There is no Free Will PERIOD

[HarleyER]

There has been so much discussion and comparison of doctrine. But how much is our attention dealing with how we compare with Jesus?

It is good to understand what someone means, so we can accurately represent what we are agreeing or disagreeing with. When our Apostle Paul disagreed with something, he would correctly represent what someone was saying, but then disagree > 1 Corinthians 15:13-19.

My personal take is God has the spirit of evil to deal with >

"the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

This spirit of evil is messy with nasty and negative anger and fear and lusts very filthing against love.

God's love is pure and pleasantly soul-soothing, gentle and quiet and humble, generously forgiving, all-loving, and caring and sharing as family.

So, God being orderly has developed vessels (Romans 9:21) for keeping Satanic stuff in vessels on their way to the flaming sewer. And evil is now being held here on earth while God redeems souls to be "conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29)

There is timing.

I do not believe that God created the spirit of evil. The character of evil"s spirit is the author.

God is the All-Worker > Ephesians 1:11, Romans 9:21 > managing the evil, including how

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and in 1 Peter 5:5).

So, He does resist evil-willed people.

"God works in you both to will and to do" (in Philippians 2:14)

So, yes there is almighty power, which does not "force" us, but He gently and quietly transforms us into how His love lives in our character so we are submissive to Him and resting in how He guides us.

He can manage how much things and people appear to control things, and how we perceive who and what is really in control.

For children of God >

"it is God who works in you, both to will . . . " (in Philippians 2:13).

So God is very personal and intimate in us, not forcing us in our limited human nature, but He shares with us His own freedom and ability to do what is good - - - in union with us > 1 Corinthians 6:17.

Managing. . . timing . . .

This earth is now God's prisoner-of-war camp for Satan and his. Ones need to obey God in His grace so we are ready always to make His good use of whatever happens, even like how Jesus on the cross used that to do so much good.

There has been so much discussion and comparison of doctrine. But how much is our attention dealing with how we compare with Jesus? It is good to understand what someone means, so we can accurately represent what we are agreeing or disagreeing with. When our Apostle Paul disagreed with something, he would correctly represent what someone was saying, but then disagree > 1 Corinthians 15:13-19.

Well, you have a point and I appreciate your insight.

I would add that when the Apostle Paul noticed people going far off the rails he had some very strong and harshed things to say to them, including the Corinthians. He was not at all happy with the Lord's Supper and how casual it was being treated, he rallied against false doctrine very serverely, and admonished Timothy to be sure to teach "sound doctrine".

Grant it, there are legitimate theological disagreements like baptism or the taking of communion. While these are important issues, they do not attack the core beliefs of sound doctrine as laid out by our Jewish fathers, the Apostles, and the early church fathers. And I'm talking about the core beliefs of the church (the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, communion, etc.). When people question the inerrancy of Scripture or have a wrong understanding of God, they are attacking (whether knowingly or unknowingly) the core fundamentals of the church. Consequently, one ends up with a bunch of people who want to worship God because they think they will get things from Him. They have no understanding of His Holiness or His word.

As you stated, one should try to approach people in a spirit of love and understanding over sound doctrine. It is, perhaps, they don't have an understanding of church beliefs and history. Yet we would be remissed in our responsibility to God if, knowing the truth, we said absolutely nothing about doctrinal error. It is not that we want to assert ourselves and just love to argue. It is simply because we want people to understand good, solid doctrine that is the bedrock of the church. And, if I'm wrong in my understand, I would greatly appreciate people telling me.

Quite frankly, I often question whether I should say anything. It would be much easier to just shut up and let everyone pour out all sort of crazy ideas like the Bible is filled with myths, it's full of errors, God isn't really the ruler of all things, etc. But then I'm reminded of Ezekial:

Ezekiel 3:17 “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.​

While I am certainly no Ezekiel, each of us have an obligation to ensure that the doctrine of the church and our understanding of God is sound and to teach this to one another. It is through teachable attitudes that we grow. When people do not understand sound doctrine, the church fails. But, in the end, all one can do is simply warn people.

 

[zoidar]

How do you get from what I say any idea about "no power to choose"? I'm insisting that we DO choose, but always according to our inclinations.

