Upvote
0
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.
Well first, that's not true. God is under no compunction to tell us everything all at once. He may choose the time to let us in on the facts.
The only compunction comes from his own nature. God says that he does not lie. either by commision or omission.
Second, God stated, "In the day you eat you shall die." That happened in some way. That's the basis for total inability. Death is a pretty total inability.
Yes. but it led to their eventual death, not their immediate death. death is indeed total inability. If you die in your sins you are lost etrnally
No disagreement on thatBtw, that's not stated as a curse. That's stated as a consequence that ensued directly from the sin.
Ithink you'll find that clarity is often obscure when it comes to blessings and curses. When we're punished the cause is not always clearly delineated by God.
In our personal walk with the lord you are correct. In his word however he is quite direct and forthright.
.Then that day they died
Eventually
3:1-8).The statement of Paul's begins with his first main point in 1:18. The argument is that God is against the unrighteous who act in their unrighteousness (ch. 1); that thinking you're righteous or reading the Law ("bein' spiritual") or following its ceremonies ("bein' religious") doesn't make your righteous (ch. 2); that all are unrighteous (ch 3:1-19), even in desire for God (see 3:9-10), and unrighteousness even to show God's righteousness is not going to vindicate us in the end (cf
Unless i am totaly missing somehting here. ( and with me that's always a possibbility) You have simply restated the position I held to in my post. I do not disagree with anything you said. I simply do not see how this "prooves" or even particularly supports calvanism.
I've marveled a little that it's always put in terms of merit-justification. Yes, the Pelagian argument is skewered to death because of these chapters. But Paul is much more expansive. His indictment is more extreme than that. We're unrighteous by every measure: works, religion, desire, pursuit.
I might marvel also if i had any idea what the Pelagian arguement is. But beyond that I again have no disagreement with what you say
Come now, I was in no way saying this was about the observance of the law. To the contary paul is clearly saying to the jews that even the strictest observation of the law could not lead to rightousness,and he is speaking as a former pharasie.Yet "No one seeks after God" isn't some legal observance of the Law. It's a will-based statement, and nothing else. There are myriad other statements about "our unrighteousness" and our rejection of God, our desires, and our hearts, and our Spirit.
You are again correct about the other verses
IAt least one point of agreementagree. That's why, when the context hammers away at heart issues, I point out: "the heart is the thing."
And at that point, Total Inability is dead on. It says with the heart being corrupted, whatever you desire is from a corrupt desire, wherever you turn, it's from a corrupt motive. You're sunk. Your desires will kill you. Your spirit -- well, as I said, it's already dead in God's sight.
Oh well, I guess we'll have to settle for just one point. That may be what total inability teaches,I do not question that. My question is is it biblicaly sound teaching.
But there's still a serious difference. Many Christians disagree with Calvinists over where that unwillingness originates. Calvinists insist it originates by God's intent in creating. That's where the argument truly appears. It's always shoved away, and toward this direction we're arguing right now. To me that's a sad commentary on the opposition's unwillingness to confront the fractures in their own theology. But =shrug=, I agree. The argument implied onto Calvinism is much ado about nothing.
My friend, God's intent is all i have looked at here. If this conversation has turned it was not I who turned it. Someones theology is fractured, the question is who's.
An excellent summation of calvanism.The point of Calvin's is that God made that will which so willingly opposes Him. That will wasn't set on a sea of chance or independence to choose or not choose. God made wills that way; He planned each the way they result; He places them in history at their appointed times; and He does what He intends to do with them.
I would say that it twists God's word,nature and character around the axle of John calvinThat's what normally twists people around the axle
We have drifted a bit from the original question. In a little while here I will to reboot to the original arguement with another post.
jax
a choice between life and death. That they are capable of choosing good but also capable of turning away.
What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing cannot produce something...That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God), which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition...Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7:21).Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source, and declares that their fountain is the "heart," and not the will! Again; "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me" (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word "heart" is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word "will," even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God’s will!
When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his "heart"—the innermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it—and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to "forsake his way," but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ, because be does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates Him and loves sin: see Jeremiah 17 :9!
