Free Will

[Surf Rider]

I wish to make two points here. The first is to Anastacia, and tha second is to all, in which I thrown my hat into the ring, so to speak.

Frist, I'll try to communicate better here. Sorry if I haven't so far, Anastacia. The verses that I've not "acknowledged" for free choice, I've done so on the basis that it is one's belief that we have free choice that allows them to use those verses, when in fact, they are also used, many of them, by those who espouse no free choice. What I was requesting to see was scripture in which the Lord is stating that He has given a choice, so please would they make it one way or the other. Not implied, but outright stated using such words as "I set before you life and death, choose...." such as in the one quoted by a poster way back near the beginning of this thread. In that verse, we clearly see God expressly stating that options were given clearly by Him, and He expects us to choose. All other verses are used based upon one's belief, either for or against free choice. As such, in a technical debate, they are not usable. And yes, that type of debate must be utilized here, as the opposing camps cannot both be listening to the Spirit on this topic, so that cannot be appealed to for either camp, as they can both level that accusation against the other. These things I had assumed in my previous statements, and I hope that this clears the air on why my comments regarding certain scriptures conscripted by you. I agree with your useage of them, but in this thread they are not allowable evidence, as they are seen by many to be prejudicial in nature. Or at least their usage is considered such. Therefore, they are considered such merely by appropriation.

I really don't know how to say it better than that. Sorry.


To all the posters on this thread....

There are many topics in the word of God in which people can pull out explicit scripture stating for opposing view points. Some people see these "opposing" scriptures as proof of errancy, and thus they use this as an excuse to deny God. This is a favorite ploy of hier critics. This is a very common practice amongst the unsaved, and now seems to be more prevalent even amongst those of the faith.

However, that is not of God. One cannot selectively pick and choose, thereby ignoring scripture that clearly states contrary to one's view, even though other scriptures are clearly used for one's view. God is not double minded! And He made no mistakes in the scriptures. I find that many believers, on a fair number of topics of the faith, actually and actively do this: they ignore scripture that is problematic to their belief, and use those which support their belief to supersede or trump the "uncomfortable" scriptures. That is not of God. It is demonic, sensual, carnal, arrogant, denying of God. It precludes the Spirit. It is not scriptural humility or meekness by any stretch of the imagination. It is the opposite of that.

The very fact that there are scriptures that undeniably state things that do not fit our beliefs prove us to be unlearned and blind to spiritual truth on that topic: evidence of a state of heart that is not broken and contrite, waiting upon the Lord for insight that would reconcile all the scriptures on it, in a most perfect and beautiful way -- even while it asks God for understanding. Or it is submissive to God but He hasn't given it understanding yet on that topic. And that heart will not state one way or the other, acknowledging it's lack of maturity in that issue. This often takes years of waiting upon the Lord. This is why the word states, "wait upon the Lord. And again I say, WAIT!"

There are a number of topics in the word of God in which I have no opinion whatsoever. I choose not to. Why? Because I see scripture that can be used for or against either side, and I have yet to receive from the Lord that spiritual insight that clarifies it all for me. Until then, to hold to either side of the issue is being raised up agains the Spirit and is intent on having the answer right now, no matter the evidence that I do not understand. We all decry this when this is done in law enforcement and someone is convicted wrongly by selective evidence being used. What a travesty when that occurs! Yet how much more incredible and tragic that is, when it occurs spiritually! My brethren -- this aught not be so! Flee from this. What profit is there in such? Do we really love the praise of men more than humility and waiting for years for God to teach us what He deems right for us to learn at the moment? Perhaps God knows best, and is desireous of teaching us on something else that is more critical in our life at present! Who are we to tell God that we need to understand a specific thing right now? Even when the angel was sent to give Daniel some clarification, Daniel didn't understand. The angel then gave more clarification. Daniel still didn't understand. The angel gave more. Daniel, the great, great Daniel, still didn't understand. And he was then told that no more would be given to him on it, and he'd have to live with not understanding it. Who are we, that we assume that we are greater than Daniel? Do we think that we are due anything from God, and that we are entitled to understand everything in the word of God? Do we think that we know that which we aught to, or have the "right" to understand, and that which is just fine for us to not understand?

I was really hoping to see people address that scripture from Deut. that was given near the beginning of this thread, but it was basically ignored. That reveals much, and proves the statements that I have made in this post.

And please don't just read that one verse. That chapter of Deut. is quite short. And interestingly enough, that passage gives both statements: God does as He wishes with the souls and hearts of mankind -- leaving them no option; and He also gives them free choice. Both are perfectly correct, and fit most perfectly together throughout the scriptures. They overlay each other, neither superseding the other. They have different situation applications, and this is taught in the scriptures. This is true of God's love and Justice, Mercy and condemnation. The list goes on. We err to mess with these things and trump the one with the other. God asked Job some questions along this line, and Job readily realized the truth. I will not ask any more here. Sufficient has been given, yet if one is interested, go to the last bit of Job and read God's reply to Job, and how Job replied to God's rebuke.

O, that we would all have the heart of Job. We wouldn't be able to hide that!

Then, if you were to read the short chapter before that one in Deut,, there is even more clarification on it.

Regarding the David and counting the army issue that a poster brought up judicially, there is also a scripture that states that it was David's choice. All three are completely correct. Neither conflicts with or contradicts any of the others, let alone ignores or negates the others.

I must agree with Paul in one of his NT letters: the very fact that we are arguing over a topic proves that we are carnally minded. If we are proven to be carnally minded, who among us is willing to humble themselves and admit this fact which God sees? If this is not done, indeed, spiritual insight from God will not be forthcoming on the topic that we are carnally minded on! To believe otherwise is to completely prove our carnal mindedness, our blindness on these things, no matter how many years we've "studied" it out, asked God for insight, etc.. It is a state of the heart that God rewards with insight, not bible study itself, or the Pharisees were far more godly than most of us will ever be!

Both sides are correct, so long as they don't dismiss the other side. That is not a contradictory statement. Free choice is clearly taught in the scriptures. God's overridding sovereignty which denies free choice is clearly taught in the scriptures. To hold that either one is constantly in the fore regarding all men, at all times for those men, is errant and contradicts scripture. If this be not true, scripture undeniably contradicts itself and we have opted to continue in not understanding the issue and have chosen the one over the other, to the annulment of clear scripture, no matter which side you are on.