There is way too much data to draw a complete picture. Why you choose coffee is a complex answer. I'd have to know all history (all chains of cause-and-effect as they relate to that choice at any one time) to come up with that. But that you always choose according to your inclinations is (to me) obvious.

I get what you are saying that we always choose according to our inclinations. But are you also saying our inclinations are according to choice? If that is the case we might just say we choose what our inclinations will be. Simply put we choose our want to choose the most. How is that proving our choices are predetermined?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I get what you are saying that we always choose according to our inclinations. But are you also saying our inclinations are according to choice? If that is the case we might just say we choose what our inclinations will be. Simply put we choose our want to choose the most. How is that proving our choices are predetermined?

No, we don't choose our inclinations as such. We do influence them and choose (for example) whom to love and to whom to be devoted and such, We can decide and drive toward being inclined this way or that, but in the end, our inclinations are not just choice. You no doubt are familiar with the idea that we feed our inclinations by what we choose to do or to think about.

You say, "Simply put we choose our want to choose the most.", to which I say, "Ok, but WHY do we make that particular choice, or BY WHAT MEANS do we choose our want to choose the most?" It is all caused, and, in my opinion, caused from the beginning by God. I find nothing haphazard from his point of view. And, again, that does not mean our choosing is an illusion. It just means he is that far above us.

What proves our choices are predetermined is simply that there is no such thing as chance, and that all things descend causally from the First Cause (God). There is also the character of God and his active intent (creating) vs the idea of passively watching a project. He had in mind to make something particular, and he made it. We are not privy to the whole line of causation from first effects becoming secondary causes and so on. Only that the only truly spontaneous thing is God himself. EVERYTHING else is effect. And this does not preclude choice, but establishes our choices. Quite literally, apart from him (in this context, apart from his causation) we can do nothing.

He is the source of very existence and life. How can we assume ourselves to be smaller first causes?

 

[com7fy8]

I would add that when the Apostle Paul noticed people going far off the rails he had some very strong and harshed things to say to them, including the Corinthians.

And yes he was very concerned about what they were saying, for doctrine, if he pleads >

"that you all speak the same thing" (in 1 Corinthians 1:10).

He was not at all happy with the Lord's Supper and how casual it was being treated,

But Paul goes into detail about how certain people were eating and drinking right next to ones who had "nothing" > 1 Corinthians 11 > and he was concerned with how they were shaming those poor people who were Jesus' own body, "not discerning the Lord's body", he says. What they did to the least of Jesus' brethren they did to Jesus Himself. And for that reason many were weak and sick and died. Therefore, wait for one another, Paul says.

He does not say only to make sure we have confessed our sins and are more devoted to the remembering of Jesus.

But he was very concerned not only with the remembrance of Jesus and proclaiming His death properly, but also with how they were relating with one another . . . how they treated each other, and did not only give attention to how they treated a cerimony.

But to me it appears the communion can be very set in format, with no or little relating as family in personal sharing like Jesus did at His Last Supper. Ones can be isolated with themselves, in their self-examination and confessing sins and making themselves devoted, to the extent that we are isolating ourselves instead of relating in love like Jesus says to love as He has loved us. Such loving can be a very important part of the remembrance of Jesus, I consider. It is a miracle for Him in us to have us loving like He did . . . as our example.

he rallied against false doctrine very serverely, and admonished Timothy to be sure to teach "sound doctrine".

And he told Timothy to trust faithful men with the word of God.

Grant it, there are legitimate theological disagreements like baptism or the taking of communion. While these are important issues, they do not attack the core beliefs of sound doctrine as laid out by our Jewish fathers, the Apostles, and the early church fathers. And I'm talking about the core beliefs of the church (the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, communion, etc.). When people question the inerrancy of Scripture or have a wrong understanding of God, they are attacking (whether knowingly or unknowingly) the core fundamentals of the church.

Of course, if we claim scripture inerrancy . . . still we have the issue of how inerrantly we understand the scriptures; and are the realities told in scripture living in us?

For example, are we obeying truly how our Father personally rules us in His own peace? Colossians 3:15 > This is not only a matter of beliefs, but of reality in us.

Consequently, one ends up with a bunch of people who want to worship God because they think they will get things from Him.

That can be making God distant and impersonal, not discovering how He shares with us by ruling in our hearts with His own peace.

