Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, God can sovereignly deem that part of His creation-humans and angels-can oppose His own will. That can be said to be the essence of our free will in fact.God can be totally sovereign and still allow mature adults to have the limited free will they need to fulfill their earthly objective.
But from my understanding Calvinism would deny the notion that man could reject the grace of salvation, believing that man is saved first, without being able to will otherwise.
This part, also relates to the Calvinist understanding of "election". (cf.: Irresistible Grace is the idea that the elect, those who Calvinists believe have been unconditionally elected to eternal life, cannot resist the grace of God and heaven's determination to save them.) They go hand-and-hand.
Calvinist believe in the Sovereignty of God.
And, we also believe that man, has a free will. Although we differ on just how "free" mans free will is with Arminianism.
God Bless
Till all are one.
In any case, for the purpose of salvation, man's will is irrelevant for all practical purposes according to Calvinist doctrine. And this, IMO, guts the heart out of much of the gospel message.This part, also relates to the Calvinist understanding of "election". (cf.: Irresistible Grace is the idea that the elect, those who Calvinists believe have been unconditionally elected to eternal life, cannot resist the grace of God and heaven's determination to save them.) They go hand-and-hand.
Calvinist believe in the Sovereignty of God.
And, we also believe that man, has a free will. Although we differ on just how "free" mans free will is with Arminianism.
God Bless
Till all are one.
You stated the huge contrast as being:
Calvinism=God's Sovereignty
Arminianism=Mans free-will.
Now your saying Calvinist believe both is true and I am say Arminianist believe both is true, so please stat the difference?
In any case, for the purpose of salvation, man's will is irrelevant for all practical purposes according to Calvinist doctrine. And this, IMO, guts the heart out of much of the gospel message.
Whatever, but God's commands and warnings to choose good over evil begin in the Old Testament, and continue through the New. If God were going to make the choice for him, why not just stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest and preclude the massive quantities of pain, suffering, and evil that followed man's first wrong choice, his original sin?Whatever, but the "doctrine of election" begins in the Old Testament, and continues through the New.
God Bless
Till all are one.
choose good over evil
It's a principle, set forth in Deut 30:Before I go any further, please supply me verses where God instructs mankind to "choose good over evil" in the Old Testament.
God Bless
Till all are one.
It's a principle, set forth in Deut 30:
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
A better translation from my understanding:
"I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
No, the passage has no other meaning, in fact.That still does not prove your point. Neither does it back up your point of:
""to choose good over evil".
God Bless
Till all are one.
No, the passage has no other meaning, in fact.
God has not given man free-will
The sinner's will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart.
Like I said, a general principle was set down. God's plan of salvation meant delivering the Hebrews to the promised land, which obedience would obtain for them. But ultimately, as we know, that plan involves a non-earthly promised land and the whole world rather than the Hebrews alone. Obedience is still required. I can't imagine why anyone would object, unless they prefer evil to good for some reason, or think it's good for God to be a sugar-daddy for some and not for others. Isaiah 5:20 pertains to this discussion:Since you take that position,
Point 1, to whom was Moses addressing? He was speaking to the Hebrews whom God led out of captivity. His chosen people.
Now, having said that, Paul reiterates a number of times that the Gentiles were never under the Law.
Your taking a message to the Hebrews and trying to apply it "universally".
John Gill comments:
"INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY 30
This chapter contains some gracious promises of the conversion of the
Jews in the latter day, of their calling things to mind that have
befallen them, of their repentance, and the circumcision of their
hearts to love the Lord, of the return of them to their own land, and
of the great increase of them, and of their enjoyment of plenty of good
things, \\#De 30:1-10\\; in it is an account of the Gospel, or word of
faith, which at this time should be brought near to the Jews, and be
received by them, \\#De 30:11-14\\; and for the present Moses desires them
to consider what he now set before them, and what would be the
consequences of receiving or rejecting it, and so what it would be most
proper for them to make choice of, \\#De 30:15-20\\.
Source
So, I'm sorry, but according to the principles of sound biblical hermeneutics, I cannot accept your assessment of Deut. 30 in applying it "universally".
Is there another verse you think applies?
God Bless
Till all are one.
Like I said, a general principle was set down. God's plan of salvation meant delivering the Hebrews to the promised land, which obedience would obtain for them. But ultimately, as we know, that plan involves a non-earthly promised land and the whole world rather than the Hebrews alone. Obedience is still required. I can't imagine why anyone would object, unless they prefer evil to good for some reason, or think it's good for God to be a sugar-daddy for some and not for others. Isaiah 5:20 pertains to this discussion:
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
What difference does it make what we call them if we're not to choose between them?
Do the New Covenant prophecies of Jer 31 and Ez 36 apply to Israel only? Christians understand the OT through their own set of lenses as I'm sure you know.Here again, you forget three words:
My problem with your view is trying to use Moses' words as if they applied to Gentiles. Which they didn't.
- Context
- Context
- Context
In fact, there is very, very little of the Old Testament that directly applied to those who were not Hebrew.
At the time of your context, if you would be willing to look back, that land they were about to take possession of was to the Hebrews.
"And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land:" -Gen 12:7 (KJV)
Canaan, was to be a land for the Hebrews.
But, by the same token, here one verse where it applies to everybody:
"and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;' -Gen. 26:4 (KJV)
Like I said, my problem is that you are taking a verse/chapter that was directly addressing the Hebrews specifically, and applying it to Gentiles, which the text does not support.
God Bless
Till all are one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?