Mr Potato Head
New member
I sure hope God has a good reason for predestining this fight.
:think:
:think:
Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
Mr Potato Head
New member
Not at all, I'm just doubting your perception of God's methods.
Mr Potato Head
New member
In comparison... not at all :thumb:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Mr Potatoe Head - Now lets not be too hastey. If you cared about God and His truth, and how a false witness troubles others and does not set them free from error, like when someone like Z Man says that evil glorifies God, for the sake and benefit of "everyone", it should not just matter that you two are saved despite the evil presuppositions about God, because those teachings may harm himself and others, and many people do not place their faith in God precisely because of such evil and contradictory precepts.
But, in your own private discussion, that's ok, but in a public forum, the truth matters, and being saved is just the tip of the iceburg that may help to shipwreck others if we don't rid ourself of so many false and contradictory teachings.
Also, scripture teaches us to move beyond the elementary principles and press onwards thru sanctification growing in the Lord so that we might altogether help edify and grow the family of God. It always bothers me when people say, ya, but at least were saved, we can agree on that much. When I consider all the riches and joy that we are supposed to have, and a common faith, one united faith, the last thing I want to agree to is that we may have a handful of key essential truths so lets feel good about that much. The truth in reality on that score means that we disagree on just about everything you can think of, even the very nature of How God is! Yes, I am glad whenever anyone is saved, but in contrasting a few or a single bible agreement to a bible wide range full of disagreement and contractions, that picture is not a good one. Not that we humans should be expected to get it all right perfectly, but God knew are limitations when He expects us to have one united faith instead of one wildly contradictory and united faith. If the truth be told, Christianity is about 99 percent contradiction and confusion. I'd suggest that even within the same denomination or theological groupings, the unity of faith might average somewhere around 35% or so. We Christians are a culture that has swallowed the false notion that we must tolerate our overwhelming disunity as much as we tolerate our own interpersonal diversity and opinions on just about anything else, as though the bible is a venue for personal interpretation and style and preference. Christians probably have more unity about mathematics or science or sports or barbecuing than they do with theology and bible understanding.
God's word does not look favorably upon such arguably selfish concerns as, as long as you know Christ as your savior, what does the rest matter in comparison?
I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Mr Potatoe Head - Now lets not be too hastey. If you cared about God and His truth, and how a false witness troubles others and does not set them free from error, like when someone like Z Man says that evil glorifies God, for the sake and benefit of "everyone", it should not just matter that you two are saved despite the evil presuppositions about God, because those teachings may harm himself and others, and many people do not place their faith in God precisely because of such evil and contradictory precepts.
But, in your own private discussion, that's ok, but in a public forum, the truth matters, and being saved is just the tip of the iceburg that may help to shipwreck others if we don't rid ourself of so many false and contradictory teachings.
Also, scripture teaches us to move beyond the elementary principles and press onwards thru sanctification growing in the Lord so that we might altogether help edify and grow the family of God. It always bothers me when people say, ya, but at least were saved, we can agree on that much. When I consider all the riches and joy that we are supposed to have, and a common faith, one united faith, the last thing I want to agree to is that we may have a handful of key essential truths so lets feel good about that much. The truth in reality on that score means that we disagree on just about everything you can think of, even the very nature of How God is! Yes, I am glad whenever anyone is saved, but in contrasting a few or a single bible agreement to a bible wide range full of disagreement and contractions, that picture is not a good one. Not that we humans should be expected to get it all right perfectly, but God knew are limitations when He expects us to have one united faith instead of one wildly contradictory and united faith. If the truth be told, Christianity is about 99 percent contradiction and confusion. I'd suggest that even within the same denomination or theological groupings, the unity of faith might average somewhere around 35% or so. We Christians are a culture that has swallowed the false notion that we must tolerate our overwhelming disunity as much as we tolerate our own interpersonal diversity and opinions on just about anything else, as though the bible is a venue for personal interpretation and style and preference. Christians probably have more unity about mathematics or science or sports or barbecuing than they do with theology and bible understanding.
God's word does not look favorably upon such arguably selfish concerns as, as long as you know Christ as your savior, what does the rest matter in comparison?
Z Man
New member
Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
If your going to ridicule and mis-quote me all day, then I do not want to dulge into a debate with you. Bearing false witness against your brother is a sin. You need to be more careful with what you say. If you would have read my posts carefully, you would have understood that I never said evil itself glorifies God. I simply said that He uses evil to get His point across; to display His glory to the world. Don't agree? The story of Pharoah and the Egyptians are a good place to start.
All this debating may help us understand God in our own way better, but it definitly will not allow God to "love us more" simply because we believe to be correct in our doctrine. He loves you just as much as He loves me, whether we believe in free will or not.
Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
1Way,
If your going to ridicule and mis-quote me all day, then I do not want to dulge into a debate with you. Bearing false witness against your brother is a sin. You need to be more careful with what you say. If you would have read my posts carefully, you would have understood that I never said evil itself glorifies God. I simply said that He uses evil to get His point across; to display His glory to the world. Don't agree? The story of Pharoah and the Egyptians are a good place to start.
We can argue all day long until we are blue in the face about predestination and God's sovereignty, but in the end, does it really matter? Of course not! The salvation of God is all that matters! That's the whole purpose for everything God has revealed to us through His Word; salvation! Is it a requirement to believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in order to get into heaven? Of course not! Is it a requirement to believe in free will in order to get into heaven? Of course not!
All this debating may help us understand God in our own way better, but it definitly will not allow God to "love us more" simply because we believe to be correct in our doctrine. He loves you just as much as He loves me, whether we believe in free will or not.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Re: Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Re: Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Amen.
Re: Re: I trust you mean well, but perhaps that was not quite right
Amen.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Potato Head and 1Way--I disagree with you fellows only on your use of "manipulate." Manipulate is what a puppeteer does with puppets. That would be a kind of encroachment against man's will which God doesn't do. Man's will may be impotent, often unable to perform that which they WOULD do because God frustrates their efforts (Ps 33:11,12), but in every matter, however much they may fail, men will their actions. So I think manipulation is not a good word to use.
Consider the king of Assyria, the rod of God's anger, the axe with which He hewed--throughout that chapter, it is apparent that the Assyrian is acting according to his own will and for his own motives. He therefore was not being manipulated. A better analogy (I think) to God giving people up is what takes place when a rancher releases a wild horse from a pen. The wild horse (as is the sinner) is hemmed in by the restraint placed around him, just as Satan was hemmed in against taking action against Job unless God allowed it; and God's allowance was always with restrictions which Satan had no power to overcome. THAT is God's governing of all things by which He fulfills all His purpose while disallowing ANYTHING which is contrary to that purpose. When the rancher releases the wild horse from the pen, no longer restraining it, the horse is not being manipulated by the rancher as the horse does according to the nature of a wild horse.
And if a rancher understands the nature of a wild horse and what it is likely to do, how much more God knows the hearts of men and what actions they will take if left to their own way.
Consider the king of Assyria, the rod of God's anger, the axe with which He hewed--throughout that chapter, it is apparent that the Assyrian is acting according to his own will and for his own motives. He therefore was not being manipulated. A better analogy (I think) to God giving people up is what takes place when a rancher releases a wild horse from a pen. The wild horse (as is the sinner) is hemmed in by the restraint placed around him, just as Satan was hemmed in against taking action against Job unless God allowed it; and God's allowance was always with restrictions which Satan had no power to overcome. THAT is God's governing of all things by which He fulfills all His purpose while disallowing ANYTHING which is contrary to that purpose. When the rancher releases the wild horse from the pen, no longer restraining it, the horse is not being manipulated by the rancher as the horse does according to the nature of a wild horse.
And if a rancher understands the nature of a wild horse and what it is likely to do, how much more God knows the hearts of men and what actions they will take if left to their own way.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Z - You said
All I did was refer to the one part. In so doing I do not misquote you, I did not even imply that I was quoting you. It's a free country if you put forth a multi part idea and someone accurately references the one part, there is no harm done. You said
You may want to harp on the direction over which the glory is moving, is the glory coming from evil to God, or is it coming from evil to the world. Well, if God is pleased in His glory being shown to the world from evil, then surely He would be please if that glory was toward Himself. Of you you think that God's glory from goodness and God's glory from evil represent two different sorts of glory and only the inferior evil glory is directed to man to glorify God, and only the superior glory from good goes to God to glorify God.
Yes, Z Man, the truth matters, how we live in this life has eternal consequenses both for ourselves and for others. God is grieved when we sin, we can and do grieve the HS like when you blaspheme God by making Him responsible for and for getting glory from evil. God uses man to reach other men for God by preaching the gospel message and by demonstrating a changed life, and when we deliver the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power unto salvation, and we get it wrong by misrepresenting the object and person of our salvation, and when we misrepresent the way of salvation, which is not that God predestined individuals to salvation from the foundation of the world, and we say other false teachings like that God controls everything without exception, then the unbelieving world has a "good" reason to reject such beliefs on the bases that they are fundamentally false according to God and His goodness and righteousness and love and power, etc.