As you stated, one should try to approach people in a spirit of love and understanding over sound doctrine. It is, perhaps, they don't have an understanding of church beliefs and history. Yet we would be remissed in our responsibility to God if, knowing the truth, we said absolutely nothing about doctrinal error. It is not that we want to assert ourselves and just love to argue. It is simply because we want people to understand good, solid doctrine that is the bedrock of the church.

Part of our doctrine is that Jesus is the truth and full of grace and truth. And how we relate in discussing and debating is important, so we minister the grace and truth of Jesus in how we teach and take our stand.

2 Timothy 2:24-26

To me, this scripture means how ones in doctrinal error can be in a wrong spirit causing them to hold on to that wrong belief stuff. And they can relate in a wrong way, because of the wrong spirit. So, a person needs to minister the right spirit to change the wrong person, not only try to correct the beliefs. Example is needed, which Gid can spread to change the wrong person to become gentle and humble like Jesus.

And, if I'm wrong in my understand, I would greatly appreciate people telling me.

Amen

Quite frankly, I often question whether I should say anything. It would be much easier to just shut up and let everyone pour out all sort of crazy ideas like the Bible is filled with myths, it's full of errors, God isn't really the ruler of all things, etc. But then I'm reminded of Ezekial:

Ezekiel 3:17 “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.​

While I am certainly no Ezekiel, each of us have an obligation to ensure that the doctrine of the church and our understanding of God is sound and to teach this to one another.

But there are the realities which God's word says will live in His children. These need attention. Ones can talk only about beliefs, but not experience how God shares His own love with us "in our hearts", for one example of a reality given in God's word > Romans 5:5.

It is through teachable attitudes that we grow. When people do not understand sound doctrine, the church fails. But, in the end, all one can do is simply warn people.

And be His example of how we become, as the reality meant by God's word and doctrine >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[HarleyER]

Are you using the Bible to disprove the Bible? You know that it directly says God regretted or repented that He made man. In fact, there are other places in the ot that say God repented.

So now you go with commentators who are applying the same principles to the interpretation of the OT that you just got done judging me for.

What is the difference between getting mad or getting angry? The OT says that God gets angry despite what your commentators say.

So if you are going to use the OT to describe God, you should use it all and not cherry pick out the parts that serve preconceived ideas.

Or you can reconsider what I said.

The NT says that Jesus got angry several time. What's the point.

And, no, I not about to "reconsider" what I said. God doesn't repent. I, personally, don't dismiss the OT. I simply try to understand what it is trying to teach me about God and myself.

 

[Rose_bud]

Where the problem arises is who is responsible for our salvation, God (monergism) or man (synergism)?

My understanding of synergism does not say man is responsible for salvation it says man co-operates with God who initiates, enables and completes salvation .
We both know God is responsible for our salvation. So this is not what we are questioning?

What we disagree on is whether humanity responds to it or whether God forces our response. I believe we respond to Him as a result of faith. God reveals Himself to us in various ways and we respond to it.

Who changes our condition?

We know God is the one who initiates, we respond, He changes.

If our hearts are hard and rebellious, and we are dead in our sins, then the only way for us to be saved is for God to make us alive and God must give us a new hearts. God must initiate this and, once initiated, He brings us under the conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgement. We don't receive a new heart first and then make a decision. Nor can we make a decision in our old nature and receive a new heart because we are rebellious. We must receive a new heart first, and then we WILL follow Christ for we are now slaves to righteousness.

Yes I would agree that we do rebel against Him and the wages of our sin is death, but it is His grace that we respond to in order to receive this new heart, this new life. I am not advocating for a works based salvation, Christ alone accomplishes this not our effort or merits.

If we are capable of responding to God's grace, then salvation requires both Gods initiative and our cooperation. God extends His grace, and we respond in faith. This process involves both God's work in us and our willingness to receive His grace. We don't receive a new heart first and then respond; rather, we respond to God's grace and then experience the transformation that comes with a new heart. Yes, our old nature is rebellious, but God's grace can still work in us to enable our response. Once we respond, God convicts us of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and empowers us to follow Christ. This is not only because we are slaves to righteousness, but because we are freed by God's grace to live a life of obedience.
The new heart was a prophetic promise to Israel, but ultimately all humanity. We also know that Abraham did not receive a "new heart", we know that it was His response by faith and accompanying evidence that ensured His right standing with God. He was in a sense looking forward to the promise of becoming a new creation in Christ.
We also know scripture speaks of a promise that they didn't receive apart from us who put our hope in the very fulfillment of that promise. So that together united in Him we become a new creation.

