The single significant difference among those who are believers is the matter of freedom of the will when it comes to the consideration of salvation.
Often some state that the unsaved must exercise a freedom of choice and such select Scripture were offers of choice were made, and therefore claiming that God would be unjust to offer a choice and then withhold some elemental level of ability to reject or accept that offer.
Others state that the unsaved have no such freedom of choice but are chosen first by God to be saved and given such as is necessary that the will of God in the choice be accomplished.
This thread seeks to have those who cling to one side or the other offer such Scriptures of support so that the other side will contend with their own Scriptures of refutation.
To help in focusing what the poster's might present, perhaps there are three positions on this matter.
However, there are agreed upon items that do not need presented, they are already agreed parameters. If you dispute one of these three parameters, then you need to explain why.
First, it is understood that all humankind have the ability to make choices. Even the most wicked person can select what to that person seems as the best choice. However, the capacity to carry through or to acquire/achieve the choice is questionable. It is based upon many factors such as education, intellect, opportunity, skill, health, ... the list could continue for a lengthy period.
Second, it is understood that all humankind have the Decalogue written upon their hearts. That means that from Adam all humankind knew right from wrong and had some concept of a higher authority. Such is seen in every culture of the world despite the Scriptures. All peoples have some form of worship, some form of governing statues, some form of what the individuals aspire and are held accountable, and what punishments are inflicted if such is violated.
Third, it is understood that not a single human or society of itself have such sufficient attainment that Christ was not needed. That is the keeping of laws (even the Law of God) never resulted in salvation nor the offer of salvation. No matter the hope, the work, the level of dedication, there was never a paring of salvation to whatever that social grouping considered acceptable. The law is a schooling but is insufficient to graduate to Christian.
The Scriptures state, both in Galatians (6) and Romans (3) that no flesh can be justified by the law. However, the Law makes that person aware of sin - NOT CHRIST - that is the need for what the Law cannot attain, the Christ. Christ stands "apart" (separate, outside the parameters or influence) from the Law.
Three Positions: Take ONE and give Scriptures for that which you "choose" to support:
When it comes to those who support the "Freedom of the Will" there then must be a bridge, a reconciliation that is first offered to either lift the unbelieving into the ability to express "outside the parameters, separate, apart" that a choice be made. For convenience to the thread, I have separated the thinking of this grouping into two subgroups: One holds that the unbelieving are not innately born with such an ability but lifted up into that ability. The other holds that such is already an acquired skill as part of the innate human ability given to each person.
1) The change of inability to ability to choose righteousness is generally considered as that offered to individuals along with the reconciliation. This ability is couched in terms such as "prevenient" or "preceding grace." Although no such ability is ever named or described in the Scriptures, it is a human construction that is required by those who hold to "Freedom of the Will" as a hallmark of human expression and yet know that the Scriptures teach that the human has no such innate ability or freedom within themselves.
2) Again, there are those who hold that such ability is simply innate and part of the human condition in which God as being a fair player in the drama of life automatically bestows upon all people at birth. They play with the "fairness" of God not to allow any to be born with no chance at eternal life. That part of the core character of God is "fairness."
3) On the other side of the issue of "Freedom of the Will" are those who consider both of the above (the prevenient/preceding grace and the innate ability) as not valid according to Scriptures. They fundamentally hold that God selects those in whom He appoints to salvation. That He authors salvation and finishes salvation according to His good pleasure and for His own purpose.
These folks generally consider that humankind are held in bondage to the old will. That such can only choose within what is offered and determined as either good or bad within the boundaries of the old will. That the old will has no comprehension of nor determination to perceive that which is beyond good - righteousness. It is enough that they may at best be sufficiently conditioned to even grasp that the Law is insufficient. (Example: the rich young ruler and Nicodemus both knew the Law was inefficient to gain eternal life.
This group is further separated into a group that holds that salvation brings a new will - not that the old is remade, modified, supplanted or destroyed, but that the old will be found unworthy and adversarial and must be repressed (killed off, dead) each day (more often in practical experience each moment of the day).