Some will be called the least and some will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, some will be accepted/rewarded as though escaping through the flames, and others will be accepted/rewarded as though God's firey judgement mostly honored their house of faith that was built with their life. It is not "all" about being saved as contrasted to my point that it matters deeply how we reprsent God, the levels of self centeredness in such remarks is rather remarkable. Godly agape love is not self concerned nearly as much as it is others concerned. God is our example, God died for us so that we don't have to pay that terrible price. And after Christ did that for you, can't you see that God wants you to be loving and willing to forgive and even be giving of yourself for others in return? I say that our accurate testimony about God and His ways are crucial in helping to win a dying world to Christ, including predestination and God's sovereignty, you say other than being saved, the rest doesn't matter. :nono:
Your idea, which is now quoted fully, is basically a two part concept. 1) God controls and uses evil, and 2) God is glorified by evil, evil (is) for His glory.
All I did was refer to the one part. In so doing I do not misquote you, I did not even imply that I was quoting you. It's a free country if you put forth a multi part idea and someone accurately references the one part, there is no harm done. You said
If evil (itself) (is there really any other sort of evil other than evil itself?) does not glorify God, then your truth claim (God uses/controls evil for His glory) is false or else is inferring some other sort of evil, but I would not suspect even yourself to go around lying about such things. Stand by your words or stand corrected, make up your mind already. You have done nothing to alter your original statement of God's relationship to evil in that He gets glory from evil, plainly "God uses evil for His glory".
You may want to harp on the direction over which the glory is moving, is the glory coming from evil to God, or is it coming from evil to the world. Well, if God is pleased in His glory being shown to the world from evil, then surely He would be please if that glory was toward Himself. Of you you think that God's glory from goodness and God's glory from evil represent two different sorts of glory and only the inferior evil glory is directed to man to glorify God, and only the superior glory from good goes to God to glorify God.
Yes, Z Man, the truth matters, how we live in this life has eternal consequenses both for ourselves and for others. God is grieved when we sin, we can and do grieve the HS like when you blaspheme God by making Him responsible for and for getting glory from evil. God uses man to reach other men for God by preaching the gospel message and by demonstrating a changed life, and when we deliver the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power unto salvation, and we get it wrong by misrepresenting the object and person of our salvation, and when we misrepresent the way of salvation, which is not that God predestined individuals to salvation from the foundation of the world, and we say other false teachings like that God controls everything without exception, then the unbelieving world has a "good" reason to reject such beliefs on the bases that they are fundamentally false according to God and His goodness and righteousness and love and power, etc.
Some will be called the least and some will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, some will be accepted/rewarded as though escaping through the flames, and others will be accepted/rewarded as though God's firey judgement mostly honored their house of faith that was built with their life. It is not "all" about being saved as contrasted to my point that it matters deeply how we reprsent God, the levels of self centeredness in such remarks is rather remarkable. Godly agape love is not self concerned nearly as much as it is others concerned. God is our example, God died for us so that we don't have to pay that terrible price. And after Christ did that for you, can't you see that God wants you to be loving and willing to forgive and even be giving of yourself for others in return? I say that our accurate testimony about God and His ways are crucial in helping to win a dying world to Christ, including predestination and God's sovereignty, you say other than being saved, the rest doesn't matter. :nono:
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Rolf - Wow, that is a fast turnabout. 
Mr Potato Head, have you ever seen such a fast convert?
You said
But do I hear you say correctly that man has free will? I agree that man's will is not nearly as potent and righteous and stable as God's but we still always do our will. So you believe that God does NOT violate man's free will. Good deal Rolf! And I thought you were on the other side of this debate, sorry for misunderstanding where you were coming from. You were really argueing harshly against me and some other free willer's here, come on now, watch the friendly fire :darwinsm: Maybe you confused our granting the opposition's arguments just long enough to argue against them as being our arguments or something. I am pro-free will too. It is ZMan and who is against that, not us.
I like your comment about God frustrating their efforts, do you like my judo example then, about God "responding" to evil, not causing or controlling evil like in judo. You have you and your opponent who is evil. He strikes a blow at you but you sidestep it and use his own effort and momentum against him by grabbing his arm and flipping him over your hip and backside and he lands on his backside wishing he had never tried that. You did not do cause nor control his evil intent or deed, but you did respond to it by opposing him and his evil intention and even used his own effort against him by your righteous self defense response which was not to harm you, the righteous one, but to oppose and harm him, the evil one. That way the evil intention and the evil effort are completely separated from you and your righteous response against the evil doer.
That cracks me up, I thought you were sort of wacky, ranting and raving about how do we rescue God from doing evil, and here you are on our side all this time. Welcome aboard shipmate, the battle, is over there. I just could not figure you out, I thought you were trying to use some strange sort of reverse psychology on us or something. LOL So just how free do you go with free will? How about the future, does God have all that locked down into one fated unalterable destiny, or do we free will beings truly represent an uncertain element such that God does not already know everything that will ever happen?
If you say the former, that is closed theism, even from God's perspective the future is locked into place and holds no uncertainty, from that perspective man experiences time in a different way and thinks that he has free will to do this or that, but the fact in reality is that they can never do anything but that which is according to that one fated destiny. If you say the latter, then you would be right, the future is open to options and man really do make free will choices. In this view, God take care of things not yet done by His power and His wise councle and if necessary, God repents and does not do what He said and thought He was going to do. (Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay, and Jonah 3:4&9or10 as a great example of Him doing just that.)
