God’s Sovereign Choice to Involve Man’s Will

Two points. First, despite widespread belief to the contrary, Paul (and other New Testament writers) never deny "salvation by good works". What Paul (in particular) denies is salvation by doing the works of the Mosaic code - the Torah. Paul actually affirms that we are justified by the good deeds our lives manifests in that famous text from Romans 2 that so many argue is only a "hypothetical" route to salvation.

But that aside, I agree with your implication that we need to have a better way to think about this whole "what counts as a human act as opposed to a divine act" issue. There is something wrong with the line of thinking that asserts that any act at all on the part of the human being counts as a "work" - even if it were true that the New Testament denies justification by "good works" which, I claim, it does not.

 

I believe that God provides us all a choice. God doesnt want robots, he wants us to seek him because we want to. In the Garden of Eden, he gave Adam a Choice, follow me or eat of the tree. It was Adams decision to follow Eve and eat of the tree. If God wanted to make sure Adam didnt have a choice, he wouldnt have placed that tree in the middle of the Garden, but he didnt. God gave Adam a Choice, we have a choice to Follow God or Not Follow God, be obedient or not be obedient. We each have a choice.... Jesus paid the price on that Cross for all who are willing to Repent, Accept him as their Savior and Confess their Sins.... its our choice but saddly far too many dont accept him as their savior.

On the Day of Judgement, God will judge all.... this is why I dont follow calvanism. Calvanism says those who are chosen will be chosen but those who are not are destined to hell. Well, how can God justly judge his creation without giving it a choice. Also, if there is no Choice then Why did he give Adam a choice of eating from the fruit or now eating from the fruit.

 

I'm not sure you proved anything, but you did explain your views.

I am not disagreeing with you on all points, but I am not satisfied that what you posted reconciles John's proclamation.

Jhn 1:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Calvin's view is that regeneration comes before saving faith. I believe saving faith is what motivates God to regenerate the believer.

But what this then does, is it seals the believer forever. If it did not there would be no point in the rebirth for it would not be needed for salvation. Faith alone (plus works for your view) would do the job.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Calvinism doesn't deny that man's will is involved. It affirms what the Bible affirms, that man's will without God is to refuse God, and when God sovereignly and unilaterally draws him and enables him, he willfully turns to God.

This is the heresy of NT Wright that has been rejected for two millennia of church history by true believers.

 

Right, but after that the Holy Spirit regeneration had been made availiable (post ressurrection) to those of faith the act of God to rebirth those of faith happens the moment of faith.

The Father draws the person to Jesus, the Spirit convicts, the person believes and God regenerates or the person rejects. It is all in the same instance, but if you wish to break it down into minute detail, this is what it would look like.

Why the rebirth?

The OT saints did not have a rebirth while living their life towards God.

What is God's point in recreating a person from the inside out?

It seems to me that your view of salvation is the same as the OT brand which did not include any act of God regenerating the believer by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the regeneration in your view doesn't mean much, if anything at all, in the believers life for the believer must will himself to stay saved.

So I asked, what is God's point in creating a new creature through regeneration? Is it just for kicks? Can you explain why and how your view of salvation includes the importance of the rebirth?

 

No, it suggests that man has two choices and he always choices to reject God. That is what the Scripture says.

Speaking of sophism, that's all this is.

I think most would disagree with you, but nevertheless, isn't this a good thing? Wouldn't you hate to be left to your own will? I would. My will was turned against God, hating God, rejecting all that was good, and God in his mercy chose not to leave me that way.

But let's turn it around: You are affirming man's choice by denying God's. Simply put, if man requests salvation from God, can God refuse to save him? Of course not. Yet it immediately becomes clear that God (given your position) has no freedom because he has no choice.

So your sophistry and intelligent sounding words are not adequate to deal with the biblical revelation or the philosophical problems you have introduced.

And what Scripture are you basing this on? In fact, can you give any Scripture that speaks of man having a free will as you define it here?

I don't know about you, but I changed my view when I could no longer argue with the Scriptures. "God chose you from the beginning for salvation" was simply too overwhelming for me to continue in my arrogance and rejection of Scripture to maintain the illusion of "human freedom" that you suggest that the Bible gives no indication of that I know about.

Only in your view. I think for those who understand the Scriptures, it is no issue at all.

 

I am not sure I understand your question. I certainly do not believe that doing good works atone for sin. The work of Jesus on the cross fully atones for sin. But it is nevertheless true that at the final judgement, eternal life will be granted on the basis of the evidence of an entire life - that is, on the basis of the good works that are manifested in one's life. Paul is clear about that in Romans 2.

I do not see any contradiction in the above position. Do you?

 

You are correct. It is wordplay to say something like "sure man has choice, he just always chooses evil". Its fine to hold that man is born with an irresistable urge to sin - I myself believe this is what the Bible teaches. But we need to be fair in our use of language and the concepts it points to. If I am irresististably drawn to commit sin, then it is simply improper use of language to assert that I have "choice" in respect to the matter of committing sin.

Of course, one can indeed claim that I have choice in respect to which sin I am going to commit.

It appears that there is a strain in the church that, on the one hand, uses the true and correct freewill implications of the concept of "choice" to support arguments for judgement while, on the other hand, denying real choice in other statements they make. We need to be consistent: if you are going to use the "he chose to sin" argument to support the legitimate application of punishment, you cannot then deny the freedom of that person to have "chosen" not to sin.

If Fred does not have the power of contrary action, he does not have "choice" - so please use another term if that is indeed your position.

 

What about Luther's position on this in The Bondage of the Will?
I skimmed all the posts and I don't think any one mentioned that.
I had a difficult time with that book. It ruined my life! :-/ lol no it was good for me though I think. It made me think.

Oh and Hi I am Hayley!

 

First

And be warned it gets hot around here sometimes

As for Luther's book it is a great work that MANY people can't stand because it puts God in control and shows how depraved we really are

 

Why would a horrible blight be painted upon the character of God? I think knowing that God is in control of everything including our choice is wonderful... It just is difficult to wrap one's mind around sometimes.

 

Thank you!

Thank you for the warning also. I shall be brave. ;-)