question on total deprravity. [Archive]

UMP

31st January 2008, 10:31 AM

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.

Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.

Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?

Jax

I like the way Pink describes it. It's not as if Cain lacked the physical, mental or "natural" ability to do the right thing, but lacked the moral ability, hence the guilt.

Now let it be clearly understood that, when we speak of the sinner’s inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Abijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him", for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_08.htm

jax5434

31st January 2008, 12:10 PM

Actually that passage just indicates God's standard."Cain you should do this and you will be accepted." that doesn't imply that Cain has the ability to do right." Secondly, I dont know how much of that passage discusses Cains loss of faith, just his good works.

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

God's words here are not spoken as a statement/standard but as a question "if you do..." Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right? Or would he have understood God to be telling him that he was incapable of doing so?

Jax

jax5434

31st January 2008, 12:25 PM

I like the way Pink describes it. It's not as if Cain lacked the physical, mental or "natural" ability to do the right thing, but lacked the moral ability, hence the guilt.

Now let it be clearly understood that, when we speak of the sinner’s inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Abijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him", for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_08.htm

Again as i said to Newguy you are applying reteroactively scripture and commentary that cain did not have to draw upon. All he had was the words that God had spoken to him. From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?

Jax

bradfordl

31st January 2008, 01:33 PM

To take things in context, I'd ask first why God had regard for Abel's offering and not for Cain's?

We're talking about Almighty God here, not some grandfather chatting with his grandkids. Did He not know beforehand that Cain would be angered by His preference? Did He not know that Cain would slay Abel? Of course He knew all this, in fact He ordained it to be. So when He made His sovereign choice to prefer Abel over Cain in regards to their offerings, saw Cain's anger, and made this statement to him, it could not be as one who was hoping Cain would choose the good and eschew the evil, and therefore was encouraging him to do well. He knew the outcome, He was declaring the law so that Cain would be without excuse.

By the same token, when God asks Cain "Where is your brother?", and, "What have you done?", it is obviously not because He didn't already know what Cain had done, for He indicts him of his brother's blood in the next sentence. And Cain, true to his nature, complains bitterly of the burden of his sentence, when what he justly deserved was hell.

So from God's perspective, the question could not have been one that implied multiple contingent possibilities of outcome, but what apparently concerns you is how Cain would have understood it. Let's go back to where Cain became angry. Who was he angry with? God. Is it not already sin to be angry with God? Cain's heart was already in full-fledged rebellion against God when he impudently thought that things ought to go his way rather than God's, and then got angry when it didn't. Imagine this. Cain had to have some understanding of God's omnipotence and holiness to have been so near Him apparently all his life, yet he is "willing" to exalt his own desires above God's. He was already in sin, and had to know it.

God's statement, then, was a rhetorical device, wasn't it? Cain was already deserving of hell for his anger. God preaches the Gospel in all of His creation, to save those "ordained unto eternal life", and to those not-so-ordained, that they may be "without excuse". And He doesn't have to make sure they've read and understood all of scripture before passing judgement upon them. He explains to Cain the law while Cain is standing before Him seething in sin and unrepentence.

So from Cain's perspective, isn't it sort of like a speeder being pulled over and the cop asking "Did you know the speed limit here is 45 mph?"? That implies the law... stay under, you'll be OK, go over, there's a price to pay. But he's already broken that law and, and is gonna get the ticket. To think that the cop is just sweetly giving advice makes no sense. Same with Cain, he was already doing "not well".

ReformedChapin

31st January 2008, 01:38 PM

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

God's words here are not spoken as a statement/standard but as a question "if you do..." Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right? Or would he have understood God to be telling him that he was incapable of doing so?

Jax
The point all reformed people will argue is that the scripture you cited doesn't state you can or you cannot perform that action. The scripture just states YOU MUST DO THIS. We deduced inability based on a systematic view of scripture.

jax5434

31st January 2008, 04:16 PM

[ ][quote]To take things in context, I'd ask first why God had regard for Abel's offering and not for Cain's?

Don't we also have to ask if cain new god's preference beforhand?

We're talking about Almighty God here, not some grandfather chatting with his grandkids. Did He not know beforehand that Cain would be angered by His preference? Did He not know that Cain would slay Abel? Of course He knew all this, in fact He ordained it to be.

I agree that God knew all these things. That he ordained it is an assumption necessitated by presupposing Calvinism.

So when He made His sovereign choice to prefer Abel over Cain in regards to their offerings, saw Cain's anger, and made this statement to him, it could not be as one who was hoping Cain would choose the good and eschew the evil, and therefore was encouraging him to do well. He knew the outcome, He was declaring the law so that Cain would be without excuse.

To declare the law after the fact would leave cain with out recourse, not excuse.

By the same token, when God asks Cain "Where is your brother?", and, "What have you done?", it is obviously not because He didn't already know what Cain had done, for He indicts him of his brother's blood in the next sentence. And Cain, true to his nature, complains bitterly of the burden of his sentence, when what he justly deserved was hell.

All true but somewhat off point

So from God's perspective, the question could not have been one that implied multiple contingent possibilities of outcome, but what apparently concerns you is how Cain would have understood it. Let's go back to where Cain became angry. Who was he angry with? God. Is it not already sin to be angry with God? Cain's heart was already in full-fledged rebellion against God when he impudently thought that things ought to go his way rather than God's, and then got angry when it didn't. Imagine this. Cain had to have some understanding of God's omnipotence and holiness to have been so near Him apparently all his life, yet he is "willing" to exalt his own desires above God's. He was already in sin, and had to know it.

Doen't total depravity mean that cain could not have had any understanding of those things regardless of how near to God he may have been?

God's statement, then, was a rhetorical device, wasn't it? Cain was already deserving of hell for his anger. God preaches the Gospel in all of His creation, to save those "ordained unto eternal life", and to those not-so-ordained, that they may be "without excuse". And He doesn't have to make sure they've read and understood all of scripture before passing judgement upon them. He explains to Cain the law while Cain is standing before Him seething in sin and unrepentence.

Again apart from the necessity of calvinism there is no contextual reason to see this as a rhetorical question.
I agree that god does not have to do anything. There is no question that god is sovereign. The question lies in how he chooses to exercist that sovereignity.

[
]So from Cain's perspective, isn't it sort of like a speeder being pulled over and the cop asking "Did you know the speed limit here is 45 mph?"? That implies the law... stay under, you'll be OK, go over, there's a price to pay. But he's already broken that law and, and is gonna get the ticket. To think that the cop is just sweetly giving advice makes no sense. Same with Cain, he was already [/code]doing "not well".

To continue this analogy the ticket is being informed of your wrong doing ( offering an improper sacrifice) the motorist then has a choice to either do the right thing(pay the ticket/make an appropriate sacrifice) or ignore the ticket and face the consequences. Regardless of whether or not the cop asks the question rhetorically the motorist still has the ability to do ther ight thing.

Jax

GrinningDwarf

31st January 2008, 04:34 PM

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

You can lift any few verses out of the text and interpret them any number of ways. That's why God gave us the entire Scripture. You can only really understand what Scripture is saying when you examine everything it has to say on a topic.

UMP

31st January 2008, 04:56 PM

Again as i said to Newguy you are applying reteroactively scripture and commentary that cain did not have to draw upon. All he had was the words that God had spoken to him. From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?

Jax

Regardless, Cain is guilty, that we must agree on.
Furthermore, "future" scripture tells us, I believe, that Cain had the "natural" ability to choose, yet lacked the moral ability to do what was required, hence guilty, as Mr. Pink has tried to explain in my previous post. Regardless of whether Cain had as much light as our generation is really beside the point, unless you believe God is on trial here. If this is the case, I refer to Romans 9, when the Holy Spirit anticipated a similar query of God:

Romans 9:
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

jax5434

1st February 2008, 12:30 AM

You can lift any few verses out of the text and interpret them any number of ways. That's why God gave us the entire Scripture. You can only really understand what Scripture is saying when you examine everything it has to say on a topic.

Percisely my point.

Jax

jax5434

1st February 2008, 12:54 AM

Regardless, Cain is guilty, that we must agree on.