Most Christians fall somewhere inbetween, but I do not believe the truth in reality afford such dublicity, either the future holds at least some contingency/uncertainty, or it does not. Thus either the open view or the closed view is correct. There is no other options. LOL, someone watch over this guy, make sure he is aiming at the other side.
Mr Potato Head, have you ever seen such a fast convert? You said
Oh, hmmm. I think I see your point, but consider the puppet thing again for a moment. The puppets never do anything unless something complete outside of them causes them to do it. So any direction that the puppeteer gives to the puppets would be one of complete control. Now if complete control of something means to manipulate, then I would not know what complete control means. But I agree that the term to manipulate can mean to control, like when a potter manipulates the clay into some artwork, or whatever, again, he is actually controlling the clay, yet we also call that manipulation. So I guess it can sort of go both ways and the common uses do seem a bit confusing.
But do I hear you say correctly that man has free will? I agree that man's will is not nearly as potent and righteous and stable as God's but we still always do our will. So you believe that God does NOT violate man's free will. Good deal Rolf! And I thought you were on the other side of this debate, sorry for misunderstanding where you were coming from. You were really argueing harshly against me and some other free willer's here, come on now, watch the friendly fire :darwinsm: Maybe you confused our granting the opposition's arguments just long enough to argue against them as being our arguments or something. I am pro-free will too. It is ZMan and who is against that, not us.
I like your comment about God frustrating their efforts, do you like my judo example then, about God "responding" to evil, not causing or controlling evil like in judo. You have you and your opponent who is evil. He strikes a blow at you but you sidestep it and use his own effort and momentum against him by grabbing his arm and flipping him over your hip and backside and he lands on his backside wishing he had never tried that. You did not do cause nor control his evil intent or deed, but you did respond to it by opposing him and his evil intention and even used his own effort against him by your righteous self defense response which was not to harm you, the righteous one, but to oppose and harm him, the evil one. That way the evil intention and the evil effort are completely separated from you and your righteous response against the evil doer.
That cracks me up, I thought you were sort of wacky, ranting and raving about how do we rescue God from doing evil, and here you are on our side all this time.
Welcome aboard shipmate, the battle, is over there. I just could not figure you out, I thought you were trying to use some strange sort of reverse psychology on us or something. LOL So just how free do you go with free will? How about the future, does God have all that locked down into one fated unalterable destiny, or do we free will beings truly represent an uncertain element such that God does not already know everything that will ever happen?If you say the former, that is closed theism, even from God's perspective the future is locked into place and holds no uncertainty, from that perspective man experiences time in a different way and thinks that he has free will to do this or that, but the fact in reality is that they can never do anything but that which is according to that one fated destiny. If you say the latter, then you would be right, the future is open to options and man really do make free will choices. In this view, God take care of things not yet done by His power and His wise councle and if necessary, God repents and does not do what He said and thought He was going to do. (Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay, and Jonah 3:4&9or10 as a great example of Him doing just that.)
Most Christians fall somewhere inbetween, but I do not believe the truth in reality afford such dublicity, either the future holds at least some contingency/uncertainty, or it does not. Thus either the open view or the closed view is correct. There is no other options. LOL, someone watch over this guy, make sure he is aiming at the other side.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Not bad, actually that was pretty mild nicer than God bit, but still needs more work
Not bad, actually that was pretty mild nicer than God bit, but still needs more work
godrulz - Wanting to subside hostilities is a good thing, but don't exchange being loving with a lack of heated friction the way you constantly do. The only way to keep your love from being sinful thru hypocrisy is by the heat of abhorance. Last I checked attibuting evil to God is a clear and serious evil, and further not repenting for such blasphemy is a rebellius sin of presumption too. But don't worry about me, I feel no need to contribute more fuel to the fire, light and heat both, not just light.
Lighten up on pushing your agenda of trying to be nicer than God, I wont do it, for the love of God already, I promise that I just wont do it. :thumb:
Not bad, actually that was pretty mild nicer than God bit, but still needs more work
godrulz - Wanting to subside hostilities is a good thing, but don't exchange being loving with a lack of heated friction the way you constantly do. The only way to keep your love from being sinful thru hypocrisy is by the heat of abhorance. Last I checked attibuting evil to God is a clear and serious evil, and further not repenting for such blasphemy is a rebellius sin of presumption too. But don't worry about me, I feel no need to contribute more fuel to the fire, light and heat both, not just light.
Lighten up on pushing your agenda of trying to be nicer than God, I wont do it, for the love of God already, I promise that I just wont do it. :thumb:
Mr Potato Head
New member
You got me there.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
in response...
in response...