In defining the will we have said above, that "the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause of any action, any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain; so the will is the servant of the mind, and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man’s will? Is it not written, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17)?And did not our Lord say, "ye will not come to Me that ye might have life" (John 5:40)? We answer; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man’s "will"; other of his faculties are also addressed. For example: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." "Hear and your soul shall live." "Look unto Me and be ye saved." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." "Come now and let us reason together," "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," etc., etc.
Lets look even further back in the Old Testament than Deut.30 shall we?
uh,no lets not-at the moment. Another poster here complained that that non-calvinist always turned the direction of the conversation so that they would not have to examine their own "fractured theology" (i paraphrase not quote) Is this not what your doing here?
Why are you unwilling to look unflinchingly into the eye of this passage thru the lens of calvinism. Chery picking verses here and there do not constitute a rebuttle but rather an evasion.
Yes, man does have a "free will" but until that evil heart is replaced by a regenerated heart, (cf. Psa 51:10) the "free will" will only do what is in the evil heart. And not choose the good over the evil.
Is god then lying to the people thru moses? Clearly his words there are diametrically opposed to your words here.
Once again a simple question. Can you reconclile all that ypu have said in this post with God's words in deut.30 vs 11-19 in a way that does not compromise God's own stated nature?
So you would suggest that that term "in the day you eat" doesn't mean that day, but "when", and actually "you shall die" doesn't mean "shall" but "sometime afterward will".Yes. but it led to their eventual death, not their immediate death. death is indeed total inability. If you die in your sins you are lost etrnally
If you heard that, would you think you would be dead in that day?In our personal walk with the lord you are correct. In his word however he is quite direct and forthright.
What eventual day would God mean?Eventually
Its support comes from the observation that no will is able to come to God. The Law simply says that.Unless i am totaly missing somehting here. ( and with me that's always a possibbility) You have simply restated the position I held to in my post. I do not disagree with anything you said. I simply do not see how this "prooves" or even particularly supports calvanism.
Well that's specifically what "Total Inability" means.I might marvel also if i had any idea what the Pelagian arguement is. But beyond that I again have no disagreement with what you say
Great. Often I get back from people that Paul is actually focused on the Mosaic Law, and now there's a new law we follow. Which -- it does have a core of truth to it (cf Rom 8), but it's caked on with some idea of merit. So good, I don't have to stress over this, good!Come now, I was in no way saying this was about the observance of the law. To the contary paul is clearly saying to the jews that even the strictest observation of the law could not lead to rightousness,and he is speaking as a former pharasie.
Uh, but that is what total inability teaches.You are again correct about the other verses
I
At least one point of agreement
Oh well, I guess we'll have to settle for just one point. That may be what total inability teaches,I do not question that. My question is is it biblicaly sound teaching.
I wouldn't begin to say you started it, as it's clear the Council of Trent, the Formula of Concord, and the Dutch Articles of Remonstrance all took this turn hundreds of years before we were born. But as this thread itself shows, a difference over theology has a way of constantly having to respond to the same questions.My friend, God's intent is all i have looked at here. If this conversation has turned it was not I who turned it. Someones theology is fractured, the question is who's.
This is actually a summation of determinism, plus a Creator, plus omniscience. Even Spinoza would accept this point here.An excellent summation of calvanism.
I'll try to address it, but it'll have to be abbreviated due to a certain urgent issue I need to deal with. So maybe we can get some traction on what you posted afterward, I'm not sure I'll be able to read & understand clearly at the moment.I would say that it twists God's word,nature and character around the axle of John calvin
We have drifted a bit from the original question. In a little while here I will to reboot to the original arguement with another post.
Here's a problem. By "free" you may mean any number of different definitions.From our previous postings i seems that the central issue of calvanism is whether or not our wills our truly free to accept Jesus christ as our lord and savior without direct intervention by god.
