Featured Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?

Van, you were doing good until #3.

The Scripture specifically states that God does not tempt any person to do evil. But you knew this.

You also know full well that man is completely evil already in their unregenerate state. There is no need for God to predestine anyone to evil nor "cause" anyone to sin.

Does God use evil people? Yes - but he doesn't determine them to be evil, that is already a part of the heathen's nature.

Does God cause the believer to sin? NO!

Paul addressed this very issue in his own life as related in the following verses from Romans:

21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.



Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
​

Would you please show from which creed or statement of faith from which this statement comes?

This is important! It is a heretical to teach that "God is the author of sin."

Perhaps you might start a thread on the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) and discuss "Part 3" of that document.

Please NOTE: This is a BAPTIST statement of faith, and has been used in numerous BAPTIST churches for 330+ years.

Please NOTE: This is document holds certain views labeled as Calvinist, yet does NOT support Calvinism in total. Just as some may hold Arminian views and not hold all that Arminianism originally taught. (examples: pedobaptism, loss of salvation once truly saved, and other such issues)

Highlight what part of that document states "God is the author of Sin."

Van, this is important, because some folks may not see that you were using extreme terms in which you really don't actually hold - at least not that I have seen.

 

You are going to be accused of not using Scripture and teaching doctrines of men even though you did use Scripture properly.

 

The "tension" you sense is that which is created through the presence of the NEW creation that is in you.

Such started at the first impulse of Godly conviction in which you experience in salvation.

Van would have you consider that such tension is YOUR freedom of choice expressions.

However, examine your own life and you will come to understand that the Godly conviction that brought you to salvation was completely different that the "sorrow of this world" expressed by many heathen who are "caught."

Now, some create a humanistic partial grace of God that they refer as "prevenient (or in modern terms preceding) grace." This is some extension of God in which the person becomes self aware and can then make a free choice for God or rejection of that salvation.

However, please know that there is literally NO Scriptural support for such thinking.

And, that when one examines the Scriptures without prejudicial views, that Salvation from the first impulse of Godly conviction to the final Glorification is TOTALLY of God through Christ.

The believer stands as "accepted in the beloved" not through ANY self work of "acceptance" or "prayer of faith" but because God extended "unmerited favor" to that person. That person may cry out even as the young man before Christ "Lord, I believe, Help Thou my unbelief!"

"For with the Heart man believes, and with the mouth confession is made."

Startling that some would consider that some "man work" must take place when the Scripture clearly states: "WE are HIS workmanship, CREATED in Christ Jesus..."

 

There are a number of folks who are not full 100% followers of John Calvin. But there are also a great number of folks who hold typical Baptist views from "The Baptist Confession (1689)" and just don't know it.

Perhaps you may disagree with certain areas that these Baptists set down, but at least you will have a bit better understanding of the historical Baptist line of reasoning.

I realize that much of the thinking of the modern Baptist church has been (in my view sadly) gradually modified since the mid 1830's and that lead to strong division (creating the SB) and eventually contributed to the War of Northern Aggression.

But, it is a very good exercise of wise discernment to know what came before, too.

 

Chapter 3 of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is titled "Of God's Decree". Paragraph 1 reads:

Sam Waldron comments,

Both the Confession, and Dr. Waldron's exposition, use scripture as their source of authority on explaining God's decree and His use of sin for His purposes.

 

I feel like my tension lies in the fact that through all the OT and NT the common thread (along with the coming of Christ) is that God wants all His people to come to saving knowledge of Him through Christ.

"Joshua 24:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

"2 Peter 3:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

"Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

I feel we see the sorrow in Paul in trying to get Agrippa saved

" Acts 26:28-29
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds."

"John 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
(I know the member 'The archangel' posted that the greek disagrees with the idea of whosoever; however I respectfully disagree with his position - after reviewing even his own arguments - i still agree that the KJV scholars best represented the view of the original writings for the English readers)

All through the OT, we see God having to punish Sin and sending out prophets to scream to the people to come to the God of Israel - this would be redundant if they were already predestined (I understand you disagree with me and probably say something along the lines of 'God does as he sees fit', and I can't argue with that - I just don't think God needs to be redundant for Redundancy sake)