Yes

Furthermore, "future" scripture tells us, I believe, that Cain had the "natural" ability to choose, yet lacked the moral ability to do what was required, hence guilty, as Mr. Pink has tried to explain in my previous post.

as anothe poster said you need to look at all the scriptures in context to build doctrine. not just a select few.

My question is can you support the concept of total depravity from this scripture with out simply pre-supposing your arguement?

Regardless of whether Cain had as much light as our generation is really beside the point, unless you believe God is on trial here. If this is the case, I refer to Romans 9, when the Holy Spirit anticipated a similar query of God:

Please don't equate questioning calvinism with putting God on trial.

I am not questioning God or his actions. I am questioning the calvinist understanding of the same.

Romans 9:
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

And i would refer to romans chpt 9 vs 1-5 where the apostle paul clearly sets the context for what follows.
His stated context is "my people israel"

Is there a sound contextual reason to expand this teaching into Christianity in general? Again without simply assuming your arguement what; textual reasons are there for replacing Pauls stated context with the context preferred by John calvin?

Jax

GrinningDwarf

1st February 2008, 02:22 AM

Percisely my point.

Jax

Do you realize you're doing exactly that when you ask "From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?" and "Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right?"? You're trying to isolate this verse from the rest of Scripture...but God didn't give us these verses in isolation, did he?

bradfordl

1st February 2008, 09:55 AM

Cain stood guilty before God when he heard the referenced statement. He knew already that he had not done well. And he obviously had some idea of the difference between right and wrong, else there would have been no motivation for him to lie about his actions. The statement was a declaration of the law, not a setting before Cain of a choice that he had not already made.

jax5434

1st February 2008, 01:53 PM

Do you realize you're doing exactly that when you ask "From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?" and "Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right?"? You're trying to isolate this verse from the rest of Scripture...but God didn't give us these verses in isolation, did he?[QUOTE ]

There is some truth in what you say. I selected this verse because it happens relatively soon after the fallwhen the suppsoed curse of total deparavity was placed on mankind. In these verses there are only two "actors" God and cain.This provides a very simple context which is easily discerned.

In these verses neither cain nor God behaves in a way cinsistent with total depravity. Cain is seeking God al;beit incorrectly thru offering the wrong sacrifice and God talks to Cain about how he can do better andthough cain rejects God's way and goes his own contextually and linguistically the clear reading is that

1) cain ,even after the fall, had the ability to seek God.
2) God presents cain with choice of actions.

My question was, and still is, can this be reconciled with calvinist thinking with out simply assuming the argument and arguing in a circle and without redefining the character and nature of God as god himself has defined it.

If this particular passage strikes anyone as unfair we can look at other passages recording God's interaction with man thru out the OT. The problem remains the same. God simply does not act as though He is aware that his people are totally depraved. He consistently presents them with choices that he indicates they were capable of making. Either they were capable
natuarally, spiritually, and morally of making this choice or they were not.

If ,as calvinism says,they were not then God is acting contrary to His own self defined nature by deliberately leaving them with a false understanding. Simply retroactively applying Calvin,s doctrine to these scriptures does nat alter the fact that at that moment,to those people God would have been less than truthful.

If He does this(deliberately mislead people) then there is no such thing as scriptual truth since He could be misleading us at any point ( including John calvin).

So again my question. Can the doctrine of total depravity be supported scripturaly in a way that does not assume the argument and does not impugne God's self defined nature

Jax

heymikey80

1st February 2008, 03:22 PM

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.
I'm unsure why you'd think it must be mentioned by God in the curses He immediately imposed.

Do you think God delights in pronouncing curses?

And do you think God imposed the worst of the curses immediately?

God had admittedly already stated, "In the day you eat of it you shall die." Spiritual death deduces in what Total Inability states.

And so does Scripture: Rom 3:9-19.
Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.
The indication to Cain was that by doing completely right he would be accepted.

God delivered the Mosaic Law at the same time He asserted we couldn't keep it. Any comment on why God would do such an odd thing? How is that different from what the Calvinist asserts for these verses?
Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?
Cain truly had a choice -- just as much choice as Satan has to do good. The will chooses. A total inability of will is an unwillingness to choose differently. Cain wasn't incapable, physically. He was simply unwilling.

jax5434

3rd February 2008, 01:10 AM

[quote]I'm unsure why you'd think it must be mentioned by God in the curses He immediately imposed.

Because not doing so would mean he was being less than truthful with them

Do you think God delights in pronouncing curses?
I don't know for sure but i doubt that he does. However when he does choose to he always clear and forthright about it.

And do you think God imposed the worst of the curses immediately?

I believe he imposed the entirety of the curses immediately. Do you think he needed time to mull things over?

God had admittedly already stated, "In the day you eat of it you shall die." Spiritual death deduces in what Total Inability states.

I will have to hold this point in abeyance as Ineed to do a little research here. However i must say that this is the best argument I've seen put forth here thus far:wave:

And so does Scripture: Rom 3:9-19.

The verses you sight are the beginning of Pauls summation of an arguement he bigins in Chp1 vs18. His arguement beiing that evreyone both jew and gentile can not earn rightousness with God on their own merits. This much I know we agree on.

His ultimate conclusion can be found in vs 20. No one will be declared rightous in his sight by observing the law. Bur rather through the law we become conscience of sin ( the purpose of the law). 21 he begins speaking of the new rightousness thru faith in vs21 and in vs 22 he states that this rightousness comes thru faith to all who believe. If the all who stand condemned mean all and not just some, then the all that are feely justified by his grace must also mean all and not just some. you must aleays keep in mind the 1st three rules of hermauneutics. context context context.

The indication to Cain was that by doing completely right he would be accepted.

And the implication to cain was that he was fully capable of doing so.

God delivered the Mosaic Law at the same time He asserted we couldn't keep it. Any comment on why God would do such an odd thing?

I agree with Pauls conclusion. The purpose of the law was to make us aware of our sins. It pointed out our need for the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice of Jesus in the new. It was to point us to salvation not substitute for it.

How is that different from what the Calvinist asserts for these verses?
[/QUOTE

I cant speak for calvinists. My perception is that calvanism believes its about obedience not grace.

Cain truly had a choice -- just as much choice as Satan has to do good. [quote]The will chooses. A total inability of will is an unwillingness to choose differently. Cain wasn't incapable, physically. He was simply unwilling.[/quote

I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.
But that means that this whole calvinism thing is much ado about nothing since all christians would agree with that assessment.

as a side note I am going to be very busy for the next few days. It may be weds/thurs befor i can get back here.

God bless

Jax

GrinningDwarf

3rd February 2008, 03:04 AM

My perception is that calvanism believes its about obedience not grace.

Then your perception is diametrically opposed to what Calvinists teach. In other words...you're not understanding it yet...but keep trying!! :wave:

I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.

No...he means that all are unwilling to choose before God regenerates a heart. Let’s take a look at what scripture has to say about man in an unregenerate state...

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. Romans 3:10-11

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. Psalm 58:3

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Gen 8:21

(Note...this is not a hypothetical evil that may be in some men’s hearts. God says here that every inclination of all men’s hearts are evil from childhood.)

This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Ecclesiastes 9:3

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:19

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

(Notice, the man without the Spirit...or an unregenerate man...does not accept the things of God.)

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Ephesians 4:17-19

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:7-8

(The King James and New King James versions phrase this “the carnal mind is enmity towards God.” Think about that the next time you hear the phrase ‘carnal Christian.’)

Let’s think about this for a minute. The unregenerate person is sinful, wayward, lying, having every inclination towards evil, mad, loving of darkness, rejecting of the things of God, considering the things of God as foolishness, hardened, insensitive, corrupt, and hostile towards God. Why would such a person even want anything to do with God? Only when God regenerates a persons heart will anybody ever even want anything to do with God.

heymikey80

3rd February 2008, 04:44 PM

Because not doing so would mean he was being less than truthful with them
Well first, that's not true. God is under no compunction to tell us everything all at once. He may choose the time to let us in on the facts.

Second, God stated, "In the day you eat you shall die." That happened in some way. That's the basis for total inability. Death is a pretty total inability.