Mr Potato Head - Thank you kindly. Chuckles, "you got me there." Ah, shucks, I caught me yet another Christian, I keep hoping to snag an unbeliever.
I bet Z Man and God is Truth and and and could use more of that brotherly kinship you graciously offer. Its too bad that the battle ground too often is more like soldiers afield at war, instead of players at soldier field. Your intent, and I'd say the same with godrulz as well, is not just error, it comes from a good heart hoping for good and even better things. Yet eternity and righteousness becken us to redeem the time, so we speak the truth in love, and in such a love that abhors evil, and in such a truth that does not violate His word.
Thanks for taking my remarks well.
In Christ,
in response...
Mr Potato Head - Thank you kindly. Chuckles, "you got me there." Ah, shucks, I caught me yet another Christian, I keep hoping to snag an unbeliever.
I bet Z Man and God is Truth and and and could use more of that brotherly kinship you graciously offer. Its too bad that the battle ground too often is more like soldiers afield at war, instead of players at soldier field. Your intent, and I'd say the same with godrulz as well, is not just error, it comes from a good heart hoping for good and even better things. Yet eternity and righteousness becken us to redeem the time, so we speak the truth in love, and in such a love that abhors evil, and in such a truth that does not violate His word.
Thanks for taking my remarks well.
In Christ,
Rolf Ernst
New member
1 WAY--I am sure that there is a lot of "talking past one another" on this forum. Perhaps the more strongly we feel on certain points, the more strongly we need to exercise caution that we do not "talk past."
The reformed doctrine of man's will is that it is free, but there are two caveats to that.
FIRST, While Man ALWAYS has free will, his free will does not mean he always has the power to execute that will. How many times in a day do you alter your will?
You begin the day saying, I will do this and that today; but how often do you actually do precisely what you earlier intended?? Our will is impotent and unstable as water, but throughout every day, we are freely willing what we choose even when we have to go to plan "B" and plan "C."
Someone posted recently that they did not consider themselves having free will unless they also had the power to execute that will. They were adamant that if they were not free to both will and DO, they did not have free will at all and God was not being fair. Think about that for awhile--that is the power that only God Himself has. Only His will is immutable and omnipotent. If we demand that same power, we are bordering on the enormous offense against God spoken of in Isaiah 14--"I will be like the Most High..."
SECONDLY, The most dreadful caveat is that the free will of the unregenerate man is bound by sin so that he CANNOT properly will nor perform that which is acceptable to God. He still has a will, but it is bound by sin--"the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14; "...you are not able to listen to my word." Jn.8:43; "...because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." Jn. 8:45; "...if I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear because you are not of God." Jn. 8:46, 47
Who is of God? He is of God who is born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit Who, like the wind, goes where He wills to go. We hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where He comes from or where He goes; so is everyone born of the Spirit (from John chapter three.) Until He comes and, by the same power He used in raising Christ from the dead, creates a new creature in Christ; until He regenerates; until He raises the spiritually dead, there is no spiritual life. Man's will in an unregenerate state is bound by sin. Christ came to open the prison to them that are bound (Isa. 61) and through the Holy Spirit, He raises the spiritually dead. His works of compassion are symbolic of what He does spiritually for unbelievers--the man who had never heard, the man who had never spoken, the man who had been blind from birth, those whom He healed of leprosy, a type of sin; those whom He raised from the dead. But just as those people were bound by their problem until Jesus came along, so the unbelieving are bound by sin until the blessed Holy Spirit comes and in power and grace and says, "Awake, oh sleeper! Arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light!"
If the unbeliever had power to do ANYTHING or to in ANYWAY recover himself, why didn't he? But that he didn't is made abundantly clear because when God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, the report of their condition was that "There is none that doeth good; no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one." (from Romans 3) BUT--then came Christ who raises the dead and calls those things which are not as though they were.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't remember Z Man saying that he did not believe in man's free will at least in this sense. So often we "talk past" and I have no doubt that am as guilty as anyone else. Have a good day.
The reformed doctrine of man's will is that it is free, but there are two caveats to that.
FIRST, While Man ALWAYS has free will, his free will does not mean he always has the power to execute that will. How many times in a day do you alter your will?
You begin the day saying, I will do this and that today; but how often do you actually do precisely what you earlier intended?? Our will is impotent and unstable as water, but throughout every day, we are freely willing what we choose even when we have to go to plan "B" and plan "C."
Someone posted recently that they did not consider themselves having free will unless they also had the power to execute that will. They were adamant that if they were not free to both will and DO, they did not have free will at all and God was not being fair. Think about that for awhile--that is the power that only God Himself has. Only His will is immutable and omnipotent. If we demand that same power, we are bordering on the enormous offense against God spoken of in Isaiah 14--"I will be like the Most High..."
