Does choosing Christ please God?

[Blammo]

Where does scripture put belief before regeneration? And how can you be willing to believe if believing is not an act of the will? To be willing to listen, be willing to consider, be willing to believe means you haven't decided anything yet. You're only willing to consider something, after which you'll make a decision. What do you decide to do? Believe - that's what you're considering, right? That brings us right back to believing being an act of the will, which even you admit is incorrect.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the change resulted in this?

- Be inclined to listen
- Be inclined to consider
- Be inclined to believe

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Again, I don't believe you can decide to believe, but I do believe you can decide to listen, consider, and be open to believing.

 

[AresMan]

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Again, I don't believe you can decide to believe, but I do believe you can decide to listen, consider, and be open to believing.

You do realize that the "might" in this verse does not at all mean "maybe or maybe not." I am not sure whether or not you were intending to presume that or not. The phrases "ye might believe" and "ye might have" are one Greek word respectively. They are cause-effect statements.

 

[npetreley]

Again, I don't believe you can decide to believe, but I do believe you can decide to listen, consider, and be open to believing.

I don't agree that your scripture supports that at all, but let's go with it.

That's the decision you make of your own free will? You decide to listen, consider, and be willing to believe? Is that the difference between the saved and the unsaved?

If not, then at what point do they differ, according to free-willerism?

Just so we're on the same page:

1. The saved decide of their own free will to listen, consider, and be willing to believe, which is what leads to accepting salvation.

2. The unsaved decide of their own free will not to listen, consider or be willing to believe, which is what leads to rejecting salvation.

Right? That's what you're saying? Think carefully because the first part doesn't really make much sense. You haven't believed yet. You've just decided of your own free will that you'll consider believing. Isn't it possible that you'll listen, consider, be willing to believe, and still say no? If that's the case, then we're back to square one.

I find it funny that free-willers insist free-will is true, but they have no idea where the free-will decision takes place. So far I've seen answers like:

A. "They decide because they can."
B. "The reason one decides 'yes' is because they made the decision."
C. "They decide to consider." (That's really nailing it down, eh?)

But I still don't see anyone explaining what decision it is that separates the saved from the unsaved, and why one person chooses right, and another chooses wrong.

 

[Timtoolman]

Not biblical

"This is a logical contradiction. If God requires response X, and He has made you entirely responsible for responding, then you deserve credit for responding correctly vs. the people who do not respond correctly. "

Actually if one would take the time to think logically and biblically one would see that the above statement is neither!
If God provided the salvation (which He has) and the means to believe, the HS and preaching of the gospel, nature etc, then believing has no credit in salvation. If I choose to get in a corvette and ride in it do I deserve credit for making that car? I choose it, I am riding in it? If I choose salvation because God has provided (already there, done, built, finished) it, and also even gave me the means to understand the truth then how or what do I have to glory in?!!!

Folks this is the type of irrational thinking, I believe, that really keeps folks from calvinism. They are their own worst enemy alot of times. Not all, I have a 5 pter pastore who lives across the street from me.Most honest calvinist I have ever met. Understands there are contrdictions in calvinism and hare to explain verses against calvinism (as there is in other beliefs) but believes he is taking the best path to understanding the bible. There are some good ones out there...:thumbsup:

 

[Timtoolman]

Refusal of the Bible answer!

"But I still don't see anyone explaining what decision it is that separates the saved from the unsaved, and why one person chooses right, and another chooses wrong."


Here is another one that just fatly refuses to take the Bible for what it says. Instead jumping up and down pounting cause you won't give the answer they want.

The Bible clearely illustrates why some reject the Christ. Pride, Riches, not wanting to give up worldly living etc. Smacking them straight in the face yet the deny, deny, deny, God's word!

 

[AresMan]

"But I still don't see anyone explaining what decision it is that separates the saved from the unsaved, and why one person chooses right, and another chooses wrong."


Here is another one that just fatly refuses to take the Bible for what it says. Instead jumping up and down pounting cause you won't give the answer they want.

The Bible clearely illustrates why some reject the Christ. Pride, Riches, not wanting to give up worldly living etc. Smacking them straight in the face yet the deny, deny, deny, God's word!

Who here has denied that these are (some of) the reasons why people reject Christ? No one here is denying this.

The question being asked is why do some believe the Gospel? What makes the difference?

Come on. This is a very simple question.

 

[npetreley]

Who here has denied that these are (some of) the reasons why people reject Christ? No one here is denying this.

