predestination vs. free will

[Rick Otto]

Thanks for that rockin' explanation of quantum physics!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Our being responsible does not depend upon our being free, simply upon our complicity.

Y'all replied:

"NO. Serial killers think like this. They watch their victims and learn their habits in order to predict what they will do and use their knowledge of their victims habits against them. They like to say that their victim cooperates and even wants their own death. But this is a lie and the truth is that the serial killer alone is responsible. Likewise, if God predict our actions then His actions not ours determine the results. If a parent sets his children up to fail in this manner for his own purpose then this is an evil parent who abuses his children rather than loves them."


To which I reply:
>>>Except God is good by definition, and He doesn't predict, He knows from having created His subjects (not victims). Although I will admit to having been the victim of His eloquent humor.

You address a mis-presumption of my concept of God, if you think I picture the pathetic, unloving monster of intellect & power you described... "Frankengod"!

I too consider His goodness as a defining characteristic, I hope it relieves you to know.
But you betray some confusion here, I think:
"It is not the knowledge or power or creating me that gives God my loyalty, but goodness and love alone."
>>God gives you your loyalty, by an act of mercy - grace. It is not an autonomous act on your part. That is co-operative salvation as described in the RCC canons from th Council of Trent. Check 'em out online.
That presumes a redeeming value in a fallen creature - a logical contradiction in definition.

You allow Him to single out a few individuals for tragedy(Esau & Pharoah), but deny him His Creative sovereignity over the rest of His creation?
I think THAT would render Him 'pathetic'.

On this, I think we agree more than you either notice, or allow yourself to:
"No God is not ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. He is only responsible for the possibility of evil..."

>>That's about the same thing as I said, bro.
He created evil as a real possibility, a quality expressible by an act of sin.
"... and His overwhelming love and good intentions make even this creation of such a possibility an act of goodness."

>>>Again, I indicated this exactly when I pointed out you can't judge His motivation(goodness) by His action alone(creating evil-the possibility).

Good discussion, thanks.

 

[CalvinistSamurai]

Rick Otto- I'm terribly sorry, I misread your post. I thought it said clamity/sin tomato tomahto. I recant what I said. Evil is definitely part of the definition of that word accoding to Strong's. I got the argument mixed up. Calamity is evil, because all calamity is accoding to webster's is 'a disaster.' Evil would definitely be in there. I went back and changed the said post. Apologies!

Relspace: What is your reply to what I said? I want an explanation for why you're claiming to base your beliefs on the bible yet have only posted one verse, and your interpretation of it was flat out wrong.

Shalom.

 

[relspace]

"I understand what you are saying to an extent, that God doesn't need anything and He is totally independent. But when you basically say that God doesn't need to be God? This is quite a contradiction."

That is silly. How can God need to be God or not need to be God? God is who He is. This has arisen from confusing God with human definitions of God. OF COURSE, God is not bound by our definitions. OF COURSE, God does not need to act in accordance with our definitions and expectations.

>>I'm sorry if I basicaly said that. With that broader sense of need, I will concede your point.

I am getting a bit confused about who said what in your posts, and I am very uncertain about what you are responding to.

I was thinkin' God was God before creation. I think I remember there's a scripture that indicates (basicaly) that He was complete in Himself, & in that sense, He had no need, to create for example. It kinda sounds like egoistic exhibitionism when I think of creation as an expression of need. It's easier to assign a broader sense of "need" than an even slightly dysfunctional personality to God.
Or maybe I didn't understand you & I'm further confused,... that's entirely plausible.
My knees are weak & my eyes cross easily!

I can't think of anything other than Gen 1:26, which is only "...let us make man~", but no explicit reason why.
Somebody throw me a bone.

I believe that an infinitely perfect (complete as you say) being, having no need of anything, can only have one motivation and that is to give of that infinite abundance in love to another. This is why selfless love is the ultimate ideal surpassing all other things.

Thanks for that rockin' explanation of quantum physics!

You are welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Our being responsible does not depend upon our being free, simply upon our complicity.