To which do you subscribe and what Scriptures do you use to support your view?
Often some state that the unsaved must exercise a freedom of choice and such select Scripture were offers of choice were made, and therefore claiming that God would be unjust to offer a choice and then withhold some elemental level of ability to reject or accept that offer.
Others state that the unsaved have no such freedom of choice but are chosen first by God to be saved and given such as is necessary that the will of God in the choice be accomplished.
This thread seeks to have those who cling to one side or the other offer such Scriptures of support so that the other side will contend with their own Scriptures of refutation.
To help in focusing what the poster's might present, perhaps there are three positions on this matter.
However, there are agreed upon items that do not need presented, they are already agreed parameters. If you dispute one of these three parameters, then you need to explain why.
First, it is understood that all humankind have the ability to make choices. Even the most wicked person can select what to that person seems as the best choice. However, the capacity to carry through or to acquire/achieve the choice is questionable. It is based upon many factors such as education, intellect, opportunity, skill, health, ... the list could continue for a lengthy period.
Second, it is understood that all humankind have the Decalogue written upon their hearts. That means that from Adam all humankind knew right from wrong and had some concept of a higher authority. Such is seen in every culture of the world despite the Scriptures. All peoples have some form of worship, some form of governing statues, some form of what the individuals aspire and are held accountable, and what punishments are inflicted if such is violated.
Third, it is understood that not a single human or society of itself have such sufficient attainment that Christ was not needed. That is the keeping of laws (even the Law of God) never resulted in salvation nor the offer of salvation. No matter the hope, the work, the level of dedication, there was never a paring of salvation to whatever that social grouping considered acceptable. The law is a schooling but is insufficient to graduate to Christian.
The Scriptures state, both in Galatians (6) and Romans (3) that no flesh can be justified by the law. However, the Law makes that person aware of sin - NOT CHRIST - that is the need for what the Law cannot attain, the Christ. Christ stands "apart" (separate, outside the parameters or influence) from the Law.
Three Positions: Take ONE and give Scriptures for that which you "choose" to support:
When it comes to those who support the "Freedom of the Will" there then must be a bridge, a reconciliation that is first offered to either lift the unbelieving into the ability to express "outside the parameters, separate, apart" that a choice be made. For convenience to the thread, I have separated the thinking of this grouping into two subgroups: One holds that the unbelieving are not innately born with such an ability but lifted up into that ability. The other holds that such is already an acquired skill as part of the innate human ability given to each person.
1) The change of inability to ability to choose righteousness is generally considered as that offered to individuals along with the reconciliation. This ability is couched in terms such as "prevenient" or "preceding grace." Although no such ability is ever named or described in the Scriptures, it is a human construction that is required by those who hold to "Freedom of the Will" as a hallmark of human expression and yet know that the Scriptures teach that the human has no such innate ability or freedom within themselves.
2) Again, there are those who hold that such ability is simply innate and part of the human condition in which God as being a fair player in the drama of life automatically bestows upon all people at birth. They play with the "fairness" of God not to allow any to be born with no chance at eternal life. That part of the core character of God is "fairness."
3) On the other side of the issue of "Freedom of the Will" are those who consider both of the above (the prevenient/preceding grace and the innate ability) as not valid according to Scriptures. They fundamentally hold that God selects those in whom He appoints to salvation. That He authors salvation and finishes salvation according to His good pleasure and for His own purpose.
These folks generally consider that humankind are held in bondage to the old will. That such can only choose within what is offered and determined as either good or bad within the boundaries of the old will. That the old will has no comprehension of nor determination to perceive that which is beyond good - righteousness. It is enough that they may at best be sufficiently conditioned to even grasp that the Law is insufficient. (Example: the rich young ruler and Nicodemus both knew the Law was inefficient to gain eternal life.
This group is further separated into a group that holds that salvation brings a new will - not that the old is remade, modified, supplanted or destroyed, but that the old will be found unworthy and adversarial and must be repressed (killed off, dead) each day (more often in practical experience each moment of the day).
To which do you subscribe and what Scriptures do you use to support your view?