Btw, that's not stated as a curse. That's stated as a consequence that ensued directly from the sin.
I don't know for sure but i doubt that he does. However when he does choose to he always clear and forthright about it.
I think you'll find that clarity is often obscure when it comes to blessings and curses. When we're punished the cause is not always clearly delineated by God.
I believe he imposed the entirety of the curses immediately. Do you think he needed time to mull things over?
Then that day they died.
The verses you sight are the beginning of Pauls summation of an arguement he bigins in Chp1 vs18. His arguement beiing that evreyone both jew and gentile can not earn rightousness with God on their own merits. This much I know we agree on.
Um, actually, no, I don't think this way. I think Paul's point spreads far beyond. Merit-righteousness was an issue four centuries after Paul. Paul isn't ignoring merit-righteousness. He just goes far beyond it.

The statement of Paul's begins with his first main point in 1:18. The argument is that God is against the unrighteous who act in their unrighteousness (ch. 1); that thinking you're righteous or reading the Law ("bein' spiritual") or following its ceremonies ("bein' religious") doesn't make your righteous (ch. 2); that all are unrighteous (ch 3:1-19), even in desire for God (see 3:9-10), and unrighteousness even to show God's righteousness is not going to vindicate us in the end (cf 3:1-8).

I've marveled a little that it's always put in terms of merit-justification. Yes, the Pelagian argument is skewered to death because of these chapters. But Paul is much more expansive. His indictment is more extreme than that. We're unrighteous by every measure: works, religion, desire, pursuit.

His ultimate conclusion can be found in vs 20. No one will be declared rightous in his sight by observing the law. Bur rather through the law we become conscience of sin ( the purpose of the law).
Not really. If it were, then everything from 1:18 to 3:20 could be pressed toward that argument.

Yet "No one seeks after God" isn't some legal observance of the Law. It's a will-based statement, and nothing else. There are myriad other statements about "our unrighteousness" and our rejection of God, our desires, and our hearts, and our Spirit.
you must aleays keep in mind the 1st three rules of hermauneutics. context context context.
I agree. That's why, when the context hammers away at heart issues, I point out: "the heart is the thing."

And at that point, Total Inability is dead on. It says with the heart being corrupted, whatever you desire is from a corrupt desire, wherever you turn, it's from a corrupt motive. You're sunk. Your desires will kill you. Your spirit -- well, as I said, it's already dead in God's sight.
I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.
But that means that this whole calvinism thing is much ado about nothing since all christians would agree with that assessment.
Um, I would have to say that this argument against calvinism really is much ado about nothing. It's based on a massively mistaken assumption. Feel free to read Calvin's "Eternal Predestination" for confirmation -- or even the Institutes. At that point Calvin says, if all "free will" were about was the power given man to do as he pleased, we have no objection. We just think such a definition is too shallow to expose anything about how God sees and deals with the human heart.

But there's still a serious difference. Many Christians disagree with Calvinists over where that unwillingness originates. Calvinists insist it originates by God's intent in creating. That's where the argument truly appears. It's always shoved away, and toward this direction we're arguing right now. To me that's a sad commentary on the opposition's unwillingness to confront the fractures in their own theology. But =shrug=, I agree. The argument implied onto Calvinism is much ado about nothing.

The point of Calvin's is that God made that will which so willingly opposes Him. That will wasn't set on a sea of chance or independence to choose or not choose. God made wills that way; He planned each the way they result; He places them in history at their appointed times; and He does what He intends to do with them.

That's what normally twists people around the axle.

I hope this helps recognize the scene as we come upon it.

jax5434

7th February 2008, 01:20 PM

Then your perception is diametrically opposed to what Calvinists teach. In other words...you're not understanding it yet...but keep trying!! :wave:

I will

No...he means that all are unwilling to choose before God regenerates a heart. Let’s take a look at what scripture has to say about man in an unregenerate state...

I can only respsond to what he said. That's why read it carefully because it did not sound like a typical calvinist position. He said it meant an unwillingness to choose right. which is what i agreed with

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. Romans 3:10-11

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. Psalm 58:3

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Gen 8:21

(Note...this is not a hypothetical evil that may be in some men’s hearts. God says here that every inclination of all men’s hearts are evil from childhood.)

This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Ecclesiastes 9:3

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:19

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

(Notice, the man without the Spirit...or an unregenerate man...does not accept the things of God.)

There is no disagreement on that. The question is how god chooses to accomplish that regeneration

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Ephesians 4:17-19

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:7-8

(The King James and New King James versions phrase this “the carnal mind is enmity towards God.” Think about that the next time you hear the phrase ‘carnal Christian.’)

Once again, here at least ,we are in complete agreement. there is no such thing as a carnal christian. or at least i do not understand how there could be.

Let’s think about this for a minute. The unregenerate person is sinful, wayward, lying, having every inclination towards evil, mad, loving of darkness, rejecting of the things of God, considering the things of God as foolishness, hardened, insensitive, corrupt, and hostile towards God. Why would such a person even want anything to do with God? Only when God regenerates a persons heart will anybody ever even want anything to do with God.

I agree with all that you say here. It is only how this regeneration occurs that we differ.

Jax

Your statement and conlcusion is absolutely correct imo ( whatever that's worth). It is how this regeneration occurs where we differ.

jax5434

7th February 2008, 02:19 PM

[quote]Well first, that's not true. God is under no compunction to tell us everything all at once. He may choose the time to let us in on the facts.

The only compunction comes from his own nature. God says that he does not lie. either by commision or omission.

Second, God stated, "In the day you eat you shall die." That happened in some way. That's the basis for total inability. Death is a pretty total inability.

Yes. but it led to their eventual death, not their immediate death. death is indeed total inability. If you die in your sins you are lost etrnally

Btw, that's not stated as a curse. That's stated as a consequence that ensued directly from the sin.

No disagreement on that

I think you'll find that clarity is often obscure when it comes to blessings and curses. When we're punished the cause is not always clearly delineated by God.

In our personal walk with the lord you are correct. In his word however he is quite direct and forthright.

Then that day they died.
Eventually

The statement of Paul's begins with his first main point in 1:18. The argument is that God is against the unrighteous who act in their unrighteousness (ch. 1); that thinking you're righteous or reading the Law ("bein' spiritual") or following its ceremonies ("bein' religious") doesn't make your righteous (ch. 2); that all are unrighteous (ch 3:1-19), even in desire for God (see 3:9-10), and unrighteousness even to show God's righteousness is not going to vindicate us in the end (cf 3:1-8).

Unless i am totaly missing somehting here. ( and with me that's always a possibbility) You have simply restated the position I held to in my post. I do not disagree with anything you said. I simply do not see how this "prooves" or even particularly supports calvanism.

I've marveled a little that it's always put in terms of merit-justification. Yes, the Pelagian argument is skewered to death because of these chapters. But Paul is much more expansive. His indictment is more extreme than that. We're unrighteous by every measure: works, religion, desire, pursuit.

I might marvel also if i had any idea what the Pelagian arguement is. But beyond that I again have no disagreement with what you say

Yet "No one seeks after God" isn't some legal observance of the Law. It's a will-based statement, and nothing else. There are myriad other statements about "our unrighteousness" and our rejection of God, our desires, and our hearts, and our Spirit.

Come now, I was in no way saying this was about the observance of the law. To the contary paul is clearly saying to the jews that even the strictest observation of the law could not lead to rightousness,and he is speaking as a former pharasie.

You are again correct about the other verses

I agree. That's why, when the context hammers away at heart issues, I point out: "the heart is the thing."
At least one point of agreement:clap:

And at that point, Total Inability is dead on. It says with the heart being corrupted, whatever you desire is from a corrupt desire, wherever you turn, it's from a corrupt motive. You're sunk. Your desires will kill you. Your spirit -- well, as I said, it's already dead in God's sight.

Oh well, I guess we'll have to settle for just one point. That may be what total inability teaches,I do not question that. My question is is it biblicaly sound teaching.

But there's still a serious difference. Many Christians disagree with Calvinists over where that unwillingness originates. Calvinists insist it originates by God's intent in creating. That's where the argument truly appears. It's always shoved away, and toward this direction we're arguing right now. To me that's a sad commentary on the opposition's unwillingness to confront the fractures in their own theology. But =shrug=, I agree. The argument implied onto Calvinism is much ado about nothing.