Y'all replied:

"NO. Serial killers think like this. They watch their victims and learn their habits in order to predict what they will do and use their knowledge of their victims habits against them. They like to say that their victim cooperates and even wants their own death. But this is a lie and the truth is that the serial killer alone is responsible. Likewise, if God predict our actions then His actions not ours determine the results. If a parent sets his children up to fail in this manner for his own purpose then this is an evil parent who abuses his children rather than loves them."

To which I reply:
>>>Except God is good by definition, and He doesn't predict, He knows from having created His subjects (not victims). Although I will admit to having been the victim of His eloquent humor.

To say that God is good by definition is to make it meaningless. Shall we define goodness by the actions of God in the Bible? I am not sure that works. I have faith that God is good and that there are good reasons for everything God has done in the Bible but my comprehension of what God has done and His reasons for doing so are insufficient to make this a good basis for understanding what is good.

But this raises a good question as to how shall we know what is good so that this statement that God is good has meaning. I believe the history in the Bible reveals God as a teacher of mankind concerning what is good. The laws of the Old Testament lays a foundation, but Jesus reveals a deeper meaning behind the law to overthrow the legalism of the Pharisees. He gave us this deeper meaning in the first and greatest commandment, to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and in a second commandment to love our neighbor as ourself. And with parables our Lord explained much of what is meant - what it means to love God and what it means to be a neighbor.

But since goodness is now not a matter of laws and legalism, but of heart and of reason, we are in difficult spot. We have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to correct us, but we prideful, sinful, depraved creatures of habit and additions err faster than we are corrected and have little solid ground to stand on so that we can say what is good with absolute confidence. But the lack of certainty in life is simply the opportunity for faith. So if we are ready and willing to be corrected, we must have faith that if we follow our conscience as a guide to knowing what is good, then God will see our sincerity and provide for us the correction that we need. This is all that we can do for to act against our conscience is clearly a rejection whatever sense of goodness that we have.

You address a mis-presumption of my concept of God, if you think I picture the pathetic, unloving monster of intellect & power you described... "Frankengod"!

I too consider His goodness as a defining characteristic, I hope it relieves you to know.

But I was responding to your claim that the definition of God as omniscience and omnipotent made God incapable of not knowing or not controlling and therefore incapable of "giving privacy, limiting Himself, taking risks, or making sacrifices". If you are clarifying that this is not what you meant then that helps a great deal and we come much closer to agreement.

But you betray some confusion here, I think:
"It is not the knowledge or power or creating me that gives God my loyalty, but goodness and love alone."
>>God gives you your loyalty, by an act of mercy - grace. It is not an autonomous act on your part. That is co-operative salvation as described in the RCC canons from th Council of Trent. Check 'em out online.
That presumes a redeeming value in a fallen creature - a logical contradiction in definition.

It is not confusion but perhaps a fundamental disagreement concerning the nature of salvation. For I believe that no matter how much God has to intercede to free us from our freewill-detroying sins so that we can respond to the gospel, He nevertheless demands an exercise of our freewill to accept the gift of salvation. Therefore I utterly deny your claim that my loyalty is not given by my own free will. Having chosen of my own freewill and having been able to do so without the aid of God are not the same thing at all, so no matter how incapable I was of saving myself I nevertheless accepted the gift of salvation by my own free choice. In other words, I absolutely reject the Calvinist idea of "irresistable grace".

You allow Him to single out a few individuals for tragedy(Esau & Pharoah), but deny him His Creative sovereignity over the rest of His creation?
I think THAT would render Him 'pathetic'.

I deny God nothing, I only state my belief concerning what I believe is the will of God, for I do not believe that God desires absolute control over us but rather our our free will. God does not want our obedience in all things but only in those things which destroy the very free will that He values in us. I believe that the essential nature of sin is in how it destroys our potential for greater things and trades our free will for addictive habits

On this, I think we agree more than you either notice, or allow yourself to:
"No God is not ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. He is only responsible for the possibility of evil..."

>>That's about the same thing as I said, bro.
He created evil as a real possibility, a quality expressible by an act of sin.