I am not aware of any scripture that directly adresses this point. ie "thou wills are free" or "thou wills are not free"
You state this, but the Spirit of God is God, right? What would John 3:1-8 mean, then?Therfor this issue must be addressed from the content and context of the scripture we have, much in the same way we derive the doctrine of the trinity from scripture.
Yes. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3any conclusions we reach must be consistent also with God's self described nature and character.
However, God is not Aristotelian, having made language with dramatically different meanings attributed to the same words -- and neither are humans. So it's inconsistent to expect one word to have only one meaning. Aristotle was accurate: to distinguish multiple meanings that multiplicity must be recognized.God also says "come let us reason together". As aristotle pointed out when words cease to have but one meaning we have lost our ability to reason. If aristotle knew this then God does also. It would be inconsistent, and therfor against His nature to use words in a way contary to the peoples understanding.
I think it does. When you look at God addressing Himself to Job, He's way more powerful than slinking around waiting for Job to assess His sovereignty. There are other general situations here, about God's ability to turn hearts in Proverbs; about God's ability to move nations and history to do His bidding in Isaiah. Again, my time is short, so I'll have to leave it at that.My question then is this. Do the words of a consistent,truthful and reasonable God ( please, reasonable in the above sense only) support calvinist theology.
I'm unsure what you think of what I've said, so I'll leave it at this: do you think God can strike a true blow with a bent stick? Or a broken one?I know of no other way to do this than apllying that theology to god's word.
Of course, yes. The will chooses. It doesn't choose alone. God has every right to their choice for Him. But to think the internal heart change is not happening, just because the external confrontation with good & right is happening, I just don't see the problem here. It takes a heart change, even when God doesn't say it out loud. And that involves a whole lot of things going on in our hearts, happening because God does them. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Pp 2:13 says so, right after saying "work your salvation outwardly"In deut. chp 30 speaking thru his prophet moses he says the following to his people.
vs11 My commandment is not too mysterious for you
vs12 its not in heaven
vs13 its not beyond the sea
vs14 its in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it
vs15 i have set befor you life and good, death and evil
vs17 but if your heart turns away
vs19 ... therefore choose life
In these verses God tells the people that he has given them a choice between life and death. That they are capable of choosing good but also capable of turning away. This seems to indicate that our wills are truly free.
Can calvinism be made to "fit" these verses in a manner that does not result in making god inconsistent and/or less than truthful to the prople to whom he was speaking at that moment?
uh,no lets not-at the moment. Another poster here complained that that non-calvinist always turned the direction of the conversation so that they would not have to examine their own "fractured theology" (i paraphrase not quote) Is this not what your doing here?
Why are you unwilling to look unflinchingly into the eye of this passage thru the lens of calvinism. Chery picking verses here and there do not constitute a rebuttle but rather an evasion.
Is god then lying to the people thru moses? Clearly his words there are diametrically opposed to your words here.
Once again a simple question. Can you reconclile all that ypu have said in this post with God's words in deut.30 vs 11-19 in a way that does not compromise God's own stated nature?
those who come aright to Christ, come to him as the alone, able, suitable, and sufficient Saviour; and in themselves as sinners, and ready to perish; and as such they are received by him with a welcome: but these men did not see themselves as such; nor did they see any need they had of coming to Christ; for they thought they had eternal life elsewhere: and such were their ignorance of themselves and Christ; and such their prejudices against him; and such the depravity, perverseness, and stubbornness of their wills, that they had no inclination, desire, and will to come to Christ, any more than power; which is an argument against, and not for the free will of man, unless it be to that which is evil: and this perverseness of their wills to come to Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the word, was blameworthy in them, since this was not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of nature; which being blameworthy in them, that which follows upon it must be so too; and it was the greater aggravation of their sin, that they had the Scriptures which testified of Christ, and pointed at him as the way of life, and yet would not come to him for it:
Does it lie within the province of man’s will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus as Saviour? Granted that the Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit convicts him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, lie within the power of his own will to resist or yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them mean by "fallen" is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tendencies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability, somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scriptures that we are able to obtain some conception of the extent of that terrible calamity. When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man’s being. Total depravity means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the Devil—walking "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). This statement ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human experience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is moral inability which paralyzes him. This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the slave of sin and Satan. "Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do." (John 8:44). Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a man’s make-up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11).