What you are saying is that when God's confronts us with our rebellious nature, then we make some type of decision to this confrontation. But, as we both agree, we can't do that if we are rebellious, hard-hearted, and dead in our sins. Our very nature makes it impossible to objectively make a decision for Christ.

I believe at some point yes God does reveal to us the nature of our sinful state, which is also an ongoing process. Which I shared in my personal testimony. But I believe it is preceded by something else faith. The list is in Hebrews; Abel, Abraham, Rahab etc. They all had something else, faith. A knowledge that He is. Which they did not suppress or distort but yielded to. Rahab heard about Israel's God and she believed it.

Our rebellious nature and hard-heartedness create significant barriers to responding to God, But, what ultimately makes it impossible for us to respond to God is a lack of faith and unbelief. However, faith is not just a feeling or intellectual agreement, it requires action, obedience, and trust in God. In other words, faith without works is dead, and our response to God must be demonstrated through our actions and decisions, regardless of how imperfect.

God's grace precedes and enables our response, but they also affirm that we have a role to play in accepting or rejecting that grace. When God confronts our rebellious nature it is an opportunity for us to exercise our choice to either resist or yield to His grace. The decision is a cooperative effort between God's grace and our willing response. I would argue that this cooperation is not a denial of God's sovereignty, but rather a recognition of the dynamic relationship between God's grace and human freedom.

Also, just looking around at the world should tell you that God does not confront every one of us as you're insinuating. There are many places that never hear the gospel and the people don't know about Christ. So, your example has limitations if you want to say this opportunity is given to everyone. It is not.

I understand that you might think that.
But God has not given up on humanity, even if we have! He is always working, convincting, bringing about salvation, even when we can't see it. This is our hope, our anchor, when we pray for the lost - that even if we don't see the result, even in our lifetime. God is willing and able to transform lives.

Has God stopped revealing Himself? Never! If He did creation would cease. Creation itself testifies to His existence. Just as you and I as sons and daughtes of God are a witness to who He is, so is all of creation. So my appeal is to you and all reading, please continue to trust and persistantly pray that God will bring about change for your loved ones and for humanity. That He sovereignly uses whatever means necessary to bring this about.

 

[stevevw]

But wasn't the deterministic view of the classical machine like reality upended by quantum physics where reality becomes indeterminate. Don't some of the interpretations of QM propose that the choices of conscious beings create reality.

If anything recent discoveries have suggested conscious subjects are what creates reality and that their experiences and choices are meaningful in a real way even moreso beyond the objective physical and mechanical world. .

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem with heresies is the people who teach them won’t show you the scriptures that are contradictory to them. Let’s compare what Westminster said to situations presented in the scriptures.

1. From all eternity and by the completely wise and holy purpose of his own will, God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatever happens.1

God has (ordained) set into motion every event that was to take place. (Christ came in the fullness of time Gal 4:4)

First of all Galatians 4:4 does not support the statement they made here. We need to back up to the end of the previous chapter to get an understanding of what Paul is saying here.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭28‬-‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Nothing in this passage says that God ordains everything that people will choose to do. The passage is about God bringing about the time of Christ’s coming, it has absolutely nothing to do with God controlling the choices of people. The passages doesn’t say anything at all about the choices of people. Their interpretation is completely off topic from anything Paul has written here.


How does their interpretation of this verse stand up to these verses?

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above God has made it absolutely clear that He has placed the choice before them and that they must choose to obey or disobey, they must choose either life or death, they must choose either blessing or curse. It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

“I will destine you for the sword, And all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.”

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above God specifically says that He called them and they did not respond, He spoke to them and they did not listen, and they did evil and chose what God did not want. Westminster says that God ordained this? God is saying the exact opposite.

“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above the people were offering human sacrifices to Molech which God did not command them to do and which He never intended for them.

It completely obvious that God did not “ordain” these choices, He specifically said that He didn’t ordain them. How do you explain this?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where the problem arises is who is responsible for our salvation, God (monergism) or man (synergism)? Who changes our condition?