Communication is difficult and clearly understanding what others are saying is a rare event. Your responses here are confusing to me because you disconnect my words from what they are responding to. It is may be that my words sound a bit like something else you said, BUT I was responding to the following,

Being "held responsible for our sins "is thus a misleading phrase in the context of predestination (ultimate responsibility). Better to express it not as being held responsible, but as being "judged guilty of". It is essential to know the difference between being responsible & being guilty.

You use the words "ultimate responsibility" claiming that although God is ultimately responsible for what we do, because He predetermines our actions, He judges us guilty even though we are not utlimately responsible for our sins. I deny this utterly. I say that WE, NOT GOD, are ultimately responsible for our sins, because being responsible for the possibility that we might sin does not constitute being ultimately responsible for that sin. It is we who change the possibility to an actuality and thus it is we who are ultimately responsible. But as I have said before that which is only a possibility cannot be known as an actuality without changing it into an actuality first. Therefore God knows our future choices as possibilities only and not as actualities.

----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------

Relspace: What is your reply to what I said? I want an explanation for why you're claiming to base your beliefs on the bible yet have only posted one verse, and your interpretation of it was flat out wrong.

Huh? Since when were you talking to me? And although I have no idea what verse you are talking about, I can still say that you are welcome to your opinion, whatever that is.

I am going to stop listening to Relspace altogether if in his next post I don't see a foundation laid of Scripture.

Fine and I will likewise cease to respond to your posts in this thread because you refuse to be rational and your response to courtesy is abuse. I have several translations of the scriptures to read without your irrational interpretations which you confuse with the written word. All of my arguments are based on scripture. You saying that they are not, does not make it so.

 

[PETE_]

It is not confusion but perhaps a fundamental disagreement concerning the nature of salvation. For I believe that no matter how much God has to intercede to free us from our freewill-detroying sins so that we can respond to the gospel, He nevertheless demands an exercise of our freewill to accept the gift of salvation. Therefore I utterly deny your claim that my loyalty is not given by my own free will. Having chosen of my own freewill and having been able to do so without the aid of God are not the same thing at all, so no matter how incapable I was of saving myself I nevertheless accepted the gift of salvation by my own free choice. In other words, I absolutely reject the Calvinist idea of "irresistable grace".

This is an excerpt from Spugeon. May shed some light.

I would remind you that there is a great opposition in man himself to the sweet influences of the Holy Spirit. When the time comes for any one man to be saved, his natural enmity is sure to be on the alert against the divine power, and Satan is certain also to strengthen him lest he should lose his victim. Now, I glorify God in this that thou, sinner, though thou mayst resist and grieve the Spirit for awhile, yet if he comes to thee with omnipotent power effectually to save, thou must yield, for thou, even thou, with all thine enmity, canst not bind the sweet influences of the Spirit of eternal life. It is with many men as I have sometimes seen with a village brook; it has been dammed up for some reason, and the water has become a pool. A heavy shower has by-and-by fallen upon the hills, and the full stream has leaped downward. There stands the dam for a little while, but it trembles as the stream swells. Perhaps the villagers strengthen it, but if the rain continues to fall, the stream increases in volume, and at last, with one noble outburst, down leaps the torrent, and the dam is swept away like a bowing wall. So with our evil nature, when the Holy Ghost comes, with greater and greater power, descending from the hills of God’s eternal purposes, at last sweeps away every remnant of opposition, and on he sweeps in the greatness of his strength. “You deny, then,” says one, “the free-will of man?” Who says that? I never denied it; on the contrary, I insist upon it more than most men. There is no opposition between the doctrine of irresistible grace and the fact of the free agency of man. “How,” say you, “if man be thus irresistibly carried as by storm, how can he be free?” Bethink thyself, man, and answer for thyself. Wert thou never overcome in argument? Didst thou never resist an argument for a time, till at last another reason was given, and then another, and thou couldst not but yield to the overwhelming arguments? Didst thou then prove that thou hadst no reason of thine own? Nay, it proved thou hadst a reason, and therefore could be mastered by arguments fitted to thy reason. If thou hadst been bereft of reason-an idiot-nobody could have spoken of an irresistible argument so far as thou wert concerned, but thy powers of understanding enabled thee to be overcome by legitimate force. So with the will-we do not dream, as some falsely imagine, that physical force is used by the Lord with men’s moral natures, but we teach that there are appeals and persuasions, arguments and forces, which are applicable to the will which, without violating its freedom even in the smallest degree, yet overwhelm it and subdue it to the right and the true, so that the man with full consent yields up himself to the full power of divine love. Do not the hymns of Mr. Wesley often express our meaning when he uses such words as overcoming and forcing? as in the verse-​