SECONDLY, The most dreadful caveat is that the free will of the unregenerate man is bound by sin so that he CANNOT properly will nor perform that which is acceptable to God. He still has a will, but it is bound by sin--"the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14; "...you are not able to listen to my word." Jn.8:43; "...because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." Jn. 8:45; "...if I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear because you are not of God." Jn. 8:46, 47
Who is of God? He is of God who is born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit Who, like the wind, goes where He wills to go. We hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where He comes from or where He goes; so is everyone born of the Spirit (from John chapter three.) Until He comes and, by the same power He used in raising Christ from the dead, creates a new creature in Christ; until He regenerates; until He raises the spiritually dead, there is no spiritual life. Man's will in an unregenerate state is bound by sin. Christ came to open the prison to them that are bound (Isa. 61) and through the Holy Spirit, He raises the spiritually dead. His works of compassion are symbolic of what He does spiritually for unbelievers--the man who had never heard, the man who had never spoken, the man who had been blind from birth, those whom He healed of leprosy, a type of sin; those whom He raised from the dead. But just as those people were bound by their problem until Jesus came along, so the unbelieving are bound by sin until the blessed Holy Spirit comes and in power and grace and says, "Awake, oh sleeper! Arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light!"
If the unbeliever had power to do ANYTHING or to in ANYWAY recover himself, why didn't he? But that he didn't is made abundantly clear because when God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, the report of their condition was that "There is none that doeth good; no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one." (from Romans 3) BUT--then came Christ who raises the dead and calls those things which are not as though they were.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't remember Z Man saying that he did not believe in man's free will at least in this sense. So often we "talk past" and I have no doubt that am as guilty as anyone else. Have a good day.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Rolf – You said
But before I do, a remark about understanding prior to making judgments. I can tell that I differ with you about what free will means. The entire context over why we have the term “free will” is over the controversial issue of control, namely that God controls man’s will or not. If there never was a controversy about who controls our will, then the will would never need to be refined as free.
We have three indispensable aspects involved with the two worded idea, free will. They are
Freedom
Control
Will
And to make it into one nice succinct package,
“free will” means that man controls his own will free from anyone else’s control.
I’m not confusing the nature of our will, that it has certain created limitations and qualities of existence, just dealing with man’s will as it pertains to personal control.
Please elaborate if you feel that understanding of man’s free will is somehow inadequate. For years I have found it to be right on the money.
Back to your quote, altering your will is a self directed self-controlling event and thus does not lend to your claim that man does not always have the power to execute his will. Secondly, I do not bend the issue of determining a free will by the more secondary issue of execution of the will, which on the face of it begs the issue of a number of things, including clearly defining the intentions verses the outcomes as well as the issue of effectiveness in a broad sense. I am not saying that control of the will is always demonstrated in the most effective way, and I think you would agree that there is difference between having control of a will, and demonstrating one’s will, especially when the fact is that there often are notorious competing elements in one’s will, struggling to become effectively demonstrated. Lets not confuse the ends with the means.
As to
Frankly, the whole depravity of man is as you say, a dreadful one, and serves to render a huge chunk of scripture’s teachings into being a meaningless void, and you should always beware when someone “smart” sounding effectively voids scripture of meaning. Namely, every teaching for man to seek God and to become saved is a demonstration of God’s expectation and understanding that man does indeed have the ability to do so. For man to not have the ability to do so would be on the same ridiculous order as a fool calling men everywhere to fly like rockets into the heavens and land on mars to receive his part in paradise! If you can’t do that, then the call is utter nonsense and voids scripture in a dreadful and comprehensive fashion.
If unregenerate man is not free to respond to God in an acceptable way, then unregenerate man has no free will at all, evidently God controls their will so that they could never do anything acceptable to God. Don’t do violence to God’s word, let it speak meaningfully and truthfully and authoritatively to you and may it direct your faith, and not you contradicting scripture.
Sorry for thinking you were on our side of the debate. I will not budge from these foundational issues, I like standing on the sure foundation firmly, but I am more than willing to stand the test of scrutiny, and to stand corrected wherever it is established that I am wrong according to God’s teaching, not man’s.
Oh, as to your bible reference understanding that man, without exception, can not receive the things of God, that is a wrong interpretation, it is simply accurate that until you are for God, you are against Him. As already argued, unsaved man can and readily does many acceptable things to God. Don’t overstep nor undermine God’s word.
(Friendly advice)
Lastly, your lack of presenting white space between so much text makes your post a difficult read. I think it is simply an issue of simple respect and selflessness to try to format your writing in such a way as to make it’s reception less difficult. For example, I had to do a word search to find your second caveat because I did not need to read everything that you think supports your view if I already understand the point and have a reasonable response. The bible teaches an issue of escalation. Some things are far easier and some things are far more difficult for us to do. Like you personally evangelizing someone in another country is very difficult compared to evangelizing efforts locally. The easier it is to do a kind service, yet you do not do it, the more condemnable it is not to do it.