My friend, God's intent is all i have looked at here. If this conversation has turned it was not I who turned it. Someones theology is fractured, the question is who's.

The point of Calvin's is that God made that will which so willingly opposes Him. That will wasn't set on a sea of chance or independence to choose or not choose. God made wills that way; He planned each the way they result; He places them in history at their appointed times; and He does what He intends to do with them.

An excellent summation of calvanism.

That's what normally twists people around the axle

I would say that it twists God's word,nature and character around the axle of John calvin

We have drifted a bit from the original question. In a little while here I will to reboot to the original arguement with another post.

jax

jax5434

7th February 2008, 03:17 PM

DeaconDean

7th February 2008, 10:04 PM

Lets look even further back in the Old Testament than Deut.30 shall we?

Somehow, there was a shift in mankind before the flood to a change after the flood. Before the flood God says:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." -Gen. 6:5 (KJV)

Now jump ahead about one year. In Gen. 8 we read:

"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." -Gen. 8:21 (KJV)

What brought on the change? Before the flood, God said it was mans heart that was evil, yet one year later, after the flood, it had suddenly changed to a persons heart being evil from his youth upwards.

What changed?

Furthermore, we read in Jeremiah:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9 (KJV)

And also, if God gave us the "ability" to make:

a choice between life and death. That they are capable of choosing good but also capable of turning away.

Why does God tell Jeremiah to tell the people:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

To put it in plain English, how can you who do nothing but evil, how can you know how to do that which is good? How can you make that choice?

Can a leopard change its spots to stripes and become a tiger? Can the Ethopian change from black to white?

Then how can you who are evil, suddenly change to doing what is good?

You can't. Now God has said that a mans heart is evil from his youth upwards. Jeremiah says that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? And, you who are evil by nature, how can you know how to make the choice between what is good, according to God's will, and what is evil?

Furthermore, Jesus taught that all evil resides in th heart:

" But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:" -Mt. 15:18-20 (KJV)

Whatever is in the heart is what causes the volition of the will.

Arthur W. Pink comments:

What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing cannot produce something...That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God), which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition...Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7:21).Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source, and declares that their fountain is the "heart," and not the will! Again; "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me" (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word "heart" is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word "will," even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God’s will!
When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his "heart"—the innermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it—and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to "forsake his way," but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ, because be does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates Him and loves sin: see Jeremiah 17 :9!
In defining the will we have said above, that "the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause of any action, any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain; so the will is the servant of the mind, and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man’s will? Is it not written, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17)?And did not our Lord say, "ye will not come to Me that ye might have life" (John 5:40)? We answer; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man’s "will"; other of his faculties are also addressed. For example: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." "Hear and your soul shall live." "Look unto Me and be ye saved." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." "Come now and let us reason together," "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," etc., etc.

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, Chapter 7, The Sovereignty of God in the Human Will, The Nature of the Human Will.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_07.htm

Yes, man does have a "free will" but until that evil heart is replaced by a regenerated heart, (cf. Psa 51:10) the "free will" will only do what is in the evil heart. And not choose the good over the evil.

That is the essence of Jesus' teaching in John 16:8-15. The Holy Spirit brings about the change, not us. It is only after repentance that the will is truly free.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " -John 8:32 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

jax5434

8th February 2008, 02:19 AM

[quote]Lets look even further back in the Old Testament than Deut.30 shall we?

uh,no lets not-at the moment. Another poster here complained that that non-calvinist always turned the direction of the conversation so that they would not have to examine their own "fractured theology" (i paraphrase not quote) Is this not what your doing here?
Why are you unwilling to look unflinchingly into the eye of this passage thru the lens of calvinism. Chery picking verses here and there do not constitute a rebuttle but rather an evasion.

Yes, man does have a "free will" but until that evil heart is replaced by a regenerated heart, (cf. Psa 51:10) the "free will" will only do what is in the evil heart. And not choose the good over the evil.

Is god then lying to the people thru moses? Clearly his words there are diametrically opposed to your words here.

Once again a simple question. Can you reconclile all that ypu have said in this post with God's words in deut.30 vs 11-19 in a way that does not compromise God's own stated nature?

heymikey80

8th February 2008, 03:37 AM

Yes. but it led to their eventual death, not their immediate death. death is indeed total inability. If you die in your sins you are lost etrnally
So you would suggest that that term "in the day you eat" doesn't mean that day, but "when", and actually "you shall die" doesn't mean "shall" but "sometime afterward will".

Is that clear of God to say such a thing?
In our personal walk with the lord you are correct. In his word however he is quite direct and forthright.
If you heard that, would you think you would be dead in that day?
Eventually
What eventual day would God mean?
Unless i am totaly missing somehting here. ( and with me that's always a possibbility) You have simply restated the position I held to in my post. I do not disagree with anything you said. I simply do not see how this "prooves" or even particularly supports calvanism.
Its support comes from the observation that no will is able to come to God. The Law simply says that.
I might marvel also if i had any idea what the Pelagian arguement is. But beyond that I again have no disagreement with what you say
Well that's specifically what "Total Inability" means.
Come now, I was in no way saying this was about the observance of the law. To the contary paul is clearly saying to the jews that even the strictest observation of the law could not lead to rightousness,and he is speaking as a former pharasie.
Great. Often I get back from people that Paul is actually focused on the Mosaic Law, and now there's a new law we follow. Which -- it does have a core of truth to it (cf Rom 8), but it's caked on with some idea of merit. So good, I don't have to stress over this, good!
You are again correct about the other verses

I
At least one point of agreement:clap:

Oh well, I guess we'll have to settle for just one point. That may be what total inability teaches,I do not question that. My question is is it biblicaly sound teaching.
Uh, but that is what total inability teaches.
When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). from reformed.org (http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index_calv.html)
My friend, God's intent is all i have looked at here. If this conversation has turned it was not I who turned it. Someones theology is fractured, the question is who's.
I wouldn't begin to say you started it, as it's clear the Council of Trent, the Formula of Concord, and the Dutch Articles of Remonstrance all took this turn hundreds of years before we were born. But as this thread itself shows, a difference over theology has a way of constantly having to respond to the same questions.
An excellent summation of calvanism.
This is actually a summation of determinism, plus a Creator, plus omniscience. Even Spinoza would accept this point here.
I would say that it twists God's word,nature and character around the axle of John calvin

We have drifted a bit from the original question. In a little while here I will to reboot to the original arguement with another post.
I'll try to address it, but it'll have to be abbreviated due to a certain urgent issue I need to deal with. So maybe we can get some traction on what you posted afterward, I'm not sure I'll be able to read & understand clearly at the moment.

heymikey80

8th February 2008, 03:55 AM

From our previous postings i seems that the central issue of calvanism is whether or not our wills our truly free to accept Jesus christ as our lord and savior without direct intervention by god.

I am not aware of any scripture that directly adresses this point. ie "thou wills are free" or "thou wills are not free"
Here's a problem. By "free" you may mean any number of different definitions.

The idea that the will is capable of attempting what it wants within the limits of natural forces is a statement of "free will". That's acceptable to most forms of determinism, including Calvinism.

The idea that the created will is totally independent of the Creator is one early statement of philosophical libertarianism. That'd be unacceptable to Calvinism. But we Calvinists would assert its also inconsistent with reality. So the definition doesn't really mean anything. Because it's not real
Therfor this issue must be addressed from the content and context of the scripture we have, much in the same way we derive the doctrine of the trinity from scripture.
You state this, but the Spirit of God is God, right? What would John 3:1-8 mean, then?

How about John 6:44-46?

And what happens to God's "drawing" and Jesus' assertion about belief, in combination with 1 John 5:1? I've mentioned before that Greek for this verse puts "born of God" in a perfect tense ("perfect" is a past tense), while "believing" is a present participle.
any conclusions we reach must be consistent also with God's self described nature and character.
Yes. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3
God also says "come let us reason together". As aristotle pointed out when words cease to have but one meaning we have lost our ability to reason. If aristotle knew this then God does also. It would be inconsistent, and therfor against His nature to use words in a way contary to the peoples understanding.
However, God is not Aristotelian, having made language with dramatically different meanings attributed to the same words -- and neither are humans. So it's inconsistent to expect one word to have only one meaning. Aristotle was accurate: to distinguish multiple meanings that multiplicity must be recognized.

