Featured FREE WILL and PREDESTINATION

Look Brother, as sinners, we only know the ways of a sinner. We have no desire to come to that Light because we love darkness more than Light. We willingly choose to stay in the dark. When God comes along, He changes our desires as He draws us to Himself. There is no "kicking and screaming" as we are drawn, either. He changes our desires from not wanting anything to do with Him to running to Him, seeking refuge from the storms of life.

There is no "reprograming". It's called regenerating to bring to life that which was once dead.

 

Where did you gather that info from my post, Brother Benjamin? I did no infer anything such as what you posted here.

Jeffery Dahmer did what he did based solely on doing what he desired to do. Why did Hitler slaughter millions of Jews? He chose to do it himself. Why did Bin Laden do what he did by blowing so many people up, even his own people? Because he chose to do it himself.

Sin is sin, and there's no way to categorize it. We do it, but God doesn't. One who murdered 10,000,000 is just as deserving of the eternal lake of fire as one who stole one stick of gum. Taking His name in vain is no different that cursing someone out. Sin is sin, and it is of the devil. Adam, being the fountain head in which sin came into the world through the devices of that old serpent, brought sin and death here. Blame Adam if you want to blame someone besides yourself for sinning. I am not saying you're doing this, but everyone thinks we blame God for it, but no...we place the blame right where it needs to be placed, squarely on Adam. We acted according to him, having inherited his fallen nature. If Adam and Eve had not have sinned as they did, there would be no death or sin to this very day.

 

Ah Fletch, why even engage? :laugh:

 

you keep assuming than mankind has free will to do that in an absolute sense of the term free will, but we are now bound/restricy by being able to choose only what is consistent within our sin natures to do!

God chose to save saul of tarsus, and make him into paul the Apsotle, despite the will of Saul adament against jesus as Lord, correct?

 

Repeating your unbiblical view does not make it biblical. Does Matthew 23:13 ring a bell. You say, repeated the Calvinist party line, that our "sin nature" precludes seeking God and trusting in Christ. But scripture says some fallen men, under the influence of their sin nature, were seeking God, i.e. entering heaven. Thus your view is unbiblical.

Calvinism is based on mindless twaddle. First it is claimed God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass. Second, God is not the author of sin. Only a looney tune would profess such cognitive dissonance.

But poster after poster makes the same inane claims.

Lets take the premise everything is predestined, i.e. either directly caused by God or indirectly caused by God. Would, killing a person close up by shooting be any different than killing a person from afar by dropping a bomb on a building where the person was sitting? Nope. Was the man's location predestined? Yes according to Calvinism. Was the bomb drop predestined? Yes according to Calvinism. Was the bomb exploding and killing the man predestined? Yes according to Calvinism, so whether directly or indirectly, if everything is predestined, God is the author of sin. Next we have God, again according the mindless twaddle of Calvinism, punishing us for doing what He predestined we would do.

 

predestination refers to the act/process of him securing salvations toards His chosen in Christ, and God does not dtermine evil and sin, that would be against his nature, but he determines to bring about and accomplish His will thru the use of both his determined direct ways, ansd use of "decision and choices: made by others!

NOTHING has ever happened outside of God knowing of it, and could step to have His will accomplished at any tie, in and thru it!

God does not author sin, nor does he cause the sinner to rape and murder, so its NOT as you seem to ahve, him as puppet master over all of us!

 

You are ignoring the context of Matthew 23:13. Resisting the light takes the form of false doctrine and false profession which makes the one seeking a twofold more child of hell than he was previously.

The only "mindless twaddle" is coming from your keyboard

You should not deal with things above your pay grade because the only results is perversion and distortion. You choose to willfuly disregard that free agency is the author of sin and that God must permit sin or else there can be no alternative to obedience and thus no such thing as free agency. So the only "looney tune" is your own "congnitive dissonance" or ability to mentally grasp things that must be above your capability to comprehend.

Your premise is distorted from the beginning as you fail to discern between permission due to necessity of the very nature of free agency versus God's purpose of delight based upon His nature and ultimate design.

This is a silly illustration as it fails to take into account all the Biblical facts. it fails to consider that the very nature of free agency requires not only permission of sin but responsible consequences for any choice made. If that person due to his own personal choice placed himself in a battle zone or a killing zone then he has none to blame but himself.

 

Your view that God "Sovereignly Determines all Things" (including the "nature of all men") unavoidably logically attributes the sin of men to God. EVERY point of the TULIP (your fatalistic theological system) is dependent on strict determinism.

Note: I referred to logically true conclusions, not senseless double-talk regarding the deterministic factors of your view.

This thread is about free will and predestination, that is what I referred to - the subject of thread. You and others quickly forget/avoid the topic. You can't have "it" both ways. Read my signature:

 

Free responsible agency is the author of sin. Free responsible agency was designed by God that necessarily included permission for the choice of evil otherwise no such power of free agency is possible. Hence, evil was by design in that it necessarily included evil as the only possible alternative to the choice of righteousnesss or else responsible free agency does not exist.

Furthermore, free agency was designed to be responsible for choices and thus again aquitting God of all responsiblity for the choice of evil although God necessary had to permit evil with the creation of free responsible agency.

Hence, our position does not make God the author of sin. Your argument is not based upon all the facts but is based purely upon a biased line of reasoning designed simply for debate.

 

Benjamin

Yes...fatalism is...but no one here believes that...so why this dubious philosophy lesson:laugh::wavey::laugh:

 

There's nothing new under the sun inherent in your signature. The gist of everything stated above has been condensed in the scriptures by Paul:

...Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Ro 9:19

 

God did not determine everything "deterministically". He placed man in the Garden and told him what he could and should not eat. They chose to eat of their own free will. They fell and the fall was a complete flop. We now act according to the fallen nature we inherited from their fall.

