NOT saying ... I repeat ... I am NOT saying that we are not to obey the Law. What I AM saying (please read this) is that we are unable to obey unless and until the only one who DID obey dwells in us. It is not our righteousness that follows the Law, but Christ's righteousness living in us.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:19 PM
Could you please elaborate for us, on what you believe is meant by "the elementary principles of Christ?"Does this passage apply to you? Are you in need of being taught again the elementary principles of Christ?

Chapter 6 says explicitly what these elementary principles are.

1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

The elementary principles are the foundation on which we stand. What do these verses say that foundation is?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:22 PM
Would you say that ANYTHING God commands us to do is to be considered a Law? I sure would!

If the Law is only given to show us our sin (Rom 3:20) and as a tutor to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24) then why are the commands given to us?

The Law is NOT given with the express intention for us to obey ... but it is given just the same.

I am NOT saying ... I repeat ... I am NOT saying that we are not to obey the Law. What I AM saying (please read this) is that we are unable to obey unless and until the only one who DID obey dwells in us. It is not our righteousness that follows the Law, but Christ's righteousness living in us.

When you reply to me, you need to remember, I like you believe in total depravity, and like you I also believe that regeneration is monergistic and precedes faith.

So let me put it this way

1, Can an unregenerated man repent and believe?

2. Can a person be saved without repenting and believing?

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:39 PM
When you reply to me, you need to remember, I like you believe in total depravity, and like you I also believe that regeneration is monergistic and precedes faith.

So let me put it this way

1, Can an unregenerated man repent and believe? No.

2. Can a person be saved without repenting and believing? No.I don't know what your point is, DSK. This does not prove that all are regenerated. It only proves that you believe God to be "fair" according to your idea of fairness. God is only fair to those who go to hell. God is gracious by extending mercy to those whom He chooses to extend mercy upon.

Do you want God to be fair with you?

I sure don't! I want God to be merciful to me, a sinner.

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:49 PM
When you put it that way, it makes sense what you were trying to say. I thought you meant we could be both spiritually alive and dead at the same time. (alive AND dead to Christ) ... but alive to Christ dead to sin is absolutely true ...

Next time just say what you mean :P


What I mean, is what the scriptures mean.:spin:

Nobody is spiritually dead. You can't even exist without the spirit given by God for life. That which is given by God is your responsability once given. To be a holy spirit for God or an evil spirit for self. (this is a whole other subject folks get confused about)

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:50 PM
1, Can an unregenerated man repent and believe?

No, that is the whole point of the doctrine of total depravity.



2. Can a person be saved without repenting and believing?


No, and so I, and by your statement you, am (are) monergist.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:51 PM
I don't know what your point is, DSK.

Ok so we both agree with the following points............

1. Total Depravity
2. Regeneration Precedes faith
3. The unregenerate are unable to repent and believe
4. No person can be saved without first repenting and believing

Therefore would you say the commands to repent and believe must be directed to the regenerate?

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:52 PM
Ok so we both agree with the following points............

1. Total Depravity
2. Regeneration Precedes faith
3. The unregenerate are unable to repent and believe
4. No person can be saved without first repenting and believing

Therefore would you say the commands to repent and believe must be directed to the regenerate?
No, the command is universal.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:52 PM
What I mean, is what the scriptures mean.:spin:

Nobody is spiritually dead. You can't even exist without the spirit given by God for life. That which is given by God is your responsability once given. To be a holy spirit for God or an evil spirit for self. (this is a whole other subject folks get confused about)

To be "spiritually dead" means that you are spiritually separated from God. This is a core Christian belief. Adam "died" in the garden not physically but spiritually.

You are right, the other thing you said is confusing.

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:53 PM
No, the command is universal.

Cause Acts 17:30 was coming around the bend :)

watchinginawe
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:54 PM
If you insist on free will, and you insist that you make a free choice to receive Christ as Savior, then in MUST, of necessity, follow that you claim superiority to those who do not make this free will choice. In this, you would have reason to boast in yourself and not in Christ, which Paul teaches against throughout his epistles.I don't see it this way. Actually, it requires an inferiority to those who do not receive the Gospel.
Even worse, your free choice is clearly a "work."Not so. It is actually the recognition that no work will suffice and therefore receiving the gift of Jesus Christ and his work on our behalf. Does one have to receive Jesus Christ to be saved? Is that a work?
Arminians tend to claim that we are saved by faith not works, except for this one.
...
IMHO, the reason Arminians cling to free will is ultimately a pride issue. They do not want to admit their total dependency on God.Taking your "then in MUST, of necessity follow" line of reasoning, aren't you then claiming a superior position? Isn't that in fact "boasting"? Would my agreeing with your position then constitute a "work" on my part to come to the full understanding of the Gospel? How can you make your point without doing such? Wouldn't your point really have to go completely undisclosed by yourself for it not to be a "boast" and a "work"?

God Bless!

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:54 PM
No, that is the whole point of the doctrine of total depravity.

No, and so I, and by your statement you, am (are) monergist.

I believe regeneration is monergistic in nature
God never commands anyone to become regenerated

I believe in synergistic nature of repenting and believing
God however does command individuals to repent and believe

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:54 PM
No, the command is universal.

Exactly, only the regenerate can respond properly, but the command is universal. The command is as impossible for the unregenerate to obey as the command to not murder or not commit adultery.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:55 PM
No, the command is universal.

So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:58 PM
I believe regeneration is monergistic in nature
God never commands anyone to become regenerated

I believe in synergistic nature of repenting and believing
God however does command individuals to repent and believeI have no problem with this, actually.

Once we are regenerated, it IS our responsibility to obey by repenting and believing. But I am persuaded that all who are regenerated are willing to obey, and since our will is a slave to our desires (I have shown how this works in a previous post), men WILL do what they WANT to do ... God gives us a new heart. This heart now desires to obey God more than to sin. Therefore, the regenerated man WILL repent and believe. (faith is another topic altogether ... I believe it is activated upon regeneration, which is why unregenerated people do not believe).

God bless

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:58 PM
So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?

DSK,

Before God created each person does He have complete foreknowledge of their lives?

If He does then obviously He commands some to do something He well knows they will not do.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 06:58 PM
I don't see it this way. Actually, it requires an inferiority to those who do not receive the Gospel.Not so. It is actually the recognition that no work will suffice and therefore receiving the gift of Jesus Christ and his work on our behalf. Does one have to receive Jesus Christ to be saved? Is that a work?Taking your "then in MUST, of necessity follow" line of reasoning, aren't you then claiming a superior position? Isn't that in fact "boasting"? Would my agreeing with your position then constitute a "work" on my part to come to the full understanding of the Gospel? How can you make your point without doing such? Wouldn't your point really have to go completely undisclosed by yourself for it not to be a "boast" and a "work"?

God Bless!

I am, in fact, claiming a superior position!! And I further claim that there is no way in the world I could have come to this truth myself. It is the work of the Spirit that He for some reason and by His grace determined to allow me to understand. His decision had absolutely nothing to do with me or any merit within me, and I otherwise have no idea why the Spirit acted as He did with regard to me.

I am as a completely dependent child. So my boast is not in myself but in Christ.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:00 PM
Before God created each person does He have complete foreknowledge of their lives?

I agree


If He does then obviously He commands some to do something He well knows they will not do.

Can you give me a example or two from Scripture

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:01 PM
So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?Yes.

He commands all men to obey ALL of His Laws, knowing full well (and saying as much in Matthew 5) that men are unable to obey ... BECAUSE they are unwilling.

Once their will is "re-wired" by God at regeneration, they are now able to obey ALL of His commandments ... His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3). You see, it is His divine power that enables us, not anything within ourselves.

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:01 PM
To be "spiritually dead" means that you are spiritually separated from God. This is a core Christian belief. Adam "died" in the garden not physically but spiritually.


If it was a core christian belief then the early church fathers would have taught on it, I would think.

And scripture doesn't teach about dead spirits as far as I can tell. It only teachs on the spirit as it pertains to God.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:02 PM
So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?

Some are elected to salvation and many more are passed over. The command and failure to obey demonstrates that God is just is His judgement. The fact that He allowed His Son to pay the penalty for some of us demonstrates His love and mercy. Our only response is to praise God.



Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12 she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this?

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:03 PM
If it was a core christian belief then the early church fathers would have taught on it, I would think.

And scripture doesn't teach about dead spirits as far as I can tell. It only teachs on the spirit as it pertains to God.What is the second death?

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:03 PM
If it was a core christian belief then the early church fathers would have taught on it, I would think.

And scripture doesn't teach about dead spirits as far as I can tell. It only teachs on the spirit as it pertains to God.

I begin to think that we are talking about different things.

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:03 PM
Can you give me a example or two from Scripture

Acts 17:30 - Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent

(This assumes that you do not believe all men repent, i.e. post mortem salvation).

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:03 PM
I'm now off to get a tree ... I'm gonna miss a lot of this conversation, so keep your posts short ;)

I'll try to catch up this evening (or sooner if God permits)

God bless, and thanks for the discussion this morning, guys :)

pal
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:04 PM
If God ordains everything, then following that logic, He would be the author of sin as well.