But the Bible is not a logic text. It is not Principia Mathematica. Nor is it The Ethics. Both of these merely attempt what you're saying. Both are largely incomprehensible to people.

The Bible uses words that humans understand, and tends to change their current view toward a more accurate view of God. Revelation is progressive; it's also redemptive. It's not "telling the truth in a vacuum". It's telling the truth that people can be redeemed toward.
My question then is this. Do the words of a consistent,truthful and reasonable God ( please, reasonable in the above sense only) support calvinist theology.
I think it does. When you look at God addressing Himself to Job, He's way more powerful than slinking around waiting for Job to assess His sovereignty. There are other general situations here, about God's ability to turn hearts in Proverbs; about God's ability to move nations and history to do His bidding in Isaiah. Again, my time is short, so I'll have to leave it at that.
I know of no other way to do this than apllying that theology to god's word.
I'm unsure what you think of what I've said, so I'll leave it at this: do you think God can strike a true blow with a bent stick? Or a broken one?

If not, then we'll both abandon this discussion, for neither of us is perfectly understanding God.
In deut. chp 30 speaking thru his prophet moses he says the following to his people.

vs11 My commandment is not too mysterious for you
vs12 its not in heaven
vs13 its not beyond the sea
vs14 its in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it
vs15 i have set befor you life and good, death and evil
vs17 but if your heart turns away
vs19 ... therefore choose life

In these verses God tells the people that he has given them a choice between life and death. That they are capable of choosing good but also capable of turning away. This seems to indicate that our wills are truly free.

Can calvinism be made to "fit" these verses in a manner that does not result in making god inconsistent and/or less than truthful to the prople to whom he was speaking at that moment?
Of course, yes. The will chooses. It doesn't choose alone. God has every right to their choice for Him. But to think the internal heart change is not happening, just because the external confrontation with good & right is happening, I just don't see the problem here. It takes a heart change, even when God doesn't say it out loud. And that involves a whole lot of things going on in our hearts, happening because God does them. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Pp 2:13 says so, right after saying "work your salvation outwardly"

DeaconDean

8th February 2008, 12:15 PM

uh,no lets not-at the moment. Another poster here complained that that non-calvinist always turned the direction of the conversation so that they would not have to examine their own "fractured theology" (i paraphrase not quote) Is this not what your doing here?
Why are you unwilling to look unflinchingly into the eye of this passage thru the lens of calvinism. Chery picking verses here and there do not constitute a rebuttle but rather an evasion.

Is god then lying to the people thru moses? Clearly his words there are diametrically opposed to your words here.

Once again a simple question. Can you reconclile all that ypu have said in this post with God's words in deut.30 vs 11-19 in a way that does not compromise God's own stated nature?

Talk abut me "Chery picking verses here and there do not constitute a rebuttle but rather an evasion."

The ground work for "total depravity" has to start somehwere, actually it all started with Adam and passed down to his posterity. But I started a little after Adam with Noah, and you fault me for that?

Geez, aint that the pot calling the kettle black?

Your so dead set in your own preconcieved notions, that your unwilling to even look past anything but one section of scripture to support your own conclusions.

Can you reconcile your own words with that of Jeremiah, and Jesus?

No you can't.

Jesus, who was the God-man, even said:

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." -John 5:40 (KJV)

those who come aright to Christ, come to him as the alone, able, suitable, and sufficient Saviour; and in themselves as sinners, and ready to perish; and as such they are received by him with a welcome: but these men did not see themselves as such; nor did they see any need they had of coming to Christ; for they thought they had eternal life elsewhere: and such were their ignorance of themselves and Christ; and such their prejudices against him; and such the depravity, perverseness, and stubbornness of their wills, that they had no inclination, desire, and will to come to Christ, any more than power; which is an argument against, and not for the free will of man, unless it be to that which is evil: and this perverseness of their wills to come to Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the word, was blameworthy in them, since this was not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of nature; which being blameworthy in them, that which follows upon it must be so too; and it was the greater aggravation of their sin, that they had the Scriptures which testified of Christ, and pointed at him as the way of life, and yet would not come to him for it:

-John Gill, Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 5:40
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=joh&chapter=5&verse=40

To quote again from Arthur W. Pink:

Does it lie within the province of man’s will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus as Saviour? Granted that the Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit convicts him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, lie within the power of his own will to resist or yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them mean by "fallen" is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tendencies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability, somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scriptures that we are able to obtain some conception of the extent of that terrible calamity. When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man’s being. Total depravity means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the Devil—walking "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). This statement ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human experience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is moral inability which paralyzes him. This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the slave of sin and Satan. "Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do." (John 8:44). Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a man’s make-up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11).

Arthur W. Pink, The Impotency of the Will
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/human_will.htm

And I guess the Psalminst was wrong also when he wrote:

"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -Psa. 14:1-3 (KJV)

And I guess Paul was wrong when he wrote:

"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -Rom. 3:11 (KJV)

You Arminians, always wanting to take the credit for coming to God of your own "free will."

AS if you were the one making the choice to come to God.

The Bible plainly says this sin't so.

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa. 65:4 (KJV)

It is God who chose you! You didn't chose Him, and then to top it all off, it is God who caused you to come to Him.

Matthew Henry says:

How we come into communion with God, not recommended by any merit of our own, nor brought in by any management of our own, but by God’s free choice: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and so distinguishest from others who are left to themselves;’’ and it is by his effectual special grace pursuant to that choice; whom he chooses he causes to approach, not only invites them, but inclines and enables them, to draw nigh to him. He draws them, Jn. 6:44.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ps&chapter=65#Ps65_4

John Gill comments:

Ver. 4. Blessed thou choosest,.... In eternity; both to grace and glory; for such have true faith in Christ given them, called the faith of God's elect, and shall never perish: they are effectually called by the grace of God, and are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and shall be glorified; or in time, for there is a choice in time, as the fruit, effect, and evidence of the eternal choice, and is no other than effectual calling; see Joh 15:19 1Co 1:26; and happy are those who are both chosen and called; both election and the effectual calling are to grace and glory, and spring from the good will and pleasure of God; and the Targum in the king of Spain's Bible is,

"blessed is the man in whom thou art well pleased;''

and causest to approach ; the same Targum supplies,

"unto the fear of thee;''

or unto thy fear and worship. [I][U]The persons whom God has chosen for himself are, in their state of nature, at a distance from him by reason of sin; and through the blood and sacrifice of Christ, by which atonement is made, they are brought nigh to him; and in the faith of Christ the Mediator, their hearts are engaged to approach unto God, and come with boldness to his throne, and ask grace and mercy of him; and through the grace of Christ they have nearness to him, and communion with him, Eph 2:18;

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

The real truth is, God has done everything, elected, chose, and even draws you to Him. And you have the audacity to say you chose Him out of your own "free will?" That it was you who made the choice to believe?

You Arminians, you kill me with your "free-willy" notions.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

jax5434

8th February 2008, 01:25 PM

So you would suggest that that term "in the day you eat" doesn't mean that day, but "when", and actually "you shall die" doesn't mean "shall" but "sometime afterward will".

Are you saying that adam ate the fruit the same day God told him not to and that He and eve died immediately after they did so?

Is that clear of God to say such a thing?

I don't see any lack of clarity here.

If you heard that, would you think you would be dead in that day?

What eventual day would God mean?

The day they eventually died. Since they went onto produce a # of children after that ,then if for no other reason,they could not have died immediately.

.

Great. Often I get back from people that Paul is actually focused on the Mosaic Law, and now there's a new law we follow. Which -- it does have a core of truth to it (cf Rom 8), but it's caked on with some idea of merit. So good, I don't have to stress over this, good!

Another agreement. I do not believe anyone merits God's mercy.

When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). from reformed.org (http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index_calv.html)

I do not disagree with this. Our difference lis only in how god chooses to bring this regeneration about.Since God clearly states that we can freely choose .We can choose to be blind and deaf to the gospel, or we can choose to believe it. God has chosen to save those who freely choose to believe.

I'll try to address it, but it'll have to be abbreviated due to a certain urgent issue I need to deal with. So maybe we can get some traction on what you posted afterward, I'm not sure I'll be able to read & understand clearly at the moment.