Grow in grace AND in the knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Jimmy Engle]

It may seem at the moment that I am questioning God's Sovereignty and I will tell you why in my next post, IF and ONLY IF you answer this question for me?

If your answer is logical and sensible I will espouse Calvinism.

Why do you think God created people, some to go to heaven others to go to hell, assuming, as you say, we have no say in the matter?

Cheers

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You are not even posting scripture to support your claims...your just stating opinions based on inferences drawn from the bible........
I already gave you scripture that answered your question and for the answer to why we were created....you already know that. What is my answer? For His glory and His good pleasure He created what He created to display His glory.

 

[religusnut]

I'm glad we agree that Calvinism is a false doctrine. But, I don't think I agree with what you say about Pharaoh's heart being hardened to mean his heart was strengthened. I also do not advocate that people need to learn Hebrew, and, or Greek to know better of the scriptures. In fact, I think it is horribly wrong to give any impression that learning Greek or Hebrew makes one know the scriptures better or gives one a closer relationship with Jesus Christ.

It is interesting what you say about the account of Samuel being different in Chronicles. I will try to study this further one day. I do know though, that nothing happens without God allowing it. So, with that understanding, it might not be too difficult to make out why the seemingly different accounts.

If you ever see some of the Jewish thoughts, traditions, and other things of the Jewish culture you see a whole lot better picture of the Bible. I am just courious how you draw the information you hold so strongly hold as correct when you disagree with every known study every presents.

 

[Anastacia]

I wish to make two points here. The first is to Anastacia, and tha second is to all, in which I thrown my hat into the ring, so to speak.

Frist, I'll try to communicate better here. Sorry if I haven't so far, Anastacia. The verses that I've not "acknowledged" for free choice, I've done so on the basis that it is one's belief that we have free choice that allows them to use those verses, when in fact, they are also used, many of them, by those who espouse no free choice.
You say it can be used both ways. I know your wrong about it.

What I was requesting to see was scripture in which the Lord is stating that He has given a choice, so please would they make it one way or the other.
The scriptures are plain that we have a choice.

Not implied, but outright stated using such words as "I set before you life and death, choose...." such as in the one quoted by a poster way back near the beginning of this thread. In that verse, we clearly see God expressly stating that options were given clearly by Him, and He expects us to choose.
We only need one scripture. Since you have one scripture...that should be enough.

All other verses are used based upon one's belief, either for or against free choice. As such, in a technical debate, they are not usable. And yes, that type of debate must be utilized here, as the opposing camps cannot both be listening to the Spirit on this topic, so that cannot be appealed to for either camp, as they can both level that accusation against the other. These things I had assumed in my previous statements, and I hope that this clears the air on why my comments regarding certain scriptures conscripted by you. I agree with your useage of them, but in this thread they are not allowable evidence, as they are seen by many to be prejudicial in nature. Or at least their usage is considered such. Therefore, they are considered such merely by appropriation.
Again, you are wrong. Just because you don't have the confidence and insight to there being a clear meaning for only one way....that doesn't mean no one else does. And are you the decider on what scriptures we get to use? Are you the moderator, or something? I'm knew here, so I really don't know.

I really don't know how to say it better than that. Sorry.

I can see how unsure you are in what to believe. I pray that you can accept the truth and love God's Word as it is. One day you might be able to see that not everyone is doing what you say they are doing, ignoring scriptures, etc. You were taught by men to believe the scriptures could mean something else. You have been seduced into the confusion you now display by your false accusations.
I hope one day soon you won't be so double-minded about God's Word.

If you ever see some of the Jewish thoughts, traditions, and other things of the Jewish culture you see a whole lot better picture of the Bible. I am just courious how you draw the information you hold so strongly hold as correct when you disagree with every known study every presents.

What "every known study every presents" have I disagreed with? Also, I'm not saying I know all there is about Jewish thoughts, traditions, and other things of the Jewish culture, but there are different Jewish sects, and they don't all agree with each other! So what's your point you are trying to make to me? Are you Jewish by blood, or religion? Are you of the Messianic Jewish sects that hate Christians?

 

[perrero]

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. You are not even posting scripture to support your claims...your just stating opinions based on inferences drawn from the bible........
I already gave you scripture that answered your question and for the answer to why we were created....you already know that. What is my answer? For His glory and His good pleasure He created what He created to display His glory.

Your answer is not surprising because it is the only left.

Your view of God's Sovereignty has clouded what you may know about His Justice, His Love and His Goodness. These attributes can not be diminished in any way to accommodate Sovereignty.

Goodness - The God you portray, even though Sovereign, is cruel. God is kind. James (1:13) "God cannot be tempted by evil..." There is absolutely no evil in God. He doesn't create it, produce it, nor can He be tempted by it, as evil can only exist outside of His presence.

Love - Does not vaunt itself. 1Co (13:4) Love is longsuffering, and is kind; love does not envy; love does not boast (does not vaunt itself), is not puffed up,

Just - There's is no need for justice with your kind of God. Sovereignty cannot supercede Justice, they are equal. It is unjust to create some for heaven and some for hell, arbitrarily as you say.

Your why and your logic are contrary to Rom (6:1-2) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid...

For God to do everything you say is ridiculous and contrary to His very own character. He has no need to display His Glory because He is Sovereign. Nevertheless creation alone is a masterful display of His glory but the purpose of that display is not for selfish glorification but to draw us to Him, so that in hope we will choose Him.

Now I know that this will not change your thinking or theology. Nevertheless you know in your heart of hearts that portraying God in this cruel manner is wrong and your only explanation to rationalize it, is to relegate everything to His Sovereignty. This is wrong. It's like Paul who knew that persecuting the saints was wrong, and kept proding him in his heart, yet he kept kicking at the goads. Until the Lord said enough is enough. I hope you fin it in yourself to be honest with yourself and with God to abandon this terrible doctrine of Calvinism. Or if you do not profess to be Calvinist, you certainly are a 90% proponent of it.

I guess I will not become a Calvinist.

Cheers

 

[Jimmy Engle]

Your answer is not surprising because it is the only left.

Your view of God's Sovereignty has clouded what you may know about His Justice, His Love and His Goodness. These attributes can not be diminished in any way to accommodate Sovereignty.

Goodness - The God you portray, even though Sovereign, is cruel. God is kind. James (1:13) "God cannot be tempted by evil..." There is absolutely no evil in God. He doesn't create it, produce it, nor can He be tempted by it, as evil can only exist outside of His presence.