This completely ignores the very definition of the word synergism. What you’ve posted here is not an honest definition of synergism. You’re intentionally trying to remove the aspect of God’s participation from t in order to create a false representation that it is derived solely from man apart from God’s participation. Synergism is a cooperative effort not the effort of man apart from God’s participation. This is a very common misrepresentation made by Calvinists, it’s a deception of the truth and completely ignores everything that synergism literally means.

If our hearts are hard and rebellious, and we are dead in our sins, then the only way for us to be saved is for God to make us alive and God must give us a new hearts.

Nowhere does the Bible say that a person can’t repent. All throughout the Bible God has been calling man to repentance since creation. What do you think He’s been doing in His commandments? He’s been calling people to repentance since Adam & Eve. Every time He tells man to stop doing evil, stop sinning, obey my commandments, He telling them to repent. It would be completely STUPID for Him to tell man these things if He knows that they are incapable of complying because He hasn’t allowed them to. Furthermore it would be unjust for Him to throw them into the lake of fire for all eternity for failing to comply IF THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING. Nowhere does the Bible say that we are incapable of repenting and turning to God, nowhere.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you not understand that the Book cannot be changed, therefore all those in the book had no choice?

What does Hebrews 13:8 mean to you?

Who do we emulate?

So you’re going to ignore what God Himself specifically said about these situations.

Hebrews 13:8 means that Jesus has not changed, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. However I think the very next verse is very relevant to the discussion.

“Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Mercy Shown]

The NT says that Jesus got angry several time. What's the point.

Jesus was also fully man. If God predestines everything to happen, we have a binary choice. Either things do not always go His way, or the record is from man's point of view, which humanizes God to an extent.

What are your answers to these questions?

Does God need to test us? If so, why?

Did God need to come down to see the Tower of Bable?

Did God make a mistake that He regretted when He made Saul king over Israel?

Did He make a mistake in making man and then regret it?

Was God sorry that He made man?

All of these things are in the OT. No, you can quote texts where it says God never has regret, but then that is just text against text: a zero-sum game.


The point is that you have to divide the word of God rightly. Don't simply take the texts you like and run with them. Take all of the texts in the bible.

Last question of this list. Do you believe that Jesus came to reveal the Father to us?

And, no, I not about to "reconsider" what I said. God doesn't repent. I, personally, don't dismiss the OT. I simply try to understand what it is trying to teach me about God and myself.

Then you are doing what you condemned me for doing. The Old Testament absolutely says God repented, and yet you reject those texts. Perhaps for good reason. But thus, I must apply the same filter to other parts of the Old Testament. Especially the books of History. How else can you read about the same battle in Chronicles and then read it in Kings and find out that the accounts differ?

 

[Rose_bud]

Actually my choice between monergism and synergism came down to my desire to know what was the actual view of the early church. Without going into much detail, the western view was monergism. The eastern view (Eastern Orthodox) was synergism. If I were to be true to a synergistic approached, then I felt I should become Orthodox which, I feel, holds a true synergistic view.

From what I read in the Bible, the church canons and creeds, and history, I believe the Reformers were correct in their monergistic approached. This monergistic view was codified in the:

Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 (Presbyterian) The Westminster Confession​

and the

London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist) of 1689. 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English - Founders Ministries​

Both of these confessions came out independent of each other and around the same time. Surprisingly, working independent of the other, they are very similar in view and represents the thoughts of great men of God who saw the Catholic Church in error.

So my reading of the scripture is not bias or prejudicial on the way I am interpreting the Scriptures. I'm not that bright. Rather, my interpretation of the Scriptures is that I've looked at what was the official viewpoint of the Protestant church during the time of the Reformation and then measured their views against what the Scriptures have to say. Thankfully, they left Scriptural references to how they formed their conclusions.

You will not find a synergistic document with a systematic approach to the Scriptures as detailed as the Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession. So while I understand that while you feel you've looked at the "whole council" of Scripture, you're basing your views on what YOU feel is a correct interpretation of Scriptures. You have to measure your interpretation with historical interpretation to ensure you are correct in your views.

I would suggest just reading through the Westminster Confession of Faith and London Baptist Confession of Faith to see if there is anything that you might find wrong.

I sense a subtle hint of condescension towards the end of your response.