I am sorry to hear your having difficultys.I pray that things work out well for you. The debate is fun but in the end we are on the same team.

Jax

jax5434

8th February 2008, 02:40 PM

Here's a problem. By "free" you may mean any number of different definitions.

The idea that the will is capable of attempting what it wants within the limits of natural forces is a statement of "free will". That's acceptable to most forms of determinism, including Calvinism.

Certainly natural forces limit our what are will can accomplish. we can not will ourselves to the moon, or or to overide relativity or nullify gravity no matter how much we might want to. However we are not prohibited from wanting to do those things only from accomplishing them

The idea that the created will is totally independent of the Creator is one early statement of philosophical libertarianism. That'd be unacceptable to Calvinism. But we Calvinists would assert its also inconsistent with reality. So the definition doesn't really mean anything. Because it's not real

No created will can ever be totaly independent of the creator.Our concern is over how much freedom the creator has allowed our wills to have. This is where our difference lies.

You state this, but the Spirit of God is God, right? What would John 3:1-8 mean, then?

We do not disagree on the neccessity of being born again.

How about John 6:44-46?

How about jn12:32

And what happens to God's "drawing" and Jesus' assertion about belief, in combination with 1 John 5:1? I've mentioned before that Greek for this verse puts "born of God" in a perfect tense ("perfect" is a past tense), while "believing" is a present participle.

Do you see this as a reference to pre-destination?

Yes. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3

Agreed. did you think i beleived otherwise?

However, God is not Aristotelian, having made language with dramatically different meanings attributed to the same words -- and neither are humans. So it's inconsistent to expect one word to have only one meaning. Aristotle was accurate: to distinguish multiple meanings that multiplicity must be recognized.

All comunnication is predicated on the belief that all parties involved are using the same words in the same sense and understanding. If one party is not then,unless thier intent is to deliberately mislead,they they need to define the terms clearly to avoid misunderstanding. God does not mislead nor does he author confusion.

But the Bible is not a logic text. It is not Principia Mathematica. Nor is it The Ethics. Both of these merely attempt what you're saying. Both are largely incomprehensible to people.

the bible is not a logic text but it was authored by a logical being who intended to convey his word accurately and understadably.That is why he said it is not a mystery

The Bible uses words that humans understand, and tends to change their current view toward a more accurate view of God. Revelation is progressive; it's also redemptive. It's not "telling the truth in a vacuum". It's telling the truth that people can be redeemed toward.

I'm sorry, i am not really following what your saying here. do you mean that progressive revelation can change the meaning of what god has said previously?God does not speak in a vaccum,he speaks to people whom he says are capable of understanding it.Can an understanding that is correct at one point be rendered incorrect later? If that is true then, as I said before, there is no such thing as "truth"

I think it does. When you look at God addressing Himself to Job, He's way more powerful than slinking around waiting for Job to assess His sovereignty. There are other general situations here, about God's ability to turn hearts in Proverbs; about God's ability to move nations and history to do His bidding in Isaiah. Again, my time is short, so I'll have to leave it at that.

Do think that because i reject calvinism i must disagree with these things?

I'm unsure what you think of what I've said, so I'll leave it at this: do you think God can strike a true blow with a bent stick? Or a broken one?

I was not referring to you, or anyone specificaly, I apologize if i gave you that impression.My point is that any man made doctrine must be measured against the entirety of God's word. Any ensuing difficulties must be laid at the fet of the doctine-not the word

If not, then we'll both abandon this discussion, for neither of us is perfectly understanding God.

No one perfectly understands God in this life and perhaps not even in the life to come. but god's word should be understanable because he intended it to be

Of course, yes. The will chooses. It doesn't choose alone. God has every right to their choice for Him. But to think the internal heart change is not happening, just because the external confrontation with good & right is happening, I just don't see the problem here. It takes a heart change, even when God doesn't say it out loud. And that involves a whole lot of things going on in our hearts, happening because God does them. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Pp 2:13 says so, right after saying "work your salvation outwardly"

The problem here is that the understanding you present is not the same understanding that the people then would have gotten from these words. The problem is that God does not lie and your understanding places him into the position of lying to those people at that time.

I appreciate all of your posts here, this is a challenging debate. I know that there is another post I need to respond to but i am out of time for the moment. I will respond as soon as possible but this is the "spin cycle"part of my week so it may be a few days

God bless
jax

jax5434

8th February 2008, 02:59 PM

Deacon dean
I have not had time to look at your latest post. However i do want to apologize for the tone of my previous reply. I was angry and frustrated about some other things going on the moment and I let that creep into my post.
I am sorry i allowed that to happen.

jax

jax5434

13th February 2008, 02:09 AM

The real truth is, God has done everything, elected, chose, and even draws you to Him
And you have the audacity to say you chose Him out of your own "free will?" That it was you who made the choice to believe

God has done evrything you say here.The difference is that i believe He has done those things for everyone. He also sovereignly chose to give us sufficient free will to respond to that "drawing" My understanding does not require me to find the "real" meaning behind his words or make God into the author of sin, his word misleading or his promises unreliable. There will be untold numbers eternally seperated form God. I believe it will because they did not respond to God's call. You say it will be because they could not.Your way places all people at the mercy of an unmerciful God. If that were true than all of our history has been nothing more than a hopeless charade. An exercise in futility for the entertainment of a whimsical God.

You Arminians, you kill me with your "free-willy" notions.

If "arminian" means a sound exegesis of God's word using the totality of His scriptures then I guess i am.
To clarify a point however I have never said that whales have the same level of free will that man does.

I'm outta here.

I thank you (and everyone else) for the time spent here.My original question has been clearly answered.
in the end it really doesn't matter who is right. If someone is elect but not calvinist it doen't matter. If someone is not elect being calvinist doesn't matter. One day we shall all know for sure
[/quote]

God Bless

and you as well

Jax

UMP

13th February 2008, 10:27 AM

God has done evrything you say here.The difference is that i believe He has done those things for everyone. He also sovereignly chose to give us sufficient free will to respond to that "drawing" My understanding does not require me to find the "real" meaning behind his words or make God into the author of sin, his word misleading or his promises unreliable. There will be untold numbers eternally seperated form God. I believe it will because they did not respond to God's call. You say it will be because they could not.Your way places all people at the mercy of an unmerciful God. If that were true than all of our history has been nothing more than a hopeless charade. An exercise in futility for the entertainment of a whimsical God.

.

If "arminian" means a sound exegesis of God's word using the totality of His scriptures then I guess i am.
To clarify a point however I have never said that whales have the same level of free will that man does.

.

I thank you (and everyone else) for the time spent here.My original question has been clearly answered.
in the end it really doesn't matter who is right. If someone is elect but not calvinist it doen't matter. If someone is not elect being calvinist doesn't matter. One day we shall all know for sure

Let me ask you a simple question.
Supposing these facts:
Mr. Smith is saved. Mr. Robinson is not.
Why is Mr. Smith saved, while Mr. Robinson is not?

jax5434

14th February 2008, 02:59 AM

Let me ask you a simple question.
Supposing these facts:
Mr. Smith is saved. Mr. Robinson is not.
Why is Mr. Smith saved, while Mr. Robinson is not?

Because Mr. smith Used his God given free will to repent and accept the grace that God offers to all.

Mr Robinson has not done so and if he dies without ever having done so he will be eternally seperated from God.

God is not willing that any should perish and has provided a way such that none have to. However great numbers will because they refuse the invitation.

Jax

jenlovesgod

14th February 2008, 03:03 AM

What if you sin and die right away afterwards...before you have a chance to repent, are you going to hell?

bradfordl

14th February 2008, 10:20 AM

Because Mr. smith Used his God given free will to repent and accept the grace that God offers to all. Gee, that Mr Smith is a smart guy! And a good guy, too, because we'd all agree that to do this is both smart and good, right?
Mr Robinson has not done so and if he dies without ever having done so he will be eternally seperated from God.Gee, that Mr Robinson sure is a dumb guy! And bad, too, because we'd all agree that to reject Christ is both dumb and bad, right?

So what is the deciding factor between these two men? Something is different, what could it be?