The question being asked is why do some believe the Gospel? What makes the difference?

Come on. This is a very simple question.

I'm so glad you're here. It IS a very simple question, and I'm really glad to see someone say it besides me.

:applause:

 

[AresMan]

I'm so glad you're here. It IS a very simple question, and I'm really glad to see someone say it besides me.

:applause:

The question, of course, is simple. The answer, however, may not necessarily be easy.

 

[npetreley]

The question, of course, is simple. The answer, however, may not necessarily be easy.

Obviously not, considering the lack of credible answers offered so far.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

This is a logical contradiction. If God requires response X, and He has made you entirely responsible for responding, then you deserve credit for responding correctly vs. the people who do not respond correctly.

If the difference between the saved and the unsaved hinges on a person's response, then those who gave the correct response deserve credit for doing so.

Don't get off on the obvious non-sequitur. I'm not saying TOTAL credit for saving themselves, I'm saying credit for responding. You can't have it any other way. If man makes the difference, man deserves the credit for making the difference.

Not according to scripture. John 1:12,13 says He who has the power to give it gets the credit. Does the shovel get credit for digging the hole?

 

[npetreley]

Not according to scripture. John 1:12,13 says He who has the power to give it gets the credit. Does the shovel get credit for digging the hole?

Shovels don't claim the reason there's a hole is because they decided (of their own free will) to accept the job of being used to dig the hole.

 

[Allan]

Part 1

Scripture is pretty clear that we weren't AIDED by grace, we were SAVED by it. And faith doesn't come from us, it comes from God. Thus, we can't claim this response as our intiative, because he put it in us. God called, God responded. We are saved.

Sorry to keep you waiting, I have alot going on and the BB is not my priority.

First: I would like to welcome you, WaltRiceJr to the BB. Glad to see you jump right in.

Second: Your assumption that faith comes from God has never been a proven matter established in Christisondon nor even among Calvinists. I know it is a VEIW among them but not all Calvinists held to it. John Calvin is one who didn't hold to it and is evedenced in His commentaires on Eph 2:8-9:

8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.


9. Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of grace, he now affirms, that “it is the gift of God.” what he had said, “Not of yourselves,” he now says, “Not of works.” Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases, — not of yourselves, — it is the gift of God, — not of works, — he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone, — is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, — and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.

This passage affords an easy refutation of the idle cavil by which Papists attempt to evade the argument, that we are justified without works. Paul, they tell us, is speaking about ceremonies. But the present question is not confined to one class of works. Nothing can be more clear than this. The whole righteousness of man, which consists in works, — nay, the whole man, and everything that he can call his own, is set aside. We must attend to the contrast between God and man, — between grace and works. Why should God be contrasted with man, if the controversy related to nothing more than ceremonies?

Papists themselves are compelled to own that Paul ascribes to the grace of God the whole glory of our salvation, but endeavor to do away with this admission by another contrivance. This mode of expression, they tell us, is employed, because God bestows the first grace. It is really foolish to imagine that they can succeed in this way, since Paul excludes man and his utmost ability, — not only from the commencement, but throughout, — from the whole work of obtaining salvation.

But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s inference, lest any man should boast. Some room must always remain for man’s boasting, so long as, independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

Calvin himself never held this view that faith is of or came from God, and even considered that faith originates in man as the most biblical.
Another is Bloomfield:

124124 “ Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν . It has been not a little debated, among both ancient and modern commentators, to what noun τοῦτο should be referred. Some say, to πίστωες ; others, to χάριτι ; though on the sense of πίστις they differ in their views. The reference seems, however, to be neither to the one nor to the other, but to the subject of the foregoing clause, salvation by grace, through faith in Christ and his gospel; a view, I find, adopted by Dr. Chandler, Dean Tucker, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. A. Clarke. And to show that this interpretation is not a mere novelty, I need only refer the reader to Theophylact, who thus explains: Οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθὴναι τοῦτο δῶρόν ἐστι Θεοῦ . ‘He does not say that faith is the gift of God; but to be saved by faith, this is the gift of God.’ Such also is the view adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret.” — Bloomfield.

There are others who ackowledge this such as Robertson, Greisler (sp?), and others as well, not to mention many who are not Calvinistic.

I am not quoting Calvin because assume anyone is a follower of Calvin but to show this was not an original aspect of Calvinistic thought.