I realize that I'm jumping into an A-B conversation, but I wanted to add something on this particular topic.

God does not tempt anyone into sinning. However, God does use satan, evil, and sin to accomplish His grand will.

Has there ever been a greater sin committed than the unjust execution of Jesus Christ?

Well, look at what the words of scripture say regarding that issue:

Isaiah 53
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.


Acts 2
23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.


If the scriptures plainly tell us that it was God's will for this grievous sin to be committed, is it hard to imagine Him using all other evils for purposes of His own will?

We must look beyond the surface. The disciples didn't understand what was happening when Christ was crucified. No one knew or understood that He was being crucified to reconcile the world, for a good purpose.. So this is where we must have faith that all the bad things that happen in the world are being orchestrated for a much a greater purpose. Just remember - God is in control of it all.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:04 PM
I have no problem with this, actually.

Once we are regenerated, it IS our responsibility to obey by repenting and believing. But I am persuaded that all who are regenerated are willing to obey, and since our will is a slave to our desires (I have shown how this works in a previous post), men WILL do what they WANT to do ... God gives us a new heart. This heart now desires to obey God more than to sin. Therefore, the regenerated man WILL repent and believe. (faith is another topic altogether ... I believe it is activated upon regeneration, which is why unregenerated people do not believe).

God bless

Then why do we see in Scripture those who willingly reject Christ?

John 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
Notice, it doesn't say cannot come

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:05 PM
Acts 17:30 - Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent

(This assumes that you do not believe all men repent, i.e. post mortem salvation).Ahh .. something I would like to discuss with you one of these days, Toolman.

I'm genuinely curious about how you see this (PM, maybe?)

Ok ... now I've really gotta go ... kids are anxious.

Merry CHRISTmas!

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:06 PM
Then why do we see in Scripture those who willingly reject Christ?

John 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
Notice, it doesn't say cannot come

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!
aw man ...

lol ..

simply because the unregenerated man is unwilling. THis proves that not all are regenerated.

Bye!

Mograce2U
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:07 PM
So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?
It seems to me that by the command comes the opportunity - the call to repent else face judgment (Acts 17:30-31). Christ's death upon the cross brings the drawing of all men who will look and believe and be healed of their sin (the brass serpent). Faith comes by hearing the truth of His birth, death & resurrection (Rom 10:17). The vehicle which carries grace is faith which comes upon hearing the gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Those whose hearts have been prepared (good soil) receive it and keep it. To them is given Life eternal and the deposit of the Holy Spirit and they will be raised up in the last day to live in His presence forever. What else is there to know?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:07 PM
I realize that I'm jumping into an A-B conversation, but I wanted to add something on this particular topic.

God does not tempt anyone into sinning. However, God does use satan, evil, and sin to accomplish His grand will.

Has there ever been a greater sin committed than the unjust execution of Jesus Christ?

Well, look at what the words of scripture say regarding that issue:

Isaiah 53
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.


Acts 2
23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.


If the scriptures plainly tell us that it was God's will for this grievous sin to be committed, is it hard to imagine Him using all other evils in for purposes of His own will?

We must look beyond the surface. The disciples didn't understand what was happening when Christ was crucified. No one knew or understood that He was being crucified to reconcile the world, for a good purpose.. So this is where we must have faith that all the bad things that happen in the world are being orchestrated for a much a greater purpose. Just remember - God is in control of it all.

Yes God is in control, yet He is not the author of sin. When I sin I can't say God made me do it, I must take the blame for my sin. I had a choice to not sin. It was not God's will that I sin. I chose to sin rather than obey and flee the temptation

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:08 PM
Acts 17:30 - Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent

(This assumes that you do not believe all men repent, i.e. post mortem salvation).

It seems pretty obvious to me that not all men repent

pal
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:11 PM
Yes God is in control, yet He is not the author of sin. When I sin I can't say God made me do it, I must take the blame for my sin. I had a choice to not sin. It was not God's will that I sin. I chose to sin rather than obey and flee the temptation


We certainly are accountable for our own sins, and we are in need of justifiable chastening when we do. However, when talking about God's sovereign will, all sin happens in accord with His sovereign will.

Judas, for example. The sin he committed was within God's sovereign will, because if Judas had not betrayed Him, then Christ would not have been handed over to be crucified - which had to happen.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:13 PM
Some are elected to salvation and many more are passed over. The command and failure to obey demonstrates that God is just is His judgement. The fact that He allowed His Son to pay the penalty for some of us demonstrates His love and mercy. Our only response is to praise God.



Scripture disagrees

God . . . desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 not some

He died for all 2 Cor 5:14-15 not some

Mograce2U
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:16 PM
Scripture disagrees

God . . . desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 not some

He died for all 2 Cor 5:14-15 not someoh oh, here comes the sufficient vs efficient argument....

pal
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:20 PM
Scripture disagrees

God . . . desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 not some

He died for all 2 Cor 5:14-15 not some


Actually, this is not a completely accuate translation. It is more appropriately translated as "will have all men to be saved." This is the same passage in which we are told that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all to be testified in due time.

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:25 PM
What is the second death?

Does scripture teach you how to deal with this after the fact?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:25 PM
aw man ...

lol ..

simply because the unregenerated man is unwilling. THis proves that not all are regenerated.

Bye!

I think your assuming that Jesus desires to gather those whom He knew first hand were unwilling. The fact is, the gospel has a universal offer to all of Adam's posterity. No one is excluded except those who exclude theirself by willful rejection.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

"Their wilful refusal of this grace and favour; Ye would not. How emphatically is their obstinacy opposed to Christ’s mercy! I would, and ye would not. He was willing to save them, but they were not willing to be saved by him. Note, It is wholly owing to the wicked wills of sinners, that they are not gathered under the wings of the Lord Jesus. They did not like the terms upon which Christ proposed to gather them; they loved their sins, and yet trusted to their righteousness; they would not submit either to the grace of Christ or to his government, and so the bargain broke off.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 23:34). Peabody: Hendrickson.

John 5:40 And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

"Jesus, who told some Jews in John 5:34: "I say these things that you may be saved." But "saved" they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." Here is a clear case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer of salvation." (unknown source)

"If nothing else, the death of Christ serves a condemnatory purpose for those who reject the Saviour. Men are condemned because they have rejected the Person and work of Jesus Christ (John 3:18) and have refused God’s only remedy for their sin (John 5:40). They can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They refused to receive the gift which God provided in His Son. Men are not lost because a Saviour was not provided. Men are lost because they have rejected the Saviour who was provided." (source unknown)

Jer.*9:6 they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.

And ye will not come ... - Though the Old Testament bears evidence that I am the Messiah; though you professedly search it to learn the way to life, and though my works prove it, yet you will not come to me to obtain life. From this we may learn:
1. that life is to be obtained in Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life, and he only can save us.
2. that, in order to do that, we must “come to him” - that is, must come in the way appointed, as lost sinners, and be willing to be saved by him alone.
3. that the reason why sinners are not saved lies in the will. “The only reason why sinners die is because ‘they will not come’ to Christ for life and happiness: it is not because they ‘cannot,’ but because they ‘will not’” (Henry).
4. Sinners have a particular opposition to going to “Jesus Christ” for eternal life. They would prefer any other way, and it is commonly not until all other means are tried that they are willing to submit to him. (Barnes Notes)

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:27 PM
It seems pretty obvious to me that not all men repent

So, back to your original statement:

So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?

If God knows full well, before creating a person, that they will never repent and yet He commands them to do so, then God commands the unregenerate to do something He knows they will not do no matter what.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:31 PM
Actually, this is not a completely accuate translation. It is more appropriately translated as "will have all men to be saved." This is the same passage in which we are told that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all to be testified in due time.

NKJV - 1Ti 2:4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

NASB - 1Ti 2:4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth <<<<< from the most literal word for word translation

thelō / ethelō
Thayer Definition:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure
Part of Speech: verb

In doing a Greek word study of the word desire (thelō ) as is found in the following verses, we can see how the word "desire" is used in context.

who desires (thelō ) all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth.

And rising up from there, he went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And entering into the house, He desired (thelō ethelō) no one to know, but He could not be hidden. (Mark 7:24)

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted (thelo) to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! (thelo) (Matt. 23:37 HSCB)

Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The one killing the prophets, and stoning those having been sent to her, how often I desired to gather your children in the way a hen gathers her brood under the wings, and you did not desire it. (ALT)

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:31 PM
It was not God's will that I sin. I chose to sin rather than obey and flee the temptation

This is not entirely in-line with your theology. You stated that God has 2 seperate wills:

"God also desires that I don't sin, but I do. So God has a decreed will and a permissive will."
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1066505&postcount=60

So, according to your own theology it is God's will (at least one of His wills) that you sin.

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:33 PM
Scripture disagrees

God . . . desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 not some

He died for all 2 Cor 5:14-15 not some

I agree. So it's a given that all are working out their salvation, whether they are aware of it or not. Meaning with or without revelation from God. I believe Paul made this clear on his examples of mankind. ie. natural, carnal, spiritual
Every living soul (Gr. nous) is in one of these states of mind/heart (noetic).