“Save the vilest of the race,
Force me to be saved by grace.”​

Such expressions mean just what we mean, and no more. We do not mean the violation of the will, but we do mean this, that where the Holy Spirit comes, though the man’s will may have been obstinate enough before, when he exerts his wondrous influences, he makes the will to yield itself at once; the man is made willing in the day of God’s power-the sweet influences of the Pleiades are not bound even by human rebellion.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=29687080#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=29687080#_ftnref1

 

[relspace]

Oh there it is.

Is. 40:6 ...All flesh is grass, and all its glories are as the flowers of the field. The grass withereth, the flowers fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand forever.

...your thoughts, according to Isaiah, are the flowers of the field...

As this was supposed to be a "proper" use of scripture, I found myself rather confused. So of course I thought I had better look at the context to see what I was missing here. But what I found was that this is the answer to the question "What shall I cry?" which is in response to the command to Isaiha in 40:2 "Speak comfort to Jerusalem and cry out to her". And why did God command Isaiha to speak in this manner? Well we read in Isaiha 39 that Hezekiah was showing off his treasures and was pleased with these things, but Isaiha rebuked him saying that all these things will soon be carried off to Babylon. It would seem that these treasures are what is meant by things of the flesh. It is very odd but hunting in both directions I see not the slightest hint of the meaning which CS attributes to this passage and so I am completely mystified as to what all His accusations and slanders against me could mean.

Could it be that he just doesn't agree with me and doesn't know what else to say? Well that's Ok, by me. But I don't think he wants to admit such a simple thing. He wants to call all reasoning which he disagrees with "flowers" and pretend that his reasoning is handed to him from on high. But I prefer to admit to my limitations rather than refuse to acknowlege the possibility that there much that God may yet have to teach me.

Back your thoughts up with scripture and quit reasoning,

No. I do not accept your method of quoting scripture and telling people that it means what you are saying. I do not approve of mouthing the words of God in order to pretend that all the words out of the same mouth are of God. My words are only my words and my reasoning is only my reasoning and I will not use scripture to pretend otherwise.

I do not argue that anyone is wrong, I only explain why I disagree. I am not a babe in the woods that I have not heard your ideas, arguments and use of scripture before. I have already considered them and made the best judgement that I can. No I do not use your methods and no I do not think as you do. If you want to use this fact as a pretext to proclaim your superiority then be my guest. I prefer to be meek and poor in spirit, in my own way.

If God ordained something based on a possiblity, and that thing didn't come to pass due to it being only a possiblity, then God would make an error, because He does not ordain things that do not come to pass. Prov. 19:21 There are many devices in a man’s heart; But the counsel of Jehovah, that shall stand. 'Shall stand' means that there is no possibilty that He could ever be wrong. He also cannot ordain multiple things to deal with each possibility, because He knows the 'end from the beginning (Is 46:10)' and it is He who 'bring(s) it forth (Is 41:22).' Possibilty is impossible with God, because with Him only are all things certain.

You assume what you seek to prove. You think that God does not need to make conditional plans because He know everything that will happen, which you conclude because the Bible says that certain things happen according to God's plan. The three Bible passages you mention here do not say that God's plans are not conditional and twenty or a hundred Bible passages that do not say that God's plans are not conditional will prove your claim no better than these three. God certainly CAN make complex plans that would boggle our mind in an infinite array of contingencies. I can't, but God can.

I am happy that mentioning these Bible passages give you the comfort you need, support your faith, and reassure you of the correctness of your thinking, but they do not convince me because they simply do not say what you claim.

Your use of scripture is utter ridiculousness.