How we come into communion with God, not recommended by any merit of our own, nor brought in by any management of our own, but by God’s free choice: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and so distinguishest from others who are left to themselves;’’ and it is by his effectual special grace pursuant to that choice; whom he chooses he causes to approach, not only invites them, but inclines and enables them, to draw nigh to him. He draws them, Jn. 6:44.
Ver. 4. Blessed [is the man whom] thou choosest[SIZE=+1],.... In eternity; both to grace and glory; for such have true faith in Christ given them, called the faith of God's elect, and shall never perish: they are effectually called by the grace of God, and are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and shall be glorified; or in time, for there is a choice in time, as the fruit, effect, and evidence of the eternal choice, and is no other than effectual calling; see Joh 15:19 1Co 1:26; and happy are those who are both chosen and called; both election and the effectual calling are to grace and glory, and spring from the good will and pleasure of God; and the Targum in the king of Spain's Bible is,
"blessed is the man in whom thou art well pleased;''
[SIZE=+1]and causest to approach [unto thee]; the same Targum supplies,
"unto the fear of thee;''
or unto thy fear and worship. The persons whom God has chosen for himself are, in their state of nature, at a distance from him by reason of sin; and through the blood and sacrifice of Christ, by which atonement is made, they are brought nigh to him; and in the faith of Christ the Mediator, their hearts are engaged to approach unto God, and come with boldness to his throne, and ask grace and mercy of him; and through the grace of Christ they have nearness to him, and communion with him, Eph 2:18;[/SIZE][/SIZE]
So you would suggest that that term "in the day you eat" doesn't mean that day, but "when", and actually "you shall die" doesn't mean "shall" but "sometime afterward will".
Are you saying that adam ate the fruit the same day God told him not to and that He and eve died immediately after they did so?
I don't see any lack of clarity here.Is that clear of God to say such a thing?
The day they eventually died. Since they went onto produce a # of children after that ,then if for no other reason,they could not have died immediately.If you heard that, would you think you would be dead in that day?
What eventual day would God mean?
.
Great. Often I get back from people that Paul is actually focused on the Mosaic Law, and now there's a new law we follow. Which -- it does have a core of truth to it (cf Rom 8), but it's caked on with some idea of merit. So good, I don't have to stress over this, good!
Another agreement. I do not believe anyone merits God's mercy.
When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). from reformed.org
I do not disagree with this. Our difference lis only in how god chooses to bring this regeneration about.Since God clearly states that we can freely choose .We can choose to be blind and deaf to the gospel, or we can choose to believe it. God has chosen to save those who freely choose to believe.
I'll try to address it, but it'll have to be abbreviated due to a certain urgent issue I need to deal with. So maybe we can get some traction on what you posted afterward, I'm not sure I'll be able to read & understand clearly at the moment.
The problem here is that the understanding you present is not the same understanding that the people then would have gotten from these words. The problem is that God does not lie and your understanding places him into the position of lying to those people at that time.Here's a problem. By "free" you may mean any number of different definitions.
Certainly natural forces limit our what are will can accomplish. we can not will ourselves to the moon, or or to overide relativity or nullify gravity no matter how much we might want to. However we are not prohibited from wanting to do those things only from accomplishing themThe idea that the will is capable of attempting what it wants within the limits of natural forces is a statement of "free will". That's acceptable to most forms of determinism, including Calvinism.
No created will can ever be totaly independent of the creator.Our concern is over how much freedom the creator has allowed our wills to have. This is where our difference lies.The idea that the created will is totally independent of the Creator is one early statement of philosophical libertarianism. That'd be unacceptable to Calvinism. But we Calvinists would assert its also inconsistent with reality. So the definition doesn't really mean anything. Because it's not real
We do not disagree on the neccessity of being born again.You state this, but the Spirit of God is God, right? What would John 3:1-8 mean, then?
How about jn12:32How about John 6:44-46?