Nevertheless, while I can appreciate and respect the insights of the Confessions, I whould be cautious not to elevate them to the same status as Scripture. This could lead to a similar error as the Catholic Church's emphasis on papal authority and tradition, which would make what they achieved hypocrytical.

But I'll leave the discussion on confessions to you and @BNR32FAN, as he seems to have a deeper understanding of them and their history.

As to my method of interpretation I shared my presuppositions and approach.
I do consider the various interpretation methods, but ultimately, the Spirit and Scripture. The counsel of commentaries can be helpful, but they often have differing perspectives and for me the final step in exegesis. My goal is to hear God's voice clearly and follow His guidance, which means being true to my convictions. The Confession are important but these were men also prone to error, as we all are, interpreting the text with their own presuppositions and biases in their own context. How do you navigate these potential errors and biases?

 

[Clare73]

The problem with heresies is the people who teach them won’t show you the scriptures that are contradictory to them. Let’s compare what Westminster said to situations presented in the scriptures.
First of all Galatians 4:4 does not support the statement they made here. We need to back up to the end of the previous chapter to get an understanding of what Paul is saying here.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭28‬-‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
“Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
Nothing in this passage says that God ordains everything that people will choose to do. The passage is about God bringing about the time of Christ’s coming, it has absolutely nothing to do with God controlling the choices of people. The passages doesn’t say anything at all about the choices of people. Their interpretation is completely off topic from anything Paul has written here.
How does their interpretation of this verse stand up to these verses?
“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
In the passage above God has made it absolutely clear that He has placed the choice before them and that they must choose to obey or disobey, they must choose either life or death, they must choose either blessing or curse. It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
I will destine you for the sword, And all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
In the passage above God specifically says that He called them and they did not respond, He spoke to them and they did not listen, and they did evil and chose what God did not want. Westminster says that God ordained this? God is saying the exact opposite.
“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above the people were offering human sacrifices to Molech which God did not command them to do and which He never intended for them.
It completely obvious that God did not “ordain” these choices, He specifically said that He didn’t ordain them. How do you explain this?

God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience.
Adam's choice of disobedience guaranteed from that point on what man's fallen nature would prefer and, therefore, choose. . . disobedience.

Just because man is fallen and cannot obey God does not mean that man does not necessarily owe God obedience and, therefore,
even if fallen man cannot pay, God is just in requiring of man what he owes God, what is due to God, even if man cannot pay it.

And who ordained that man could choose, whereby man squandered his spiritual well being?
And who ordained that God would show forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men from this disaster?

God has ordained the conditions whereby man is allowed to disobey him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nowhere does the Bible say that a person can’t repent. All throughout the Bible God has been calling man to repentance since creation. What do you think He’s been doing in His commandments? He’s been calling people to repentance since Adam & Eve. Every time He tells man to stop doing evil, stop sinning, obey my commandments, He telling them to repent. It would be completely STUPID for Him to tell man these things if He knows that they are incapable of complying because He hasn’t allowed them to. Furthermore it would be unjust for Him to throw them into the lake of fire for all eternity for failing to comply IF THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING. Nowhere does the Bible say that we are incapable of repenting and turning to God, nowhere.

I'm sure you've heard before this, but have ignored it like you will this, and continue to speak as though denying it or ignoring it will render it false and useless, that the command does not imply the ability to obey. The command, as is a common theme throughout the NT, demonstrates our utter need for Christ, both for salvation and for sanctification. Apart from him we can do NOTHING.

 

[HarleyER]

I sense a subtle hint of condescension towards the end of your response.

Nevertheless, while I can appreciate and respect the insights of the Confessions, I whould be cautious not to elevate them to the same status as Scripture. This could lead to a similar error as the Catholic Church's emphasis on papal authority and tradition, which would make what they achieved hypocrytical.

But I'll leave the discussion on confessions to you and @BNR32FAN, as he seems to have a deeper understanding of them and their history.

As to my method of interpretation I shared my presuppositions and approach.
I do consider the various interpretation methods, but ultimately, the Spirit and Scripture. The counsel of commentaries can be helpful, but they often have differing perspectives and for me the final step in exegesis. My goal is to hear God's voice clearly and follow His guidance, which means being true to my convictions. The Confession are important but these were men also prone to error, as we all are, interpreting the text with their own presuppositions and biases in their own context. How do you navigate these potential errors and biases?