Interesting. I wonder what is the basis of your judgement. I use a scripture to mean no more than what it says. God "was sorry that He had made man." and that is ridiculous while you quote Isaiah, "flesh and its glories are grass and flowers which pass away" to say "your thoughts are flowers".

It is true that being sorry does not mean that we made an error or did anything wrong because sometimes the results of what we do, depend on the actions of others. We can be sorry that we gave candy to our children when we see them fighting over this candy. But we do not say that we are sorry we did something when we really mean that we are sorry that that was necessary. Nor do we say this when we mean that we are miserable because everything is going precisely according to our plan.

Ho hum.... All I am trying to say here is, get off your high horse! You are not so high and mighty as you pretend to be. You are a puny, miserable, degenerate, lying, manipulative, boastful human just like me.

 

[relspace]

We do not mean the violation of the will, but we do mean this, that where the Holy Spirit comes, though the man’s will may have been obstinate enough before, when he exerts his wondrous influences, he makes the will to yield itself at once; the man is made willing in the day of God’s power-the sweet influences of the Pleiades are not bound even by human rebellion.

Interesting! I can't wait until you explain the other four points of Calvinism in such a way that they come to mean the very opposite of what they seem to say.

 

[PETE_]

Interesting! I can't wait until you explain the other four points of Calvinism in such a way that the come to mean the very opposite of what they seem to say.

Would you say that Saul denied his free-will or was he overwhelmed by God?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I agree with you on the point that God does not need anything...but only to the point that God does not need anything to sustain Himself. When you say that God does not need to berighteous, you have, in fact alienated God. You have no way of arguing yourself out of this, and I will show you why.

God is righteous and holy. You agree with this. Why is God righteous and holy? Well, because God defines what "righteous and holy" is. These words and ideas do not define God, God defines them with His character. God has defined righteousness as goodness, or what is pleasing to Him. The same with holiness. The term "holiness" is synonymous with the idea of being spotless, or blameless before God, because God defines holiness. Anything that is not of God, therefore, is not Holy. This is why God cannot sin. God has deemed sin as unholy, and if God sinned, he would then contradict what He has defined as holy.

You are, in a way, saying that God can sin. If God does not need to be holy, then God does not need to abstain from sin, because that is exactly what being holy is, being clean of the stain of sin. Your logic has run you into a wall, because although God does not need anything to continue His existence, He does in fact need to be perfect in everything. All holy, all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc., because if He ceases to do these things, He ceases not only to define them, but He begins to contradict them.

I am clueless to why you have agreed that God cannot be the author of sin. If in fact God does not need anything, to the point of even continuing to be Himself as He has defined Himself, then He does not need to not sin, which means He has the ability to be the author of sin, which of course you will disagree with, although you cannot stop your argument from concluding this.

The reason we here are arguing that God must be all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all holy, all righteous, etc. is because the Scriptures tell us that this is what makes up His being, and that He is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow. This is an anthropomorphic statement. God is the same ALWAYS, that is the clear message. To say that God can change Himself is a direct denial of the person of God, because of former reasons stated.

Go ahead, twist my words around Relspace...

 

[CalvinistSamurai]

No. I do not accept your method of quoting scripture and telling people that it means what you are saying. I do not approve of mouthing the words of God in order to pretend that all the words out of the same mouth are of God. My words are only my words and my reasoning is only my reasoning and I will not use scripture to pretend otherwise.

Interpretation is how Christians prove or disprove doctrine, which is what we're arguing. To quote a scripture, and state its interpretation is not wrong. Your interpretation may be wrong, but to use scripture to postulate doctrines is hardly incorrect. Contrary to what you've been saying, your last sentence here states that you do not base your thoughts on scripture, because your thoughts are your own apparently. I assume through your choice of words that you read scripture and decide to make of it what you want. I don't do that; what I preach are the same interpretations that have gone back for hundreds of years. None of it is my own, as history demands. The reason for that is because I base my doctrine on scripture, which I quote constantly.