From jax's position, it appears that the difference is that Mr Smith is simply an independently smarter and better person. That kinda guy surely deserves the great reward of heaven, right?

Funny thing, tho, Paul didn't consider himself to be "smarter" or "better". He said:
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.Nothing good! Now you may argue that he was only referring to his flesh. But before a man is saved, all there is of him is flesh, right? because Paul also said this:

Eph 2:1-10 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
So by jax's premise, Paul must not be saved, because he rejected the idea that before God intervened in his heart there was anything smart or good about him. And that's what this debate all boils down to, isn't it? Jax wants to hold on to the notion that there is just something better about Mr Smith than Mr Robinson. If God intervenes to the same extent for both men, then the deciding factor must be something independently and intrinsically different in themselves. But if God intervenes in Mr Smith's heart only, then the deciding factor lies in God's choice, or election, of one over the other not founded on anything He sees to be different in either man. Which of these comports with scripture?

UMP

14th February 2008, 10:27 AM

Because Mr. smith Used his God given free will to repent and accept the grace that God offers to all.

Mr Robinson has not done so and if he dies without ever having done so he will be eternally seperated from God.

Jax

Therefore, in your supposition Mr. Smith has room to boast, which is diametrically apposed to the word of God.

Ephesians 2:
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I'll believe what the word of God teaches. If Mr. Smith is saved, it is all of God, from start to finish.

Phil 1:
[6] Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

All Glory to God!

And with that, there is really nothing else for me to say.
The truth remains the truth.
I pray God opens your eyes.

jenlovesgod

14th February 2008, 11:57 AM

Reformationist

14th February 2008, 12:27 PM

I am not going to pretend that I am any expert here, I was just wondering about what you said when you said:

"I'll believe what the word of God teaches. If Mr. Smith is saved, it is all of God, from start to finish."

My husband was talking last night about how everything is already decided for us anyway, so why pray unless you are going to 1) praise God or 2) just ask for God's will to be done.

There are a number of reasons we should pray even if we acknowledge the biblical truth that God has established all things according to His divine plan. Yes, all things are already decided. That is, nothing that will happen will happen contrary to God's eternal will. With that said, the first reason we are to pray is because God commanded that we do so. Secondly, prayer is evidence of a personal recognition of reliance upon God for all that we need. Third, when we pray, so long as we pray properly, we show our submission to God's will, which is why we are to always acknowledge that we desire that something come to pass if it be God's will.

A good template for prayer is the ACTS method:

A - Acknowledgement (Acknowledge God's holiness and authority)
C - Confession (Acknowledge our submission to the binding authority of God's Law and confess our transgressions)
T - Thanksgiving (Show thanks for all of the blessings that He gives us every day that we not lose sight of His graciousness in the midst of our requests for more)
S- Supplication (LAST, we approach him with our needs and requests for fulfillment)

And your post made me think about some people that I've heard who say that God has already decided who will and who won't go to heaven...but that just sounds terrible to me! I guess I am the kind of person who thinks that it's not that God chooses who is going to go to Heaven (I mean before time even began it's not like he hand selected certain people and said "When I make you, you're going to Heaven,) but I look at it as God already knew what we would choose.

If God based His elective choice on His knowledge of what you or I would do, Scripture which debunks that very theory would be meaningless, and a lie, and it would give those whom God chooses a foundation for boasting. After all, their eternal reward is ultimately granted because they were wise enough to make the right choice.

God bless

jenlovesgod

14th February 2008, 01:04 PM

There are a number of reasons we should pray even if we acknowledge the biblical truth that God has established all things according to His divine plan. Yes, all things are already decided. That is, nothing that will happen will happen contrary to God's eternal will. With that said, the first reason we are to pray is because God commanded that we do so. Secondly, prayer is evidence of a personal recognition of reliance upon God for all that we need. Third, when we pray, so long as we pray properly, we show our submission to God's will, which is why we are to always acknowledge that we desire that something come to pass if it be God's will.

A good template for prayer is the ACTS method:

A - Acknowledgement (Acknowledge God's holiness and authority)
C - Confession (Acknowledge our submission to the binding authority of God's Law and confess our transgressions)
T - Thanksgiving (Show thanks for all of the blessings that He gives us every day that we not lose sight of His graciousness in the midst of our requests for more)
S- Supplication (LAST, we approach him with our needs and requests for fulfillment)

If God based His elective choice on His knowledge of what you or I would do, Scripture which debunks that very theory would be meaningless, and a lie, and it would give those whom God chooses a foundation for boasting. After all, their eternal reward is ultimately granted because they were wise enough to make the right choice.

God bless

I think that by praising God and asking that His will be done I am meeting the ACTS guideline. When I "praise God" I am saying things like "Thank you for everything you do in my life...you are so awesome...thank you for my children...thank you for your love which I don't deserve but it is so cool that you give it to me anyway..." Then when I pray for His will I say something like (and by the way this is an actual example of something that I truly did pray about), "God, I really want to buy this business but I do not know if it is a good idea or not. I am so scared about what would happen if it failed...so just let what is supposed to happen happen. I mean I want this business but if you know that it is not going to work out then of course I know that you know what is better for me. So if it is not supposed to happen I will understand."

Well, about 6 months after buying the business it ws not doing great and I was a little disappointed, but then I thought, "Well, God does know what is best and He has always taken care of me." And now the business is doing great and I opened a second location! (Yay! Praise God!)

So I 1)am submitting to God's Will by the simple act of praying to Him 2)Acknowledge His Holiness 3)Admit that I am a sinner and ask Him to make me more like Jesus through praising Him 4)Thank Him and I do ask for what I want...but as long as it is what He wants for me.

I am definately not saying that I agree 100% with all the things my husband comes up with...he found God not too long ago and I think there are some things he says that I am like "WHAT?!?"

But while I know God is only going to do what is His will, I will still pray for stupit things (like in college for example I would pray that I would do well on a test) and I actually think it helped me do better. Maybe it just gave me more confidence knowing that God was on my side, but whatever it is I feel that God helps me when I ask Him.

What do you mean here?

"If God based His elective choice on His knowledge of what you or I would do, Scripture which debunks that very theory would be meaningless, and a lie, and it would give those whom God chooses a foundation for boasting. After all, their eternal reward is ultimately granted because they were wise enough to make the right choice."

I don't quite get what you mean by God's elective choice? Are you saying that He chooses who is going to Heaven? I definately don't think that anyone should boast about being saved. Just curious, could you maybe point out some of that scripture? I am not trying to be one of those people who are like "Ooh I am so right and you are so wrong and you cannot back up your claims" because I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong. I just don't quite get your view on the idea and would like to hear what you have to say.

So do you think that we choose to believe, or before the beginning of time God decided who was going to believe, or that before the beginning of time God knew who would choose to believe and who wouldn't but that it was our free will that let us decide if we believe in God?

God Bless you too!

bradfordl

14th February 2008, 02:26 PM

So do you think that we choose to believe,
Yes

or before the beginning of time God decided who was going to believe
Yes.

or that before the beginning of time God knew who would choose to believe and who wouldn't
Yes, see above. If He chose, then it follows that He knows.

but that it was our free will that let us decide if we believe in God?

No

Reformationist

14th February 2008, 02:39 PM

Well, about 6 months after buying the business it ws not doing great and I was a little disappointed, but then I thought, "Well, God does know what is best and He has always taken care of me." And now the business is doing great and I opened a second location! (Yay! Praise God!)

First, let me congratulate you on your success and encourage you to always give thanks to God for all of the ways in which He blesses you, regardless of whether the events that transpire are enjoyable. I don't mean to imply that you are like this but far too often Christians are all about praising God for the things they enjoy and thinking that if things become unpleasant that it cannot be what God wants for us. It's as if they think that God only wants us to experience the joys of life. The Book of Job reveals a remarkably different picture of God. There is great sanctifying value in hardship. Think of how you deal with others for example. So many times the trials in our life are the very means that God sovereignly ordains to equip us for the bigger plan He has for us. Aside from the suffering of Christ Himself, the most profound example of this very truth is the case of the OT saint Joseph. Not only was the suffering in his life used by God to prepare him for his role of authority, it was ordained by God from the start as the means by which God had determined to bring about His plan.