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:34 PM
So, back to your original statement:

So are you telling me God would command the unregenerate to do something He well knows they are unable to do?

If God knows full well, before creating a person, that they will never repent and yet He commands them to do so, then God commands the unregenerate to do something He knows they will not do no matter what.

Could you provide me with a Scripture example or two where God commanded an unregenerate person to do something?

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:36 PM
Could you provide me with a Scripture example or two where God commanded an unregenerate person to do something?

Woah... deja vu :)

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068204&postcount=164

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068213&postcount=170

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068225&postcount=178

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:37 PM
I agree. So it's a given that all are working out their salvation, whether they are aware of it or not. Meaning with or without revelation from God. I believe Paul made this clear on his examples of mankind. ie. natural, carnal, spiritual
Every living soul (Gr. nous) is in one of these states of mind/heart (noetic).

Revelation to men comes in the form of either Divine Revelation, or natural revelation, but all men are without excuse

Rom 1:20 From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.

watchinginawe
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:39 PM
I am, in fact, claiming a superior position!! Of course you are. And you stated rightly, "I".
And I further claim that there is no way in the world I could have come to this truth myself.A lot more "I" in there.
It is the work of the Spirit that He for some reason and by His grace determined to allow me to understand. His decision had absolutely nothing to do with me or any merit within me,As the Spirit does for every man in concert with the Word of God.
and I otherwise have no idea why the Spirit acted as He did with regard to me. Well, I do! The promises of God and his disposition towards man!
I am as a completely dependent child. So my boast is not in myself but in Christ.Here is the absolute meat of the matter. For one to believe this totally, then they would have to hold in doubt the salvation of those who purportedly "boast in themselves", or even hold any view contrary to that doctrine that the Spirit of God determined one to understand regarding soteriology. I suppose in the end I am glad of God's grace being in his hands and not in the hands of "doctrine" or "man". Else, what hope does anyone have who disgrees with what you "further claim"?

God Bless!

ProjectPeter
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:39 PM
Would you be so kind as to point them out for me? Cuz I looked ... and honestly don't see it.I Pointed them out when I posted, hence posting them.



Do you deny that Scripture speaks of election?Absolutely it does. Just not as TULIP teaches it. ;)




It is all supported with Scripture. And if you consider logic to be 'mumbo-jumbo' then that's your loss. It's irrefutable.No.. it is clearly refutable and better men over time than you and I have refuted it from both ends of the discussion and men using logic backed with Scripture.



I had no idea that you were unwilling to share your testimony, Ken. Sorry I asked! I wasn't trying to cross any boundaries with that question, honestly. I just figured that you said there were many reasons that people choose ... I asked for one that I knew you would know for sure so you wouldn't play the 'I'm not gonna speculate' card ;)I've shared it many a times in the years I've been on this board John. But not in BC or other debate sections where folks can dive in and comment on it while picking through each and every word and whatnot. It is simply off limits and they aren't to be treated that way. If you don't know that of me then I am truly miffed since I've spoken of that many a time over the years and I've refused to do so even when asked by the people giving the testimony to do that. I think RbG even takes that same stand on it now too.


Why does one person believe while another does not? Just smarter? Was the gospel explained more clearly to them?

There has to be a reason. Scripture says what the reason is ...Certainly it could be that it was explained more clearly to them. Smarter? I suppose we could say that the ones that heard and understood were ultimately smarter but we know it doesn't take the greatest of IQ's to hear and understand.

And again... Scripture tells us to make the choice. It doesn't have to tell us the reason why some do and some don't. Some have been blinded. Some simply refuse. Some do for wrong reasons and some don't. Those reasons are in there and Scripture has been provided on that already.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:41 PM
This is not entirely in-line with your theology. You stated that God has 2 seperate wills:

"God also desires that I don't sin, but I do. So God has a decreed will and a permissive will."

So, according to your own theology it is God's will (at least one of His wills) that you sin.

My theology on the wills is:

God has a decreed will - He decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved

God has a permissive will - He allows and permits sin to exist. It is not God's will that I sin. When I sin, I do so against His will. The fact I do sin, only proves that He allows it to happen. It displeases Him, and He desires that I not sin

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:44 PM
My theology on the wills is:

God has a decreed will - He decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved

God has a permissive will - He allows and permits sin to exist. It is not God's will that I sin. When I sin, I do so against His will. The fact I do sin, only proves that He allows it to happen. It displeases Him, and He desires that I not sin

I understand that and the idea of God having multiple wills.

Nevertheless, God allows you to sin because it is within His will to do so (no matter how it is labeled or tagged). This is what Pal was pointing out, that sin happens within God's will for His ultimate plan of redemption.

humbled
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:44 PM
I think your assuming that Jesus desires to gather those whom He knew first hand were unwilling. The fact is, the gospel has a universal offer to all of Adam's posterity. No one is excluded except those who exclude theirself by willful rejection.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!Two questions.

(1) Who does Jesus desire to gather together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and (2) who is unwilling?

Jesus desires to gather together the CHILDREN of those who are unwilling, not the ones who are unwilling themselves.

The ones who are unwilling are the scribes and pharisees.

Jesus is talking to the teachers of Jerusalem and is saying that He desires to gather their children, or the ones who they are teaching, but the teachers were unwilling in the sense that they taught salvation by works.

God bless

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:46 PM
Woah... deja vu :)

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068204&postcount=164

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068213&postcount=170

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068225&postcount=178

I don't believe the examples you gave me prove that God has ever commanded an unregenerate person to fulfill a condition. I can understand why you think you have gave me examples. Therefore I think your understanding of regeneration differs tremendously from mine.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:48 PM
I understand that and the idea of God having multiple wills.

Nevertheless, God allows you to sin because it is within His will to do so (no matter how it is labeled or tagged). This is what Pal was pointing out, that sin happens within God's will for His ultimate plan of redemption.

I disagree that God wills that I sin. he knows I will sin and allows it. To say God wills sin makes Him as guilty of sin.

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:49 PM
NKJV - 1Ti 2:4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

NASB - 1Ti 2:4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth <<<<< from the most literal word for word translation

thelō / ethelō
Thayer Definition:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure
Part of Speech: verb

In doing a Greek word study of the word desire (thelō ) as is found in the following verses, we can see how the word "desire" is used in context.

who desires (thelō ) all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth.

And rising up from there, he went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And entering into the house, He desired (thelō ethelō) no one to know, but He could not be hidden. (Mark 7:24)

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted (thelo) to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! (thelo) (Matt. 23:37 HSCB)

Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The one killing the prophets, and stoning those having been sent to her, how often I desired to gather your children in the way a hen gathers her brood under the wings, and you did not desire it. (ALT)


Should be plain that salvation is His "purpose". Old theologians took the Greek word "thelo" to mean His revealed will, as they also saw Him as having a secret will as well. An example would be Jesus not knowing the time the Father has purposed for the Resurrection of all.

I point this out, because God does not "desire" as a human, since that would be vanity. And He did not create in vanity, but with purpose.

Isa 45:18 ¶ For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Creation is the speech of God. He's declared salvation plainly by His creation.

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:49 PM
I don't believe the examples you gave me prove that God has ever commanded an unregenerate person to fulfill a condition. I can understand why you think you have gave me examples. Therefore I think your understanding of regeneration differs tremendously from mine.

Ok. :)

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:51 PM
Two questions.

(1) Who does Jesus desire to gather together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and (2) who is unwilling?

Jesus desires to gather together the CHILDREN of those who are unwilling, not the ones who are unwilling themselves.

The ones who are unwilling are the scribes and pharisees.

Jesus is talking to the teachers of Jerusalem and is saying that He desires to gather their children, or the ones who they are teaching, but the teachers were unwilling in the sense that they taught salvation by works.

God bless

Ignore the Mat 23:37 verse for now.

Focus on this one for now

1 Tim 2:4 God ... desires all men to be saved

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:55 PM
I disagree that God wills that I sin. he knows I will sin and allows it. To say God wills sin makes Him as guilty of sin.

You actually did say He wills it (within His permissive will).

"That is saying the same thing as "God allows you to sin because it is within His will to do so. This is what Pal was pointing out, that sin happens within God's will for His ultimate plan of redemption."

If God is allowing sin then He is willfully doing so... He is not forced by something to do so, it is His will for it to be allowed for His ultimate plan of redemption to occur.

Pal is saying nothing different than what you are describing.
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068227&postcount=179
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1068215&postcount=172

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:57 PM
Of course you are. And you stated rightly, "I".A lot more "I" in there.As the Spirit does for every man in concert with the Word of God. Well, I do! The promises of God and his disposition towards man!Here is the absolute meat of the matter. For one to believe this totally, then they would have to hold in doubt the salvation of those who purportedly "boast in themselves", or even hold any view contrary to that doctrine that the Spirit of God determined one to understand regarding soteriology. I suppose in the end I am glad of God's grace being in his hands and not in the hands of "doctrine" or "man". Else, what hope does anyone have who disgrees with what you "further claim"?

