I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

[Jedi]

"23And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." - Matt 11:23 (ESV)

Try again, friend.

If you look at what Jesus is talking about in that passage, you’ll see that He’s preaching woe to cities that refused to repent, which is exactly what I’ve been talking about. Further still, how Sodom would have responded remains a mystery (you only presume they would have turned to God by way of repentance in response to miracles). Scripture speaks against this in Genesis 13:13, describing the inhabitants of Sodom as “wicked” and “sinning greatly against God.” It was not a problem of believing the right facts (in which case a couple miracles would have surely aided them) but the condition of their hearts. If they were truly as wicked as scripture claims, they would have refrained from carrying out so many wicked deeds only to preserve their city and themselves (which falls in line with what Jesus said in Matthew 11:23), but this would only be an act of self-preservation, not genuine repentance. The fact that not even 10 good people could be found in the whole city (Genesis 18:32) leads us to believe the city was beyond redemption (though, evidently, not preservation).

God shows no partiality...between Jew and Greek (that is, between Israel and all other men). Partiality in what context? If we take a very strict approach, Paul contradicts himself, since God clearly shows partiality to those who do good (v10) over those who do evil (v9).

This is quite untrue; you’re merely toying with semantics now. “Partiality” is not the same as justice, where the wicked get an undesirable consequence for their action and the good get a desirable one. Partiality (“Favoritism”) is giving undue rewards or punishments not warranted by the recipient. If God does this at all, He is unjust and if He is unjust, He is not all-good nor can he be used for the standard of morality.

Again, I cannot stress enough that Paul is using a general principle of God’s character (Romans 2:11) and applying it to a specific situation.

You cannot say that God simply shows no partiality of any kind as Scripture is replete with examples of Him doing so.

I’d love to see them. People may be used differently by God, but nowhere in all of scripture is God portrayed to be so unjust as to show favoritism.

Not wishing that any should perish. Not wishing that any of who should perish? Not wishing that any of you should perish. See...it doesn't say "The Lord is patient toward all men, not wishing that any man should perish..."

Again, using faulty hermaneutics you are making a verse say something it does not say.

No, you’re adding to the verse to make it say what you want. Again, this is a general statement and should be left that way. Lucky for me, I’ve been studying Biblical Greek for quite some time now at the University level, and the word “Pantes” is used here which is literally translated “all men” or “everyone.” The word chosen is far more universal than to be targeted only at his audience. God is not willing that any should perish but for “all men” to come to repentance.

I have a question for you: how do you define "free will?" Would you define it as the ability to choose what one desires from the options available to him?

Free will is the ability to be ones’ self, to choose of your own accord what to do. It is not limited to mere desire (since my desires often conflict) but something more. I suppose you might be trying to ask, “How does free will work,” which is essentially asking “How does God make people people.” To this I have no answer but can only point out what we are not. We cannot be pre-programmed to choose this way or that through psychology, else determinism rules supreme and there is no free will – only beings following a pre-determined program. In this case, people would really not be people but mindless machines and no different than a calculator or computer that responds to outside stimuli based on the program it's been given.

How does God make people? I suppose I’m humble enough to admit I don’t know how God forms the minds of people or how He make them who they are. I suspect that God would know how to make persons that could think, reason, decide, and desire on their own accord without the means of a pre-set program. No doubt there is programming to some degree by the environment people grow up in, (e.g. "programmed responses") but this cannot be all people are, else they are not truly people but only clumps of matter responding to stimuli.

 

[BigNorsk]

I'm afraid I've demonstrated here how clearly man does have free will if any moral praise or condemnation is to make any sense at all. If man cannot possibly respond to God, how can he be justly condemned for not doing so? You might as well condemn a Lego man for not singing your praises or commend him for smiling: in each case, he could have done nothing else.

I'm sorry but you don't understand the term.