Do you see this as a reference to pre-destination?And what happens to God's "drawing" and Jesus' assertion about belief, in combination with 1 John 5:1? I've mentioned before that Greek for this verse puts "born of God" in a perfect tense ("perfect" is a past tense), while "believing" is a present participle.
Agreed. did you think i beleived otherwise?Yes. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3
All comunnication is predicated on the belief that all parties involved are using the same words in the same sense and understanding. If one party is not then,unless thier intent is to deliberately mislead,they they need to define the terms clearly to avoid misunderstanding. God does not mislead nor does he author confusion.However, God is not Aristotelian, having made language with dramatically different meanings attributed to the same words -- and neither are humans. So it's inconsistent to expect one word to have only one meaning. Aristotle was accurate: to distinguish multiple meanings that multiplicity must be recognized.
the bible is not a logic text but it was authored by a logical being who intended to convey his word accurately and understadably.That is why he said it is not a mysteryBut the Bible is not a logic text. It is not Principia Mathematica. Nor is it The Ethics. Both of these merely attempt what you're saying. Both are largely incomprehensible to people.
I'm sorry, i am not really following what your saying here. do you mean that progressive revelation can change the meaning of what god has said previously?God does not speak in a vaccum,he speaks to people whom he says are capable of understanding it.Can an understanding that is correct at one point be rendered incorrect later? If that is true then, as I said before, there is no such thing as "truth"The Bible uses words that humans understand, and tends to change their current view toward a more accurate view of God. Revelation is progressive; it's also redemptive. It's not "telling the truth in a vacuum". It's telling the truth that people can be redeemed toward.
Do think that because i reject calvinism i must disagree with these things?I think it does. When you look at God addressing Himself to Job, He's way more powerful than slinking around waiting for Job to assess His sovereignty. There are other general situations here, about God's ability to turn hearts in Proverbs; about God's ability to move nations and history to do His bidding in Isaiah. Again, my time is short, so I'll have to leave it at that.
I was not referring to you, or anyone specificaly, I apologize if i gave you that impression.My point is that any man made doctrine must be measured against the entirety of God's word. Any ensuing difficulties must be laid at the fet of the doctine-not the wordI'm unsure what you think of what I've said, so I'll leave it at this: do you think God can strike a true blow with a bent stick? Or a broken one?
No one perfectly understands God in this life and perhaps not even in the life to come. but god's word should be understanable because he intended it to beIf not, then we'll both abandon this discussion, for neither of us is perfectly understanding God.
Of course, yes. The will chooses. It doesn't choose alone. God has every right to their choice for Him. But to think the internal heart change is not happening, just because the external confrontation with good & right is happening, I just don't see the problem here. It takes a heart change, even when God doesn't say it out loud. And that involves a whole lot of things going on in our hearts, happening because God does them. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Pp 2:13 says so, right after saying "work your salvation outwardly"
God has done evrything you say here.The difference is that i believe He has done those things for everyone. He also sovereignly chose to give us sufficient free will to respond to that "drawing" My understanding does not require me to find the "real" meaning behind his words or make God into the author of sin, his word misleading or his promises unreliable. There will be untold numbers eternally seperated form God. I believe it will because they did not respond to God's call. You say it will be because they could not.Your way places all people at the mercy of an unmerciful God. If that were true than all of our history has been nothing more than a hopeless charade. An exercise in futility for the entertainment of a whimsical God.The real truth is, God has done everything, elected, chose, and even draws you to Him
And you have the audacity to say you chose Him out of your own "free will?" That it was you who made the choice to believe
.You Arminians, you kill me with your "free-willy" notions
.I'm outta here
and you as wellGod Bless
God has done evrything you say here.The difference is that i believe He has done those things for everyone. He also sovereignly chose to give us sufficient free will to respond to that "drawing" My understanding does not require me to find the "real" meaning behind his words or make God into the author of sin, his word misleading or his promises unreliable. There will be untold numbers eternally seperated form God. I believe it will because they did not respond to God's call. You say it will be because they could not.Your way places all people at the mercy of an unmerciful God. If that were true than all of our history has been nothing more than a hopeless charade. An exercise in futility for the entertainment of a whimsical God.