As this was supposed to be a "proper" use of scripture, I found myself rather confused. So of course I thought I had better look at the context to see what I was missing here. But what I found was that this is the answer to the question "What shall I cry?" which is in response to the command to Isaiha in 40:2 "Speak comfort to Jerusalem and cry out to her". And why did God command Isaiha to speak in this manner? Well we read in Isaiha 39 that Hezekiah was showing off his treasures and was pleased with these things, but Isaiha rebuked him saying that all these things will soon be carried off to Babylon. It would seem that these treasures are what is meant by things of the flesh. It is very odd but hunting in both directions I see not the slightest hint of the meaning which CS attributes to this passage and so I am completely mystified as to what all His accusations and slanders against me could mean

See, this is how Christians should debate other Christians, by criticizing their interpretation of scripture. This is what I've been asking for, what you're doing right here. All I've been saying is that if you're gonna say that your thoughts are based on scripture, prove it. That way, I can see your scripture and base my arguments on that, because getting into an intellectual debate is pointless. The only relevent debates are the ones based on scripture interpretation, because as I said before, only scripture holds the truth. So, thank you.

It would seem that these treasures are what is meant by things of the flesh.

Nope. You're applying things to what it is not outright saying. It outright says, All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field Check out the word all. Flesh is grass, and all of its righteousnesses are the flowers of the field. Philosophies quite fit into the 'flowers' category, as does treasures, because they are all 'goodliness thereof'. Only the Word of God stands. Our righteousnesses will pass just as the flowers of the field. Which is why I ask you to quote scripture, because the scripture comes from God, not grass, and therefore is more reliable than your opinions alone.

You think that God does not need to make conditional plans because He know everything that will happen, which you conclude because the Bible says that certain things happen according to God's plan. God certainly CAN make complex plans that would boggle our mind in an infinite array of contingencies.

No, not just because He knows what will happen, and not because only certain things come to pass, but because He ordained all things to pass:
Prov. 16:4 Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Prov. 16:9 A man’s heart deviseth his way; But Jehovah directeth his steps.
Prov. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.
Every little thing is ordained by God. Foreknowlege is not the end all. This is the importance of Prov 16:33. It doesn't say 'certain instances are disposed by Jehovah,' or 'the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah, except when man's will comes into play.' It says that God ordains all. There is no 'chance,' and according to the last two passages, certainly no 'free will.' It is not just planned, but commanded. Foreknowlege is good, but with God, it goes hand in hand with Foreordination. The passages I quoted from Isaiah prove this:
s. 41:22 Let them bring forth, and declare unto us what shall happen...
False gods cannot 'bring forth,' only God can do that. That is foreordination. It goes one step beyond foreknowledge and says that not only does God know ahead of time, but He also commanded that it would pass. That alone is why I disagree with the idea you are proclaiming about there being possibility with God. If God ordains that things happen, it isn't just because He knew about it ahead of time, its because He commanded it to happen that way.

Shalom.

 

[relspace]

Would you say that Saul denied his free-will or was he overwhelmed by God?

I would read the story as it is in Acts 9, where it says that God spoke to Paul and Paul listened and being amazed he asked what he should do. I admit freely that if God spoke to me in such a manner I very well might not listen, for I might very well doubt the truth of such words coming to me out the air. God is very wise, knowing better than anyone what might move a person's heart and what would not, so God speaks to me in voice that I might listen to rather than in one I would not. But as persuasive as God might have been to Paul, I deny that it was irresistable. Paul had to choose between stubborness and repentance and Paul exercised his free will in the grace the God gave him to choose the latter. This is not a choice that everyone makes so easily. God did not require Paul. If Paul refused, God would have found another. None of us are indispensible and irreplaceable in the plan of God. And because of our free will God does find such replacements when we fail to respond to the opportunities which He gives us.

Even John the Baptist, who was given the task to testify to Jesus from the day of his birth, did such a poor job at the task assigned to him that our Lord said of him in Matt 11, "among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Sure he obeyed the assignment given him to point out the one whom the Holy Spirit revealed to him as he explains in the first chapter of the gospel of John, but even though it was to him that the Holy Spirit revealed this, like a "reed shaken in the wind", he himself doubted and did not believe (Matt 11:3). And so Jesus was forced to testify to Himself in Matthew chapter 11 saying, "and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come."