Love - Does not vaunt itself. 1Co (13:4) Love is longsuffering, and is kind; love does not envy; love does not boast (does not vaunt itself), is not puffed up,

Just - There's is no need for justice with your kind of God. Sovereignty cannot supercede Justice, they are equal. It is unjust to create some for heaven and some for hell, arbitrarily as you say.

Your why and your logic are contrary to Rom (6:1-2) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid...

For God to do everything you say is ridiculous and contrary to His very own character. He has no need to display His Glory because He is Sovereign. Nevertheless creation alone is a masterful display of His glory but the purpose of that display is not for selfish glorification but to draw us to Him, so that in hope we will choose Him.

Now I know that this will not change your thinking or theology. Nevertheless you know in your heart of hearts that portraying God in this cruel manner is wrong and your only explanation to rationalize it, is to relegate everything to His Sovereignty. This is wrong. It's like Paul who knew that persecuting the saints was wrong, and kept proding him in his heart, yet he kept kicking at the goads. Until the Lord said enough is enough. I hope you fin it in yourself to be honest with yourself and with God to abandon this terrible doctrine of Calvinism. Or if you do not profess to be Calvinist, you certainly are a 90% proponent of it.

I guess I will not become a Calvinist.

Cheers

It seems you are saying an awful lot about me to make yourself look better and claim that I am the one boasting. I am not trying to personalize this debate like you are...that is why I used scripture where you just keep spouting off opinions and inferences gleaned from scripture instead of going directly to the text. I find your treatment of me to be not very loving and I am sorry you see me in the way in which you described above. You seem to think they my view of God is some unfair, unloving and cruel God...when in fact I gave scripture supporting everything in which I said. Just because you don't understand what Paul is saying in Romans 9 doesn't mean that God's sovereignty is cruel.

But you are correct that God is loving and just and those attributes are not diminished over some overpowering "law" of His sovereignty. If you want to discuss any of the verses in which I posted than I would love to. But if you are going to just keep trying to make me look like the "bad" guy because I hold to a different view than I won't bother to continue. The truth is that we believe in the same doctrines that are necessary to be saved and in a relationship with God. So I do not look down on you or think lesser of you.
I also don't see the problem with my previous response. It says in Colossians that everything was made by Christ and for Christ. So to say that everything including ourselves was made to bring Him glory would appear to be the most truthful response without getting into details...

Everybody thinks the Bible says what they mean.

Interpretation is the issue, since both sides can see "what the Bible says". And Calvinism seems to do an awful lot of quoting the OT for a NT issue (the church). Why is that? At least one part of the answer lies in their choice of verses to extract from context, which is largely in the genre of poetry. And Hebrew poetry is notorious for its hyperbole. But if you want doctrine, especially for NT believers, you need to reference the NT, and especially the letters, since it is there that you are most likely to find Christian doctrine.


What caused Adam to sin? Nature? Then why is "nature" made the cause of all other sin? This is the fallacy of "special pleading". Since "nature" is not the only possible cause of sin, then we can't arbitrarily assign our sin to our "nature".


Where does scripture say "a heart of stone represents a sinner who doesn't respond to God"? Who says a heart of stone cannot respond to God? And we're still in the OT. But even Ezekiel, in ch. 18, says children do not inherit the sin of their parents. Calvinists seem to avoid that passage.


Guess what the Greek says? Check here, esp. the comments. But speaking of "nature", what do you do with Rom. 2:14? "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law..."?


What do you do with those verses about seeking God? And what about our being "dead to sin" when we're saved, does that mean we are as incapable of sinning as a dead man is?

SaberTruth,
I didn't forget about you. I liked your response...you are giving some good arguments. Especially with Ephesians 2. I will have to get back to you on that.

 

[perrero]

It seems you are saying an awful lot about me to make yourself look better and claim that I am the one boasting. I am not trying to personalize this debate like you are...that is why I used scripture where you just keep spouting off opinions and inferences gleaned from scripture instead of going directly to the text. I find your treatment of me to be not very loving and I am sorry you see me in the way in which you described above. You seem to think they my view of God is some unfair, unloving and cruel God...when in fact I gave scripture supporting everything in which I said. Just because you don't understand what Paul is saying in Romans 9 doesn't mean that God's sovereignty is cruel.

But you are correct that God is loving and just and those attributes are not diminished over some overpowering "law" of His sovereignty. If you want to discuss any of the verses in which I posted than I would love to. But if you are going to just keep trying to make me look like the "bad" guy because I hold to a different view than I won't bother to continue. The truth is that we believe in the same doctrines that are necessary to be saved and in a relationship with God. So I do not look down on you or think lesser of you.
I also don't see the problem with my previous response. It says in Colossians that everything was made by Christ and for Christ. So to say that everything including ourselves was made to bring Him glory would appear to be the most truthful response without getting into details...

Well this is certainly not the reply I expected. :blink:
I am more than sorry for offending you, as I can guarantee that is not my intention. There is no need of it whatsoever.
It is the doctrine itself that is offensive to me. It is your (or Calvinists) interpretation of Romans 9 that produces a tone of cruelty in the Sovereignty of God that I find distasteful. And to respond to that by saying (not you saying but Calvanism in general) : "Well tough, that's what the scripture says, there's nothing we can do about it", is also offensive.
You know and I know that God is not cruel. And so to accept a degree of cruelty, because Rom. 9 seems to infer that, should not be acceptable. To me it means somehow I'm missing something. So I go back to the drawing board, so to speak and ask God for enlightment. (Not saying you haven't yourself done this.)

The truth of the matter is that I am surprise that this discussion of Free Will has gone on this long without the introduction of God's Omniscience. Yet Omniscience is a crucial subject in this kind of discussion. *** And this is where I might find myself in your camp, *** when I think of God's Omniscience (God knows everything) then He must know my Free Will choices in advance, and if that is the case, do I really have Free Will. At this point you will put forward you answer to that, which becomes Calvinistic in nature and Sabertruth and Anastacia will have there answer accordingly. My answer to it all is neither Calvinistic, (Because of the cruelty issue) nor is it completely the other side.

But to get into what I believe to be true, which I can back up with scripture, would send off the alarm bells in all of Christendom and probably light up the board like Chinese Fireworks on a New Year's Eve.