A really good paper on the biblical fact that faith is not a gift can be found here in which the authur goes through the greek establishes that faith is not a gift of God but salvation is (he uses some Calvinistic authors to set forth their view of this on both sides of the "gift of faith" issue:http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/J12-94c.htm#_ftnref30

We indeed now are alive and respond in relationship to the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit, but we were DEAD in transgressions and sins.

Indeed. Alive in Christ which is due our salvation as says the scriptures, but not before.

Dead people can't change their situations, no matter what they do.

Your view of dead is where you go astray. Scripture states that the believer also is "dead" and that being "dead to sin".

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

And yet being 'dead' TO sin we can still choose to sin when if fact we should in no way be able to since we are dead to it, so no choice should be possible. Unless of course the term "dead" in the spiritual sense is metaphorical and not wooden literal.

So what happened? While we were dead, God made us alive in Christ. Now we can respond, but by this point, we're already saved! Or does God put people he made alive (thus able to respond with faith) back to death again?

Again, scripture not once says while we were dead God made us alive in Christ and now we can respond. If one is "already saved" my friend, what is the point of faith? It is meaningless and of no import. But the scripture DOES state 'Believe AND BE saved' thus making faith an important aspect concerning our salvaiton. It does not stated believe cause you are already saved. Actaully scripture nevers states your version in any form. A person must believe that they may be saved.
As to your last question, you are right and therefore you have a problem within the construct of your theological system.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Note: He that hears and beleives has eternal life. They are passed from death to life. Not they are pass from life (enabled to believe) to eternal life as if there is some distinction between the two, for there is not. And as you rightly did surmise however, once one is alive one is saved, but that salvation comes and life comes only after believing.

You can not prove (nor has it ever been proved) regeneration before salvation. If it would have been proved it would be among the immutable truths of which all bible believing brethren recognize and affirm. However, both times the word regeneration is used in scripture we find it is not corresponding to us before salvation but actaully one is after it (Mat19:28) and the other is at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5). You must postulate and bring in presupposition to differing texts in order to attain this understanding when if fact scripture speaks to the contrary. That 'alive' refers to salvation and not some enabling before it.

 

[Allan]

Part 2

The question comes down to whether or not God's initiation with grace, as you call it, is EFFECTIVE, or whether it can fail. Can God be rebuffed? Can he call, "GET UP," to the dead man and he not respond, or chose to stay dead?

This is something that is based on a logical system of thought when have regeneration before salvation and faith being a gift. If these be true then by virture of their arguments one must have second special "call" (since the gospel call must go out to all men) to a special group otherwise they could not be saved. But when we look at scripture we find these first two arguements are indeed not scriptually substantiated thereby making the special "effective" call (or the call in which God imparts these attrbutes) of no merit.

Another question then, is what constitutes effective belief? How firmly must one believe?

Scripture says faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, not faith the size of a mustard tree.
or as man pleading for the healing of his daughter said "Lord I beleive, but help thou mine unbelief".

What points of orthodoxy must be included and understood? Can a scripturally defective faith still save? How defective can it be and still be effective?

In what sense is faith in the truths that God reveals "defective" faith? If you are refering to the fact that some believed in vain we need to look at those scriptures in context. But even if it were possible, you now have the issue of man believing God unsavingly and in a manner which shows man seeking God but God fleeing from Him (not making his faith -effective).

Back to the topic, if faith is a requirement of obedience, it must PLEASE GOD because it is (1) perfect by our own doing, (2) perfect through the blood of Christ, or (3) not our faith at all, but God's gift. It obviously cannot be number 1 because that is beyond our sinful capacity. Number 2 is how God sees our "good works," but in the case of "saving faith" would show that we are already saved and faith has nothing to do with it. Number 3 reflects Scripture's declaration in Ephesians 2:8-9. The faith that pleases God is the faith that he gives to his children. The heart that pleases God is the heart that he puts within us (using OT language).

Actually the topic is "Does choosing Christ please God" - and the answer is yes. The scripture says "it is better to obey than to sacrifice" and we are commanded to choose life/Christ.
Another thing is your flawed perception of avaiable options. Faith is not a work therefore it can not be considered as something we have done (as in works)

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

or the NASB

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

This is the only thing a man can give to God - That he believe (what God says and has done already on your behalf.) Not as if to make an exchange for salvation (works) but that he believe/accept that what God says, God has actually done on his behalf.

We are made perfect through our faith, and perfected by the blood of Christ Jesus by the grace of God made avaiable to all men.

How proud must we be to claim that the faith God clearly says is a gift is in fact our own response to his grace? God says, "here, I'll do this for you," and like a naive child, we say, "no, I want to do it." Unless we relent, we lose

Again scripture does not clearly say faith is a gift of God and even other reformers have held this same view.
It is shame you try to turn this into trashing here.
The biblical truth as shown above is that God says "Here I'll do this for you", and the man with whom God is dealing says "I place my faith in You that will keep your word and give the gift of salvation". I agree that unless we relent, we lose.

 

[Allan]

This is a logical contradiction. If God requires response X, and He has made you entirely responsible for responding, then you deserve credit for responding correctly vs. the people who do not respond correctly.

If the difference between the saved and the unsaved hinges on a person's response, then those who gave the correct response deserve credit for doing so.

Don't get off on the obvious non-sequitur. I'm not saying TOTAL credit for saving themselves, I'm saying credit for responding. You can't have it any other way. If man makes the difference, man deserves the credit for making the difference.

This is where your understanding np, loosing you on the subject.

Man IS responsible, therefore God does require response X. However mans response in no way means he deserves salvation nor credit for salvation. To deserve something means you earned it. But salvation a gift given to the one who will receive it. The receiver does not get credit for accepting the gift but gives thanks to the giver and the giver alone!

Scripture says it IS another way, you just wont hear what scripture says concerning it.

 

[Allan]

Who here has denied that these are (some of) the reasons why people reject Christ? No one here is denying this.

The question being asked is why do some believe the Gospel? What makes the difference?

Come on. This is a very simple question.

Actaully THAT is another thread also started by np.

This one concerns :
Does choosing Christ please God.

And the answer:
Yes. We are commanded to repent, and commanded to believe.
Obedience is better than that to sacrifice.

God is please with obedience always.

 

[Allan]

Obviously not, considering the lack of credible answers offered so far.

Oh there are scripturally credible, you just don't want to believe it.

 

[Allan]

Shovels don't claim the reason there's a hole is because they decided (of their own free will) to accept the job of being used to dig the hole.

First, and shovel is an object created for the purpose of simplifying a work/job. It wasn't designed nor made to have a choice. It was never asked to choose life or death, to believe or not. Man WAS.

Second, It doesn't need to. The fact there is a hole, and that a person used its already inate property to dig, did just that with it - dig.
The shovel can not say I chose to dig when of itself there is no way it could do that work, no matter how much it may longed to. Therefore no credit is his to allow the man to do his work through him.

The man can honestly say that hole would not be the way He wanted it unless the the shovel cooperated. The intent of the hole was the mans, and the work of digging the hole was the mans, so to was the finished product regarding the specificness of the hole that mans. But unless the shovel cooperated with man that shovel would not have dug that hole by the master's hand.

 

[skypair]

Excuse me: I'd like to see Walt or anyone reply to my earlier post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by WaltRiceJr
Anything we receive in exchange for something we offer (belief and obedience) is wages, a trade. We contributed something, it's not a gift. My obedience is like filty rags; my belief is so poor in comparison to the light of Christ that it is worthless.

Wow! You really DON'T have "evidence" of your belief, do you?? It is precisely because we can't "earn" it that salvation is a "gift," Walt. Belief is NOT a word (Rom 4:5) and obedience is a "condition" of salvation. Show me anyone who doesn't believe and I will show you someone who isn't saved! Show me someone who isn't obeying and I will show you a man/woman who isn't "earning" any sanctification/rewards.

I also have difficulty accepting the premise of division between faith and belief. Scripture seems to use the words interchangeably, yet the division you put forward is significant (belief comes from us, faith comes from God) and is hard to accept.

Your point has been raised before. Both words are the same in the Greek. Yet belief is only a "hope" whereas "faith" has evidence and sobstance according to Heb 11:1. Look up the scriptural instances of "hope" and see if it doesn't more coincide with "belief," There's another distinction Calvinism fails to notice -- the difference between "soul" and "spirit."

My point exactly. We just disagree on what being dead means.

Well, my theology takes the literal sense when it makes sense. It doesn't make sense that we are spiritually (mind, emotions, and will) dead. Does it to you?

Like you said, skypair, I'm new here, so this BODY/SPIRIT/SOUL division needs some Scriptural backing so I can understand it.

It's the trinity, Walt! We are in the image of God -- soul/God, body/Christ, spirit/Holy Spirit. So if we sin, we are severed from God unto self, right? We aren't "brain dead" though, are we? Body either, are we? No. And watch this -- being saved is a process by which our souls receive the righteousness of God/justification, our spirits receive the indwelling of the Spirit/sanctification and our bodies eventually receive a new body/glorification. At that point, we can fully live with true God.

So God saves my soul, but I, personally, turn my conscience around and put God on the throne?

Yes, sin put YOU, your flesh, on the throne, right? Which way was your spirit inclined thereafter? Toward self and flesh and "dead" to God, right? But suppose your spirit heard about the God of salvation. For just a moment do you suppose you are "halt between two choices?" "Double minded?" Sure! Which will you CHOOSE?? "Choose ye this day whom you will serve," right??

Hallelujiah! You believe God, repent, receive! And He gives you faith /"evidence!!" The Holy Spirit!! And regeneration!! How could you EVER be regenerated without having the Holy Spirit indwelling you? And how could He indwell without you BELIEVE unto salvation??

Belief and obedience, as mentioned, are my work -- and it seems they are sufficient enough to embed God on the throne eternally?

And that is "sanctification." But suppose you were trying to be sanctified before you had surrendered to Christ. That is what some Calvinists, I'm convinced, do. They "think" they are elect and go about to the tasks of sanctification. But did they take the first step of salvation, justification of their SOUL with God?

So God exchanges faith for belief; true belief is belief that is accompanied by action (obedience). Thus obedience determines the gift of faith and thus salvation?

IOW, salvation IS CONDITIONAL, Walt. Belief that is NOT "in vain." "In vain" is a "do nothing" beleif or a rejection of the Spirit.

Indeed. Like Nicodemus, one can know and teach the Scriptures, be orthodox in every way, and obedient to the whole Law. Yet you must be born again! The Spirit blows where he wills -- no one sees him coming or going, but you know when he's been through. We can't reduce the Spirit to a mechantistic process of 3-step salvation. There's mystery here that is beyond our understanding.

Walt -- sad to say, Calvinism has made a "mystery" of things that believers should understand. The "mysteries" of God are all revealed in the NT to those who are "perfect"/saved, 1Cor 2:6. Don't be fooled that God has "hidden" Himself. Why do we even have the Bible???? So God can REVEAL Himself to believers, 1Cor 2!!! You would do well to read this as you are trying to go to sleep TONIGHT! The roll it over in your spirit/Spirit.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

Walt -- sad to say, Calvinism has made a "mystery" of things that believers should understand.

At least Calvinism can tell who made the difference between the saved and the unsaved, and how. Ask a free-willer the difference and you get double-talk like:

1. One person chose to accept, and the other to reject because they can

2. The person who accepts did so because they made a decision

3. The person who accepts did so because they decided to consider

If you want mysteries that are impossible to solve, ask a free-willer a simple question.

 

[WaltRiceJr]

This is in so many places, that I'm not sure I can handle going through and quoting piece by piece, so I'll respond generally...

I do not see regeneration as occuring before salvation (by grace, through faith). Salvation, regeneration, and being made alive in Christ are in my understanding all contemporaneous, although they speak to different aspects of this grace.

The idea that one would be regenerated and is then subsequently able to choose Christ is foreign to my mind, but it's an argument we've heard before. (God takes the first step of grace, and then we respond with belief, and etc.) Rather, once regenerated and saved, the believer is now able to respond in relationship to Christ. "Created in Christ Jesus to do good works," as Ephesians says. Prior to our regeneration, the deadness (in whatever sense you understand the terms) prevents any of our works from pleasing God. Doesn't mean they aren't "good" works, just that we are so stained with sin that even our best works (pre-adoption) are a stench before the Lord.

As for scripturally defective faith, my question is regarding un-biblical belief. If one believes that Jesus lived a perfect life, died on the cross for my sins, was raised again to life -- but denies that Jesus is God incarnate -- does this faith save? If we declare that our faith is from us and conditions God's salvation, then there must be some standard of judgment. The only standard God ever puts forward in Scripture is total perfection, but since my belief can't be to the fullness of the understanding of God, there must be some other standard...

As for mysteries, I assert that after speaking to the fathers through the prophets at various times and in various ways, God has now revealed himself in these final days in his Son. God is no longer "distant," he has bridged the gap, and we have seen the fullness of grace and truth in Jesus Christ. That being said, to pretend that we can understand fully the whole counsel of God and that all aspects of faith and salvation are plainly understandable is to ignore that God's ways are above our ways, his thoughts above our thoughts.

Job 42:2-6

2 “I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”