God Bless!

I do hold in doubt the salvation of Arminians who truly understand the logical implications of their belief and hold to it anyway. My experience is that most Arminians see their acceptance of Christ as Savior either as not a "work" or as a tiny little work which doesn't really count. Though I find this silly, and it is clearly sin, I do not think that it precludes salvation.

The idea of free will is far more objectionable than this. I will try to show why.

Let's look at this another way. Let's assume that you have an 8 year old daughter. She leaves the house at 7 in the morning for the school bus. Assume that it is 20 or 30 years ago when responsible parents didn't have to walk their kids to the school bus.

You are unaware that 2 weeks ago your little girl captured the attention of a child molester and has been stalking her ever since. Today is his big day. Once your daughter has moved beyond the sight line of your house, the child molester grabs your daughter and throws her into his car. Without going into all the details, your daughter's violated and nearly unrecognizable body is found in a ditch 2 miles from your house.

The question is this. We know these types of things happen, why doesn't God stop them?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 07:58 PM
You actually did say He wills it (within His permissive will).

"That is saying the same thing as "God allows you to sin because it is within His will to do so. This is what Pal was pointing out, that sin happens within God's will for His ultimate plan of redemption."

If God is allowing sin then He is willfully doing so... He is not forced by something to do so, it is His will for it to be allowed for His ultimate plan of redemption to occur.



There is a huge difference between God willing that I sin compared with God allowing me to sin. To say God wills sin, means He is guilty of sin. He desires that I not sin, and when I do He desires I confess it.

In my previous posts which you referred to I said:
"It was not God's will that I sin."

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:02 PM
I do hold in doubt the salvation of Arminians who truly understand the logical implications of their belief and hold to it anyway. My experience is that most Arminians see their acceptance of Christ as Savior either as not a "work" or as a tiny little work which doesn't really count. Though I find this silly, and it is clearly sin, I do not think that it precludes salvation.

The idea of free will is far more objectionable than this. I will try to show why.

Let's look at this another way. Let's assume that you have an 8 year old daughter. She leaves the house at 7 in the morning for the school bus. Assume that it is 20 or 30 years ago when responsible parents didn't have to walk their kids to the school bus.

You are unaware that 2 weeks ago your little girl captured the attention of a child molester and has been stalking her ever since. Today is his big day. Once your daughter has moved beyond the sight line of your house, the child molester grabs your daughter and throws her into his car. Without going into all the details, your daughter's violated and nearly unrecognizable body is found in a ditch 2 miles from your house.

The question is this. We know these types of things happen, why doesn't God stop them?

He will stop such things. But in His time.

Sin entered our world and there is a curse hanging over the world because of the fall of man. But one day God will right all wrongs

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:03 PM
He will stop such things. But in His time.

Sin entered our world and there is a curse hanging over the world because of the fall of man. But one day God will right all wrongs

Okay, I can agree as far as that goes, but why would God not stop the action with regard to this little girl?

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:08 PM
There is a huge difference between God willing that I sin compared with God allowing me to sin. To say God wills sin, means He is guilty of sin. He desires that I not sin, and when I do He desires I confess it.

If God allows you to sin is it His will to do so?

As Pal pointed out:

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Acts 2:23 - This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Was it God's will for men to kill Christ (which was sinful for those who killed Him)? I didn't see you address this issue.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:22 PM
I do hold in doubt the salvation of Arminians who truly understand the logical implications of their belief and hold to it anyway. My experience is that most Arminians see their acceptance of Christ as Savior either as not a "work" or as a tiny little work which doesn't really count. Though I find this silly, and it is clearly sin, I do not think that it precludes salvation.

The idea of free will is far more objectionable than this. I will try to show why.

Let's look at this another way. Let's assume that you have an 8 year old daughter. She leaves the house at 7 in the morning for the school bus. Assume that it is 20 or 30 years ago when responsible parents didn't have to walk their kids to the school bus.

You are unaware that 2 weeks ago your little girl captured the attention of a child molester and has been stalking her ever since. Today is his big day. Once your daughter has moved beyond the sight line of your house, the child molester grabs your daughter and throws her into his car. Without going into all the details, your daughter's violated and nearly unrecognizable body is found in a ditch 2 miles from your house.

The question is this. We know these types of things happen, why doesn't God stop them?

Okay, let's attack this a different way. Does God not stop the child molester because He has given man free will and He does not, at this time, want to interfere with the playing out of human freedom?

watchinginawe
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:39 PM
I do hold in doubt the salvation of Arminians who truly understand the logical implications of their belief and hold to it anyway. My experience is that most Arminians see their acceptance of Christ as Savior either as not a "work" or as a tiny little work which doesn't really count. Though I find this silly, and it is clearly sin, I do not think that it precludes salvation.Well, that is a more gentle answer than I am used to receiving to those who understand the "logical implications" of the beliefs you seem to be putting forth. :)
The idea of free will is far more objectionable than this. I will try to show why.

Let's look at this another way. Let's assume that you have an 8 year old daughter. She leaves the house at 7 in the morning for the school bus. Assume that it is 20 or 30 years ago when responsible parents didn't have to walk their kids to the school bus.

You are unaware that 2 weeks ago your little girl captured the attention of a child molester and has been stalking her ever since. Today is his big day. Once your daughter has moved beyond the sight line of your house, the child molester grabs your daughter and throws her into his car. Without going into all the details, your daughter's violated and nearly unrecognizable body is found in a ditch 2 miles from your house.

The question is this. We know these types of things happen, why doesn't God stop them?I can't presume to answer "why" for God.

I can construct a view of God's Will from my viewpoint as a man with the aid of the scriptures (scriptural examples, commands, etc.) and form a belief but the fact that this stuff happens in the world doesn't make or break a viewpoint or cause it to be objectionable IMO.

I do believe that God could (has the power to) prevent these types of things from happening but doesn't always exercise this power. I also believe that God finds these types of actions by man abominable.

God Bless!

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:42 PM
If God allows you to sin is it His will to do so?

As Pal pointed out:

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Acts 2:23 - This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Was it God's will for men to kill Christ (which was sinful for those who killed Him)? I didn't see you address this issue.

I'm constraining myself from jumping all over this. Lest I take it down another road and derail the thread. :P

But I am curious what translation is that using the term "guilt offering". (God who is perfect, provides His own perfect offering, not a guilt offering IMHO)

Toolman
Dec 2nd 2006, 08:46 PM
I'm constraining myself from jumping all over this. Lest I take it down another road and derail the thread. :P

:)


But I am curious what translation is that using the term "guilt offering". (God who is perfect, provides His own perfect offering, not a guilt offering IMHO)

NIV.

Here are the other popular translations:

NAS:
10But the LORD was pleased
To (A)crush Him, (B)putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt (C)offering,
He will see (D)His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good (E)pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

KJV: 10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

NKJV:
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

YLT:
And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:06 PM
If God allows you to sin is it His will to do so?

As Pal pointed out:

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Acts 2:23 - This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Was it God's will for men to kill Christ (which was sinful for those who killed Him)? I didn't see you address this issue.

Verse 23
God handed His Son over to the foreseen will of sinful people
God permitted sinful men to crucify His Son, as the sacrifice for sin.
God in His foreknowledge determined the time in history that it should take place
God didn’t kill His Son, lawless men did. The verse says; “ye did crucfy and slay” The blame is on sinful men.
God could look through the corridors of time and see that lawless men would do this, and He knew the exact time to send His Son to accomplish our redemption
And God is a God that turns evil into good.

By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (tēi hōrismenēi boulēi kai prognōsēi tou theou). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (boulē) and foreknowledge (prognōsis) of God and “determined” (hōrismenē, perfect passive participle, state of completion). God had willed the death of Jesus (Joh_3:16) and the death of Judas (Act_1:16), but that fact did not absolve Judas from his responsibility and guilt (Luk_22:22). He acted as a free moral agent. (Robertson's Word Pictures)

Act 2:23 -
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel - Bp. Pearce paraphrases the words thus: Him having been given forth; i.e. sent into the world, and manifested by being made flesh, and dwelling among you, as it is said in Joh_1:14; see also Act_4:28.
Kypke contends that εκδοτον, delivered, does not refer to God, but to Judas the traitor “the Jews received Jesus, delivered up to them by Judas; the immutable counsel of God so permitting.”
By the determinate counsel, ὡρισμενῃ βουλῃ; that counsel of God which defined the time, place, and circumstance, according (προγνωσει) to his foreknowledge, which always saw what was the most proper time and place for the manifestation and crucifixion of his Son; so that there was nothing casual in these things, God having determined that the salvation of a lost world should be brought about in this way; and neither the Jews nor Romans had any power here, but what was given to them from above. It was necessary to show the Jews that it was not through Christ’s weakness or inability to defend himself that he was taken; nor was it through their malice merely that he was slain; for God had determined long before, from the foundation of the world, Rev_13:8, to give his Son a sacrifice for sin; and the treachery of Judas, and the malice of the Jews were only the incidental means by which the great counsel of God was fulfilled: the counsel of God intending the sacrifice, but never ordering that it should be brought about by such wretched means. This was permitted; the other was decreed. See the observations at the end of this chapter.
By wicked hands have crucified and slain - I think this refers to the Romans, and not to the Jews; the former being the agents, to execute the evil purposes of the latter. It is well known that the Jews acknowledged that they had no power to put our Lord to death, Joh_18:31, and it is as well known that the punishment of the cross was not a Jewish, but a Roman, punishment: hence we may infer that by δια χειρων ανομων, by the hands of the wicked, the Romans are meant, being called ανομοι, without law, because they had no revelation from God; whereas the others had what was emphatically termed ὁ νομος του Θεου, the law of God, by which they professed to regulate their worship and their conduct. It was the Jews, therefore, who caused our Lord to be crucified by the hands of the heathen Romans. (Clarke)

Now, you will have to show me how God can will sin, without being guilty Himself of committing sin. How can a Holy God be both for and against sin, and still maintain His status of Holiness?