All I'm saying is that, whether your business thrives or goes under, your goal should always be, first and foremost, to glorify God in obedience. The success of your business, as pleasurable as that may be from our perspective, may be more harmful than it going under and it should never be viewed as the litmus test in determining whether God's will is going to be done. That was the same error that Job's friends and wife made. Only God knows what we most need and that is why we trust in Him that He will complete the good work He starts in us and give us exactly what we need to be conformed to the image of Christ, for that is true love.

So I 1)am submitting to God's Will by the simple act of praying to Him 2)Acknowledge His Holiness 3)Admit that I am a sinner and ask Him to make me more like Jesus through praising Him 4)Thank Him and I do ask for what I want...but as long as it is what He wants for me.

Sounds good. :thumbsup:

I am definately not saying that I agree 100% with all the things my husband comes up with...he found God not too long ago and I think there are some things he says that I am like "WHAT?!?"

No wife agrees with their husband 100% of the time. Truth is, "WHAT?!" is as common a response from wives, whether it is verbal or not, as any other. Men have a tendency to think their insight is beyond reproach. In this case though, I'd say your husband was right, at least with respect to the course of history already being determined, even if it has not yet come to pass.

What do you mean here?

"If God based His elective choice on His knowledge of what you or I would do, Scripture which debunks that very theory would be meaningless, and a lie, and it would give those whom God chooses a foundation for boasting. After all, their eternal reward is ultimately granted because they were wise enough to make the right choice."

I don't quite get what you mean by God's elective choice? Are you saying that He chooses who is going to Heaven?

Of course He chooses:

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Romans 9:10,11
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

I definately don't think that anyone should boast about being saved. Just curious, could you maybe point out some of that scripture? I am not trying to be one of those people who are like "Ooh I am so right and you are so wrong and you cannot back up your claims" because I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong. I just don't quite get your view on the idea and would like to hear what you have to say.

The above verses are just a couple of many that the Scriptures give us. As you can see from the passage in Ephesians, He chose His elect before the foundations of the world. Both it and the passage from Romans reveal that His choice is based on the purpose of His will, not on whether we do good or evil. Again, in Romans 9:16, Paul reveals that God's choice does not depend "on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If God's choice is based upon our choice for Him, He is not showing mercy. He is rewarding proper choice which gives reason to boast. Salvation may still be mercy in that case but God's elective purpose would be based on our actions, a theory which contradicts other explicit Scripture. Your faith icon marks you as a Lutheran though you may not be familiar with your denomination's views. Lutherans also believe in and endorse the sovereign election of God.

So do you think that we choose to believe, or before the beginning of time God decided who was going to believe, or that before the beginning of time God knew who would choose to believe and who wouldn't but that it was our free will that let us decide if we believe in God?

We exercise our will, which is our mind choosing. However, the reason we believe is because God changes our hearts such that before we were slaves to our fallen nature and morally incapable of submitting to God by faith, we are now born anew and willingly acknowledge God as our Lord. Our exercise of faith is the manifestation of the change He has already wrought in us through regeneration from death in sin to life in Christ. In answer, we choose to believe but we do so because He has given us faith.

God Bless you too!

Thanks! :)

jenlovesgod

14th February 2008, 06:04 PM

I would almost take that verse to mean that He chose us (humans) to be holy and blameless before Him, because any person in the whole world could believe in Him and therefore be holy and blameless.

But doesn't seem terrible that God created certain people specifically to go to hell? Why did he create people to begin with? I thought (again I am definately no expert) He created us to have free will to choose Him, but if He has already decided who gets to go to heaven what's the point? I guess I look at it as He lets us decide what we will choose, but He knew what we would choose before he created us.

So if He already picked the people He would let into heaven it seems pointless to try to help others find God orJesus because He may have already sentenced them to hell.

I pretty much agree with my husband about the praying and I usually model my prayers around the Lord's Prayer, but here is an idea his pastor and a group of some other people have been tossing around that doesn't really make sense to me...
It all started when my husband brought the fact that too many people "give" Satan more power than he deserves to his pastor. He goes to a really small church (no real denomination though it started as a 4-square church) and people are always like "I rebuke Satan! He is making my cousin sick and I am calling on Jesus to put an end to this." (Which always makes me...a lutheran...feel weird when people in his church get this way), but it turned into an idea that Satan exists in our mind...and that "the bottomless pit" is our mind. And that if you go to hell it is not like an actual place where you are burning and suffering but the actual "suffering" is just the fact that you cannot be in heaven.

Again, I am probably not doing a great job explaining their idea, but this is really the main reason I wanted to join this site because I do not know all the Bible verses and I figured that someone here might be able to give me a good idea or a way to show him something different. Sometimes I really question his "pastor" who is a wonderful man but never even went to Seminary, he just went through a series of in-depth classes at a church and is now branching off from their views and following a "Kingdom" message and I feel like he doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time, and it just infuriates me that he takes what this guy says as goespel all of the time.

Anyway, gotta go, my daughter is in dance tonight.

Thanks for all the responses! I really enjoy reading what everyone says here!

Reformationist

14th February 2008, 06:28 PM

I would almost take that verse to mean that He chose us (humans) to be holy and blameless before Him, because any person in the whole world could believe in Him and therefore be holy and blameless.

The entire book continues on in this fashion but I draw your attention to the context:

Eph 1:1-12
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

I ask you, who are the faithful in Christ Jesus? The letter, and the context of Paul's claim in verse 4 is about believers.

But doesn't seem terrible that God created certain people specifically to go to hell?

Why?

Why did he create people to begin with?

That He would be glorified.

I thought (again I am definately no expert) He created us to have free will to choose Him, but if He has already decided who gets to go to heaven what's the point?

Creation was not about us and it certainly wasn't about our free will.

I guess I look at it as He lets us decide what we will choose, but He knew what we would choose before he created us.

So you see God as more an observer of history than the One who establishes the course history takes?

So if He already picked the people He would let into heaven it seems pointless to try to help others find God orJesus because He may have already sentenced them to hell.

It's only pointless if you see your obedience in spreading the Gospel as something that is worthwhile if it is effective by the power of your, and their, free will. It is exactly because God ensures that those He has set apart to the glory of His Son will respond positively to the message of the Gospel and submit to Him as Lord and Savior that your efforts are never in vain.

The question you need to answer is, why is spreading the Gospel only worthwhile if man is sovereign over his own destiny?

Make no mistake, there isn't a single person that will ever exist that desires to be a child of God that will not be a child of God. You see, apart from the regenerative work of God, no one seeks to be His. Rejection and rebellion is our natural response to the things of God.

It all started when my husband brought the fact that too many people "give" Satan more power than he deserves to his pastor. He goes to a really small church (no real denomination though it started as a 4-square church) and people are always like "I rebuke Satan! He is making my cousin sick and I am calling on Jesus to put an end to this." (Which always makes me...a lutheran...feel weird when people in his church get this way), but it turned into an idea that Satan exists in our mind...and that "the bottomless pit" is our mind. And that if you go to hell it is not like an actual place where you are burning and suffering but the actual "suffering" is just the fact that you cannot be in heaven.

Again, I am probably not doing a great job explaining their idea, but this is really the main reason I wanted to join this site because I do not know all the Bible verses and I figured that someone here might be able to give me a good idea or a way to show him something different. Sometimes I really question his "pastor" who is a wonderful man but never even went to Seminary, he just went through a series of in-depth classes at a church and is now branching off from their views and following a "Kingdom" message and I feel like he doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time, and it just infuriates me that he takes what this guy says as goespel all of the time.

Sounds like this Pastor isn't someone you or your husband should be listening to with regard to the truth of the Gospel. Satan is real and he is powerful. As believers we are not to fear Him (2 Tim 1:7) but neither are we to deny the destruction he wreaks upon even the faithful. My suggestion, get away from the teaching your husband is attending and find a good, bible based church. Maybe even a Lutheran church, though I am partial to the PCA or OPC myself.

Anyway, gotta go, my daughter is in dance tonight.

Thanks for all the responses! I really enjoy reading what everyone says here!

Good luck and feel free to come back for any clarification you need. Some of my brethren here in this forum are wonderfully edifying and learned in the Scriptures.

God bless