The Free Will of Man?

EricB,

When did we start talking about John 6:70 and saying it proved Gods election unto salvation? Of course John 6:70 doesnt prove election unto salvation. What does Jesus say in this verse. "Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

Who did Jesus choose, his 12 disciples, Jesus chose them. Did Jesus say that He chose them for salvation?. No He said "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?" Jesus choice of Judas was to include him into the Twelve."

But again, as Jesus clearly explains throughout John 6 it is those that v. 37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me..." v. 44 "the Father who sent me draws" v. 65 "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." Jesus says to us those that come to Him are those that God has given, drawn and enabled to do so. Without that as Jesus said in John 5:40 "you refuse to come to me."

I am completely baffled as to why you will not beleive what Jesus clearly says in the Bible, either you dont beleive what Jesus is saying or you are reading a different Bible than I have.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

OK, OK, I knew that was a weak argument. But then what other explanation is there? That we just preach to the "non-elect" not to save, but just to torment them with their unescapable condemnation to help "harden" them, as I have heard. (No scripture says this, but that is a
"deduction" drawn by at least some Calvinists to explain these seeming holes in the theory.) Wow! that's God's "good news" for the world--the entire purpose of life. Those non-elect dogs are just here for us special elect class to step on. Don't question, this, just enjoy and praise God you're the elect. (But wait, don't get too happy too soon, because with the point of Preservation of the saints, the way it is actually in practice described by top Calvinist theologians, is you have to persevere to prove yourself elect, whether you "professed" in the past or not. If you don't persevere in the end, what do you do then?)
So my main point is that even though you may have passages like this that seem to prove your point, it still creates more problems with the revealed character of God and purpose of man than it solves. Once again, we have to take scriptures as a whole, not grab dozens of isolated passages and say "see, I don't know how you people can deny this" when what you're proposing contradicts the message of the rest of the scripture. (Every cult does the same thing, and so do the Muslims even--see "America Fights Back" board) This shows as I have said that we have crossed a bound regarding God's realm where all of this stuff fits together. We try to teach this stuff first, then say it is above us to silence everyone.

 

Thanks for the comments on John 5:40. My hope has been realized.

So this verse and all the others are written to the non-elect, correct? and if these people die before trusting Christ, we KNOW they are of the non-elect, correct? I can agree with that. and if Christ preaches the word to those who are later proven to be of the non-elect, then as some say or imply, their heart is hardened to the Gospel, correct? So far I have no problem.

But Jesus in verse 40 (focusing on this verse in question) is not preaching the Gospel. He is stating a fact concerning their response to his Gospel message. OK, he's talking a lot to those rejecting him. Does the fact that he says "ye will not come to me..." spiritually benefit the hearers? No? Then I ask again, why DID he say it? It's the rejection of the Gospel that hardens, not other statements such as verse 40.
He said this so all would know the responsibility sovereignly given by God to man to say YES to the Gospel message. Given because he:
Convicts all (John 16:8)
Draws all (John 12:32)
Enlightens all (John 1:9)

Then I'm now curious as to how Calvinist interpret Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

The verse shows God's will and man's will. But I thought God has total sovereignty and man's freedom is limited as the original quote said. Is there a chink in the Calvinist armor? Naah! Couldn't be!!

Matthew 22:3 "And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding:AND THEY WOULD NOT COME"

How many were bidden. Did he pick and choose based on sovereign decree? The Jews originally were the chosen people but they didn't come. Later in Matthew's account, they invited as many as they could find. In Luke's account (Luke 14:23) people were compelled or urged or insisted upon to come in. Why????
Did God have a problem with his heavenly invitation system? Or did not and does not man exercise self-will sovereignly given by God as part of His plan?

Therefore, further light is given to John 5:40

 

true liberty,

Let me try and answer all that you replied with, You said:

"So this verse and all the others are written to the non-elect, correct? and if these people die before trusting Christ, we KNOW they are of the non-elect, correct? I can agree with that. and if Christ preaches the word to those who are later proven to be of the non-elect, then as some say or imply, their heart is hardened to the Gospel, correct? So far I have no problem."
I would just add that the unregenerate are not merely hardened because of their shoice to reject the gospel, but that their rejection shows and proves theire being hardened. For in Rom 9:18 it says, "Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills and whom He wills He hardens."

You go on to say:
"But Jesus in verse 40 (focusing on this verse in question) is not preaching the Gospel."