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:12 PM
Okay, let's attack this a different way. Does God not stop the child molester because He has given man free will and He does not, at this time, want to interfere with the playing out of human freedom?

Why look at the small picture?

Lets look at the big picture.

Hiltler had millions of Jews exterminated

Why didn't God stop that from happening?

Certainly God could have stopped it from happening if it was His will. he is Omnipotent

Obviously it wasn't His will to stop it, or else He would have.

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:21 PM
Why look at the small picture?

Lets look at the big picture.

Hiltler had millions of Jews exterminated

Why didn't God stop that from happening?

Certainly God could have stopped it from happening if it was His will. he is Omnipotent

Obviously it wasn't His will to stop it, or else He would have.
I agree. The reason I ask is that I have run across people that argue that God will not interfere with man's free will. They say that these tragedies are a "surprise" to God. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't the situaton here.

The obvious problem with this argument, by the way, is that if God subordinates His will to man, then man is sovereign, and that is heresy. The "surprising God" thing would be too stupid to worry about if not for the fact that it is becoming a popular perspective in evengelical circles.

And you have given good examples of events that God ordains but is not responsible for from a moral standpoint. Agreed?

Owen
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:37 PM
The obvious problem with this argument, by the way, is that if God subordinates His will to man, then man is sovereign, and that is heresy.

If I own a company with multiple stores and I decide to hire a manager to take care a few of the stores, does the fact tha I allow him to make decisions when I have every capability and right to run that store mean that I am subordinating myself to the manager? No. No more than God letting man choose is God subordinating Himself.

Just because someone who can do something allows someone else to do it doesn't mean he is subordinating himself. The definition of sovereignty doesn't have to mean that one MUST control, but merely that one can control if one so desires.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:40 PM
I agree. The reason I ask is that I have run across people that argue that God will not interfere with man's free will. They say that these tragedies are a "surprise" to God. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't the situaton here.

The obvious problem with this argument, by the way, is that if God subordinates His will to man, then man is sovereign, and that is heresy. The "surprising God" thing would be too stupid to worry about if not for the fact that it is becoming a popular perspective in evengelical circles.

And you have given good examples of events that God ordains but is not responsible for from a moral standpoint. Agreed?

We need to be careful here.

God has a decreed (or perfect) will

God also has a permissive will

God's decreed will cannot ever be subordinated to the will of man

We also need to be careful to not say God ordains sin.
That would make God the author of sin, and less than Holy

All we can say is that since it is obvious that sin exists, then it must exist because of God's permissive will.

"One of the greatest examples of God's permissive will is found in the story of Israel's desire to have a king (I Samuel 8). The Israelites lost sight of the fact that God was their king and they demanded a earthly king. They wanted to be like their neighbors and have a courageous, handsome, gifted man to lead them into battle. At first God resisted, stating the obvious drawbacks: a king would force them into servitude, take their best livestock, crops, and even children. But the Israelites were determined. So God relented, he gave in and allowed them to have a king. Their numerous years of pain and suffering from this decision are chronicled in the next 150 pages of the Bible." http://http://www.hedge.org/hf/1997%209-26-97.htm

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:54 PM
We need to be careful here.

God has a decreed (or perfect) will

God also has a permissive will

God's decreed will cannot ever be subordinated to the will of man

We also need to be careful to not say God ordains sin.
That would make God the author of sin, and less than Holy

All we can say is that since it is obvious that sin exists, then it must exist because of God's permissive will.

"One of the greatest examples of God's permissive will is found in the story of Israel's desire to have a king (I Samuel 8). The Israelites lost sight of the fact that God was their king and they demanded a earthly king. They wanted to be like their neighbors and have a courageous, handsome, gifted man to lead them into battle. At first God resisted, stating the obvious drawbacks: a king would force them into servitude, take their best livestock, crops, and even children. But the Israelites were determined. So God relented, he gave in and allowed them to have a king. Their numerous years of pain and suffering from this decision are chronicled in the next 150 pages of the Bible." http://http://www.hedge.org/hf/1997%209-26-97.htm

I actually think it goes beyond "permissiveness," though certainly would agree that God is never the cause of sin, i.e., as you say, He does not decree it. I would agree with the Westminster Confession (of course) when it states:



I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.


The reasons that I bring any of this up are:

1. I find that my peace, joy and growth in my relationship to God have increased exponentially since I have come to believe that I had nothing to do with my salvation. I hope I can be used to lead others into this experience, and

2. I am hoping to get my post count up enough to where I have regular priveleges on this board. :D

Teke
Dec 2nd 2006, 09:57 PM
:)



NIV.

Here are the other popular translations:

NAS:
10But the LORD was pleased
To (A)crush Him, (B)putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt (C)offering,
He will see (D)His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good (E)pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

KJV: 10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

NKJV:
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

YLT:
And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.


I see the KJV's perferred not to specify, to their credit. The Hebrew word used for "an offering for sin' (asham=trespass offering) is a particularly Levitical word which is best understood in the context of that sacrifice (Lev. 14:12,21, Ps. 40 being the aspect of that). Which is the trespass offering, a trespass being a sin of ignorance. So it baffles me how they come up with "guilt" from that. Has to be some theological influence. :hmm:

I believe it agrees more with "trespass", as that also agrees with other scripture, Acts 17:30.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 10:05 PM
I have come to believe that I had nothing to do with my salvation.


Did God believe for you?

Did God repent for you?

docrob57
Dec 2nd 2006, 10:43 PM
Did God believe for you?

Did God repent for you?

God changed my nature, and yes, instilled faith in me. Having done that, I was able to repent.

DSK
Dec 2nd 2006, 11:08 PM
God changed my nature, and yes, instilled faith in me. Having done that, I was able to repent.

Then by you personally repenting you did have a part in your salvation.

poppa_50
Dec 2nd 2006, 11:56 PM
POPPA to say that Jesus didnt have a free will you miss the whole point of the Gospel. What was this whole deal about in the garden of Gethsemane? Was Jesus just play acting? You must understand that Jesus could have got up and went back to his disciples and said ...come on boys ..lets go fishing. But He didnt..He choose to go to the cross to save our worthless hides from eternal damnation. And to answer another question ask here as why we choose Jesus...because we understand that and believe that Jesus choose the cross for us personally.

Glad you picked that out and ignored the rest. In His obedience, He came to do the will of His Father. To do anything outside the will of the Father, would have been sin.

Matt. 7:21

Lk. 22:42

Heb. 10:7

Again, man is bound to obedience or consequence. This is the will of God. Man is never a free agent.

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 12:02 AM
Then by you personally repenting you did have a part in your salvation.

I would agree except for the "I." And if not for God's work in regeneration. none of it would be possible. One thing that always disturbs me in these discussions is the insistence of the "opposition" on claiming credit. Does that seem to reflect scripture to you?

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 01:38 AM
Ignore the Mat 23:37 verse for now.

Focus on this one for now

1 Tim 2:4 God ... desires all men to be saved

Uhh ... what? Why switch gears? What do you make of what I said?

I will address your post (and have many times) but I'd like to finish one discussion before moving on to the next one, if you don't mind.

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 01:45 AM
Now, you will have to show me how God can will sin, without being guilty Himself of committing sin. How can a Holy God be both for and against sin, and still maintain His status of Holiness?Was what happened to Job sinful? I mean, when the Sabeans killed his flocks, was that a righteous thing or an abominable thing?

I would say it was sinful, and that satan was the one who influenced the Sabeans, and that God allowed it, and in fact willed it in order to strengthen Job (one of many reasons).

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 01:47 AM
Why look at the small picture?

Lets look at the big picture.

Hiltler had millions of Jews exterminated

Why didn't God stop that from happening?

Certainly God could have stopped it from happening if it was His will. he is Omnipotent

Obviously it wasn't His will to stop it, or else He would have.So you are saying it was God's will that it continue? But you say God doesn't will sin ...

Are you sure you know what you believe? You seem to contradict yourself at every turn .... :hmm:

I'm confused

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:00 AM
Two questions
(1) Who does Jesus desire to gather together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and (2) who is unwilling?