God forces no one to receive His love or to love Him in return, for to do so would make it something other than love. Since God made us for the purpose love and desires us to learn its ways, God encourages our free will (for free will, life and love are all inseperable) and so God seeks to preserve this against the sin which would destroy it. Now if I were CS or JF I might throw in passages like 1 Cor 13:1-13 or Rom 6:23. But everyone knows these passages and I do not pretend that they say exactly what I have said, any more than any scripture says exactly what is said in the 5 points of Calvinism. CS and JF could gleefully and pridefully quote Rom 6:16 to say that we go from the slavery of sin to the slavery of obedience, and say that this means there is no free will, even though this is manifestly not true. The truth sets us free and obedience to the Lord is no enslavement but is liberation, for if this obedience is not for the love of the Lord but an attempt work off a debt in slavery then we are sorely misled.

I think that the idea that this issue can be resolve by a battle of scriptures is terribly naive. For this has been an issue of disagreement among Christian unresolved for quite some time. CS and JF may prefer to deny this with an attitude of contempt for those who disagree with their point of view, but I do not.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, I wasn't thinking about Romans 6, as much as I have been thinking about Romans 9 for the past 20-30 posts, since no one has even really taken a look at post number 91, which spells it out.

The passages stated by Relspace conclude we have a will. Now they say nothing about our will being completely independent from God's will. This has been a point from the beginning.

Relspace, just look at post 91, okay?

 

[epistemaniac]

Hi Brownie,



Hmm, thats a very good question. I can't say that I have thought about it to that extent. I think when I have a minute, I will read through the links posted by other responders and have a look at that. For the moment, I don't have an answer to your question tho. Sorry.

one of the most brillian and insightful posts ever!! isn't it great to be able to say "hey... I am not sure about that one... let me get back to you".... refreshing.... honest.... I personally STRONGLY disagree with your views, or, at least those I have read thus far in this thread, but, this post... well I love it... way to go!!!!!

blessings,
Ken

 

[PETE_]

Even John the Baptist, who was given the task to testify to Jesus from the day of his birth, did such a poor job at the task assigned to him that our Lord said of him in Matt 11, "among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Sure he obeyed the assignment given him to point out the one whom the Holy Spirit revealed to him as he explains in the first chapter of the gospel of John, but even though it was to him that the Holy Spirit revealed this, like a "reed shaken in the wind", he himself doubted and did not believe (Matt 11:3). And so Jesus was forced to testify to Himself in Matthew chapter 11 saying, "and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come."

I think you are way off base on this passage. Jesus was commending JB.

God forces no one to receive His love or to love Him in return, for to do so would make it something other than love.
.

Do we then lose this free-will after we are saved? Can we change our minds years later?

 

[IamAdopted]

Can I join in on this conversation? I believe in predestination.. I believe scripture backs it up...

 

[PETE_]

Can I join in on this conversation? I believe in predestination.. I believe scripture backs it up...

the more the merrier

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Can I join in on this conversation? I believe in predestination.. I believe scripture backs it up...

Sure! Everyone's invited.

To sum up history, Me and Calvinist Samurai are (eheeemm) Calvinists, and believe in predestination. We began discussing with Sothron until he gave up and left this thread (either that or he forgot about it). Now Relspace has come and is arguing that God doesn't have to be God in order to be God. Understand? Good. Me either.

 

[Eternalgrace]

I think there are two kinds of predestination. One is wrong and one is right.

 

[Eternalgrace]

When we choose to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is a choice forever, an eternal union, so it was a choice never to choose otherwise in His grace of forgiveness and gift of eternal life. If one wants the option to change his mind later, then did he really enter in the first place? Similarly, if you don't come in the right way by the choice first to then be saved, did you really come in it all?

 

[IamAdopted]

Even with the Disciples Jesus chose them.. He tells them ,, I chose you, you did not choose me.. We only can be enlightened to saving grace by the Father...Jesus states this as Peter tells Jesus whom He was...

 

[IamAdopted]

With what you have said about choosin.. Jesus tells us that many are called but few are chosen...