I could be wrong, but I don't recall arguing that God could not give Adam free will and not remain sovereign. I have argued that man no longer has free will but only free choice after The Fall. Therefore, I find it to be in error to refer to man as having free will post-Adam's sin. Man lost free will but God remains sovereign, and I believe I am in line with the Bible on this. If God did not remain sovereign, no one would be saved.
God desires for ALL to be saved!
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by William C, Apr 30, 2003.
Page 4 of 5
-
According to the Calvinists I've run into, if man has free will, then God is not sovereign.
If Adam had free will, then logically God was not soveriegn. -
-
So you believe that man can have free will and God be sovereign at the same time.
-
Yep. That's the way it was in the Garden of Eden before sin. Obviously, the two have not existed together since then.
-
But it is being argued here, now (maybe not so much by you, but I know Archangel just said it), that any allowance of free will now "removes sovereignty", but you're saying now that man once did have free will, but lost it at the Fall. But if it precluded God's sovereignty now, then it would have then. Or if it's only the Fall that limited it, then soveeignty has nothing to do with it. You have to decide if free-will is limited by the Fall, or by sovereignty.
-
Don't know, Eric. You've done drilled down way past where my simple mind can go.
-
This completely shuts down the arguement that God cannot be sovereign if man has free will! Good post!! End of discussion. -
BTW, notice what he is preaching, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, "Be reconciled to God."
Why would Paul be pleading on Christ's behalf for us to be reconciled to God if we can't be reconciled to God? That is pure non-sense!!!
God has been compelling preachers since the beginning. Remember the little VBS story about the man named Jonah who got swallowed by a big fishy, Kenneth? Or you could look at just about any of the prophets to see that this wasn't a job people were lining up for.
"How will they preach unless they are sent?" Who sent them? God through the guidance, direction and even the compulsion of the Holy Spirit, who comes through faith. That is why the Holy Spirit gets all the credit. The preacher wouldn't have ever preached had he not been compelled to do so by the Holy Spirit. Who gave the apostles divine utterance and inspired their writings to give us the Holy Scripture? The Holy Spirit. These are the means God has chosen to CALL the world to repentance. It's not some secret inward irresistable calling, it is a world wide calling.
"The Spirit of the Bride say COME!"
"Go into all the World."
"Preach to all creation."
"Tell the world!!!"
The call is to all, not just a select few!!! -
-
I won't be on the board for the next couple of days as I will out of town, so fire away. I won't be here to defend myself.
This post is done and I'm out for the weekend. -
Calvinists who want to win arguments against Arminians are the only ones who say this.
The fact that Adam was created with a free will proves that this does not limit God's sovereignity in any way shape or form. That's only your own opinion, there is no scripture to back that opinion up.
If your honest Archangel you will admit that it certainly seems that we must choose to believe and repent if we are to be saved. To argue that most of humanity is not given that capasity seems to fly in the face of the most basic reading of the text.
Plus, I believe God made some choices as well. He chose Israel to be the nation to carry the line of Christ and to carry his message to the world. He chose (and even compelled) the prophets and the apostles out of Israel to carry out these tasks. He chose for the Gentiles to hear the gospel and the Israelites to be hardened to it temporarily. He chose to tell the world the good news of salvation that comes by Grace through faith in Christ.
"This is utterly crucial to see, for what it implies is that 1 Timothy 2:4 does not settle the momentous issue of God's higher commitment which restrains him from saving all. There is no mention here of free will. Nor is there mention of sovereign, prevenient, efficacious grace. If all we had was this text we could only guess what restrains God from saving all."
The problem with this conclusion is that 1 Tim. 2:4 is not the only verse that speaks about God's desire to save all. Matt. 23:37 expresses God longing to gather his people under his wings and then it specifically tells us "what restrains God from saving" them. Piper says we can only guess what that might be from passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4, but we don't have to guess with Matt. 23:37 because Jesus tells us very plainly. "BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING."
That contradicts what Piper refers to as the 2nd will of God in Salvation.
Plus, even Sproul and Piper argue that the word "draw" in John 6:44 means to "compel with irresistable force."
Isn't that what the "I" in TULIP is all about?
-
God desires that all be saved, but to desire is not equal to what God Wills.
Bro. Dallas -
-
But, what Peter says is more important to me, for he reveals God's Word on the matter. I simply take his plain statements at face value.
Again, refer to Peter's context.
rufus -
-
This has become a trend on this board for Calvinists to avoid dealing with difficult texts. -
Bob -
HOW OFTEN I WANTED to gather your children.. BUT YOU Would Not!
I would like to humbly as I can attempt to exegete VERY briefly this text. First our Lord targets: Jerusalem, Jerusalem by which He addresses the leaders of that city. The reformed interpretation of this verse states that Jerusalem Jerusalem stands for the leaders (pharisees, etc.) for it was to them that the Lord sent the prophets first! It was also the leaders who killed those prophets.
Second, distinction should be made between 'gather your children' and 'you were not willing'. The Lord clearly is talking about two different groups. He wanted to gather the children (people of Jerusalem) but the pharisees (YOU...) were not willing to let them go. Please see also Mat 23:13 referring to the same issue.
Again, 'ALL mankind' in those other passages does not necessarely mean every single individual who ever lived and will live on this planet!! Context and the writer's style should be considered when picking and choosing verses out of Scripture. See also 1 Tim 2:4. We should be very careful how and when we interpret certain collective words like 'all', 'all man', 'world', 'whole world' and such like. In this case 'all man' simply means 'all kinds of men' kings, those in authority, etc. See context please!
Furthermore, 'all man' in I Tim 2:4 means 'all kinds of man', since the apostle in I Tim 2:1-3 exhorts believers to pray for "all men", meaning all kinds of man: "kings" and "all that are in authority" because God wants all kinds of man regardless of race, position, etc. to be saved.
Also, if 'men' in verse 4 means every single individual, than based on the context again we MUST interpret 'men' in verse 5 as every single individual as well. But if we do that, we have Christ as mediator between God and all man which is of course contrary to what Scripture teaches.
See what 'all men' means in: Tit 2:2-11 and 3:2 or Acts 21:28.
Here is one example how this word is being used elsewhere. Acts 22:15 "For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." We can be certain 'all men' here does not mean every individual on earth! Rather all kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles alike.
Truth never dies...
Respectfully yours
Pardi -
HOW OFTEN I WANTED to gather your children.. BUT YOU Would Not! Matt 23:37
Those whom He sought to gather and protect where the children of Israel - the people of Israel - but "YOU WOULD NOT" meaning in every case He mentions the leaders representing the nation chose rebellion over the protection of God.
The point here is that instead of arguing "Your children perish because I don't really care for ALL of you" - Christ shows the tension between what God WANTS and what the will of man is in certain cases.
Why not just drop the "insert qualifiers as Calvinism needs it" approach?
Imagine what you would do if you were free to just read the text as it is written and accept the unqualified statements without having to restrict the Love of God to "some parts of all kinds of mankind" as if such a text existed.
IN Christ,
Bob
Page 4 of 5