God over free-will

[Rex]

I certainly wouldn't want to attack you by pointing out Charles Spurgeon understood the proper context of both Arminianism and Calvinism.

While you already have your feelings hurt I suggest you find someone to teach yo how to use the quote feature as well as the BBCode mode.
It would make following your line of thought in context with others replies easier.

and BTW it was you that started by toting your intellectual superiority, I just thought I might remind you it's not a cloak of impenetrability or invisibility.
You also encouraged anyone to challenge your position, I did and its clear from reading scripture that both the sovereignty of God and the will or desire of men are both qualifiers. Instead you make a straw-man that I attack you instead of commenting or admitting Spurgeon in the fullness of his teaching just as the bible in the fulness of it letters is not 100% Calvinistic.

I can see your not learning anything in bible collage but you will have a piece of paper that your nature can wave in the face of those that disagree.
You claim this doctrine is your own personal creation, this is alarming as well, I prefer to find that which was taught from the beginning. Not some morphed hybred substitute.

Have a good day

 

[justaname]

Rex I wonder if you even read my quote on what Spurgeon said about Calvinism and Arminianism. Let me re-post it for your sake.


"What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."


The two bolded ares are his direct comments about Arminianism. First he calls it heresy, then he says he abhors it.

Now what does he call Calvinism but the gospel and nothing else. That part I put in blue for you.

Now I am not claiming this doctrine I am presenting is my own creation, only that I am not limiting myself within the confines of one theology type. I am certain there have been people before me that concluded man does not have a free-will but rather a limited-will based on scripture and the sovereignty of God.

Your quote:
I can see your not learning anything in bible collage but you will have a piece of paper that your nature can wave in the face of those that disagree.

Another personal attack.

 

[Rex]

If you could restrain yourself could you comment on what is said in this sermon rather than running around grabbing bits and pieces of his other writings to bolster your own thoughts. That is what reading someone elses thoughts are all about, attempting to grasp what is said and meant by the author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,”​

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.
I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.
Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.
That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.
If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.
These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.



Closing points in this sermon
Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace............

........................
Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God's teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon from his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” originally delivered Sunday morning, August 1, 1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.

 

[justaname]

Well Rex let me first say this is an excellent sermon that I have never read until you presented it. I did comment on it in post #81 but I will do my best to do it again. I assume the areas you want me to focus on are in bold print. :huh:

If you could restrain yourself could you comment on what is said in this sermon rather than running around grabbing bits and pieces of his other writings to bolster your own thoughts. That is what reading someone elses thoughts are all about, attempting to grasp what is said and meant by the author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,”​

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.
I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.
Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.
That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.


Here he is speaking about predestination and man's personal responsibility for his own actions. Paul in his writing to the Romans 9:10-24 addresses this very issue, but before we go there we should go here.

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

This is what is accepted as the definition of what the predestination entails by most scholars today and in most of the modern commentaries.
A brief definition of predestination as follows:
(as a doctrine in Christian theology) the divine foreordaining of all that will happen, esp. with regard to the salvation of some and not others. It has been particularly associated with the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo and of Calvin.

What happens is this leads some to argue "How is that fair? That means God is not fair because God picked some and not others." This inevitably leads the rational mind to the conclusion that God is also not fair to make those not chosen or not predestined responsible for their own actions. This is why Spurgeon says they are believed to be contradictory and inconsistent. The answer I eluded to earlier is given by Paul later in Romans 9:10-24

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Verses 14 and 19 are the anticipated responses Paul makes from those who object to this teaching. They are consistent with what Spurgeon is saying with the ideas of predestination and man's responsibility being seemingly incompatible.

The verses in red show Paul's reasons or better said God's reasons for this doctrine.

1. so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
2. What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, (send people to hell) endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy,(those who complete the salvation process) which He prepared beforehand for glory,

Verses 19-21 answer the argument of man's responsibility.

Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.
If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.
These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

Here he is poetically saying that these concepts are beyond human comprehension. We can meditate upon these seemingly incompatible truths but we can not see where they come together and make sense. Only when you come close to the throne of God, the wellspring of all truth, can anyone know how they are compatible.

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon from his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” originally delivered Sunday morning, August 1, 1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.

Closing points in this sermon
Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace.

Obviously here he is speaking where he sees error in the Calvinist doctrine that some Calvinists hold to. Here he is speaking about the concept of double predestination which says God picked some for hell. I think the problem he has with the Arminian is self evident.

Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God's teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

I think this is also self explanatory.

 

[Rex]

Well thank you

This has been my only point and contention from the beginning I'm glad you read it and observed the obvious, That it's our inability to understand scripture in this Antinomian, and Arminian venture and that Spurgeon made the right call. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil. Or until someone threw revelation can point to the junction these to concepts meet, for they spring from the same source.

I am so tired of people that toss the word aside simply because they can not grasp the content or understand. It's not the word that errors but rather in this case Spurgeon made, its our inability to fully comprehend. That is the truth great men of God all stood and stand on today, the word. The word has been under question and attack since Satan first said, did God really say? It was this very point that started to collapse of Spurgeon's supporters. It took Darwinism and scholars questioning the scriptures entering into the minds of men who then began to question the word. The numbers of people that believe the word has been in decline ever since.

Spurgeon, said: “If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility?

But the enemy found a way to bring the bible into question again, and again and again.