Having said that, I just join these discussions to try to get people to rethink their positions on the issue. I choose the Free Will side because its position is less offensive but I still think it is flawed. Nevertheless nobody from that side is willing to possibly go further into that area of discission because of what would seem to be an attack on the Omniscience of God.

Once again I'm sorry if I made our discussion to be personal. It was not my intent. Let's face it I do not know enough to do that and even if I did, it is not my style.

Cheers and Blessings

 

[SaberTruth]

... when I think of God's Omniscience (God knows everything) then He must know my Free Will choices in advance, and if that is the case, do I really have Free Will. At this point you will put forward you answer to that, which becomes Calvinistic in nature and Sabertruth and Anastacia will have there answer accordingly. My answer to it all is neither Calvinistic, (Because of the cruelty issue) nor is it completely the other side.

DDK (or διδασκαλος), are you hinting at Molinism/Middle Knowledge?

For any who aren't familiar with "middle knowledge", it has to do with a concept referred to as "possible worlds". It can be illustrated by the game of chess: with each move, the set of all possible remaining moves changes. The expert chess player has the ability to look ahead to many possible scenarios or "worlds" to deal with any possible move or strategy of the opponent. In the same way, the "middle knowledge" of God proposes that God is the ultimate Chessmaster, knowing every possible scenario of every possible world or universe or life that could be imagined.

In order to charge God with "rigging the game", He'd have to cheat by forcing the opponent to make certain moves. But inventing the game and setting the rules for a fair match is neither rigging the game nor violating free will. But the outcome, "victory", is assured by virtue of God's grasp of all possible outcomes. That is how He can "declare the end from the beginning" without resorting to cheating, which is what I'd consider a violation of free will-- especially when He gives us what would amount to an illusion or cruel trick of free will.

But we need to remember that free will is always limited in some way, much like a fenced playground where children have limits but are not dictated what games to play within them. The point here is about salvation: does God pick and choose or does He not? And scripture clearly states many times that this choice is up to each person.

I know that sometimes such topics can seem like Escher drawings that cannot possibly exist but appear to anyway, but I rest ultimately upon what the scriptures reveal about the character of God. For that reason I can trust His judgment and fairness. And as long as Calvinists (however inconsistently with their theology) preach the same gospel message as non-Calvinists, it really is an irrelevant thing to spend great amounts of time on. Let us unite in the GOOD News that Jesus died for all and all who come to Him to be reconciled will be given eternal life.

 

[Jimmy Engle]

Everybody thinks the Bible says what they mean.

Interpretation is the issue, since both sides can see "what the Bible says". And Calvinism seems to do an awful lot of quoting the OT for a NT issue (the church). Why is that? At least one part of the answer lies in their choice of verses to extract from context, which is largely in the genre of poetry. And Hebrew poetry is notorious for its hyperbole. But if you want doctrine, especially for NT believers, you need to reference the NT, and especially the letters, since it is there that you are most likely to find Christian doctrine.


What caused Adam to sin? Nature? Then why is "nature" made the cause of all other sin? This is the fallacy of "special pleading". Since "nature" is not the only possible cause of sin, then we can't arbitrarily assign our sin to our "nature".


Where does scripture say "a heart of stone represents a sinner who doesn't respond to God"? Who says a heart of stone cannot respond to God? And we're still in the OT. But even Ezekiel, in ch. 18, says children do not inherit the sin of their parents. Calvinists seem to avoid that passage.


Guess what the Greek says? Check here, esp. the comments. But speaking of "nature", what do you do with Rom. 2:14? "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law..."?

.
What do you do with those verses about seeking God? And what about our being "dead to sin" when we're saved, does that mean we are as incapable of sinning as a dead man is?

Hey SaberTruth,

I don't see any problem with quoting from the OT, it's quoted plenty of times throughout the NT and to discredit the OT is doing injustice to what God has to say in regard to any one subject. When discussing man's sinful nature for example, there are plenty of verses in the NT that tell us how men are. One that I like alot because it sums up pretty much everything is 1 John 2:16. But I can give a clearer picture if I go back to the OT and use a verse such as Psalm 51:5 which teaches that from birth we are sinful and in need of a savior from the get go. So I don't see what you are trying to say. The OT is not some poetic or metaphorical book that cannot be taken literally. The red sea really did split apart for Moses just like the water held Jesus as He walked on it. How can you believe the teaching of the NT without first understanding where they came from out of the OT?

What caused Adam to sin? Some would argue it was Satan with his deceiving lies and half truths. Some could say it was Eve that tempted Adam to transgress God's commandment. But really it was Adams own fault and He alone sinned against God. But the story doesn't just drop off there. Notice that after Adam had sinned, he hid himself from God and he was also ashamed of his nakedness. Study it...it speaks volumes about us and why the falleness of man results in us always suppressing the truth we know about God from early child hood to adolescence. Adam was created in God's image. He sinned. The human race and the world turned dark from that day on. We live in fallen bodies and a fallen world. This world is the fallen version of what the garden of Eden was. The sinfulness of all men is the result of Adam's rebellion in the garden. We are born misalighned and twisted from what we are supposed to be. Are very nature is corrupt because we are born separated from God and it takes the death of Christ to close the gap....to reconcile us back to God. This is why we are born with a evil nature that produces bad fruit...it's because of Adam's sin. This is the reason Christ had to be born of a virgin..so that Christ would be born like Adam...sinless without any corruption........does that make sense?

You are correct that scripture does not specifically say that a heart of stone cannot respond to God...at least not in the exact words. But when you read Matthew 7...Jesus says a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. That is....a sinner cannot do good works...nothing but filthy rags. Why? Because we have corrupt natures. Let me give you an example....say you go to cut down a tree to make a bow out of the tree....you don't need to cut into the wood of the tree to know if the wood is healthy or not. All you have to do is look at the bark. It the bark rotting? Then the wood is no good. Same thing with a person. You don't need to see in to their hearts to know if they have a corrupt nature or not. All you have to do is examine their fruit..their lifestyle of living.......it will reveal what kind of nature they have. The heart is what a person really is. If you have a hard heart then you are going to be like Pharaoh....if you have a heart of flesh you are going to bear good fruit because a good tree cannot produce bad fruit.

Ezekiel 18 simply teaches that if you live righteously in OT times...doesn't work of NT...you need to be born again with the Holy Spirit..(old covenant vs new covenant) your fathers actions would not condemn you. This just means that if you lived as God told you too, with faith of course...you would be saved. But again read Psalm 51.