If many had a truly free will, he could simply decide on his own to be a righteous person. Something that many people do indeed attempt to do. But they can't be righteous without God, they can't come to God unless God calls them. They reject God. They do not have free will.

Your demonstration was against Calvinisms contention that there are only some who God calls. Luthernism does not agree with that. Lutheranism also does not think that man's will is not free to do many things, such as those things that you have demonstrated. We do not say when someone goes out and sins that God has programmed him to do so. Man's will is free to some extent, but in that which is really important, in the matter of being able to come to God, man's will is not free.

Lutheranism does not make God responsible for sin. They would agree with you on some of your proof of "free will". The mistake you make is that since you are "free" to sin that you make a leap of logic and think that "proves" that you are free to accept God.

Now there are times when certainly a person can quit rejecting God and come to him. God calls to man through his Word. If you witness to someone and he becomes a christian that is completely consistent with the Holy Spirit using the Word of God to convict the person making him realize he needs God and the person quits rejecting God and so God saves him.

You think that means he accepted God and it does look to us much the same, but if he truly had free will, he would not have needed to be called through the Word of God that you shared with him.

Some of it is just sematics but your contention that people "accept" God is to say that people save themselves and that's just incorrect. People are saved by God, people reject God and they are thereby condemned, but it is God who saves them not themselves.

By nature, man can do external things such as obeying laws and commandments, but by nature, man cannot truly fear, love and believe in God. For that he needs grace and the Holy Spirit. Man does not have true free will.

Marv

 

[Jedi]

I'm sorry but you don't understand the term.

Thanks for humoring me with a very ironic statement.

If many had a truly free will, he could simply decide on his own to be a righteous person. Something that many people do indeed attempt to do. But they can't be righteous without God, they can't come to God unless God calls them. They reject God. They do not have free will.

Beg, beg, beg. All you’re doing here is begging the question. How do you know they can’t be righteous without God forcing their decisions (By the way, if God has to force someone to be righteous, they are not truly righteous - they had to be forced, so their actions/decisions are not their own, meaning the following righteousness is not their own)? What makes you think people cannot choose God of their own accord? The evidence is against you, I’m afraid. If God is, indeed, goodness itself and even non-believers choose to do good for good’s sake, then the non-believers are, in a very real sense, choosing God of their own accord. Further still, nothing here even comes close to answering the moral problem of denying free will.

Your demonstration was against Calvinisms contention that there are only some who God calls. Luthernism does not agree with that. Lutheranism also does not think that man's will is not free to do many things, such as those things that you have demonstrated. We do not say when someone goes out and sins that God has programmed him to do so. Man's will is free to some extent, but in that which is really important, in the matter of being able to come to God, man's will is not free.

More begging of the question, I’m afraid. Why would God allow man to make only insignificant decisions? It would be far more rational to allow deciding creatures to use their deciding power over things that actually mattered. The God you described appears to be rather trivial, allowing creatures to only make insignificant decisions.

What’s more is that the problem of moral accountability still stares you in the face. Are people able to choose between good and evil? If not, they are not accountable for their actions. If they are, then they are able to choose between God (goodness itself) and evil (the lack thereof).

The mistake you make is that since you are "free" to sin that you make a leap of logic and think that "proves" that you are free to accept God.

It’s hardly a “mistake.” If your only option is to sin, how can you be held accountable for sinning or not doing good? You could have done nothing else and thus cannot justly be held accountable for your actions.

Now there are times when certainly a person can quit rejecting God and come to him. God calls to man through his Word. If you witness to someone and he becomes a christian[sic] that is completely consistent with the Holy Spirit using the Word of God to convict the person making him realize he needs God and the person quits rejecting God and so God saves him.

You think that means he accepted God and it does look to us much the same, but if he truly had free will, he would not have needed to be called through the Word of God that you shared with him.