Downgrade Controversy




Caricature of Spurgeon from Vanity fair (1870)




A controversy among the Baptists flared in 1887 with Spurgeon's first "Down-grade" article, published in The Sword & the Trowel. In the ensuing "Downgrade Controversy," the Metropolitan Tabernacle became disaffiliated from the Baptist Union, effectuating Spurgeon's congregation as the world's largest self-standing church. Contextually the Downgrade Controversy was British Baptists' equivalent of hermeneutic tensions which were starting to divide Protestant fellowships in general.
The Controversy took its name from Spurgeon's use of the term "Downgrade" to describe certain other Baptists' outlook toward the Bible (i.e., they had "downgraded" the Bible and the principle of sola scriptura).[13] Spurgeon alleged that an incremental creeping of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis[citation needed], Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and other concepts was weakening the Baptist Union and reciprocally explaining the success of his own evangelistic efforts. The standoff even split his pupils trained at the College, each side accusing the other of raising issues which did not need to be raised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you will probably be learning about the source "dead sea scrolls" will maybe brought to consider the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis it is well that you remember Spurgeon again, It was instrumental in the breakup of his church. “If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility?
It is estimated he spoke to 10 million people, now remember that's before electricity, radio or even the telephone.

He never compromised the word of God. I hope there are still those that hold the same notion in your bible collage.
“‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎The mind of God is greater than all the minds of men, so let all men leave the gospel just as God has delivered it unto us.”
― Charles H. Spurgeon,

 

[Axehead]

I like this outline study of the Sovereignty of God by James Fowler. It's not what you think it might be.


SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD



I. Biblical usage of the word "sovereignty" in reference to God. NASB
A. Old Testament - Heb. word malku - "king, kingdom, reign, royalty"
Ps. 103:19 - "the Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all."
Dan. 7:27 - "the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to
the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve
and obey Him."
1. Heb. word malku is best translated "kingdom" in all cases. Other three usages of malku in Dan. 7:27 are thus translated.
2. Heb. word adonai - "Lord" may express concept of sovereignty.
B. New Testament - Greek word dunastes - "ruler, official" from dunamis - "power"
I Tim. 6:15 - "He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords." (KJV - Potentate)
1. Greek word dunastes is best translated "ruler" (cf. Lk. 1:52)
2. Greek word kurios - "Lord" may express concept of sovereignty.
C. "Sovereignty" is not necessarily a Biblical word, but a theological concept.
D. Other Scriptures cited to express concept of sovereignty.
I Chron. 29:11,12 - "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed
everything that is in the heavens and the earth: Thine is the dominion, O Lord, and Thou doest exalt Thyself as head over
all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in
Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone."
Rev. 19:6 - "the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns."
Rev. 19:16 - "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords."

II. Defining the concept of "sovereignty."
A. English word usage
1. Etymology - Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.
a. Late Latin - super-anum - "chief above"
b. Middle French - soverain - "princely"
c. Old English - souerein - "supreme, chief, principal"
d. The "g" was first added in the 16th century, perhaps to convey idea of "reign"
2. Dictionary definition - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
a. supreme power, dominion
b. undisputed ascendancy, dominance
c. unlimited extent, absolute
d. autonomy, independence, absolutely free
e. superlative quality, excellent
f. unqualified, unmitigated, unconditional
3. Synonyms - Roget's Thesaurus.
a. supremacy, superiority, ascendancy, all-powerful, all- sufficient, irresistible, overwhelming, authority, jurisdiction,
absoluteness, mastery, control, reign, rule.
4. The word "sovereignty" lacks precise definition in English language. Great diversity of meaning and connotation.
B. Theological usage
1. The word "sovereignty" became popular in theological usage after John Calvin, French Reformer, 1509-1564.
Institutes of Christian Religion. Sermons. Commentaries.
2. Historical background.
a. Protestant Reformation a reaction against Roman Catholic emphasis on "works."
Man must do this....that...
b. Protestants: "It is what God does; not what man does!"
c. Protestant theology in general became a theology with its starting point in God's activity; what God does.
(1) As such it became a distorted theology with an inherent fallacy at its foundation.
(2) God does what He does, because He is who He is.
3. Calvinistic theology refers to "sovereign authority, sovereign power, sovereign control, sovereign causation, sovereign
rule, sovereign reign, sovereign plan, sovereign purpose, sovereign will, sovereign decrees, sovereign determinations,
sovereign counsel, sovereign fore-ordination, sovereign grace, sovereign love, etc.
a. Precise definition is never given.
b. The concept is nebulous, ambiguous, inadequately defined.
c. This ill-defined concept became cornerstone of Calvinistic theology.
Pink, A.W. - "The doctrine of God's sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology."
Boice, J.M. - "The doctrine of the sovereignty of God is the doctrine that gives means and substance to all other
doctrines."
Enns, Paul - "Foundational to the entire system of Calvinism is the doctrine of the sovereignty of God."
Klooster, F.H. - "The confession of the sovereignty of God has become the hallmark of authentic Calvinism."
Berkhof, L. - "Reformed theology stresses the sovereignty of God in virtue of which He has sovereignly determined
from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass..."
d. Variant perceptions of the concept of "sovereignty" led to diverse theological systems.
(1) Covenant theology - "God has determined to act in an unchanging, unalterable, uniformitarian way."
(2) Dispensational theology - "God has determined to keep His promise to a particular racial and national people -
the Jews."
4. Questioning the Calvinistic theological premise.
a. The ambiguous, ill-defined concept has allowed a wide variety of divergent interpretations imposed upon Scripture.
b. The concept of "sovereignty" has become an idolatrous theological construct.
(1) Ex. Pink, A.W. - "The doctrine of God's sovereignty ...is the centre of gravity in the system of Christian truth - the
sun around which all lesser orbs are grouped. It is the golden milestone to which every highway of knowledge
leads and from which they all radiate. It is the cord upon which all other doctrines are strung like so many
pearls, holding them in place and giving them unity. It is the plumbline by which every creed needs to be
measured, the balance in which every human dogma must be weighed. It is designed as the sheet-anchor for
our souls amid the storms of life. The doctrine of God's sovereignty is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is
designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces
gratitude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords comfort for the present and a sense of security
respecting the unknown future. It is, and it does all, and much more than we have just said...."
(2) This is a deification of the ideological concept of "sovereignty"
5. Some consequences of the distorted Calvinistic theological premise
a. determinism - variations of what God has "determined" and predestined.
b. religionism - systems of belief and morality
c. authoritarianism - authority of propositional statements and persons who advocate such.
d. absolutism - ideology and morality becomes absolute rather than God.
e. epistemological emphasis - belief system, ideology
f. triumphalism, perfectionism,
g. universalism
h. fatalism, defeatism
i. nomism, theonomy, dominionism, reconstructionism, covenant theology
j. activism
k. legalism
l. sacramentalism
m. passivism, acquiescence in sanctification
n. lordship controversies - focusing on function and activity of lordship, rather than on who God is as Lord.
o. dispensationalism, pre-millennialism
p. power theology - God's sovereign power
C. Legitimate usage of the term "sovereignty"
1. In light of its ambiguity and lack of definition, and its being freighted with so many
variant connotations of theological baggage, it would probably be wise to avoid usage
of the term.
2. If it is used, it is probably best used as a synonym of the Hebrew word adonai and the Greek
word kurios, to refer to God and Jesus Christ as "Lord."
3. It should not be used in reference to man's state in general
a. A king or queen might be referred to as the "sovereign" of a particular nation of peoples.
b. Mankind, in general, cannot be said to be "sovereign" or to act in self-determination out of oneself.
4. Adjectival usage should be avoided.
D. Venturing a definition of "sovereignty"
1. God is "over all" and "above all" - "God is on the top rung of the ladder." (L.M.)
2. God is absolute, autonomous and independent
3. God is omnipotent and Almighty
4. God is the authority who acts out of His inherent perfect character and absolute power. Authority = Gk. exousia - "out of
being"
5. God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings - I Tim. 6:15