Thanks for the link...it was an interesting read. The only problem is that there is not any solid evidence to support the claim that the word "in" should be translated "to". As far as the translation of transgression and sin goes...well just about anyone knows that sin means to miss the mark and transgress means fall aside or away. So that doesn't really change the text. If the text really did read in the Greek as to instead of in then you would be holding some water but I would need to see some better sources then some email of a Q&A. I read the comments and these people can't even agree on what the true text says. There is just enough evidence for using the word in as there is for using the word to. Ephesians 2 is dealing in the past tense...so in fits better than to. Again this is something that must be weighed out with more scrutiny then to just simply say that the word is really meant to be "to". Interesting though to say the least...good find.

Romans 2:14-16 - For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively (by nature you said...) the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
I am unsure what you were trying to say using this scripture above. What it is saying however is that there are Gentiles who by nature do the Law and the passage in context is Paul teaching that they will one day be judge by the very law they are trying to uphold. This verse doesn't disprove a sinful nature. There are plenty of "religious" people trying to gain salvation by works. They perish for a lack of knowledge about God. They don't understand that salvation is by faith...not by works.

What verses about seeking God? You didn't post any....
But to add a little to it, they must be taking in context with other verses that say that men do not seek after God and have all turned to their own ways and therefore have become useless. We can't just look at one verse and build our entire theology on it. We must compare it with other parts of scripture BOTH from OT and NT. That way we get the full picture instead of just a part or piece of it.

Well this is certainly not the reply I expected. :blink:
I am more than sorry for offending you, as I can guarantee that is not my intention. There is no need of it whatsoever.
It is the doctrine itself that is offensive to me. It is your (or Calvinists) interpretation of Romans 9 that produces a tone of cruelty in the Sovereignty of God that I find distasteful. And to respond to that by saying (not you saying but Calvanism in general) : "Well tough, that's what the scripture says, there's nothing we can do about it", is also offensive.
You know and I know that God is not cruel. And so to accept a degree of cruelty, because Rom. 9 seems to infer that, should not be acceptable. To me it means somehow I'm missing something. So I go back to the drawing board, so to speak and ask God for enlightment. (Not saying you haven't yourself done this.)

The truth of the matter is that I am surprise that this discussion of Free Will has gone on this long without the introduction of God's Omniscience. Yet Omniscience is a crucial subject in this kind of discussion. *** And this is where I might find myself in your camp, *** when I think of God's Omniscience (God knows everything) then He must know my Free Will choices in advance, and if that is the case, do I really have Free Will. At this point you will put forward you answer to that, which becomes Calvinistic in nature and Sabertruth and Anastacia will have there answer accordingly. My answer to it all is neither Calvinistic, (Because of the cruelty issue) nor is it completely the other side.

But to get into what I believe to be true, which I can back up with scripture, would send off the alarm bells in all of Christendom and probably light up the board like Chinese Fireworks on a New Year's Eve.

Having said that, I just join these discussions to try to get people to rethink their positions on the issue. I choose the Free Will side because its position is less offensive but I still think it is flawed. Nevertheless nobody from that side is willing to possibly go further into that area of discission because of what would seem to be an attack on the Omniscience of God.

Once again I'm sorry if I made our discussion to be personal. It was not my intent. Let's face it I do not know enough to do that and even if I did, it is not my style.

Cheers and Blessings

Thank you for setting things straight. Sometimes I feel as though I am being attacked...not because no one is agreeing with me or for a lack of amends but when people say, "Your God is a sadistic God" or when other accuse me of being prideful toward them....then others jump in and try to correct me and then the originally person who was initially calling me prideful thanks them.......makes me feel like I am being teamed up on and being accused of acting in a way that is just untrue. The truth is I love dialoguing with everyone here...even if we don't reach an agreement. We all love Christ and that's all that really matters in the end.

To be honest, I do get a tad bit annoyed when people are unteachable...they allow no room for change or consideration of what is being said. Even though it may not seem like it I consider what others hear are saying because they may point out something that may cause me to question myself. It's a good thing when done right. Since we both don't agree with are differing views on Romans 9...would you like to discuss it further? Maybe in private to avoid too much confusion?

I would like to understand how you view it and show you how I view it and maybe we can come to an agreement. If not at least we were willing to allow something different to shape our beliefs.

 

[SaberTruth]

I don't see any problem with quoting from the OT, it's quoted plenty of times throughout the NT and to discredit the OT is doing injustice to what God has to say in regard to any one subject.

To clarify, I am not "discrediting" the OT at all. My point was that when the issue is salvation, the NT is what that is all about. Salvation has always involved faith to some degree, but "now he has commanded everyone everywhere to repent". Jesus did much more than pay for sins, so we can't think nothing changed. To mix the OT and NT on this matter is the very act of "putting new wine in old wineskins" that Jesus warned about. They are two very different "contracts", with two separate priesthoods, as the letter to the Hebrews makes very clear.

Psalm 51:5 which teaches that from birth we are sinful and in need of a savior from the get go

I thought we already covered this.

So I don't see what you are trying to say. The OT is not some poetic or metaphorical book that cannot be taken literally. The red sea really did split apart for Moses just like the water held Jesus as He walked on it. How can you believe the teaching of the NT without first understanding where they came from out of the OT

?
No no no, this isn't what I'm saying at all, let me try again. Surely you recognize genre, yes? Psalms are poetry; Genesis is historical narrative; there are also prophecies and laws. One does not extract doctrine from poetry, or render creation week as allegory. See? I don't know how else to say this.

What caused Adam to sin? Some would argue it was Satan with his deceiving lies and half truths. Some could say it was Eve that tempted Adam to transgress God's commandment. But really it was Adams own fault and He alone sinned against God.

You have not answered the question. The point is this, as I said before: since "nature" did not cause Adam to sin, then we cannot arbitrarily assign the cause of all other sin to "nature".

We are born misalighned and twisted from what we are supposed to be. Are very nature is corrupt because we are born separated from God and it takes the death of Christ to close the gap....to reconcile us back to God. This is why we are born with a evil nature that produces bad fruit...it's because of Adam's sin. This is the reason Christ had to be born of a virgin..so that Christ would be born like Adam...sinless without any corruption........does that make sense?