I hope your life is filled with such easy blessings like stepping aside to give others room if they are carrying a heavy load right passed you, or opening a door for someone else, or simply treating others with a kindhearted respectful greeting just to establish in any reasonable way possible the good intentions from within your heart. I just reviewed your last post and see that you do attempt to use paragraphs, so I am encouraged. All you needed to do is hit the return key one more time at each paragraph separation. Also, it might help to create your posts within a word processor or notepad of some sort, that way you may have a better view of your text formatting prior to posting, and lastly, you can always go back in and edit your post to make it more appealing to others. You also use all caps to help call out key info, so this is really a very small issue, and one easily corrected.
(Z Man)
Oh, as to Z Man, he said God controls everything, remember, thus man’s will must be included in everything. I don’t remember him excepting man’s will. What do you say on that regard?
Have a true and meaningfully good day
I doubt your view on several levels, but will grant your view for critical review.
But before I do, a remark about understanding prior to making judgments. I can tell that I differ with you about what free will means. The entire context over why we have the term “free will” is over the controversial issue of control, namely that God controls man’s will or not. If there never was a controversy about who controls our will, then the will would never need to be refined as free.
We have three indispensable aspects involved with the two worded idea, free will. They are
Freedom
Control
Will
And to make it into one nice succinct package,
“free will” means that man controls his own will free from anyone else’s control.
I’m not confusing the nature of our will, that it has certain created limitations and qualities of existence, just dealing with man’s will as it pertains to personal control.
Please elaborate if you feel that understanding of man’s free will is somehow inadequate. For years I have found it to be right on the money.
Back to your quote, altering your will is a self directed self-controlling event and thus does not lend to your claim that man does not always have the power to execute his will. Secondly, I do not bend the issue of determining a free will by the more secondary issue of execution of the will, which on the face of it begs the issue of a number of things, including clearly defining the intentions verses the outcomes as well as the issue of effectiveness in a broad sense. I am not saying that control of the will is always demonstrated in the most effective way, and I think you would agree that there is difference between having control of a will, and demonstrating one’s will, especially when the fact is that there often are notorious competing elements in one’s will, struggling to become effectively demonstrated. Lets not confuse the ends with the means.
As to
Not true, God demonstrates the opposite quite convincingly. The good Samaritan, those who are evil know to go good by treating their children with nutritious food as an argument to know how much more good God is that we are. Although that may be a reference to saved man, the evil in saved man is the same variety of evil in an unsaved man, God does not have different standards of righteousness, so the evil father can be a saved or an unsaved man, an evil man saved or not, is as God says, evil, yet still knows how to do good. Repentance leads to the conversion of the soul unto salvation, although that process is spiritual and internal, there seems to be a step-by-step progression that supports the notion that unsaved man does a good thing when he responds appropriately to the call of salvation.
Frankly, the whole depravity of man is as you say, a dreadful one, and serves to render a huge chunk of scripture’s teachings into being a meaningless void, and you should always beware when someone “smart” sounding effectively voids scripture of meaning. Namely, every teaching for man to seek God and to become saved is a demonstration of God’s expectation and understanding that man does indeed have the ability to do so. For man to not have the ability to do so would be on the same ridiculous order as a fool calling men everywhere to fly like rockets into the heavens and land on mars to receive his part in paradise! If you can’t do that, then the call is utter nonsense and voids scripture in a dreadful and comprehensive fashion.
If unregenerate man is not free to respond to God in an acceptable way, then unregenerate man has no free will at all, evidently God controls their will so that they could never do anything acceptable to God. Don’t do violence to God’s word, let it speak meaningfully and truthfully and authoritatively to you and may it direct your faith, and not you contradicting scripture.
Sorry for thinking you were on our side of the debate. I will not budge from these foundational issues, I like standing on the sure foundation firmly, but I am more than willing to stand the test of scrutiny, and to stand corrected wherever it is established that I am wrong according to God’s teaching, not man’s.
Oh, as to your bible reference understanding that man, without exception, can not receive the things of God, that is a wrong interpretation, it is simply accurate that until you are for God, you are against Him. As already argued, unsaved man can and readily does many acceptable things to God. Don’t overstep nor undermine God’s word.
(Friendly advice)
Lastly, your lack of presenting white space between so much text makes your post a difficult read. I think it is simply an issue of simple respect and selflessness to try to format your writing in such a way as to make it’s reception less difficult. For example, I had to do a word search to find your second caveat because I did not need to read everything that you think supports your view if I already understand the point and have a reasonable response. The bible teaches an issue of escalation. Some things are far easier and some things are far more difficult for us to do. Like you personally evangelizing someone in another country is very difficult compared to evangelizing efforts locally. The easier it is to do a kind service, yet you do not do it, the more condemnable it is not to do it.