 

[Rex]

Yep AH
It becomes apparent why John Calvin founded and pointed out the contrast between RC works and the sovereign election

Consider this
in the case of our salvation it is called election.
But God calls to us -> "the election" from His Sovereign position
It was Israels repeated error in not responding to the call

That theme is repeated over and over again in both the old and new covenants.

Sovereign election
Eph 2:8-9
And the fruit
Jer 9:24

 

[Axehead]

Yep AH
It becomes apparent why John Calvin founded and pointed out the contrast between RC works and the sovereign election

Consider this
in the case of our salvation it is called election.
But God calls to us -> "the election" from His Sovereign position
It was Israels repeated error in not responding to the call

That theme is repeated over and over again in both the old and new covenants.

Sovereign election
Eph 2:8-9
And the fruit
Jer 9:24

Yes, many are called but few are chosen. Why are few chosen? Because few respond to the call. abc...123. Man likes to make things difficult. But we are to abide in the simplicity of Christ.

Jer_9:24 is one of my favorite verses.

It goes well with these:

John_17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Rex, I am sure you know what it takes to know God. It takes choosing the Cross on a daily basis. The flesh hates the cross and will try to convince us not to pick it up and carry it. It's our choice, everyday. And we have access to God's grace (Jesus Christ) and can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

1Jn_5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Both verses tell us what eternal life is. It is Jesus Christ and here are two more that bless me.

1Jn_5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

We must lay hold of Christ (eternal life) Phil_3:12.
1Ti_6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

My first rule of discernment is this: Is Jesus Christ being diminished in anyway. Is He the centrality and the main focus or is a man trying to replace Him or move Him aside? I become very wary when I hear the Lord being diminished in any way. And of course the most important thing is: Am I diminishing Him in any way in my heart.

Axehead

 

[Graceismine]

Justaname

and so you assume that because none seeks after God, they must be regenerated before they can believe. You base too much on assumption to be credible.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (regenerated).

 

[justaname]

Justaname

and so you assume that because none seeks after God, they must be regenerated before they can believe. You base too much on assumption to be credible.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (regenerated).

No what I believe is something a bit different than what you perceive.

Man is in his fallen state is in bondage, incapable of making any decisions that are in accordance with God's goodness. This I have proven well enough through various scriptures.

Upon hearing the gospel, a spark of clarity goes off if you will, that allows the man to make a choice. The gospel is a divine instrument with miraculous power entrusted in His saints for distribution. Romans 1:16
Upon belief is when the man is regenerated and not before.

I think this must also be added to the discussion at this point.
1 Corinthians 3:7
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

I do not believe man is capable of growing his own faith as it were, because that would be self determination, but we are solely dependent on God.

Axehead,
You have presented a good sized chunk to the discussion. I will need some time to digest, thanks!

 

[7angels]

Yes, many are called but few are chosen. Why are few chosen? Because few respond to the call. abc...123. Man likes to make things difficult. But we are to abide in the simplicity of Christ.

Jer_9:24 is one of my favorite verses.

It goes well with these:

John_17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Rex, I am sure you know what it takes to know God. It takes choosing the Cross on a daily basis. The flesh hates the cross and will try to convince us not to pick it up and carry it. It's our choice, everyday. And we have access to God's grace (Jesus Christ) and can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

1Jn_5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Both verses tell us what eternal life is. It is Jesus Christ and here are two more that bless me.