 

Folks, did you note the Calvinist denial of there own doctrine.

1) Is everything predestined? No according to the posters, but yes according to Calvinism. God foreknows everything with certainty, and to foreknow with certainty predestines that outcome. So they run from their own doctrine rather than admit to a looney tune view.

2) Do we have the choice to seek God and trust in Christ under total spiritual inability? Nope according to Calvinism, so no opportunity for mercy.

In conclusion, Calvinism teaches God predestines each and every sin we commit, and then punishes us for His predestined sin. Looney-tunes, folks, that's that's all.

 

Folks, did you note that the ARminians are ignorant that the free responsible agency is the author of sin by its very nature as it cannot exist without permission to sin! That God is designer of free responsible agency and permission of sin by necessity of the very nature of free agency must be included in God's sovereign purposes which permit and overule sin for His ultimate glory and good of His people! Van is simply ignorant of elementary abc's and lives in a "looney tune" bubble.

 

No, Van is correct. In your system God can only foreknow what was predestined. If God knows a man will sin, then it is predestined he will sin. He has no choice, it cannot happen any other way, he is not free, and therefore cannot be responsible.

In the Arminian or non Cal view, God simply knows what a man will do. If he sins, God foreknew he would sin. If the man does not sin, God simply foreknew he would not sin. In our view God's foreknowledge does not predestine what choice a man will make, only that God infallibly knows what the man will choose.

 

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Arminians are the objectors to Pauline doctrine and your objection is identical to this objector.

1. Paul just stated that God RAISED UP Pharoah to be used for this very purpose.

2. Paul just stated He will harden whom he will harden.

3. The objector concludes if this is the case then how can God hold accountable Pharoah or anyone else if God's will is sovereign and none can resist doing his will.

Arminianism is grounded and based upon the very same premise of the belief system of the objector in Romans 9.

What is God's response to you and your objections?

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?

 

OK, here is a little trick I learned long ago. When Paul or another apostle quotes Old Testament scripture, it is a good idea to look up that scripture. In Romans 9, Paul is quoting from Jeremiah chapter 18, the "Potter" chapter. Let's take a look at it;

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Is Paul teaching Unconditional Election here? NO, just the opposite, God is saying that if a nation he has spoken evil of repents and turns to him, he will repent of the evil he intended toward them.

Likewise, if God had spoken good of a nation to build it up, if that nation turn from him and sin, he will repent of the good he intended toward them.

So, Paul is not teaching Unconditional Election as Calvinism falsely teaches in Romans 9, he is teaching CONDITIONAL rewards and punishment toward nations who repent and obey him, and those who rebel and turn from him.

Paul is speaking to Jews in Romans 9, and he is explaining why God is rejecting them, and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. And all you have to do is keep reading to see that is obvious.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Now, if you were a REAL student of the word, you would have known this, this is basic. Romans 9 is not teaching the false doctrine of Unconditional Election.

That is what happens when you let others think for you.

 

First, this is not brought in by Paul to answer unconditional election but rather God's right to raise up whom he wills to harden or have mercy upon whom He wills.

Second, your interpretation and application have NO BEARING or relationship or makes any sense as a response to the objection in verse 19.

Third, the previous example is not talking about nations but about INDIVIDUALS as is the application ("Pharoah" "whom" "vessel", etc.).

Fourth, you are correct, your interpretation is "a little trick you learned" to repudiate, twist, pervert God's Word.

Why them does Paul say it is applied to Gentiles in verse 24? hence, you are pervertiing its application again.

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

You are obviously not in that class.

 

Yes, and it shows that God deals with men CONDITIONALLY. He hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharaoh resisted him and hardened his own heart. He was merciful to Moses because Moses had faith and obeyed him.

Wrong, or he would not have mentioned the potter.

False, I just showed you where Paul said "the Gentiles" have attained to righteousness by faith, and "the Jews" have not, because they sought it by works. These are nations.

Well, it's perfectly obvious that YOU do not look up the OT scripture when it is mentioned in the NT. That explains much of your constant error.

The "us" are persons who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. Here you need to read Hebrews 11:8;

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Whenever you see God's "calling" that is speaking of faith, those who obeyed and answered when God called them. Now, not everybody called answers, many are called, but few are chosen (Mat 22:14).

Now if you read vss. 10-13 you will know why God chose Jacob and not Esau. God chose Jacob because in his foreknowledge he saw Jacob would believe. We are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Esau did not believe and sold his birthright.

That birthright affected nations, Jacob became Israel, Esau became Edom (Mal 1:2-4). Israel generally believed God, Edom did not.

Try looking up the OT references and maybe you will start to understand scripture.

 

The objector and objection is aimed at the words "whom he wills". You need to read things better. There is no "because Pharoah" in this passage.

Again, your interpretation and application have absolutely no bearing, no logical application to Romans 9:19 and the nature of the objection.

Yes, conflation of two different contexts to fit your conflating interpretation.

New Testament writers quote OT scripture for various purposes. Sometimes to give inspired interpretation. Sometimes to apply to specific areas.

Here is is used to respond to TWO specific arguments given in verse 18 to respond to the words "WHY DOTH HE YET FIND FAULT" and "For who has resisteth His will." Your application and interpetation does not answer either but Paul's application does. The injustice imagined is in regard to the sovereignty of His will to do what he willeth in regard to hardening whom he wills and having mercy upon whom he wills IN SPITE OF WHAT A PERSON WILLETH OR DOETH "runneth" and the inability of any creature to resist a soveriegn will.