We are born in mortal flesh, in a corrupt world. If Adam could sin in ageless flesh in paradise, then it becomes clear that our own choice to sin is exponentially more likely. If we consider that along with what God Himself said even in Ezek. 18 (the children do not share the sins of their parents), it seems abundantly clear that we sin for the same reasons Adam did: we are sentient beings who have to choose whether or not to bow to God. If on the other hand we are helpless victims of Adam's sin, then God is cruel and unjust to blame us for sinning, just as we would be cruel to rebuke a paralyzed person for not walking.

Ezekiel 18 simply teaches that if you live righteously in OT times...doesn't work of NT...you need to be born again with the Holy Spirit..(old covenant vs new covenant) your fathers actions would not condemn you. This just means that if you lived as God told you too, with faith of course...you would be saved. But again read Psalm 51

So you're allowed to separate OT from NT but I'm not? Thank you for proving the point I made above.

What that passage says very clearly is that the sin of parents is not passed down to their children. Go read it again and you'll see. And if this was the case in the OT, then by what right do you say we inherit the sin of Adam, everyone's eventual father? It stretches credulity to think that what God said in Eze. 18 only went back one generation!

Thanks for the link...it was an interesting read. The only problem is that there is not any solid evidence to support the claim that the word "in" should be translated "to".

Perhaps you don't follow the grammatical arguments, but you should try it sometime. You've given no rebuttal here. And this wasn't some email but the b-Greek mailing list, which you apparently have never heard of before. It is for Greek scholars to discuss things, not just anyone, and is very educational. You have lightly dismissed what you know nothing about.

I am unsure what you were trying to say using this scripture above. What it is saying however is that there are Gentiles who by nature do the Law and the passage in context is Paul teaching that they will one day be judge by the very law they are trying to uphold. This verse doesn't disprove a sinful nature. There are plenty of "religious" people trying to gain salvation by works. They perish for a lack of knowledge about God. They don't understand that salvation is by faith...not by works.

I was saying that the nature of the unsaved is not depraved as Calvinism would like us to believe.

What verses about seeking God? You didn't post any....

I was sure I posted them in this thread, but here is one again: Hebrews 11:6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

We can't just look at one verse and build our entire theology on it. We must compare it with other parts of scripture BOTH from OT and NT. That way we get the full picture instead of just a part or piece of it.

Who is doing this?

But we are going in circles and I don't much care for merry-go-rounds. There's plenty of good material in this thread and plenty more at my blog, but if you're going to just brush off every source and every argument, and completely miss simple points, I think I need to bow out and move on to other topics.

 

[perrero]

DDK (or διδασκαλος), are you hinting at Molinism/Middle Knowledge?

For any who aren't familiar with "middle knowledge", it has to do with a concept referred to as "possible worlds". It can be illustrated by the game of chess: with each move, the set of all possible remaining moves changes. The expert chess player has the ability to look ahead to many possible scenarios or "worlds" to deal with any possible move or strategy of the opponent. In the same way, the "middle knowledge" of God proposes that God is the ultimate Chessmaster, knowing every possible scenario of every possible world or universe or life that could be imagined.

In order to charge God with "rigging the game", He'd have to cheat by forcing the opponent to make certain moves. But inventing the game and setting the rules for a fair match is neither rigging the game nor violating free will. But the outcome, "victory", is assured by virtue of God's grasp of all possible outcomes. That is how He can "declare the end from the beginning" without resorting to cheating, which is what I'd consider a violation of free will-- especially when He gives us what would amount to an illusion or cruel trick of free will.

But we need to remember that free will is always limited in some way, much like a fenced playground where children have limits but are not dictated what games to play within them. The point here is about salvation: does God pick and choose or does He not? And scripture clearly states many times that this choice is up to each person.

I know that sometimes such topics can seem like Escher drawings that cannot possibly exist but appear to anyway, but I rest ultimately upon what the scriptures reveal about the character of God. For that reason I can trust His judgment and fairness. And as long as Calvinists (however inconsistently with their theology) preach the same gospel message as non-Calvinists, it really is an irrelevant thing to spend great amounts of time on. Let us unite in the GOOD News that Jesus died for all and all who come to Him to be reconciled will be given eternal life.

Is that what it is called? Molinism.

Never heard of it but that very close to what I believe. Here a link to my views.

My link

In the mean time I don't get what you say about Free Will having limits.
I also believe that God can and will "Rig" the game at His own will as long as it does not enfringe on anyones eternal destiny.

Pharaohs heart was hardened only after he had made his own decision.

Anyways,

 

[Anastacia]

Calvinism is false doctrine. And it's not just some little false doctrine that can be ignored. I've read here where some one said that a person can't accept the message of salvation unless they are "regenerated by the Holy Spirit," that's not in the Bible! That's not even hinted at in the Bible, nor implied. The Bible says that faith comes from hearing the word of God. The Bible says we are drawn to God by His lovingkindness. Stay with the scriptures! Some people talk all kind of unbiblical sayings....sayings I've heard only explained by Calvin teachers/preachers. It's like they really believe they are speaking God's wisdom. That's another reason why Calvinsim is not to be put up with. All points of Calvinism is false. All of it. It goes against the Word of God. Jesus died for all men. We are told more than once "whoever."

In this next passage, read how many times Jesus says "whoever."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Like I said before, Calvinism goes against the Word of God.

Read this next scripture. Read it carefully. This one scripture alone should stop Calvinism from ever taking hold of any one's thoughts! If we would only just believe and obey the Word of God.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


These scriptures say that God wants all men to be saved. Read how many times we are told "all men" in these next scriptures.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

That scripture right there should stop any one from ever misunderstanding and believing Calvinism ever again. How much plainer does it have to be? "..... Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Did you see in that passage where it says "... that all men through him might believe"? Remember, Calvinists say not all men. Hopefully God will allow you to see the truth.

 

[Jimmy Engle]

To clarify, I am not "discrediting" the OT at all. My point was that when the issue is salvation, the NT is what that is all about. Salvation has always involved faith to some degree, but "now he has commanded everyone everywhere to repent". Jesus did much more than pay for sins, so we can't think nothing changed. To mix the OT and NT on this matter is the very act of "putting new wine in old wineskins" that Jesus warned about. They are two very different "contracts", with two separate priesthoods, as the letter to the Hebrews makes very clear.



I thought we already covered this.