1Jn_5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

We must lay hold of Christ (eternal life) Phil_3:12.
1Ti_6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

My first rule of discernment is this: Is Jesus Christ being diminished in anyway. Is He the centrality and the main focus or is a man trying to replace Him or move Him aside? I become very wary when I hear the Lord being diminished in any way. And of course the most important thing is: Am I diminishing Him in any way in my heart.

Axehead

I AM CURIOUS IF you actually understand john 17:3.
i am also curious if you understand exactly why Jesus died for our sins.

john 3:16 shows us that Jesus came in order to give us eternal life. but what eternal life? is eternal life being able to live forever? if so then the people who go to hell are they limited in how long they will live. to my understanding our spirit man never dies so those in hell will be in eternal torment. if that is so then what is the meaning of eternal life?

 

[tomcat3443]

I seek to search the concept of human free-will in accordance with the sovereignty of God. I ask the Lord Most High to use His Holy Spirit to guide this endeavor in the name of Jesus Christ.

I will begin by defining the term "free-will".
When thinking of the term "free-will" one will rightly gain a sense of freedom. Freedom from or to do what you might ask. Let us first set aside consequence, this I will address later. Freedom in choice to choose one's course of action. This is a minimal view which can be extended to all beings including animals. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/)


From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

This subjects the agents as being rational which assumes the agents to be human. Although I do know there are human agents that are irrational this definition will suffice for argument's sake.

Let me first state I do believe that unsaved agents can do good in this world, although that standard of good is man's standard and not God's. The hidden sin behind every action anyone can do is pride. Charles De Gaulle states it as such “Every man of action has a strong dose of egoism, pride, hardness, and cunning. But all those things will be regarded as high qualities if he can make them the means to achieve great ends.”

Yes these qualities the world may regard as high, but I am certain God does not. Isaiah 2:11 Matthew 23:12 In this the man of God cries out in harmony with the psalmist: Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults, also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; let them not rule over me; then I will be blameless, and I shall be acquitted of great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.

Moving now to scripture we can see the position of humanity before grace.
Genesis 6:5

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9
9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Matthew 15:18
18 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

John 8:33
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Romans 1:21

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 3:10-18

10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Scripture is full and clear describing the depraved state of humanity. Jesus Himself says anyone who sins is a slave to it. Being a slave means you are not your own, you are owned by another agent. We know there are only two types of children, children of God and children of wrath, whose father is the devil.

First case, the unregenerate is unable to please God. Hebrews 11:6

The reasoning is given by Paul also in Romans 8:7-8
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

First argument:

1. An agent possessing free will can freely choose any course of action.
2. Those agents who's mind is set on the flesh can not subject itself to the law of God or please God.
3. Free-will either does not exist or is only possessed by agents who's mind is not set on the flesh.

This will be my first argument I set out and I will start the post here. This subject is very deep and can be positioned in many facets, and it will most likely take multiple postings on my behalf to complete my thoughts on this subject.

I'm new to the form so please bare with me. I would like to start out by saying there are two things here to discuss.(1) Free Will & (2) Choice. I think they go hand in hand. We have free will to make a choice,but the choice we make is what counts to God.




Let us consider how free will is involved in God’s permission of suffering. To begin with, think about this: Do you appreciate having the freedom to choose what you will do and say, what you will eat and wear, what kind of work you will do, and where and how you will live? Or would you want someone to dictate your every word and action every moment of your life?


No normal person wants his life taken out of his control so completely. Why not? Because of the way God made us. The Bible tells us that God created man in his ‘image and likeness,’ and one of the faculties God himself has is freedom of choice. (Genesis 1:26; Deuteronomy 7:6) When he created humans, he gave them that same wonderful faculty—the gift of free will. That is one reason why we find it frustrating to be enslaved by oppressive rulers.


So the desire for freedom is no accident, for God is a God of freedom. The Bible says: “Where the spirit of God is, there is freedom.” (2 Corinthians 3:17) Hence, God gave us free will as part of our very makeup. Since he knew the way our minds and emotions would work, he knew that we would be happiest with free will.


To go with the gift of free will, God gave us the ability to think, weigh matters, make decisions, and know right from wrong. (Hebrews 5:14) Thus, free will was to be based on intelligent choice. We were not made like mindless robots having no will of their own. Nor were we created to act out of instinct as were the animals. Instead, our brain was designed to work in harmony with our freedom of choice.

However, did God purpose for free will to be without limits? Imagine a busy city without any traffic laws, where everybody could drive in any direction at any speed. Would you want to drive under those conditions? No, that would be traffic anarchy and would surely result in many accidents.


So too with God’s gift of free will. Unlimited freedom would mean anarchy in society. There have to be laws to guide human activities. God’s Word says: “Behave like free men, and never use your freedom as an excuse for wickedness.” (1 Peter 2:16, ) God wants free will to be regulated for the common good. He purposed for us to have, not total freedom, but relative freedom, subject to the rule of law.

Whose laws were we designed to obey? Another part of the text at 1 Peter 2:16 ( states: “You are slaves of no one except God.” This does not mean an oppressive slavery, but, rather, it means that we were designed to be happiest when in subjection to God’s laws. (Matthew 22:35-40) His laws, more than any laws devised by humans, provide the best guide. “I, God, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk.”—Isaiah 48:17.