Then we get to the NT and see Jesus preaching to the masses and bringing miracles to the people ; showing people that He is God and they turn away. I think if God truly loved the world as that quote from John 3:16 says He would have just made them all believe if that was His wish, but that's not love. No when we reach the bottom and realize we need to reach up and grasp the only hand that can pull us out, and understand that sacrifice do we understand love ; or have a family that has taught us rightly, or come to some point where we had to say, God is whom I will serve. Then we take our place as those who are saved - and the predestined promise for those who accept Gods free gift is an elect position in Gods kingdom ; not of our own work, but by Gods grace lest we should try and boast about it. No one gets a gift on Christmas and opens it and every body thanks him for opening the gift. No we all turn to the gift giver in thanks, That's why I dont think the Free will positional is man centered but it is so amazingly God centered, and there is a gift for everyone if they would simply receive it and lay hold if it. (Eph 2:8)

thats my lengthy position. Im sure it needs ironing to be as sophisticated as many of the awesome conversations that I read on here. However, I cannot deny what I read in scripture :godisgood::jesus:

 

I knew it, …you got a serious case of Determinism on the brain, you see everywhere and in everything!

God is Providentially Sovereign in the world and managed these things according to His will, in creation He also Sovereignly bestowed moral freedom upon His creatures and righteously judges them thereby as well demonstrating they have true volition – Poof! - goes your fallacious deterministically imagined reasoning which you believe supports the manmade soteriological view of the Determinists who attempts to claim that God is Deterministically Sovereign and predetermines the outcomes of His forthcoming judgment on His creatures who supposedly have predetermined wills.

 

And here we go again with the citations of creeds and commentaries.

Look, the Bible shows very clearly and simply that He DOES NOT DETERMINE EVERYTHING. I gave several examples FROM THE BIBLE, not a CREED, or a catechism, or a confession (which I have already shown to be faulty in another thread "Major Contradiction in the 1686 Confession"), or commentary, but from the BIBLE:

If God determines ALL THINGS, EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the author of confusion, but 1 Cor 14:33 makes it clear that He is NOT.

If God Determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the cause of all the temptations that men face, yet James 1:13 says that He is NOT.

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then EVERY THING that He "decrees" would come to pass. 1 Samuel 23:1-14 shows clearly that it did NOT. God clearly said that Saul would "come down" when David asked-HE DID NOT, Saul "FORBARE".

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He would have had it IN HIS MIND to cause Judah to sin, but Jeremiah 32:35 says that He did NOT.

There are TONS of references like this in the Bible that determinists avoid and cling to their proof texts like, "God declared all things from the beginning to the end". It says DECLARED, not FORCED ALL THINGS TO HAPPEN.

Folks need to learn to interpret passage in light of the passages that are CLEAR on a subject. The law of non contradiction shows that 2 things that are different can not both be equally true at the same time. The Bible can not say "He declares ALL THINGS from the beginning to the end" and that interpreted to mean that He determines all things, and then in another passage of Scripture, as in the four examples above that show He does not.

Instead of dealing with either an apparent contradiction in the Bible, or a conflict with ones belief system, Calvinists simply ignore and avoid the obvious verses and resort back to a confession or creed as an authority on the interpretation of deterministic sovereignty and then use humanistic reasoning to avoid the plain, ordinary and obvious verses in the Bible that are clearly in conflict with their system.

 

VERY good! You are right. God does and WILL have ALL HIS people come to a saving knowledge of Him.

That is Scripture. "All the Father Gives me WILL come ..."

All these are GREAT verses - but be very careful that you do not appoint the unregenerate heathen as saved into these verses. I agree that when one as Agrippa is not saved there is a bit of sadness. But also, it shows that persuasion does NOT bring salvation. Mental acceptance does not bring salvation. Salvation is given not an acquired skill.

For instance: Archangel gave a great Greek translation work of John 3:16. Historically, "whosoever" did NOT mean what the modern definition casts. In that, and with the appropriate Greek that Archangel so wonderfully worked to show, the verse is directed specifically to believers.

Perhaps you will want to PM him and visit with him personally and test his work for yourself.

No one is stating that corporate Israel of the OT were saved. If you look carefully, you will see that just as in the time following Christ, INDIVIDUALS are saved. God has always dealt with individuals and then to the mass.

The ONLY time that there will be a corporate salvation is when the verse, "They shall look upon Him whom they pierced..." and at that point "All Israel will be saved."

That God so loved the world does not negate that God is just and the justifier. Remember the Scriptures, "He came to His own and His own received Him not" is NOT an indication of ownership but of identification.