In the conversation that Jesus is having with those people He is in fact speaking of the gospel. He says in v.39-40 He is saying that instead of coming to Him to have eternal life (gospel) they are seeking it in the Scriputres their own way (works). The fact in v.40 that Jesus gives life is very much Gospel.

"He is stating a fact concerning their response to his Gospel message. OK, he's talking a lot to those rejecting him. Does the fact that he says "ye will not come to me..." spiritually benefit the hearers? No? Then I ask again, why DID he say it? It's the rejection of the Gospel that hardens, not other statements such as verse 40.
He said this so all would know the responsibility sovereignly given by God to man to say YES to the Gospel message. Given because he:
Convicts all (John 16:8)
Draws all (John 12:32)
Enlightens all (John 1:9)"

You are right and Calvinists would agree that God does hold man responible for his chossing or rejecting Christ. BUT, Who does Jesus say will be the only people that in fact choose God? In John 6 its is only those whom God gives will come to Jesus as He says in 6:37.
In view of John 6 and many other scriptures you are using the following three verses to support something that isnt in them, that humans are given the ability to choose or reject Christ in and of themselves(i think that is your position).
John 16:8= Jesus does convict the world of sin and how they are inexcusably guilty.
John 12:32= This cant mean tht all men without excpetion will be drawn to Christ in a saving way or up to a point where they are then given the choice. As Romans 3 shows that men are not seeking after God and as Jesus again shows in John 6 it is in fact only those whom God draws to Him (6:44).
So we must assume here that instead of Jesus univerally drawing every man indiscriminatly, instead keeping in line with the rest of scripture He draws all men: Jew, Greeks, barbarians, all those whom God has granted (6:65). Gods saving act is ot limited to anyone people.

John 1:9= Jesus does bring light to every man but is that effectual? does every man get saved? no, weve already seen that i hope. What it is referring here is to what is called common grace.

"Then I'm now curious as to how Calvinist interpret Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

The verse shows God's will and man's will. But I thought God has total sovereignty and man's freedom is limited as the original quote said. Is there a chink in the Calvinist armor? Naah! Couldn't be!!"

Were is the chink? These verses support the fact that unless it is God that draws, grants, enables (John 6) That men will not choose to come (as is shown in Matt 23: 37 and Matt 22:3)ever never, never.

There is God's sovereignty and mans responisiblity. But if God doesnt divert the bed of a sinners heart (to keep with the gardening metaphor) towards Christ that sinner will NEVER choose Christ. It is only when God diverts(elects) the sinner will that sinner be than able to freely choose Christ. This is the wedding of sovereignty and will. To think that man can ever enable himself to choose Christ is to take a higher view of man's state than Scripture does. What does Paul tell of the human condition in Romand ch. 3? none righteous, understanding, none seeking, all turned aside, man is unprofitable.

You finish by stating,
" Matthew 22:3 "And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding:AND THEY WOULD NOT COME"

How many were bidden. Did he pick and choose based on sovereign decree? The Jews originally were the chosen people but they didn't come. Later in Matthew's account, they invited as many as they could find. In Luke's account (Luke 14:23) people were compelled or urged or insisted upon to come in. Why????
Did God have a problem with his heavenly invitation system? Or did not and does not man exercise self-will sovereignly given by God as part of His plan?"

Did not and does not man exercise self-will?
the only outcome of that is as Jesus shows and in all of your scripture refernces above is that man will refuse to come to Christ.
Only after as in John 6 God enables is man able to choose Christ.

And the passage you state proves this rather well:

Matt 22:1-14
v. 1-10= conitnues the theme of the previous chatper that the heirs to the kingdom has rejected it, and the kingdom has been offered to others. Gods servants have the task of offering the gospel to everyone (v. 9)
v. 11-14= shows that receiving an invitation to Gods kingdom does not guarantee inclusion, one must be properly clothed. Only those who are clothed in Christs righteousnoess are presentable to the King.
v. 14= only those that are CHOSEN will be present at the marriage supper.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Were is the chink? These verses support the fact that unless it is God that draws, grants, enables (John 6) That men will not choose to come (as is shown in Matt 23:37 and Matt 22:3)ever never, never. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. It looks like He really wanted them to come to Him, and is sorrowful they didn't. This seems to be one of the biggest proofs He (God) didn't "decree" them to reject Him. Otherwise God must have some sort of split personality. I think that's much worse than the charge that "they had power over Him if He wanted them to come and they didn't"