This is untrue. All witnessing does is present the facts to those who do not have them so they can make a decision about whether to reject or accept God. It is entirely possible for a person to hear your words, to feel the urging of the Holy Spirit, but be so stubborn about having things their own way that they never come to God. Explaining the facts about who God is does not, by default, cause the hearer to have a desire to serve that God.

Some of it is just sematics[sic] but your contention that people "accept" God is to say that people save themselves and that's just incorrect. People are saved by God, people reject God and they are thereby condemned, but it is God who saves them not themselves.

Ah, yes, another favorite straw man used by Calvinists. Let me spell this out for you: accepting salvation is not “saving yourself.” If a drowning person is saved by a lifeguard, the drowning person did not “save himself” by letting the lifeguard help him. The glory of the save is the lifeguard’s. This understanding of “saving oneself” Calvinists use in this instance is contrary to how “saving oneself” is used in any other context, which is a clear implication they are desperately grasping at straws.

By nature, man can do external things such as obeying laws and commandments, but by nature, man cannot truly fear, love and believe in God. For that he needs grace and the Holy Spirit. Man does not have true free will.

You beg the question all the way through, arbitrarily choosing what decisions man can and cant’ make and all the while serious objections stare you in the face – objections that if left unanswered would throw all of morality into chaos.

 

[frumanchu]

If you look at what Jesus is talking about in that passage, you’ll see that He’s preaching woe to cities that refused to repent, which is exactly what I’ve been talking about. Further still, how Sodom would have responded remains a mystery (you only presume they would have turned to God by way of repentance in response to miracles). Scripture speaks against this in Genesis 13:13, describing the inhabitants of Sodom as “wicked” and “sinning greatly against God.” It was not a problem of believing the right facts (in which case a couple miracles would have surely aided them) but the condition of their hearts. If they were truly as wicked as scripture claims, they would have refrained from carrying out so many wicked deeds only to preserve their city and themselves (which falls in line with what Jesus said in Matthew 11:23), but this would only be an act of self-preservation, not genuine repentance. The fact that not even 10 good people could be found in the whole city (Genesis 18:32) leads us to believe the city was beyond redemption (though, evidently, not preservation).

That's quite a lot to go through just to explain that verse away.

The clear message of the passage is that if the works and miracles being done before them had been done in Sodom, it would have remained. The implication is that they would have repented.

This is quite untrue; you’re merely toying with semantics now. “Partiality” is not the same as justice, where the wicked get an undesirable consequence for their action and the good get a desirable one. Partiality (“Favoritism”) is giving undue rewards or punishments not warranted by the recipient. If God does this at all, He is unjust and if He is unjust, He is not all-good nor can he be used for the standard of morality.

Congratulations. You have just undermined the Gospel. Unless of course you believe salvation is a reward due man. How is it that you do not believe God is being partial to those who choose to put their faith in Him?

Again, I cannot stress enough that Paul is using a general principle of God’s character (Romans 2:11) and applying it to a specific situation.

Again, that's a self-serving interpretation not grounded in sound exegesis.

I’d love to see them. People may be used differently by God, but nowhere in all of scripture is God portrayed to be so unjust as to show favoritism.

So God didn't really set His love upon Israel and set it apart from all other peoples?

I think you have a problem distinguishing grace from favoritism.

No, you’re adding to the verse to make it say what you want. Again, this is a general statement and should be left that way. Lucky for me, I’ve been studying Biblical Greek for quite some time now at the University level, and the word “Pantes” is used here which is literally translated “all men” or “everyone.” The word chosen is far more universal than to be targeted only at his audience. God is not willing that any should perish but for “all men” to come to repentance.

And that's why all the translators leave that out, right?

Free will is the ability to be ones’ self, to choose of your own accord what to do. It is not limited to mere desire (since my desires often conflict) but something more. I suppose you might be trying to ask, “How does free will work,” which is essentially asking “How does God make people people.” To this I have no answer but can only point out what we are not. We cannot be pre-programmed to choose this way or that through psychology, else determinism rules supreme and there is no free will – only beings following a pre-determined program. In this case, people would really not be people but mindless machines and no different than a calculator or computer that responds to outside stimuli based on the program it's been given.