Jesus was a Jew and came to Jews, but they (the majority) did not receive him, but as many as did "He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now I know it is the fancy for some to present salvation in terms such as "reach the bottom and realize we need to reach up and grasp the only hand that can pull us out,..." BUT the fact is that just is not found in Scripture. Look throughout the NT and you will find not one condition of conversion in which that is true.

The Scripture is CLEARLY stating that impossibility in contrasting those saved versus those who are unregenerate:

10 For to us (the saved) God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.(this agrees with such verses as "my thoughts are far above...")12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (agrees with verses such as, "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.")
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

​

Do you see how this Scripture totally discounts the thinking that you stated? There is NO man centered salvation.




NOW, it is important that those who have gone through great trauma and are now saved do NOT discount that experience. That is part of the purpose and plan of God in which that person will be effective in the ministry.

Some, like the believing thief find that salvation comes to them at the "cross." And what a testimony to others that experience can bring.

Some, like the Saul find that salvation comes to them on the road of doing.

Some, like the centurion find that salvation comes following great natural and perhaps personal disasters.

Some, like young preacher Timothy find salvation comes during educational time at a mother (aunt, grandmother, father, grandfather, ...) knees.

BUT ALL salvation from the first impulse of Godly conviction to the final glorification is by God through Christ.

For HE IS "the author and finisher..."




I want to add a personal note.

I want you to continue to grow in understanding and wisdom of God. Do not take this post as being critical, but of showing how even the ability of man to "reach up" is given by God, and is part of Salvation.

 

Van,

Can you explain, in your view, how exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian freedom can coexist?

 

It's pretty simple, the 2 don't depend on each other. Exhaustive foreknowledge is simply another term for omniscience, and what God knows does not determine how men respond. You are turning God's knowledge into an independent force and turning knowledge into something that is prescriptive and proscriptive instead of knowledge being descriptive of what God knows and adding an attribute to knowledge that defies its definition. Knowledge means to KNOW, not to DETERMINE.

Furthermore, the concept of "exhaustive knowledge" was developed to refute open theism and that's not the issue here.

 

It isn't like Scripture after Scripture documents the above view as incorrect.

To continue as if "Poof!" it is valid is just adding further discredit to the post.

I ask for a respond using YOUR TERM "deterministic," but it is evidently apparent you missed that part of the post.

I in NO WAY stated agreement nor even hinted of that YOUR idiom for it isn't.

For the record - "deterministic" is YOUR WORD which I used in the post and which you are incapable of responding but make vain attempts to detract.

YOUR DESIGNATION is wrong and seeks to only inflame, and demean.

Is that the real intent of your heart?

 

None of that explains how a libertarian choice (contra-causal) is possible if the future is fully known. How can a man pick differently than what God knows he will pick? If he is unable to pick one of his options, his freedom is not contra-causal or libertarian.

 

It doesn't have to explain how it's possible because the 2 are not dependent on each other. You are still equating the foreknowledge of God as a FORCE. It isn't. Just because God knows you will pick something does't mean He made you pick it. And, I gave a clear example from the Bible that shows an answer God gave to David that DID NOT COME TO PASS. God was telling David what was true and what He knew for that moment, and then David's decision ALTERED THE COURSE OF EVENTS.

David's Question: 1 Samuel 23:11-14

" Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up."

David asked if Saul would deliver him up, and if he would come down. The Lord said , HE WILL. Now what happened?

"Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth."

God said Saul would deliver David up. HE DIDN'T. God said that Saul WILL COME DOWN. HE DIDN'T.

 

I'm asking you to explain how it is possible. I've said nothing about causation. I'm asking if a man can do contrary to what God knows he will do. If he can't, his freedom is not contra-causal.

Your example is answerable, but it will derail the thread. Can you answer the above question?

 

When used appropriately, that is not a problem. Do you not cite in your work the work of others? I don't know any higher educational institution training that does not emphasize this as both right and proper.

For you to attempt to disparage it is not showing a credit to your own education.

Going strictly from memory, I do tend to think your view was soundly refuted. But, then at my age, I don't put much stock in my memory. However, let's go on to the rest of the post.

James, I am writing to you as one who I take to be educated.

You have taken "determine" and attempted to refute Scriptures.

What God declares will happen, happens in spite and despite any human effort to the contrary. All first year Bible students know that principle.

What God decrees will happen, happens in spite and despite any human effort to the contrary. All first year Bible students know that principle.

