The weak foundation of free will

Hello Helen.

That is what free will means Helen, it means one has a sovereign choice. If a man makes a free will decision he is sovereign over his future, God isn't. You admit God is not Sovereign over our choices yet you still apply Sovereign to Him, much like the way we treat our Kings and Queens. They are not sovereign any more we are. They don't tell us we tell them. That's cool.

I believe what I read in scripture because God opened my mind and my heart to receive it. He does this for whoever He is pleased to do so.

I don't see Esau or his tribe having much choice, Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

JER 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

The very people He told that to He said this tot 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.
Call it what you like you only disparage God. If He mocks us do you say He cannot?

Was? Your choices have made you righteous now so put that behind you Helen.

john.

 

You may be right, but:

1) The Bible does not say that, so we cannot know whether it is true.

2) If it were true, what difference would it make? </font>[/QUOTE]I just found your other post so I see what you are driving at. Actually, Genesis does tell us why God drove Adam from the garden:

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Whether Adam would have chosen to stay in the garden or to eat from the tree of life is irrelevant to the question of whether he could have chosen to abandon his sin for the sake of righteousness.

 

Calvinist can't seem to separate the "WILL" to be saved from the "ACT" required to be saved, dying to pay the wages of sin.

Nor that man can posses a "ZEAL" to serve God unless he is saved.

Ro 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Jesus was only send to the lost sheep of Israel, but THEY would not SUBMIT to him, Jesus said he would gather them under his wings, but THEY would not.

Explaining the Jews/Jesus mission in context of Calvin's doctrine of "predestination", God's "Sovereign will" is "IMPOSSIBLE",

Scripture says Jesus rejection was the "FAULT" of the Jews, Calvin says it was God's predestination/Sovereign will".

And if man's "inclination" is always toward the evil, why does the Jews have a "zeal" for God but still not saved???

When your doctrine disagree with Scripture saying "God would", "man wouldn't", it's time to change your doctrine.

The "Truth" of Calvin doctrine is not manifested here in the "real world" in what we see, as all "truth" is manifested.

 

Hello Me4Him.

Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Their zeal was misplaced into works just like you.

ISA 28:10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there."

ISA 28:11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

ISA 28:12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"--
but they would not listen.

ISA 28:13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there--
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.

john.

 

ISA 28:12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"--
but they would not listen.

So much for irresistible grace...

 

You couldn't be more wrong here. Paul explained the Jews rejection in Romans 9 precisely in the context of election. This is not Calvin's made-up explanation, it is Paul's.

The Bible calls the zeal not according to knowledge "idolatry." I wouldn't give the Jews any more credit than the Gentile who had a zeal for his god. When the Jews saw the full revelation of God, they rejected Him. Therefore, the god they served was the one they felt comfortable with. That is idolatry, no matter how much truth and zeal might be mixed in with the error.

You know, sometimes your points make very little sense. I'm not sure where our doctrines disagree with Scripture, since we seem to be quoting and applying Scripture quite a bit, without the assumption that you bring to your scripture. The assumption you bring is that a command requires an ability to obey. In other words, because God says, "Do this," He is obligated to make sure that every one has the same ability and opportunity to do that. The Scripture never says that. The Scripture says God is God, He says "Do this," and we are under obligation to do it. We reject Him on our own and He is under no obligation to allow any of us any opportunity to obey because of our rebellion (which we all choose). In His grace, He saves some despite the fact that they are at enmity with Him.

The Bible does not say that God has made every single person with an innate ability to obey Him. This is a humanistic assumption.

I'm also not sure what you mean by our doctrine saying "God would", "man wouldn't." Could you explain please?

So, the test of truth is "does it manifest itself here in the 'real world'?" That is straight from the Renaissance and humanism (which is where Arminianism came from). I thought the test of truth was the Scripture.

 

The proof falls on you to prove that when God commands something, He doesn't give the abiltiy to obey, not the other way around. Plenty of Scripture showing God commanding man to do something, and the results of doing or not doing it...but nothing showing God ever giving the command to someone who He made unable to follow.

If anything this refutes your claim that God doesn't give someone the abiltity to follow His commands.

Before we start redefining terms again,
Reject
REJECT', v.t. [L. rejicio, rejectus, re and jacio, to throw.]

1. To throw away , as any thing useless or vile.

2. To cast off.

3. To cast off; to forsake. Jer 7.

4. To refuse to receive ; to slight; to despise.

5. To refuse to grant; as, to reject a prayer or request.

6. To refuse to accept; as, to reject an offer.

Choose
CHOOSE, v.t.

1. To pick out; to select; to take by way of preference from two or more things offered ; to make choice of.

Now "rejecting on our own", means God is not rejecting for us, meaning man is held accountable for his CHOICE. Of course, if we ONLY choose rebellion, as you say, the act of choice is a non-choice, anything but, as there was never the choice between two or more things !

 

Hello Helen.

DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

john.

 

Hello webdog.

DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

john.

 

DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Still rippin' Scripture from context. You have been shown how this Scripture does not support you on another thread, so it's no longer ignorance but refusal to rightly divide Scripture. Posting the same Scripture repeatedly does not make it true in the context you are trying to apply it, nor does it change what it says in context. I think sometimes you repeatedly post the same Scripture to get under our skin, or try to brainwash us

 

I have been shown no such thing webdog and if it is true then you should have replied so others could also be enlightened. Always be prepared to give the reason for your hope is far from a request but it is obedience to Christ. But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. It says nothing about them having the ability and throwing the chance away but it does say 'To this day the Lord hasn't.'

I think I'll do some more ripping: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. PS 139:13

But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

I wouldn't attemp to brainwash you old boy but by 'under the skin' I take it you mean irritate you? Does scripture irritate you? I know it does. It conflicts with your belief.


john.