Below is a part of great unbiased commentary.

Judgment on Jerusalem
Matthew 23:37-39

It would probably be advisable for us to compare these final words of our Lord in Matthew 23 to our Lord’s words regarding Jerusalem in Luke 19:

41 Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side. 44 They will demolish you”you and your children within your walls”and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God” (Luke 19:41-44, emphasis mine).

The scribes and Pharisees are not only going to play a leading role in the arrest and crucifixion of our Lord, they are the “blind guides,” who are responsible for leading others to hell (Matthew 23:13-15). Jesus not only speaks strongly and with severity to the scribes and Pharisees because they are hypocrites; He speaks strongly in the hearing of the masses, because they must know who it is they are inclined to follow. To choose to follow the scribes and Pharisees is to choose to proceed on the path to certain damnation. This is no time for warm, fuzzy talk when judgment is both certain and near.

The scribes were scholars and teachers. They are a part of an elite, academic community. They have their academic regalia (their robes, tassels, etc.), and they are often given special titles, recognition, and places of honor. They may lay heavy loads (of homework) on their students, and offer little help. They may, in the name of scholarship and precision, make fine distinctions that are not really valid. They may teach one way and live another. Most importantly, they may teach in a way that turns people from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. No wonder they are most uncomfortable hearing strong words of condemnation and the threat of hell. Unsaved Bible scholars may claim to be men of God, but when they do, they are hypocrites.

Now let us consider our Lord’s “hard words” in Matthew 23 in the light of the last three verses of this chapter.

These last verses inform us that our Lord loved Jerusalem and His chosen people deeply. He takes no delight in the eternal destruction of lost sinners:

For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! (Ezekiel 18:32)

Jesus speaks as One whose desire it is to lovingly protect His own people, as a mother hen protects her chicks. The imagery here reveals the heart of Jesus, and of His compassion.

Jesus’ words of condemnation, like those of John the Baptist and other prophets, were strongly stated, but with the goal of calling men to repentance.

Jesus, who was the fulfillment of all the prophets of old foretold, was totally in character with those prophets in condemning sin and warning sinners of the coming wrath of God, unless they repent.

Jesus speaks strongly here of judgment that is actually coming upon those who have rejected Him, and this judgment is coming soon.

Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem. While the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem will bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders, and thus for their participation in the death of Jesus. Until now, it was the favor of the crowds that kept Jesus alive, but that is about to end. Jesus’ words of imminent judgment include the people of Jerusalem, along with their leaders.

Conclusion
Let us remember that Matthew 23 is our Lord’s final public preaching. These are the last words the scribes and Pharisees and people of Jerusalem will hear from the lips of our Lord. As Matthew 5-7 introduced our Lord’s public ministry to Israel, so Matthew 23 concludes it.

Jesus’ words of condemnation reflect reality. Here is how God feels about sin. Here is how God will judge sin. Here is how seriously God takes the sin of religious hypocrisy. Here is how God will judge ungodly leaders, who not only reject Him, but who lead others to their eternal destruction. Are men uncomfortable with these words? They should be! But these words convey the truth about sin and judgment.

These words of Jesus in verses 37-39 speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, which will come upon that generation that rejected and crucified Him. History tells us that this judgment did come, just as Jesus said it would. If history has verified our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, it is only right that we acknowledge His authority and accuracy about the judgment which is still future, the judgment that will come upon all men who reject Him as the Messiah, and as God’s only provision for eternal salvation. Do our Lord’s words in Matthew 23 sound severe? They are, and they are true. His severe words should convey to us how serious the rejection of Jesus is. The rejection of Jesus by Israel’s leaders, and by the people of Jerusalem, led to His crucifixion and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rejecting Jesus as God’s promised Messiah is a most serious matter. It leads to God’s eternal judgment.

Let the severity of our Lord’s words serve to indicate how serious the decision is to accept Jesus or to reject Him, as Messiah, as God’s only provision for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.

The loving thing to do is to imitate Jesus in Matthew 23 and to warn men of the eternal consequences of sin, foremost of which is rejecting Him as our Savior. Turning hell-bent sinners to Jesus, and thus toward heaven (by trusting in Jesus), is the loving thing to do. Let us never forget this.

P.S. I had to shorten the commentary to make it fit. I also high-lighted in blue some of what I considered the most important points. You can read the entire commentary found at the following link - http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2720

It's a wonderful commentary - well worth the time spent to read it. I highly recommend it.

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:11 AM
So you are saying it was God's will that it continue? But you say God doesn't will sin ...

Are you sure you know what you believe? You seem to contradict yourself at every turn .... :hmm:

I'm confused

Fact - Hitler exterminated Jews
Fact - God did not stop it from happening
Fact - God in His Omnipotence could have stopped it.
Fact - God permitted it. (I'm not saying He approved or disapproved of it. Only God knows.)

If God didn't stop it, and permitted it to occur, then it must have fallen into the category of His permissive (not His perfect) will.

God is Sovereign, is He not? Or is this one of those times where He wasn't Sovereign?

There is a difference between God willing sin, and permitting sin to occur.

Have you got a better explaination?

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:20 AM
Fact - Hitler exterminated Jews
Fact - God did not stop it from happening
Fact - God in His Omnipotence could have stopped it.
Fact - God permitted it. (I'm not saying He approved or disapproved of it. Only God knows.)

If God didn't stop it, and permitted it to occur, then it must have fallen into the category of His permissive (not His perfect) will.

God is Sovereign, is He not? Or is this one of those times where He wasn't Sovereign?

Have you got a better explaination?

I truthfully don't think I believe too much in this "permissive will" thing to be honest. If it happened, God not only allowed it to happen, He made it happen, though in such a way that He is not responsible for man's sin. He does not sin, and His will is perfect. We agree on that. But, given God's omniscience and omnipotence, He is able to use the sinful acts of man, and place sinners in time and space in such a way, that His perfect will is done even when human sin is the instrument for accomplishing that purpose. The case of Judas is a prime example.

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:23 AM
Below is a part of great unbiased commentary.

Judgment on Jerusalem
Matthew 23:37-39

It would probably be advisable for us to compare these final words of our Lord in Matthew 23 to our Lord’s words regarding Jerusalem in Luke 19:

41 Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side. 44 They will demolish you”you and your children within your walls”and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God” (Luke 19:41-44, emphasis mine).

The scribes and Pharisees are not only going to play a leading role in the arrest and crucifixion of our Lord, they are the “blind guides,” who are responsible for leading others to hell (Matthew 23:13-15). Jesus not only speaks strongly and with severity to the scribes and Pharisees because they are hypocrites; He speaks strongly in the hearing of the masses, because they must know who it is they are inclined to follow. To choose to follow the scribes and Pharisees is to choose to proceed on the path to certain damnation. This is no time for warm, fuzzy talk when judgment is both certain and near.

The scribes were scholars and teachers. They are a part of an elite, academic community. They have their academic regalia (their robes, tassels, etc.), and they are often given special titles, recognition, and places of honor. They may lay heavy loads (of homework) on their students, and offer little help. They may, in the name of scholarship and precision, make fine distinctions that are not really valid. They may teach one way and live another. Most importantly, they may teach in a way that turns people from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. No wonder they are most uncomfortable hearing strong words of condemnation and the threat of hell. Unsaved Bible scholars may claim to be men of God, but when they do, they are hypocrites.

Now let us consider our Lord’s “hard words” in Matthew 23 in the light of the last three verses of this chapter.

These last verses inform us that our Lord loved Jerusalem and His chosen people deeply. He takes no delight in the eternal destruction of lost sinners:

For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! (Ezekiel 18:32)

Jesus speaks as One whose desire it is to lovingly protect His own people, as a mother hen protects her chicks. The imagery here reveals the heart of Jesus, and of His compassion.

Jesus’ words of condemnation, like those of John the Baptist and other prophets, were strongly stated, but with the goal of calling men to repentance.

Jesus, who was the fulfillment of all the prophets of old foretold, was totally in character with those prophets in condemning sin and warning sinners of the coming wrath of God, unless they repent.

Jesus speaks strongly here of judgment that is actually coming upon those who have rejected Him, and this judgment is coming soon.

Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem. While the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem will bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders, and thus for their participation in the death of Jesus. Until now, it was the favor of the crowds that kept Jesus alive, but that is about to end. Jesus’ words of imminent judgment include the people of Jerusalem, along with their leaders.

Conclusion
Let us remember that Matthew 23 is our Lord’s final public preaching. These are the last words the scribes and Pharisees and people of Jerusalem will hear from the lips of our Lord. As Matthew 5-7 introduced our Lord’s public ministry to Israel, so Matthew 23 concludes it.

Jesus’ words of condemnation reflect reality. Here is how God feels about sin. Here is how God will judge sin. Here is how seriously God takes the sin of religious hypocrisy. Here is how God will judge ungodly leaders, who not only reject Him, but who lead others to their eternal destruction. Are men uncomfortable with these words? They should be! But these words convey the truth about sin and judgment.