?
No no no, this isn't what I'm saying at all, let me try again. Surely you recognize genre, yes? Psalms are poetry; Genesis is historical narrative; there are also prophecies and laws. One does not extract doctrine from poetry, or render creation week as allegory. See? I don't know how else to say this.


You have not answered the question. The point is this, as I said before: since "nature" did not cause Adam to sin, then we cannot arbitrarily assign the cause of all other sin to "nature".


We are born in mortal flesh, in a corrupt world. If Adam could sin in ageless flesh in paradise, then it becomes clear that our own choice to sin is exponentially more likely. If we consider that along with what God Himself said even in Ezek. 18 (the children do not share the sins of their parents), it seems abundantly clear that we sin for the same reasons Adam did: we are sentient beings who have to choose whether or not to bow to God. If on the other hand we are helpless victims of Adam's sin, then God is cruel and unjust to blame us for sinning, just as we would be cruel to rebuke a paralyzed person for not walking.


So you're allowed to separate OT from NT but I'm not? Thank you for proving the point I made above.

What that passage says very clearly is that the sin of parents is not passed down to their children. Go read it again and you'll see. And if this was the case in the OT, then by what right do you say we inherit the sin of Adam, everyone's eventual father? It stretches credulity to think that what God said in Eze. 18 only went back one generation!


Perhaps you don't follow the grammatical arguments, but you should try it sometime. You've given no rebuttal here. And this wasn't some email but the b-Greek mailing list, which you apparently have never heard of before. It is for Greek scholars to discuss things, not just anyone, and is very educational. You have lightly dismissed what you know nothing about.


I was saying that the nature of the unsaved is not depraved as Calvinism would like us to believe.


I was sure I posted them in this thread, but here is one again: Hebrews 11:6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


Who is doing this?

But we are going in circles and I don't much care for merry-go-rounds. There's plenty of good material in this thread and plenty more at my blog, but if you're going to just brush off every source and every argument, and completely miss simple points, I think I need to bow out and move on to other topics.

Yea I agree. I must not be understanding what you are trying to say and based on your response you are not understanding what I am trying to say. It happens.
I agree with you about the OT and NT. However, to say that we can not form doctrines from the poetic parts of the OT is an odd claim to make. If you do a study on the doctrine of God, you will find that more than half of the verses that teach us about the character of God comes out of the Psalms. As far as the doctrine of salvation...I agree. There are two different covenants at work and we can't just mix and mash the two or we will end up with a mess.

The question you raised with Adam is an endless debate. Just think about it...would Adam still have sinned if satan was never present? How do we know that satan isn't to blame? Sure it's Adams fault but what would the results have been if you removed satan from the picture.
You also made a valid point...nature didn't and couldn't of caused Adam to sin. But we are not the same as Adam. Adam had a clean start...untainted from sin.

Oh and I am confused...are you saying that based on Ezekiel 18 that no one is born in sin?

No I am not familiar with b-Greek mailing list. I am by no means a Greek scholar nor do I pretend to be. Even so I lack convincing about what that article was suggesting about that verse. So unless you can show me some other sources that confirm this...I am not participating in holding that view.

Is Hebrews 11:6 speaking about salvation? Or is it speaking about those who are already saved? Because if we are going to assume that these people were being saved by their own doing it would put the ball in your court....but rewards is not salvation. Receiving rewards are for those who are saved and are being obedient through faith and it's by that faith that they are saved. Those who are saved seek God. Notice that when the examples are given it is of men who already believed God and were rewarded for faith through service...Noah with the Ark...Abraham with inheritance of land....Sarah the ability to conceive...

 

[SaberTruth]

In the mean time I don't get what you say about Free Will having limits.
I also believe that God can and will "Rig" the game at His own will as long as it does not enfringe on anyones eternal destiny.

Your link seems to be saying about the same thing as "middle knowledge". But I don't see rigging the game as possible given God's revealed character in scripture. The same God who hates false scales cannot turn around and run a fixed game. What I would agree to is that God will intervene like a referee to impost a penalty or to keep the game from getting out of hand.

At any rate, this is largely an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We either trust God to be fair and loving or we don't, and if we don't truly believe we will spend eternity in bliss we wouldn't spread the gospel. Calvinism is a colossal waste of time unless it is "hyper", which I call "consistent", since if everything is predetermined then why bother with anything? "Eat, drink, and be merry", for there's nothing we can do about anything. Jesus died and rose again, He is God-Man, we can only be reconciled to God through Him. Calvinism wants to dissect this into a thousand pieces.

 

[SaberTruth]

If you do a study on the doctrine of God, you will find that more than half of the verses that teach us about the character of God comes out of the Psalms.

Again, the question is about what the Bible says about salvation, which is the central doctrine of our faith. And since you agree that it is the NT that tells us what is DIFFERENT now that Christ has come, then we cannot get salvation doctrine from the OT. Sure we can get ideas about character of God or people, but pulling a doctrine that God forces either salvation or damnation from it is ignoring the genre. I can't make this any clearer.

You also made a valid point...nature didn't and couldn't of caused Adam to sin. But we are not the same as Adam. Adam had a clean start...untainted from sin.

This is self-contradiction. You agree that Adam's nature did not cause him to sin. Yet you then say nature does cause everyone else to sin. This is illogical and a baseless assertion.

Oh and I am confused...are you saying that based on Ezekiel 18 that no one is born in sin?

Read it... does it say anyone is born sinful? Where? No, not the Psalms either. It says children do NOT inherit their parents' sin. God said that.

No I am not familiar with b-Greek mailing list. I am by no means a Greek scholar nor do I pretend to be. Even so I lack convincing about what that article was suggesting about that verse. So unless you can show me some other sources that confirm this...I am not participating in holding that view

.
::facepalm::
Okay, I'll play this game too... unless you can find sources I happen to like that say things I like, I'm not changing my view.

 

[perrero]

Your link seems to be saying about the same thing as "middle knowledge". But I don't see rigging the game as possible given God's revealed character in scripture. The same God who hates false scales cannot turn around and run a fixed game. What I would agree to is that God will intervene like a referee to impost a penalty or to keep the game from getting out of hand.

At any rate, this is largely an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We either trust God to be fair and loving or we don't, and if we don't truly believe we will spend eternity in bliss we wouldn't spread the gospel. Calvinism is a colossal waste of time unless it is "hyper", which I call "consistent", since if everything is predetermined then why bother with anything? "Eat, drink, and be merry", for there's nothing we can do about anything. Jesus died and rose again, He is God-Man, we can only be reconciled to God through Him. Calvinism wants to dissect this into a thousand pieces.