I hope your life is filled with such easy blessings like stepping aside to give others room if they are carrying a heavy load right passed you, or opening a door for someone else, or simply treating others with a kindhearted respectful greeting just to establish in any reasonable way possible the good intentions from within your heart. I just reviewed your last post and see that you do attempt to use paragraphs, so I am encouraged. All you needed to do is hit the return key one more time at each paragraph separation. Also, it might help to create your posts within a word processor or notepad of some sort, that way you may have a better view of your text formatting prior to posting, and lastly, you can always go back in and edit your post to make it more appealing to others. You also use all caps to help call out key info, so this is really a very small issue, and one easily corrected.
(Z Man)
Oh, as to Z Man, he said God controls everything, remember, thus man’s will must be included in everything. I don’t remember him excepting man’s will. What do you say on that regard?
Have a true and meaningfully good day
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Just a few words in regard to "free will".Of course man has "free will" in regard to things in the "moral sphere".If he follows the moral law and does not sin then he will "earn" eternal life (Ro.2:6,7).But if he sins,then he will "perish"(Ro.2:12).
At the time he sins he becomes spiritually dead.At that point no amount of "free will" can save him.He must be "born again" by the Spírit.And the only way that that happens is when he "believes" the gospel of salvation.And the act of "believing" is not dependent on the "will" of man,but instead depends on "evidence".
That is why the Scriptures reveal that the "born again" experience is not dependenyt on the "will of man":
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).
Paul makes it plain that it the "will" of man is not involved:
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy"(Ro.9:16).
One believes one thing or another based on the "evidence" that he has.And it is impossible for one to "will" himself to believe something that he does not believe is true according to the evidence that he has.
That is why Paul "reasoned" with the Jews in the synagogues using "evidence".The "evidence" he used were the OT Scriptures (Acts17:2).
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"(Heb.11:1).
In His grace,--Jerry
At the time he sins he becomes spiritually dead.At that point no amount of "free will" can save him.He must be "born again" by the Spírit.And the only way that that happens is when he "believes" the gospel of salvation.And the act of "believing" is not dependent on the "will" of man,but instead depends on "evidence".
That is why the Scriptures reveal that the "born again" experience is not dependenyt on the "will of man":
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).
Paul makes it plain that it the "will" of man is not involved:
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy"(Ro.9:16).
One believes one thing or another based on the "evidence" that he has.And it is impossible for one to "will" himself to believe something that he does not believe is true according to the evidence that he has.
That is why Paul "reasoned" with the Jews in the synagogues using "evidence".The "evidence" he used were the OT Scriptures (Acts17:2).
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"(Heb.11:1).
In His grace,--Jerry
Z Man
New member
1Way,
Man's will is to sin. He can do no good apart from God's grace and mercy. Because of that, the will of man is extremely limited by the bondage of sin. Scripture screams this to us, over and over. Paul stated that even though he knows Christ, his spirit is in constant battle with his flesh and his sinful will. What he wants to do, he doesn't do; and that which he wishes not to do, he does!
If man has absolute complete control over his will and can do good or bad, depending on his choices, why can't we live perfect lives?
Unsaved men cannot do a "good thing". The scriptures Rolf posted were packed with references to God stating Himself that there are no good people on earth who do "good" things, or who seek Him. NONE!
Romans 8:7-8
The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD.
Unsaved men, who are in the flesh, are uncapable of regenerating themselves to spiritual life. They cannot free themselves from the bondage of sin.
No it's not. It's God way of showing us how depraved we really are. We are nothing apart from Him and can do no good.
The depravity of man is what makes God so glorious to us! The fact that we hate God and will not answer His call to repentance just goes to show how sinful and lowly we are, and how righteous and glorious and perfect our Heavenly Father truely is! When men humble themselves, God is uplifted and praised and glorified! That is the most important thing in life; what life is all about - the glorification of God.
God doesn't hold people back from going to Him and repenting; our own will is what holds us back! God is the one who has to break us free from our sinful will for us to come to Him, and the fact that He does do this, despite our sinfulness, is the most awesome and humbling and loving and merciful act God could ever display!
Likewise.
I just proved to you in scripture that those in the flesh cannot please God. Any "good acts" that an usaved person may do are not truely good in that they were not intended to glorify God. And even if you are saved, the good works that you do do which glorify God can only be done because God lives within us! He works through us that we may do good works that glorify Him throughout the world.
I can speak for myself. I already went over this earlier in this post, but I'll repeat myself, just in case. Man's will is limited in that it is enslaved by sin. God must affect our will if there is any hope for man to receive salvation. How else can God get people to love Him without affecting their "free will"? It can't be done...