These words of Jesus in verses 37-39 speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, which will come upon that generation that rejected and crucified Him. History tells us that this judgment did come, just as Jesus said it would. If history has verified our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, it is only right that we acknowledge His authority and accuracy about the judgment which is still future, the judgment that will come upon all men who reject Him as the Messiah, and as God’s only provision for eternal salvation. Do our Lord’s words in Matthew 23 sound severe? They are, and they are true. His severe words should convey to us how serious the rejection of Jesus is. The rejection of Jesus by Israel’s leaders, and by the people of Jerusalem, led to His crucifixion and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rejecting Jesus as God’s promised Messiah is a most serious matter. It leads to God’s eternal judgment.

Let the severity of our Lord’s words serve to indicate how serious the decision is to accept Jesus or to reject Him, as Messiah, as God’s only provision for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.

The loving thing to do is to imitate Jesus in Matthew 23 and to warn men of the eternal consequences of sin, foremost of which is rejecting Him as our Savior. Turning hell-bent sinners to Jesus, and thus toward heaven (by trusting in Jesus), is the loving thing to do. Let us never forget this.

P.S. I had to shorten the commentary to make it fit. I also high-lighted in blue some of what I considered the most important points. You can read the entire commentary found at the following link - http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2720

It's a wonderful commentary - well worth the time spent to read it. I highly recommend it.You sure do quote commentaries a lot.

But this still doesn't address what I said. Here it is again.

Jesus says to Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings ...

Who does Jesus want to gather? The children of Jerusalem. It would be a good idea to know what that means. Who does Jesus mean when He says Jerusalem? He means those who killed the prophets and stones those sent to her. These are the scribes and pharisees. The ones who reject the teachings of the prophets and kill them for their "blasphemy"

So I would say that the IMMEDIATE audience of Jesus is the teachers; the scribes and pharisees and NOT the general public.

... and you were unwilling.

Who is unwilling that Jesus gather the children of Jerusalem, but the very same aforementioned scribes and pharisees? I believe there is no doubt what Jesus was saying here. He was saying that the scribes and pharisees were preventing the general public from hearing about the TRUE God by killing those whom God sent. It was, after all, the very same who killed Jesus.

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:24 AM
I truthfully don't think I believe too much in this "permissive will" thing to be honest. If it happened, God not only allowed it to happen, He made it happen, though in such a way that He is not responsible for man's sin. He does not sin, and His will is perfect. We agree on that. But, given God's omniscience and omnipotence, He is able to use the sinful acts of man, and place sinners in time and space in such a way, that His perfect will is done even when human sin is the instrument for accomplishing that purpose. The case of Judas is a prime example.
If God made it happen and there was no way that it could do anything else but happen because God made it happen... then how in the world can it be that "He's not responsible?" That logic seems to defy the very teaching that Jesus gave in "but if you hate your brother in your heart, you just as well have murdered him...." (my paraphrase naturally).

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:24 AM
Fact - Hitler exterminated Jews
Fact - God did not stop it from happening
Fact - God in His Omnipotence could have stopped it.
Fact - God permitted it. (I'm not saying He approved or disapproved of it. Only God knows.)

If God didn't stop it, and permitted it to occur, then it must have fallen into the category of His permissive (not His perfect) will.

God is Sovereign, is He not? Or is this one of those times where He wasn't Sovereign?

Have you got a better explaination?I agree with you 100%

But you said that God did not will sin, and right here you say He has. Even if it isn't His decretive or "perfect" will

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:30 AM
If God made it happen and there was no way that it could do anything else but happen because God made it happen... then how in the world can it be that "He's not responsible?" That logic seems to defy the very teaching that Jesus gave in "but if you hate your brother in your heart, you just as well have murdered him...." (my paraphrase naturally).

Again, consider Judas. What was God's role in Judas' betrayal? From Scripture we know that Jesus knew it would happen well in advance. Did God cause Judas to sin? No. Did He place Judas in a situation in which He knew Judas would betray Jesus in order to accomplish His purpose? It certainly would seem so wouldn't it.

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:39 AM
Who does Jesus want to gather?

I high-lighted those he desires to gather. They are the ones who are His intended audience. But I will extract it even further from the commentary so you won't miss it this time around.

Jesus not only speaks strongly and with severity to the scribes and Pharisees because they are hypocrites; He speaks strongly in the hearing of the masses, because they must know who it is they are inclined to follow.

Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem.

While the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem will bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders

The rejection of Jesus by Israel’s leaders, and by the people of Jerusalem

All bits taken from the commentary I previously posted.

____________________________________________

Here is an additional bit on Mat 23:37

Although the opening address (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) is direct (second person), the remainder of this sentence in the Greek text is third person (“who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her”). The following sentences then revert to second person (“your… you”), so to keep all this consistent in English, the third person pronouns in the present verse were translated as second person (“you who kill… sent to you”).

How often I have longed to gather your children. Jesus, like a lamenting prophet, speaks for God here, who longed to care tenderly for Israel and protect her.

Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

Grk “you were not willing.”

Net Bible - http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=23#n51

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:41 AM
David prophecied it to be so certainly it was known it would happen. Did God cause him to sin... no. According to Luke, satan entered Judas and he then went and betrayed Jesus.

Luke 22:3 ¶And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.

So I don't suppose attributing that sin to God actually holds much merit when held up to that passage.

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:45 AM
I truthfully don't think I believe too much in this "permissive will" thing to be honest. If it happened, God not only allowed it to happen, He made it happen, though in such a way that He is not responsible for man's sin. He does not sin, and His will is perfect. We agree on that. But, given God's omniscience and omnipotence, He is able to use the sinful acts of man, and place sinners in time and space in such a way, that His perfect will is done even when human sin is the instrument for accomplishing that purpose. The case of Judas is a prime example.

Your thinking lines up well with determinism and HyperCalvinism

Your saying God made Hitler exterminate millions of Jews. Your view makes God the author of sin

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:53 AM
I agree with you 100%

But you said that God did not will sin, and right here you say He has. Even if it isn't His decretive or "perfect" will

I never said God wills sin.
I have only said he allows or permits sin. Willing something and permitting something to happen is totally different.

Do you understand the difference between God's decreed will, and His permissive will?

Let me put it to you this way

Do you sin?
Of course you do
Was it God's perfect will that you should sin?
Of course not.
Did God make you sin?
Of course not
Nevertheless you still sinned right?
You gave into temptation and chose to sin rather than resist the temptation.
And since we already established that it was not God's perfect will that you should sin, He must have allowed you to go against His perfect will and sin?
Since He didn't strike you dead when you sinned, He must have allowed you to sin, which fits within the framework of His permissive will.
If the only will God had was a perfect fixed will, then we would be unable to sin. But thats not the way it is.

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 04:02 AM
I truthfully don't think I believe too much in this "permissive will" thing to be honest. If it happened, God not only allowed it to happen, He made it happen, though in such a way that He is not responsible for man's sin. He does not sin, and His will is perfect. We agree on that. But, given God's omniscience and omnipotence, He is able to use the sinful acts of man, and place sinners in time and space in such a way, that His perfect will is done even when human sin is the instrument for accomplishing that purpose. The case of Judas is a prime example.

"One of the greatest examples of God's permissive will is found in the story of Israel's desire to have a king (I Samuel 8). The Israelites lost sight of the fact that God was their king and they demanded a earthly king. They wanted to be like their neighbors and have a courageous, handsome, gifted man to lead them into battle. At first God resisted, stating the obvious drawbacks: a king would force them into servitude, take their best livestock, crops, and even children. But the Israelites were determined. So God relented, he gave in and allowed them to have a king. Their numerous years of pain and suffering from this decision are chronicled in the next 150 pages of the Bible." http://http://www.hedge.org/hf/1997%209-26-97.htm (http://http//www.hedge.org/hf/1997%209-26-97.htm)

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 04:15 AM
I high-lighted those he desires to gather. They are the ones who are His intended audience. But I will extract it even further from the commentary so you won't miss it this time around.

Jesus not only speaks strongly and with severity to the scribes and Pharisees because they are hypocrites; He speaks strongly in the hearing of the masses, because they must know who it is they are inclined to follow.

Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem.

While the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem will bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders

The rejection of Jesus by Israel’s leaders, and by the people of Jerusalem

All bits taken from the commentary I previously posted.

____________________________________________

Here is an additional bit on Mat 23:37

Although the opening address (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) is direct (second person), the remainder of this sentence in the Greek text is third person (“who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her”). The following sentences then revert to second person (“your… you”), so to keep all this consistent in English, the third person pronouns in the present verse were translated as second person (“you who kill… sent to you”).

How often I have longed to gather your children. Jesus, like a lamenting prophet, speaks for God here, who longed to care tenderly for Israel and protect her.

Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

Grk “you were not willing.”

Net Bible - http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=23#n51DSK,

None of this says anything different than what I have already said. Jesus is addressing specifically the leaders, which is why He says "you who killed the prophets..." The teachers were the ones who did this. If a general citizen would have, they would have been guilty of murder. SO Jesus is quite clearly speaking directly to the teachers.

Now your commentary says that Jesus said this in the hearing of the masses, and that's very true. Jesus often rebuked the pharisees in public. But that does NOT take away from the fact that Jesus is saying that the pharisees were unwilling that God would gather the children of Jerusalem together. It says NOTHING about the children themselves being unwilling. Jesus, with that statement, is addressing the aforementioned "Jerusalem, who killed the prophets..."

Now how's about your own words? I don't really care about what other commentators say. Besides, I agree with your commentator for the most part. But it appears that you simply don't understand what he is saying.

Teke
Dec 3rd 2006, 04:39 AM
You sure do quote commentaries a lot.

But this still doesn't address what I said. Here it is again.

Jesus says to Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings ...

Who does Jesus want to gather? The children of Jerusalem. It would be a good idea to know what that means. Who does Jesus mean when He says Jerusalem? He means those who killed the prophets and stones those sent to her. These are the scribes and pharisees. The ones who reject the teachings of the prophets and kill them for their "blasphemy"

So I would say that the IMMEDIATE audience of Jesus is the teachers; the scribes and pharisees and NOT the general public.

... and you were unwilling.

Who is unwilling that Jesus gather the children of Jerusalem, but the very same aforementioned scribes and pharisees? I believe there is no doubt what Jesus was saying here. He was saying that the scribes and pharisees were preventing the general public from hearing about the TRUE God by killing those whom God sent. It was, after all, the very same who killed Jesus.


An Amen to that Humbled. :amen:
Judgement begins at the house of God. And that is right where the Lord began.
What I bolded is also the responsability of the church to make sure it doesn't happen again.

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 02:21 PM
David prophecied it to be so certainly it was known it would happen. Did God cause him to sin... no. According to Luke, satan entered Judas and he then went and betrayed Jesus.

Luke 22:3 ¶And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.

So I don't suppose attributing that sin to God actually holds much merit when held up to that passage.

No argument there! I assume this is not an attempt to disagree with what I said, since it doesn't disagree.

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 02:24 PM
Your thinking lines up well with determinism and HyperCalvinism

Your saying God made Hitler exterminate millions of Jews. Your view makes God the author of sin

No, it explicitly does not make God the author of sin. It lines up completely with the Westminster Confession that I cited earlier. Unless you want to claim that they were hyper-Calvinists. Try to think about what I am saying and keep that knee from jerking. :)

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 02:40 PM
If I own a company with multiple stores and I decide to hire a manager to take care a few of the stores, does the fact tha I allow him to make decisions when I have every capability and right to run that store mean that I am subordinating myself to the manager? No. No more than God letting man choose is God subordinating Himself.

Just because someone who can do something allows someone else to do it doesn't mean he is subordinating himself. The definition of sovereignty doesn't have to mean that one MUST control, but merely that one can control if one so desires.

So, God delegates control to man in your view, does God know what man will do with this control?

Does the owner delegate to a manager with the realization that the manager is going to mess everything up and drive the stores he controls out of business?

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:26 PM
I agree with your commentator for the most part. But it appears that you simply don't understand what he is saying.

I too agree with the commentator, thats why I posted it. And when I posted it I didn't say it disagreed with anything you stated.

Nevertheless in the Mat. 23 passages, the conclusion for me is that God desired to gather someone, and someone wasn't willing. And this post is about How free is free.

The main picture I see depicted throughout Scripture is that it's God's desire to gather everyone.

Jesus, who told some Jews in John 5:34: "I say these things that you may be saved." But "saved" they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." Here is a clear case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer of salvation.

John 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
"the reason why sinners are not saved lies in the will. “The only reason why sinners die is because ‘they will not come’ to Christ for life and happiness: it is not because they ‘cannot,’ but because they ‘will not’” (Henry).

Jer.*9:6 they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.

And again we see that it is God's desire that all men be saved.
1 Tim 2:3-4 God our Savior, ........ who desires all men to be saved (NASB)

His desire is to gather and save all. There is a universal invitation in the gospel to all people.

Rev. 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely.

“all men are invited to accept the salvation that God has provided in Jesus Christ. ‘Whosoever will’ means just what it says.” Dr. Harry A. Ironside

Mograce2U
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:45 PM
So, God delegates control to man in your view, does God know what man will do with this control?

Does the owner delegate to a manager with the realization that the manager is going to mess everything up and drive the stores he controls out of business?Here are a few instances I found where God apparently delegates some decisions to man and allows him some freedom:
(Gen 2:19 KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

(Gen 11:5-6 KJV) And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. {6} And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

(Gen 18:20-21 KJV) And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; {21} I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

(Gen 19:19-21 KJV) Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast showed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: {20} Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. {21} And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

(Exo 12:13 KJV) And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

DSK
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:45 PM
No, it explicitly does not make God the author of sin. It lines up completely with the Westminster Confession that I cited earlier. Unless you want to claim that they were hyper-Calvinists. Try to think about what I am saying and keep that knee from jerking. :)

John Calvin wasn't a Hyper Calvinist. But Calvin was dead before the Westmister Confession was ever written. Calvin's sucessor Theodore Beza, took Calvinism to a level of supralapsarianism which subordinated Christ to the decree of election. And thus Calvin's theology evolved into Hyper-Calvinism which was partially reflected in the Westmister Confession.

The Westmister Confession is Calvinism not Scripture.

You will even find the following stated in the Westmister Confesion
"CHAPTER XXXI.
Of Synods and Councils.
IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice

That means even the Westmister Confession may be in err. They trried to alert you to this fact.

And yes if God caused Hilter to exterminate millions of Jews, then making or causing it to happens indeed does make God the author of sin. There is no getting around it.

By the way you might want to consider the following words of Calvinist, C. Spurgeon, who by the way opposed Hyper Calvinism.

Spurgeon stated:
In his sermon #442 God's Will and Man's Will
www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm)

"there is a class of strong-minded hard-headed men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of responsibility."

"the will of man has its proper position in the work of salvation, and is not to be ignored."

"When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will."

"We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine."

"When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses."

"men are not saved against their wills."

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:50 PM
John Calvin wasn't a Hyper Calvinist. But Calvin was dead before the Westmister Confession was ever written. Calvin's sucessor Theodore Beza, took Calvinism to a level of supralapsarianism which subordinated Christ to the decree of election. And thus Calvin's theology evolved into Hyper-Calvinism in the Westmister Confession.

The Westmister Confession is Calvinism not Scripture.

You will even it find the following stated in the Westmister Confesion
"CHAPTER XXXI.
Of Synods and Councils.
IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice

That means even the Westmister Confession may be in err. They trried to alert you to this fact.

And yes if God caused Hilter to exterminate millions of Jews, then making or causing it to happens indeed does make God the author of sin. There is no getting around it.

Yes, I am aware that the Westminster Confession isn't scripture. I am also aware that statements such as "there is no getting around it" absent any evidence or argumentation, plus about $1, will buy you a Diet Coke in most vending machines, at least where I live.

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 03:54 PM
Spurgeon stated:
In his sermon #442 God's Will and Man's Will
www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm)

"there is a class of strong-minded hard-headed men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of responsibility."

"the will of man has its proper position in the work of salvation, and is not to be ignored."

"When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will."

"We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine."

"When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses."

"men are not saved against their wills."

Let me see, Westminster Confession does not equal scripture, Spurgeon does equal scripture? :hmm:

No one (that I know of) argues that men are saved against their wills. We argue that our wills (more accurately natures)have to be changed by God before we can be saved.

humbled
Dec 3rd 2006, 04:59 PM
I never said God wills sin. I think you are missing something in translation because I remember you saying this:
If God didn't stop it, and permitted it to occur, then it [the acts of Hitler] must have fallen into the category of His permissive (not His perfect) will.

I have only said he allows or permits sin. Willing something and permitting something to happen is totally different.

Do you understand the difference between God's decreed will, and His permissive will?

Let me put it to you this way

Do you sin?
Of course you do
Was it God's perfect will that you should sin?
Of course not.
Did God make you sin?
Of course not
Nevertheless you still sinned right?
You gave into temptation and chose to sin rather than resist the temptation.
And since we already established that it was not God's perfect will that you should sin, He must have allowed you to go against His perfect will and sin?
Since He didn't strike you dead when you sinned, He must have allowed you to sin, which fits within the framework of His permissive will.
If the only will God had was a perfect fixed will, then we would be unable to sin. But thats not the way it is.Again here, you say that I sin according to God's permissive will, yet you say that God does not will sin.

I think what you mean is God does not decree sin. And I agree with that. He does not sanction it, although He allows it (obviously).

docrob57
Dec 3rd 2006, 05:06 PM
I think you are missing something in translation because I remember you saying this:
Again here, you say that I sin according to God's permissive will, yet you say that God does not will sin.

I think what you mean is God does not decree sin. And I agree with that. He does not sanction it, although He allows it (obviously).

And, what I think our Arminian friends often miss, is that He uses sin for His Holy purposes. God, in His sovereignty and perfection is the consummate example of One who makes "lemonade from lemons." We often don't see the lemonade. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

It is all soli deo gloria!