My goal is to hear God's voice clearly and follow His guidance, which means being true to my convictions. The Confession are important but these were men also prone to error, as we all are

Hi RB

I didn't mean to sound condescending.

While I apprecieate your sincerity, I'm not sure how you measure your convictions against others since you admit that we're all prone to errors.

From Post #426 you stated:

My understanding of synergism does not say man is responsible for salvation it says man co-operates with God who initiates, enables and completes salvation.​

Yet you state:

​

God extends His grace, and we respond in faith. ... I am not advocating for a works based salvation, Christ alone accomplishes this not our effort or merits.​

​

I think your definition is spot on for a synergistic view. This was codified in the Catholic Council of Trent view. So either the men of the Council of Trent were in error or the men of the Westminster/London Baptist were in error.

Furthermore, by including the "we respond" does mean that one HAS to do something for salvation. There is something YOU have to do. So, yes this is a works based view of salvation. Christ didn't accomplished your salvation alone when you must agree to accept it.

 

[HarleyER]

The problem with heresies is the people who teach them won’t show you the scriptures that are contradictory to them. Let’s compare what Westminster said to situations presented in the scriptures.


First of all Galatians 4:4 does not support the statement they made here. We need to back up to the end of the previous chapter to get an understanding of what Paul is saying here.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭28‬-‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Nothing in this passage says that God ordains everything that people will choose to do. The passage is about God bringing about the time of Christ’s coming, it has absolutely nothing to do with God controlling the choices of people. The passages doesn’t say anything at all about the choices of people. Their interpretation is completely off topic from anything Paul has written here.


How does their interpretation of this verse stand up to these verses?

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above God has made it absolutely clear that He has placed the choice before them and that they must choose to obey or disobey, they must choose either life or death, they must choose either blessing or curse. It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

“I will destine you for the sword, And all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.”

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above God specifically says that He called them and they did not respond, He spoke to them and they did not listen, and they did evil and chose what God did not want. Westminster says that God ordained this? God is saying the exact opposite.

“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In the passage above the people were offering human sacrifices to Molech which God did not command them to do and which He never intended for them.

It completely obvious that God did not “ordain” these choices, He specifically said that He didn’t ordain them. How do you explain this?

You might want to study Peter's sermon in Acts 2

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him from the dead, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.​

God predetermined (ordained) the plan, He foreknown (put into action) the events that would lead to Christ being cruxcified, and man did EXACTLY as God ordained and implemented.

Of course He knew what they were going to do. He specifically states this way back in Leviticus. One such verse is:

Leviticus 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.​

God was just telling the people through Jeremiah that He never told them to sacrifice their children.

 

[BNR32FAN]

God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience.
Adam's choice of disobedience guaranteed from that point on what man's fallen nature would prefer and, therefore, choose. . . disobedience.

Just because man is fallen and cannot obey God does not mean that man does not necessarily owe God obedience and, therefore,
even if fallen man cannot pay, God is just in requiring of man what he owes God, what is due to God, even if man cannot pay it.

And who ordained that man could choose, whereby man squandered his spiritual well being?
And who ordained that God would show forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men from this disaster?

God has ordained the conditions whereby man is allowed to disobey him.

I’m not aware of the verse you’re referring to in your first statement. Can you please quote this verse? And I agree with you that God does not owe anyone anything. But I would point out that God’s character is consistent and He is always just. I provided scriptures proving my point. If you disagree with it could you please address the passages I quoted.

 

[com7fy8]

I can see that the only way you can know what will happen in the future is if you are controlling what happens.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You might want to study Peter's sermon in Acts 2

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him from the dead, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.​

God predetermined (ordained) the plan, He foreknown (put into action) the events that would lead to Christ being cruxcified, and man did EXACTLY as God ordained and implemented.

Of course He knew what they were going to do. He specifically states this way back in Leviticus. One such verse is:

Leviticus 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.​

God was just telling the people through Jeremiah that He never told them to sacrifice their children.

And that it never came into His mind. It’s one of the three examples I gave that shows that God does not ordain our choices.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I can see that the only way you can know what will happen in the future is if you are controlling what happens.

I can tell you that Ole Yeller is going to die every time you watch the movie, it doesn’t mean that you or I had anything to do with it.