Attempts at presenting "deterministic" thinking in this post is unwarranted because the poster's view is "deterministically" biased.

THAT is an accurate use of the word determine. Such a word is not accurate in the way YOU determine to position the word.

Oops, you changed words!!!!

You used DECREE which is Scriptural, and then tried to make it fit the word "determine."

Perhaps, it is intentional, perhaps not.

Some folks just can't have a gentlemanly conversation without "resorting" to labels and myth.

Jumping on the bandwagon that has broken down is not the way to fix the problem of the wagon.

If you are going to refute a view, than speak to that view and the errors.

Quite trying to bolster your argument by demeaning and implications that have no place.

For example: IF I took the above quote and replaced "calvinist" with "all non-calvinists" would it be supportive of what I was attempting to communicate, OR would it merely be an attempt to inflame emotions and garner and "amen choir?"

I have encouraged you to leave off all this labeling and bickering such as this last paragraph.

James, it really is beneath your educational level.

Argue your point; make Scriptures your focus; link to any documents you consider important for the reader to gather more understanding.

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

​

To often some of the BB folks apply so much seasoning that it ruins the tasteful offering they desire to present.

 

Typical Calvinist/Determinist/DoG, whatever they want to call themselves, trying to avoid having his position being defined by a clear term to avoid being pinned on it.

According to the "whatever/your" position for God to be Sovereign he must have determined all things:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

X = man’s choices
X = evil

Simple enough?

 

OH MY!!!!!

Did Herod send a squad of men to Bethlehem to kill the baby Jesus?

Did they succeed?

Would they have succeeded if Joseph had not been warned?

This is the SAME situation with David. Dave was warned and took action against the plotting of evil folks.

You are attempting to use this illustration to prove what the illustration CANNOT prove!!!!!


If your going to support your view, then use Scripture that actually does show God's decrees are unmet because of human interference.

Show (in this case) that God's foreknowledge did not prevent the capture and death of David, just as it did not prevent the death of the Baby Jesus.

The Scriptures do not contradict each other is correct.

And principle is built upon Scripture balanced with other Scripture.

 

1/2

I didn't try to imply that at all. I thought I was quite adamant that the person has to physically respond (back to my gift analogy. This also discredits the false notion that it is man centered)

I disagree with this. As stated before even with the redefinitions (if I were to even accept them) For 'to him that believes' still doesnt put a restriction on who - or how many that accounts for therefore the rendition Whosoever is a much cleaner and still 100% accurate word to use.

Not 100% necessary, im sure hes a great guy, but I would just be starting a debate over pm which I am probably not sharp enough to combat in

not sure where this corperate stuff comes from I really didnt address it... perhaps your referring to the OT open air and prophets. I don't disagree that God deals on an individual level... so i think...we're good here... (maybe im missing something)

Yes? Where are you going with this...

Yes. If we receive Christ, or believe on his name, we will be allowed to be Children of God.. i'm with yah.. I dont consider this a calvinist pigeon hole though. This involves an action of receiving, (remember my christmas story!)
or even believing. As for the birthing thing, 2 Ideas jump to my forethought, either 1) since we are all Gods children (Gasp! just wait!) but some choose to reject Him therefore putting them out of the family they would still have been knitted in the whom by God, but never came into the fold. or 2) its speaking of being Born again. Maybe both? Not sure, not a scholar.

Say whaat?

"Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

I feel like your ignoring my scriptures :tear:

What an odd verse to choose..

Nope. lets get rid of all your fancy shmancy stuffs.. i mean i love ya but it makes my reading hard.

Whale, that was fun. Still not seeing it though my good friend. I maxed out the first post so this is 1/2

 

2/2

Everyone goes through their own journey - you bet.

Well.. I dont think we save ourselves... Again, we dont thank ourselves for opening the gift, we thank the gift giver. No one will ever be saved without the help and work of the Holy spirit I do agree with that - I cannot say however that man plays no part. Man at some point has to choose whom they will serve, and God desires all to be saved.

See heres the tension.

The ability to be saved is given by God yes.
But a man has to reach.

God desires all men to be saved
But man can reject God

God desires all men to be saved
therefore being consistent God wouldn't Damn people on a whim.

God has authored a perfect way to escape damnation, for those who will put their faith in Christ and allow their heart to become repentant to themselves and to seek the things of God.

The tension of free-will and Gods will sticks in my brain :thumbs:

after all this thinking i need a nap :sleeping_2: