A case for Free Will through self-imposed limitations of the Sovereignty of God

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
God cannot act contract contrary to His nature. Limiting His Sovereignty in any circumstances would be contrary to His nature.

Explain why Jesus said that even He did not know the time of His return, but only the Father. This sounds like Jesus (fully God) did indeed limit His sovereignty while on earth. This was done in full accordance with God's will, meaning it could not be contrary to His nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul tells us in Colossians 2:8-10

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

If all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus Christ then all the Sovereignty did also. He proved that on a number of occasions. I believe that when Jesus said that He did not know the time of His return he was speaking in His human nature just as when He said from the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
God cannot act contract contrary to His nature. Limiting His Sovereignty in any circumstances would be contrary to His nature.

Explain why Jesus said that even He did not know the time of His return, but only the Father. This sounds like Jesus (fully God) did indeed limit His sovereignty while on earth. This was done in full accordance with God's will, meaning it could not be contrary to His nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

"God's will" over the earth was given to "MAN".

Mt 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

And only when Jesus returns will "THY WILL" be done on earth.

If God was "sovereign" over the earth, then God will be responsible for all the "EVIL" in the world.

 

[Aaron]

Free will is a myth. The carnal mind is at enmity with God. It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. It is a prisoner of sin.

Now, knowing that, your pastor is saying that God leaves it up to your carnal mind to say yes or no? When David was deposed, did he wait patiently until Absalom granted him permission to retake the throne? Of course not, and if God was waiting for our carnal minds to grant Him the thrones of our lives, no one would be saved.

I'd recommend two books. The Holy War by John Bunyan, and The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther.

 

[Benjamin]

I believe that when Jesus said that He did not know the time of His return he was speaking in His human nature just as when He said from the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So then God can separate His nature as in the Trinity why can’t He separate His knowledge?

I think when Jesus said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” He was always teaching even from the cross and calling our attention to the fact that He was fulfilling prophesy in Psalms 22, so He did know this.

 

[HankD]

I believe that when Jesus said that He did not know the time of His return he was speaking in His human nature just as when he said from the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So how do you know that He was speaking from His human nature and how do we know when He is speaking from His divine nature and when He is speaking from His human nature and whether we should believe Him or not.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Seems quite emphatic and authoritative to me, especially with the upper case "S" for "Son", should we believe Him or not?

HankD

 

[exscentric]

Heard a calvinist preacher (ex siminary prof.) proving that we don't have free will. Now, I am going to state this once and only once and it will settle for all time that man DOES NOT HAVE A FREE WILL!

Ruff quote: He said one day he was on a hill, looking at the next hill through binoculars at a buck. Now, he knew he couldn't hit the buck from where he was, but he was wishing he could run 60 miles per hour so he could run over to the next hill before the buck could move, that way he could kill the buck.

Now, we all know that no matter how much I willed to run 60 miles per hour, I cannot, thus we do not have free will. I can't just decide to run 60 miles per hour.

Now you have it, topic clarified and might as well be closed.

 

[Helen]

Free will is not what you can do but what you can want. He wanted to run sixty miles an hour and catch the buck. The fact that he could not do it had nothing to do with the fact that that was what he freely wanted.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Free will is a myth. The carnal mind is at enmity with God. It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. It is a prisoner of sin.

Now, knowing that, your pastor is saying that God leaves it up to your carnal mind to say yes or no? When David was deposed, did he wait patiently until Absalom granted him permission to retake the throne? Of course not, and if God was waiting for our carnal minds to grant Him the thrones of our lives, no one would be saved.

God knows everything within the realm of truth and circumstances, He also knows the heart and has the ability to change those circumstances. Is the truth, which is God’s Spiritual perfect nature, so then does God always knows the circumstances beforehand or that within the truth of the current circumstances what will happen?

 

[HankD]

Now you have it, topic clarified and might as well be closed.

Not so, because "with God all things are possible".

Besides your analogy has a basic flaw.

The man wanted the buck. The lost don't want God apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

In actuality I don't think anyone one is really arguing that mankind is not in the bondage of the will but we are debating as to when in the scenario of conviction through justification that the Spirit of God frees the will and gives the power of choice to individuals.

I see Helen "beat me to the punch" again.

I might add that I do believe the Scripture teaches that EVERY man (anthropos) has enlightenment concerning their need of salvation because of the reproval of the Holy Spirit for sin and unbelief.

HankD

 

[Helen]

The lost don't want God apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

That is not what the Bible says, Hank...

To Benjamin: yes

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by HankD:
I heard this little illustration first from a Calvinistic missionary (yes, they exist).

Above the door of salvation is "whosoever will may come".

When we walk through the door and look back it says "Chosen from the foundation of the world".

HankD

By "FOREKNOWLEDGE" of who would/wouldn't "CHOSE" salvation, God wrote their names in the "Lamb's Book of life", before the foundation of the world,

but "Foreknowledge" of the "CHOICE", is not "predestinating" the "CHOICE".

 

[HankD]

That is not what the Bible says, Hank...

I know that's what you believe Helen but I'm not convinced (yet).

HankD

 

[HankD]

Actually, I'm getting the inevitable headache I am afflicted with when I delve too deeply into this matter.

I'm going to take two asprin and I'll be back in the morning (maybe).

Let me also add Helen, that fear is the one of the motives if not the prime motive for mankind not seeking God.
Adam and Eve being the archtypical "sinner".


HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Benjamin:

I think when Jesus said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” He was always teaching even from the cross and calling our attention to the fact that He was fulfilling prophesy in Psalms 22, so He did know this.

I have heard this explanation from a retired pastor for whom I have great respect. It is certainly a worthy explanation and may well be the best one. However, Jesus Christ, even in His human nature, was well aware of Scripture.

Furthermore, this does not alter the fact that in Jesus Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead and that includes the Sovereignty. God the Son of necessity laid aside His Glory in the incarnation since man cannot look upon the Glory of God and live.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I believe that when Jesus said that He did not know the time of His return he was speaking in His human nature just as when he said from the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So how do you know that He was speaking from His human nature and how do we know when He is speaking from His divine nature and when He is speaking from His human nature and whether we should believe Him or not.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Seems quite emphatic and authoritative to me, especially with the upper case "S" for "Son", should we believe Him or not?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Believe Him!

If there is one God with one nature in three persons, which is the doctrine of the Trinity, there cannot be division within the Godhead. There would division be if God the Father knew something that God the Son or God the Holy Spirit did not know.

 

[HankD]

There would division be if God the Father knew something that God the Son or God the Holy Spirit did not know.

Why would there be a division just because the Son of God willingly denied Himself the knowledge of His return?

The Father is not the Son and therefore does not know by experience what it is to be a human being. Does that mean there is a division in the Godhead because the Son knows something the Father doesn't?

HankD

 

[bjonson]

I have a question for those who are involved in this discussion. Have you ever read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther?

I ask this because this whole argument was covered rather masterfully by him nearly 500 years ago and he expounded the scriptures fully as he resisted the errant teaching of the Roman Church.

Luther's writings are not inspired; so please don't think I am stating that. However, this topic was pretty much settled by this masterpiece and there is not much else to say if you've read this work.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by bjonson:
I have a question for those who are involved in this discussion. Have you ever read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther?

I ask this because this whole argument was covered rather masterfully by him nearly 500 years ago and he expounded the scriptures fully as he resisted the errant teaching of the Roman Church.

Luther's writings are not inspired; so please don't think I am stating that. However, this topic was pretty much settled by this masterpiece and there is not much else to say if you've read this work.

I have to laugh at people who make statements like this. I mean who forgot to tell the rest of or majority of people that this was all settled 500 years ago!!! I don't think so BJ.

And oh yeah, the "this is RC" teaching is getting old. RC believe Jesus was the son of God. Should we abandon this teaching also, cause they got it right you know!

 

[Acumenical]

I'm guessing that bjonson's point is that not much that is new can be added to the free will debate at this late date, which is something with which I agree. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the debate should end, only that no new ideas on the subject are likely to surface.

 

[canadyjd]

All analogies fall short at some point. That said, I will offer one I heard in seminary as well, concerning the "free-will" debate.

A vulture looses it's ability to fly and lands in a corn field, surrounded by a fence. The field is full of corn, if only the vulture will eat it. But the vulture will not eat it, because it goes against his nature to eat corn. The vulture will starve to death in the middle of the food, because by his nature he is unable to eat corn and live.

God changes the vulture into a crow. The crow readily responds by eating the corn, since his nature has been changed.

Unbelievers are unable to repent, turn to Christ in faith, or to believe unto life unless God first changes them. God changes them according to the kind intention of His will, not ours. That is grace. That is unmerited favor.

They do make a "choice" for Christ. No one is forcing them to do it. They really do repent and believe. They were completely unable before God transformed them, however. That is the biblical record.

And those whom God has transformed will make that "choice" 100% of the time, because God has changed them, and drawn them by His Spirit and they willingly and gladly respond in faith.

Salvation occurs when we respond to what God has done in our lives.

Salvation is not God responding to something we have done in our lives.

One has it's focus on God. One has it's focus on man.

I thank God that He did not leave it up to me, but intervened, and transformed me into a heaven-bound believer.

peace to you