Let me clarify. Do you believe man will choose according to anything other than the strongest desire at the moment he chooses?

How does God make people? I suppose I’m humble enough to admit I don’t know how God forms the minds of people or how He make them who they are. I suspect that God would know how to make persons that could think, reason, decide, and desire on their own accord without the means of a pre-set program. No doubt there is programming to some degree by the environment people grow up in, (e.g. "programmed responses") but this cannot be all people are, else they are not truly people but only clumps of matter responding to stimuli.

Do you believe that man's will is free in all respects?

 

[BigNorsk]

I give references, because someone asked, that clearly explain the whole thing and instead of doing any reading you choose to be a lazy, insulting person. It wan't for you to start with. You can certainly reject just fine.

Marv

 

[Jedi]

That's quite a lot to go through just to explain that verse away.

Not really. The fact is that a lot of misunderstandings happen when people read only a shallow, face-value message of the text.

The implication is that they would have repented.

This implication you assert has the evidence against it, which disqualifies it as a plausible implication.

Congratulations. You have just undermined the Gospel.

I don’t see how, but okay.

Unless of course you believe salvation is a reward due man. How is it that you do not believe God is being partial to those who choose to put their faith in Him?

I believe that in creating free creatures, God must honor the choices of those individuals (else they would cease to be free). Christ’s death on the cross gives everyone a second chance – a “is this your final answer” opportunity. Because of the fall of man, men were depraved (though not totally depraved) and so needed saving. God is not partial when He honors the choices of free-will creatures, accepting those into Heaven who so desire to be with Him and leaving to themselves those who would rather “reign in hell than serve in heaven” because they will never have it any other way than themselves. God is not partial to those who put their faith in Him simply because the offer of mercy has been extended to everyone: whether they accept or reject His offer is own their own heads. Simply because some choose God’s ways and some don’t is no indication of God choosing some and not others.

Again, that's a self-serving interpretation not grounded in sound exegesis.

It’s as plain as day, but I suppose none are as blind as those who do not wish to see. Paul gives a general statement – that much is clear. Why he gives this statement is the application of a general truth to a specific situation. Further still, your claim that God shows favoritism bolsters my assertion that your God is not all good. He plays favorites and is, by definition, unjust.

So God didn't really set His love upon Israel and set it apart from all other peoples?

There is a difference in God using a people who respond to what He says and showing favoritism toward a people regardless of who they are or what they’ve done, helping some while leaving others to rot when he could have helped them too. Again, your God is not all good, for an all good God would promote as much good as possible. Your God purposefully neglects people whom he could have helped at no expense to himself.

And that's why all the translators leave that out, right?

Um, no… it’s there. It’s right there. Translated as “all” in the NIV and “everyone” in the NASB. The word chosen is a universal term. It’s black and white, clear as crystal. The God I serve doesn't want anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentence. Your God is spiteful, lacking in love and abounding in wrath, choosing the lesser glory of destroying one's enemy rather than the greater glory of turning them to one's side. Your God is beneath me.

Let me clarify. Do you believe man will choose according to anything other than the strongest desire at the moment he chooses?

See above. You’re trying to trap me but it won’t work. The answer most certainly is "yes," but the mystery lies in figuring out what composes the free will of man and how people make decisions, think, reason, and desire. No doubt a good deal of decisions are made simply because they are what we desire most, but if we confine every decision made to this simple criteria (follow the most intense desire), we should soon find ourselves in a world of hurt. People cease to be people and are mindless programs responding to outside stimuli, following whatever desire happens to be greatest, placing them alongside every other mindless beast and insect.

Do you believe that man's will is free in all respects?

In the most important respects, yes. A person may be influenced this way or that way, but they always have the final say in what they will and will not do.