 

My bad, johnp, it is actually this thread on page 4 and 5 where you were shown your misapplied Scripture was taken out of context by Helen...

As far as Scripture irritating me...only when it is not applied correctly. Does the RC's use of Revelation 12 promoting Mary as the queen of heaven irritate you? I would hope it conflicts with your beliefs !

 

Ok ill ask a question....

When I sin did I choose to sin? Can I choose not to sin? If saved can I sin all I want because I believe in Christ? Will God over look my sin because of my belief in Christ?

If we are pedestined for Hell or Heaven then why preach, argue, and debate points of view?

God knows what choice we will make but knowing the choice and causeing the choice are 2 differant things. Is everything Gods will?

 

Hello webdog.

Why should I be irritated by God? If He wants the lady of the night to worship the Virgin then that is what He will get them to do. What do you mean 'I would hope it conflicts with my beliefs'? Don't you know what I believe?

She said: Please note, John, that the prophecy as you quoted it has to do with the LAST plague.

Why don't you try an answer then?
But that makes little difference if God hardened Pharaoh's heart just to kill the firstborn. Helen has accepted the idea that God will harden a man's heart so that He can kill Pharaoh's firstborn and his nations firstborn why can't you? She did say: Please note, John, that the prophecy as you quoted it has to do with the LAST plague.
I don't remeber a reply from Helen on this, thanks for reminding me, I shall go and have a check.

Now answer my post please.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...but nothing showing God ever giving the command to someone who He made unable to follow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.


Wrong ain't you?


john.

 

"...so that you might know that I am the LORD your God." Their refusal to acknowledge even this led to their lack of understanding. When one follows the truth one does have, then God gives more -- if not, then God turns one over to that which one has actually been seeking -- the Lie. See Romans 1.

They had a choice regarding the truth and the miracles they had seen and experienced. They CHOSE to doubt and rebel, thus leading to God's refusal to give them understanding or discernment for anything else. This is no different with Pharoah or anyone else.

 

When Jesus says, "No one CAN (has the ability to) come unto me unless," that is a clear statement that not everyone has the ability to do the thing that is needed. It really doesn't matter to our discussion what the "unless" is. The verse says that the ability is not there.

When Paul says "the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, nor CAN (have the ability to) he know them," that is a clear statement that not everyone has the ability to do the thing that is required.

When Paul says, "the mind set on the flesh CANNOT (does not have the ability to) please God," that is a clear statement that those people do not have the ability to do the thing that is required.

No matter how many statement say something is needed in order to get into heaven (faith), you cannot assume that the faith is a natural ability that every man has just because they are born. These statements from Scripture are all I need to prove that it is not.

{Quote}If anything this refutes your claim that God doesn't give someone the abiltity to follow His commands. [/Quote]

A statement of responsibility does not necessitate an existence of ability. This is something that Pelagius argued over with Augustine back in the 400's. Really, we should be past that by now.

God says, "Be perfect." Does that mean that every human has the natural ability to be perfect? Obviously not.

God says, "Love Me with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." Does that mean that every human has the natural ability to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strenght? Obviously not.

God says, "Rejoice evermore." Does that mean that every human has the natural ability to rejoice evermore? Obviously not?

One more..God says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Does that mean that every human has the natural ability to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Not according to the first verse I quoted (John 6).

Before we start redefining terms again,
Reject
REJECT', v.t. [L. rejicio, rejectus, re and jacio, to throw.]

1. To throw away , as any thing useless or vile.

2. To cast off.

3. To cast off; to forsake. Jer 7.

4. To refuse to receive ; to slight; to despise.

5. To refuse to grant; as, to reject a prayer or request.

6. To refuse to accept; as, to reject an offer.

Choose
CHOOSE, v.t.

1. To pick out; to select; to take by way of preference from two or more things offered ; to make choice of.

Now "rejecting on our own", means God is not rejecting for us, meaning man is held accountable for his CHOICE. Of course, if we ONLY choose rebellion, as you say, the act of choice is a non-choice, anything but, as there was never the choice between two or more things ! [/QB][/QUOTE]

The fact that we only choose rebellion is not God's fault. It is ours. We have sinned, not God. The choice has been laid in front of us, and we, because of our sinful nature, will always choose to reject Him. This is not God's fault. The choice is there (as you say), but we will always choose wrong.

 

Did Paul rip the Scripture out of context when he used the passage about Moses and Pharaoh to talk about why the Jews had rejected Christ

 

Hello Rev. Lowery nice to meet you.

Are you not always a sinner? PR 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. Gal 5:17.

JN 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

1CO 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial.

Acts 24:16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

1 Cor 5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

1CO 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial.

Acts 24:16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

John 21:17 ...Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness...

To grow in Christ is iron against iron. Get your shapener out.

It is debatable but unnecessary as God is First Cause, God is Sovereign.

What you think?

john.

 

So you agree with the catholics that Mary is the "queen of heaven"?!?

 

Hello Helen. In my quick look back just now I saw this:

On page 4 I think. Anyway, only the lost are lost, not the reprobate. Jesus made a promise to us that He would have the lost saved. Matt 1:21. That's what makes Him to be The Good Shepherd. You would have Him lose some of the lost sheep?
Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...
We were lost in Adam.

It says God did not give them eyes to see with or ears to hear with or an heart to understand with. If you don't accept 'to this day He hasn't' That is not for me to prove to you but God has said He gives eyes to see with and ears to hear with or an heart to understand and to turn.

They CHOSE to doubt and rebel... ISA 1:9 Unless the LORD Almighty had left us some survivors, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.

john.