At the same time, God’s laws allow for great freedom of choice within their boundaries. This results in variety and makes the human family fascinating. Think of the different types of food, clothing, music, art, and homes throughout the world. We surely prefer to have our choice in such matters rather than have some other person decide for us.


Thus we were created to be happiest when subject to God’s laws for human behavior. It is similar to being subject to God’s physical laws. For instance, if we ignore the law of gravity and jump off a high place, we will be injured or killed. If we ignore the internal laws of our body and stop eating food, drinking water, or breathing air, we will die. Obedience to God’s laws would not have been burdensome for our first parents. Instead, it would have worked for their welfare and that of the entire human family. Had the first pair stayed within the limits of God’s laws, all would have been well. In fact, we would now be living in a wonderful paradise of pleasure as a loving, united human family! There would not have been wickedness, suffering, and death. Instead they made a BAD CHOICE which they had FREE WILL to do. God Bless and keep you near.

 

[aspen]

false dichotomy. Freewill is not limited to good vs. evil. Choosing to love as we were created to do allows us to choose between the good, which is true freedom.

 

[7angels]

Yes, many are called but few are chosen. Why are few chosen? Because few respond to the call. abc...123. Man likes to make things difficult. But we are to abide in the simplicity of Christ.

Jer_9:24 is one of my favorite verses.

It goes well with these:

John_17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Rex, I am sure you know what it takes to know God. It takes choosing the Cross on a daily basis. The flesh hates the cross and will try to convince us not to pick it up and carry it. It's our choice, everyday. And we have access to God's grace (Jesus Christ) and can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

1Jn_5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Both verses tell us what eternal life is. It is Jesus Christ and here are two more that bless me.

1Jn_5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

We must lay hold of Christ (eternal life) Phil_3:12.
1Ti_6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

My first rule of discernment is this: Is Jesus Christ being diminished in anyway. Is He the centrality and the main focus or is a man trying to replace Him or move Him aside? I become very wary when I hear the Lord being diminished in any way. And of course the most important thing is: Am I diminishing Him in any way in my heart.

Axehead

I AM CURIOUS IF you actually understand john 17:3.
i am also curious if you understand exactly why Jesus died for our sins.

john 3:16 shows us that Jesus came in order to give us eternal life. but what eternal life? is eternal life being able to live forever? if so then the people who go to hell are they limited in how long they will live. to my understanding our spirit man never dies so those in hell will be in eternal torment. if that is so then what is the meaning of eternal life?

Yes, many are called but few are chosen. Why are few chosen? Because few respond to the call. abc...123. Man likes to make things difficult. But we are to abide in the simplicity of Christ.

Jer_9:24 is one of my favorite verses.

It goes well with these:

John_17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Rex, I am sure you know what it takes to know God. It takes choosing the Cross on a daily basis. The flesh hates the cross and will try to convince us not to pick it up and carry it. It's our choice, everyday. And we have access to God's grace (Jesus Christ) and can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

1Jn_5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Both verses tell us what eternal life is. It is Jesus Christ and here are two more that bless me.

1Jn_5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

We must lay hold of Christ (eternal life) Phil_3:12.
1Ti_6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

My first rule of discernment is this: Is Jesus Christ being diminished in anyway. Is He the centrality and the main focus or is a man trying to replace Him or move Him aside? I become very wary when I hear the Lord being diminished in any way. And of course the most important thing is: Am I diminishing Him in any way in my heart.

Axehead

I AM CURIOUS IF you actually understand john 17:3.
i am also curious if you understand exactly why Jesus died for our sins.

john 3:16 shows us that Jesus came in order to give us eternal life. but what eternal life? is eternal life being able to live forever? if so then the people who go to hell are they limited in how long they will live. to my understanding our spirit man never dies so those in hell will be in eternal torment. if that is so then what is the meaning of eternal life?

 

[williemac]

Whenever we are observing scripture and then coming to a conclusion based on what we observe, our conclusion can be tested by scripture. There are many right premises made with wrong conclusions that follow. For example, in 2Cor.5:19, we find that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Herin would support the Calvinist position/conclusion that God has control of the fate of men. However, the very next verse reveals that as ambassadors of Christ, God is "pleading" (NKJ) through us to the world to be reconciled to Him. This supports the Armenian point of view that man has the ability to respond to God from within his own ability to reason.
As well, undoubtedly the subject of predestination has been bantered about on this topic. There are those who claim that it is defined as God pre-choosing those who would become His and those who would not. Aside from the fact that this is not exactly what scripture says, there is the matter of foreknowledge. The predestiantion mentioned in scripture is accompianied with the basis of God's foreknowledge. So what is that? Now what I see happening with this word, not uncommon in the attempts to justify one's conclusion, is that the meaning is conveniently changed or altered to say that this is simply God knowing or choosing beforehand what He is up to (in so many words). O really?

So I will ask those who are swayed on the Calvinist side (For lack of a better term).....What was/is the criteria that God is using or has used to determine just who will be fortunate enough to come into His kingdom and who will not? Simple question. To which I have never had a straight reply other than "I don't know" or "it has not been revealed" ...go figure.... Thank you.

 

[justaname]

I would like to reiterate my opening statement so as to keep the integrity of the topic intact. I seek to search the concept of human free-will in accordance with the sovereignty of God.

Let me now affirm I am in no way advocating any ideology other than Christianity and use scripture as the basis of my authority. With this said that does not mean drawing from sources that have also studied this subject detracts from anyones personal integrity, as long as one affirms that information is no one's own. It seems my style of presentation of ideas from earlier posts may have eluded to hidden intentions, as to which I deny. I again ask the Holy Spirit's cooperation in this endeavor in Jesus Christ's name, amen.

The reasoning of this subject is as such. It seems some in the church have this notion that God will not supersede man's free-will. I admit I too at one time held this lie of an idea and have said something to the effect of, "I think God operates on a number of plan Bs". Due to more recent studies, I now hold to the notion that I was wrong in my initial assumption and restate my thinking process to state God has, is, and will always operate implementing plan A.

REASONING
1. This line of thinking, God will not supersede man's free-will, is first unbiblical. There are many cases in the bible where this is simply not true, as to which I will demonstrate later.
2. This line of thinking subjects God to man as opposed to man to God.

I am certain this list can be expanded upon but rather than being exhaustive on this subject I choose to be effective.

In earlier posts I defined free-will. This definition was selected.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

This is the accepted definition that is circulated throughout secular society and when referring to free-will this is most likely what mot people think of free-will being. I hold to the notion that biblically the case can be made that man simply does not fit within this definition in accordance with his will and thereby this definition of free-will can not be applied to man. I conclude that either this notion of free-will for the Christian either be redefined or be disregarded altogether for a more biblical idea of man's limited-will.

Let me address now some objections that may arise. I am not promoting the ideas of fatalism or antinomianism. I am not promoting the idea that man is void of choice. I am not attempting to explain how man's decisions fit within God's purpose. I am not attempting to define the synergy between man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. I am not attempting to create a new ideology. I am not at this time interested in election or predestination, although very interesting topics and somewhat related, I feel they will prove to be distracting.

God supersedes man's will

Saul of Tarsus
This man is one example of how God exerts His will over humanity. If it were that Saul were free to choose as he wishes, why the road to Damascus incident? Why would God strike this man with blindness and command him to do anything?

Jonah
If it were that Jonah had free-will and God does not impose His will over humanity why did Jonah end up in a great fish? Why would God not rather select another individual to carry out the task he asked Jonah to do?

Pharaoh
Scripture is clear in the fact that God was the acting agent in the case of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 11:10

Judgement
If man were free to choose as he wishes why the thought of judgement to begin with? God has evidentially judged humanity on several occasions, but what is the point of judgement if God has given man freedom of choice?

A few verses that show God supersedes
Exodus 10:1
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,

Proverbs 21:1
1 The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Jeremiah 10:23
23 I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.

Man is subject to God and not the reverse

If it were true that man has free-will that would mean God is dependent on man's choices and would need to react accordingly in order to keep His own plans and intentions in place. This idea detracts from God's omniscience. I say it detracts from His omniscience because God would be dependent on man's decisions especially in the case of salvation thereby His outlook on the future would be cloudy but from scripture we know this can not be true.

Isaiah 46:10
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Revelation 1:8
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”


Kingdoms in humanity are an era long past and the mindset is also. In the past the idea of a sovereign king was simply accepted and his subjects were just that, subject. Now we have more of a democratic society throughout the western world, which I in no way disagree with, but the mindset of the common man has changed. God is our King and we are subject to Him, He is not subject to our free-will.


Daniel 4:17


17 “This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers And the decision is a command of the holy ones, In order that the living may know That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men.”

Now I once heard John Piper talk about God's sovereignty. Interesting but I am not exactly so sure God micro manages everything the way he describes. If you want to watch here it is it is only about 6 mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh8XbsB3uLY


Has God decreed I am going to choose chocolate ice-cream as opposed to strawberry? I am not quite that convinced, but God is definite, absolute, and sovereign. Of this I am quite convinced and certain. God did know I was going to choose chocolate, but again I don't think he decreed it, I believe he left that choice to me.

 

[Rex]

Maybe you should consider another word in your case, predestination
http://www.gotquestions.org/predestination.html

Romans 8:29-30 tells us, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Ephesians 1:5 and 11 declare, “He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” Many people have a strong hostility to the doctrine of predestination. However, predestination is a biblical doctrine. The key is understanding what predestination means, biblically.

The words translated “predestined” in the Scriptures referenced above are from the Greek word proorizo, which carries the meaning of “determine beforehand,” “ordain,” “to decide upon ahead of time.” So, predestination is God determining certain things to occur ahead of time. What did God determine ahead of time? According to Romans 8:29-30, God predetermined that certain individuals would be conformed to the likeness of His Son, be called, justified, and glorified. Essentially, God predetermines that certain individuals will be saved. Numerous scriptures refer to believers in Christ being chosen (Matthew 24:22, 31; Mark 13:20, 27; Romans 8:33, 9:11, 11:5-7, 28; Ephesians 1:11; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10). Predestination is the biblical doctrine that God in His sovereignty chooses certain individuals to be saved.

The most common objection to the doctrine of predestination is that it is unfair. Why would God choose certain individuals and not others? The important thing to remember is that no one deserves to be saved. We have all sinned (Romans 3:23), and are all worthy of eternal punishment (Romans 6:23). As a result, God would be perfectly just in allowing all of us to spend eternity in hell. However, God chooses to save some of us. He is not being unfair to those who are not chosen, because they are receiving what they deserve. God’s choosing to be gracious to some is not unfair to the others. No one deserves anything from God; therefore, no one can object if he does not receive anything from God. An illustration would be a man randomly handing out money to five people in a crowd of twenty. Would the fifteen people who did not receive money be upset? Probably so. Do they have a right to be upset? No, they do not. Why? Because the man did not owe anyone money. He simply decided to be gracious to some.

If God is choosing who is saved, doesn’t that undermine our free will to chose and believe in Christ? The Bible says that we have the choice—all who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10). The Bible never describes God rejecting anyone who believes in Him or turning away anyone who is seeking Him (Deuteronomy 4:29). Somehow, in the mystery of God, predestination works hand-in-hand with a person being drawn by God (John 6:44) and believing unto salvation (Romans 1:16). God predestines who will be saved, and we must choose Christ in order to be saved. Both facts are equally true. Romans 11:33 proclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”

The way I visualize this is God predestined the outcome. All will in the end be subject and bow, thats the destination for all of creation, the starting point began with a falling way. So God provided a way from the beginning "the falling away" to His predetermined destination, threw time and generations. All was good then came the fall at that time God shot a line through all the ages of men with the words in Gen 3:14-19. This line for purpose of visualization is like a surveyor's transit, determining the path of the RR line that would be built or manifest threw the ages. Those predestine are those that the line intersects. Just like homes or obstacles like rivers or mountains that need bridges, and tunnels, or people that maybe in the path need to be negotiated with "predestine". Like Noah Abraham Jacob Joseph and the Pharaoh Moses all threw the ages To Jesus here it gets thick, many things we read about including the calling of the 12 was predestine even those Jesus healed we here him say they are this way because of me that the father may be glorified in making them whole. The Prophets spoke of this predestine RR that was called by the word, Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,... speaking of the line God had predestined and the effects it would produce as evidence of this truth. Now to every generation what was called and laid "the track", can be seen. As this train of salvation moves threw time we are invited by those conductors to board. Some of these conductors are predestine in that they make a big noise and the Lord is glorified, but to us along the route we have to respond to the call to board in our lifetime.

This track has been laid through time through creation itself it matters little whether you are in its path or along its line, because the destination is predetermined. During its construction in the past it has called out to all men, and will continue to do so until its "predetermined" destination is made. This track passes threw every generation. You ever see something get in a trains way or a large ship? Its best to step aside and yield.
Something to think about, predestination needs a definition as well.

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”

 

[williemac]

Instead of quoting and replying to entire posts, I will cut and paste a few things.. First one:
1. This line of thinking, God will not supersede man's free-will, is first unbiblical. There are many cases in the bible where this is simply not true, as to which I will demonstrate later.
2. This line of thinking subjects God to man as opposed to man to God.

My reply to this is that it must somehow be taken that man's free will is something he must have mustered up on his own. But what if God gave it to him in the first place? The philosophy behind why He would have done such a thing goes something like this: It's all about relationship. Does it not occur to some people that intimacy between two parties is a mutual endeavor? In our own society are we not horrified at those times we hear of a man forcing himself on a woman? Do we not insist that no means no? When a man is attracted to a woman, he goes about pursuing and courting her, and if the attraction is mutual, she may well respond to him and allow his initiation to be reciprocated.

We have this experience in our own flesh for a reason. We are hard wired, with men being the initiators and the women being responders. This is a reflection of how it is between man and God, with God being the initiator and we being the responders. This is found in 2Cor.5:19 and 20. So I don't know how it is that the idea of a free will response to God is not biblical. In this passage we see Him pursuing us with the love of His action at Calvary, and then pleading for a response for reconciliation to be a mutual event.

The conclusion that this subjects God to man is a mere opinion that fails to take into account that God Himself by virtue of His nature, will not force Himself on an unwilling party. For those who refuse the offer of a relationship, also found in Rev.3:20 (behold I stand at the door and knock), God has the soverign right to deal with such a person by not allowing him to live and mess up His creation forever. So just how does this put Him in subjection to anyone?

Next point:
Saul of Tarsus
This man is one example of how God exerts His will over humanity. If it were that Saul were free to choose as he wishes, why the road to Damascus incident? Why would God strike this man with blindness and command him to do anything?
This one is easy. Paul explained it to Timothy in the first letter, chapter 1. He obtained mercy because he did things ignorantly and in unbelief. In other words, God looked at Paul's heart, just as the bible say God does. He examines the hearts of men. And this leads into the next point that I discovered in the next reply, concerning predestination.
Here is the quote: Romans 8:29-30 tells us, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
It should be noted that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge. "Those whom He foreknew" Jesus will say to some.." ...depart from Me for I never knew you" In 1Pet.1:2, he calls them the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God".

So did God impose His will over SauL? Or did He intervene, seeing that Saul (Paul) had his heart in the right place but was ignorant of the true identity of Jesus, and knowing that once revealed, Paul would respond and turn his life over in a heartbeat? This is foreknowledge. God is not a control freak.

And as I asked earlier, to which I have yet to see a response... What was the supposed criteria God used to determine who would be saved and who would not? Did He flip a coin? Did He hold a lottery? Was it an "eenie meenie miny moe"? Did He show favoritism?
And please do not reply with any "good pleasure of His will" stuff. That is not an answer to the question. It answers the question of God's motive, not His method.

One other thing. I feel that free will is a weak and incomplete definition. It is two words that are conveniently used to describe something that we see in our nature. There are many opinions as to what free will actually is. Here is mine: What I see in our nature is the ability to think, reason, and respond. God gave Adam a command to stay away from a certain tree. If there were no free will, as it were, then how is it that God allowed Adam to disobey this and therefore die as God warned him the consequence would be?



In my opinion, If God is the control "freak" (my words) that some believe Him to be, then He is resonsible for the centuries of turmoil, death, war, famine, sickness, pain, suffering, poverty, starvation, unhappiness, hatred, rebellion, and whatever other thing we may put on that list. .....Really? I'm not bying it. God is the cause? He is the hero? Do we say He causes the problem so that He is exalted by the fact that He fixes it? Pretty shallow if you ask me. The reality is that all these things are the result of His creation being granted the ability to either accept Him or reject Him by either accepting our God given purpose or deciding to create our own purpose. This was the iniquity of Lucifer, who wanted to sit on the throne as God. This is what is called pride, self righteousness, self exaltation.

But in Luke 18:10-14, Jesus revealed that it is possible for a man to either exalt himself or humble himself, and that God would respond to both. James confirmed this by stating that God gives grace to the humble and resistst the proud. These passages reveal God responding to a man's heart. Like it or lump it. No puppet or robot is capable of pride or humility unless programmed into it. We are neither of those. We are created for relationship, which is meaningless and unfulfilling if it were not a free choice.
Blessings, Howie

 

[justaname]

Instead of quoting and replying to entire posts, I will cut and paste a few things.. First one:
1. This line of thinking, God will not supersede man's free-will, is first unbiblical. There are many cases in the bible where this is simply not true, as to which I will demonstrate later.
2. This line of thinking subjects God to man as opposed to man to God.

My reply to this is that it must somehow be taken that man's free will is something he must have mustered up on his own. But what if God gave it to him in the first place? The philosophy behind why He would have done such a thing goes something like this: It's all about relationship. Does it not occur to some people that intimacy between two parties is a mutual endeavor? In our own society are we not horrified at those times we hear of a man forcing himself on a woman? Do we not insist that no means no? When a man is attracted to a woman, he goes about pursuing and courting her, and if the attraction is mutual, she may well respond to him and allow his initiation to be reciprocated.

What is in question is the capacity of choice in any given individual, not the fact that man can choose. I do not deny man has the ability of choice as I stated above in the section where I addressed objections that may arise.

We have this experience in our own flesh for a reason. We are hard wired, with men being the initiators and the women being responders. This is a reflection of how it is between man and God, with God being the initiator and we being the responders. This is found in 2Cor.5:19 and 20. So I don't know how it is that the idea of a free will response to God is not biblical. In this passage we see Him pursuing us with the love of His action at Calvary, and then pleading for a response for reconciliation to be a mutual event.

The conclusion that this subjects God to man is a mere opinion that fails to take into account that God Himself by virtue of His nature, will not force Himself on an unwilling party.

This last statement of yours is vehemently disproved in the case of both Jonah and Pharaoh.

For those who refuse the offer of a relationship, also found in Rev.3:20 (behold I stand at the door and knock), God has the soverign right to deal with such a person by not allowing him to live and mess up His creation forever. So just how does this put Him in subjection to anyone?

The premise is different than your conclusion here. It is suggested that if man's free-will is somehow impenetrable to God's will then God is subject to man and not the reverse. Man is then sovereign and not God.

Next point:
Saul of Tarsus
This man is one example of how God exerts His will over humanity. If it were that Saul were free to choose as he wishes, why the road to Damascus incident? Why would God strike this man with blindness and command him to do anything?
This one is easy. Paul explained it to Timothy in the first letter, chapter 1. He obtained mercy because he did things ignorantly and in unbelief. In other words, God looked at Paul's heart, just as the bible say God does. He examines the hearts of men.

Here I am uninterested as to why God imposes His will over any individual, only to dispel the false notion that He does not.

And this leads into the next point that I discovered in the next reply, concerning predestination.
Here is the quote: Romans 8:29-30 tells us, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
It should be noted that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge. "Those whom He foreknew" Jesus will say to some.." ...depart from Me for I never knew you" In 1Pet.1:2, he calls them the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God".

So did God impose His will over SauL? Or did He intervene, seeing that Saul (Paul) had his heart in the right place but was ignorant of the true identity of Jesus, and knowing that once revealed, Paul would respond and turn his life over in a heartbeat? This is foreknowledge. God is not a control freak.

And as I asked earlier, to which I have yet to see a response... What was the supposed criteria God used to determine who would be saved and who would not? Did He flip a coin? Did He hold a lottery? Was it an "eenie meenie miny moe"? Did He show favoritism?
And please do not reply with any "good pleasure of His will" stuff. That is not an answer to the question. It answers the question of God's motive, not His method.
In the interest of keeping this reply short, I will stop at these responses. Blessings, Howie

Again also stated in the section where I address objections I said "I am not at this time interested in election or predestination, although very interesting topics and somewhat related, I feel they will prove to be distracting."

If you decide to post another thread where you pose your position on your point of view or even decide to ask the same question I would be happy to oblige you there but not in this thread.

 

[Rex]

Again also stated in the section where I address objections I said "I am not at this time interested in election or predestination, although very interesting topics and somewhat related, I feel they will prove to be distracting."

I'm rather glad you brought this point forward. By listening and observation, isolating a particular point in theology can leaded to unwarranted or out of context beliefs. In another context your on a journey to rationalize in human terms the divine nature of God, I fear at the price of excluding other attributes, like those mentioned above.

I'm not being critical of your endeavor, just letting you know that the fullness of a bundle of sticks can not be fully understood by examining one. Each is unique in itself and easily broken but together they are more resilient.

Have fun but you have narrowed the field to the point it becomes meaningless to see or consider any other opinion but your own narrow definition.
No one can question your point if you disallow biblical passages and the other attributes of God. To when you reach the end, of your still faced with as mentioned above, how does God determine who does or doesn't receive salvation. After that is the realization-> If thats the case, I'll simply sit on this log and let happen what ever happens. Be a Johna a park your butt under a tree. The more I write and think about it the more ridiculous the singular notan becomes.