Sorry, "rigging" is the wrong word. Intervening is better.
This would be God's perogative and as I stated could have no bearing on anybody's personal salvation or destiny.

Like Pharoah, God could not intervene and harden Pharoah's heart before Pharaoh himself had hardened it. On each occasion, when Pharaoh rebelled and sealed his fate, God then harden that free will decision. God then used that to perform great miracles in order to show Pharaoh His Power and Sovereignty, to show Israel the Greatness of the God they serve, which they would need down the road for conquering Canaan, and to also show the rest of the Egyptians that He was the Supreme of all the gods, giving each one of them opportunity to turn from there idolatry, seek God and maybe convert to Judaism. However it is not like Pharaoh only had one chance to obey God. He had several but because of his obstinate, prideful self he missed out in the end.

Because God can intervene in this way He can prophecy future events, such as the 30 pieces silver. When Judas, a greedy man from the outset, betrays Jesus he goes to the Sanhedrin with his plan. They confer on a price which God had placed on their minds, 30 pieces. Judas was more than happy to take it. In more complicated situations such as Crucifixtion, He would have to shape nations, rulers, the mindset of the Romans so that at the appropriate time it would be the form of execution for capital crimes. A difficult task? Not in the least nothing is impossible to God.

Does God know the beginning and the end,? Yes, because He planned it and is able to execute it as planned, no matter what our Free Will choices are.

Salvation was part of that plan which originated before the Foundation of the world. If man chose to sin, Jesus already had decided to die for us. This is what makes God's love so infinite and unfathomable.

Until later,

 

[SaberTruth]

PS to James: the "seek" verses were listed in post 62 on the previous page. The other verse was


Acts 17:27
God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.


And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[perrero]

To clarify, I am not "discrediting" the OT at all. My point was that when the issue is salvation, the NT is what that is all about. Salvation has always involved faith to some degree, but "now he has commanded everyone everywhere to repent". Jesus did much more than pay for sins, so we can't think nothing changed. To mix the OT and NT on this matter is the very act of "putting new wine in old wineskins" that Jesus warned about. They are two very different "contracts", with two separate priesthoods, as the letter to the Hebrews makes very clear.

"putting new wine in old wineskins"

Can I share what the Lord showed me about this.

Ever wonder why Jesus' first miracle was changing water into wine? Would you or I have done the same thing as an introductory miracle. One that pretty well went unnoticed. I would think raising the dead or healing 10 lepers would have been more obvious to get peoples attention.

The miracle of Cana is a message to all mankind.

We, man, are the waterpots = vessels as Paul would describe us 2 Tim. (2:21)
6 Waterpots = 6 the # of man (Created the 6th day, - the man of sin being 666)
Waterpots of stone not of clay as was common = Speaking of the condition of man's heart 2 Cor. (3:3)
filled with water which the life of the flesh as was told to Nicodemus John (3:5-6)

but

in faith to the words of the Master Ps (34:8)
the Old self, the old man, the flesh is change by the Wine of the Spirit.

As for the old wineskins, these are once again symbolic of the old man, the self.
When Christ saves an redeems us by pouring New Wine into our wineskin, that wineskin is transformed to New.
The Lord expects that wineskin to stay new by us constantly dying to the old one.

Imagine an expensive bottle of perfume given as a present. But in the process of giving, receiving, unwraping, elation, to bottle drops on the floor and
shatters into pieces. What is the greatest loss? The bottle or the perfume? Certainly the perfume that can run these days at $100 an ounce.

However in the case of the Wineskins (bottle) it is not the Wine of the Spirit that suffers loss but the wineskin (man).
Which means it is possible to lose salvation if we do not die to self and continue in sin and disobedience.

Just thought I'd share that Tidbit.

Until later,

 

[Surf Rider]

Scripture has one apostle speak of Abraham as an example of faith, not works. Scripture has another apostle speak of Abraham as an example of works. And then scripture ties it all together. It is the ignorant, those who insist on choosing one set of scripture over against another set of scriptures, that argue back and forth regarding works. Funny thing is, (not so funny, really), scripture states that it is faith working with works that counts. They must work together. Without faith, works is dead. without works, faith is dead.

This is true in many things in the word of God. God's love and God's hatred. People love to emphasis God's love, and ignore the statements of God's hatred. Some even go so far as to state that certain scriptures are wrong, that they are not inspired, simply because they speak of God's hatred.

God's love is not given to all, at all times. Nor is His hatred. Scripture even states this. Same is true for His anger. And the same is true for His compassion.

If we fail to see that scripture speaks of faith and works, and both are necessary, we are blind and argumentative, selecting scritpures and denying scriptures per our pet views. That is very foolish. It is not of God.

To do the same thing with free will and God's overriding sovereignty is equally foolish. Scripture speaks of God's hardening hearts, etc., very plainly, so that they have no recourse. Scripture also speaks very plainly aboout free choice. They are situationally and individually specific.

This is no different than faith and works, as they work together. Paul explained this regarding free choice and God's making some for destruction and some for glory, and then tied it all together quite simply in a passage in Romans.

If a person insists upon ignoring these very simple, elementary basics of the word of God, there is really no point in any further dialogue.

This is not double mindedness: it is accepting all of scripture and seeing how they work together, just as with faith and works. The opposite of this is narrowmindedness, which denies the word of God that it doesn't like. That is a heart state that needs repentance. God is open to our turning to Him and humbling ourselves. But when that is persisted in, such divisiveness is not from Him, and He will eventually just give us over completely to it. That is a tragic state. Scripture warns us against this within us. Perhaps we should accept all fo the scriptures, whether we understand them together or not. It is not shameful to not understand. It is shameful to insist on ignoring and negating certain scriptures that don't fit our beliefs.

If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives liberally and without reproach. And it's a good thing that He gives it liberally! And it's a really good thing that He doesn't reproach us and withold, or we'd have to be wise in order to receive wisdom. Boy, is God ever good to us when we call on Him with humility and meekness of heart.

Ignorance is not bliss. But God expects better than that from us.

May His mind be in us in all things.

 

[Anastacia]

Surf Rider, you are wrong. And it is a shame that you believe you are the only one who has humbled himself.

You say that no one can have faith in God unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit first. Then show me that from the scriptures. Where does it say that? It doesn't.