.
If "arminian" means a sound exegesis of God's word using the totality of His scriptures then I guess i am.
To clarify a point however I have never said that whales have the same level of free will that man does.
.
I thank you (and everyone else) for the time spent here.My original question has been clearly answered.
in the end it really doesn't matter who is right. If someone is elect but not calvinist it doen't matter. If someone is not elect being calvinist doesn't matter. One day we shall all know for sure
Let me ask you a simple question.
Supposing these facts:
Mr. Smith is saved. Mr. Robinson is not.
Why is Mr. Smith saved, while Mr. Robinson is not?
Gee, that Mr Smith is a smart guy! And a good guy, too, because we'd all agree that to do this is both smart and good, right?Because Mr. smith Used his God given free will to repent and accept the grace that God offers to all.
Gee, that Mr Robinson sure is a dumb guy! And bad, too, because we'd all agree that to reject Christ is both dumb and bad, right?Mr Robinson has not done so and if he dies without ever having done so he will be eternally seperated from God.
Nothing good! Now you may argue that he was only referring to his flesh. But before a man is saved, all there is of him is flesh, right? because Paul also said this:Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
So by jax's premise, Paul must not be saved, because he rejected the idea that before God intervened in his heart there was anything smart or good about him. And that's what this debate all boils down to, isn't it? Jax wants to hold on to the notion that there is just something better about Mr Smith than Mr Robinson. If God intervenes to the same extent for both men, then the deciding factor must be something independently and intrinsically different in themselves. But if God intervenes in Mr Smith's heart only, then the deciding factor lies in God's choice, or election, of one over the other not founded on anything He sees to be different in either man. Which of these comports with scripture?Eph 2:1-10 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Because Mr. smith Used his God given free will to repent and accept the grace that God offers to all.
Mr Robinson has not done so and if he dies without ever having done so he will be eternally seperated from God.
Jax
I am not going to pretend that I am any expert here, I was just wondering about what you said when you said:
"I'll believe what the word of God teaches. If Mr. Smith is saved, it is all of God, from start to finish."
My husband was talking last night about how everything is already decided for us anyway, so why pray unless you are going to 1) praise God or 2) just ask for God's will to be done.
And your post made me think about some people that I've heard who say that God has already decided who will and who won't go to heaven...but that just sounds terrible to me! I guess I am the kind of person who thinks that it's not that God chooses who is going to go to Heaven (I mean before time even began it's not like he hand selected certain people and said "When I make you, you're going to Heaven,) but I look at it as God already knew what we would choose.
There are a number of reasons we should pray even if we acknowledge the biblical truth that God has established all things according to His divine plan. Yes, all things are already decided. That is, nothing that will happen will happen contrary to God's eternal will. With that said, the first reason we are to pray is because God commanded that we do so. Secondly, prayer is evidence of a personal recognition of reliance upon God for all that we need. Third, when we pray, so long as we pray properly, we show our submission to God's will, which is why we are to always acknowledge that we desire that something come to pass if it be God's will.
A good template for prayer is the ACTS method:
A - Acknowledgement (Acknowledge God's holiness and authority)
C - Confession (Acknowledge our submission to the binding authority of God's Law and confess our transgressions)
T - Thanksgiving (Show thanks for all of the blessings that He gives us every day that we not lose sight of His graciousness in the midst of our requests for more)
S- Supplication (LAST, we approach him with our needs and requests for fulfillment)
If God based His elective choice on His knowledge of what you or I would do, Scripture which debunks that very theory would be meaningless, and a lie, and it would give those whom God chooses a foundation for boasting. After all, their eternal reward is ultimately granted because they were wise enough to make the right choice.
God bless
YesSo do you think that we choose to believe,
Yes.or before the beginning of time God decided who was going to believe
Yes, see above. If He chose, then it follows that He knows.or that before the beginning of time God knew who would choose to believe and who wouldn't
Nobut that it was our free will that let us decide if we believe in God?
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?