Freewill bites the dust

[npetreley]

Nicholas, I have problems with pretty much the whole post of #68. I have a problem with this:

"Man's will is under constant control forever doing the bidding of God."

And this:

"Men going to Hell by their own choice causes them to be sovereign over their destinies and so God isn't Sovereign any longer."

This:

"God does not permit or allow but is active in all men's wills to work out His purposes."

And finally this:

"The reason men go to Hell is because God actively chose that for them. That God works in a man's will to be willing isn't the thing that sends men to Hell it was His choice to send them to Hell prior to their sin."

Nicholas, where you see tension, Johnp sees no tension.

Okay, I see your point. But where's the problem?

"Man's will is under constant control forever doing the bidding of God."

Is this not the case? Does any man have power over God's will in any way, shape or form? Again, I have to go back to the line, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." I see tension there, because Joseph's brothers MEANT it for their own selfish, evil reasons. But the first cause was still God. God MEANT it for good. Joseph's brothers wouldn't have done what they did if God had not MEANT for it to happen.

"Men going to Hell by their own choice causes them to be sovereign over their destinies and so God isn't Sovereign any longer."

Again, where's the problem? What else can it mean when Paul says, "19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" That agrees with johnp's statement, because nobody resists His will. But it also says men are responsible. There's the tension that's missing from johnp's statement, but it doesn't contradict his statement.

"God does not permit or allow but is active in all men's wills to work out His purposes."

I addressed this above.

"The reason men go to Hell is because God actively chose that for them. That God works in a man's will to be willing isn't the thing that sends men to Hell it was His choice to send them to Hell prior to their sin."

Again, where's the problem? Is this not true? How did God not actively choose hell for the non-elect before they actually sinned? Yes, that's double-predestination, but how do you get around it?

 

[Andy T.]

Nicholas, all I can say is read guys like Piper or R.C. Sproul's "The Hidden Hand" (I think that's the title - it is on God's providence) and they are not in the same camp as Johnp. Now that doesn't make Johnp wrong, but it should make you scratch your head a little bit. I've done my homework on this, and I am perfectly comfortable with the camp I'm in.

Johnp sees no tension with Joseph and his brothers. Here is what you said:

"I see tension there, because Joseph's brothers MEANT it for their own selfish, evil reasons."

Johnp says that Joseph's brothers did not mean it for their own selfish reasons, because it was not them sinning. It was God causing them to sin.

I agree that God could have stopped them from doing all that they did. We can only sin as much as God will allow. I don't need to defend my Calvinist credentials - I think you know me and where I stand. Johnp says he is an "uncompromising Calvinist". Well, I am a Biblical one.

 

[Andy T.]

P.S. - let post #100 stand as more evidence for the jury.

 

[J.D.]

Andy, I don't believe tension is there either. But on the other hand, as you said, I also believe there is at least a "thin layer" between God and sin. I will need to study some more on that issue. I have some ideas as to what that thin layer consists of, but if I shared them now I might be embarrased later.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Allan.

There is a better answer for James and the tempter but for now I will only say that God uses tempters to tempt. 1 Kings 22:20 And the LORD said, `Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'

I made a mistake thinking Paul was blind for two days, it was three.

That is just taking scripture from its context that it might support you pretext. The chapter is dealing with election NOT salvation and it is specifically dealing with Israels election.

Israel's election? Jacob's you mean? Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Was the mother of Israel told, Rom 9:12?
I see no reason to divide salvation and election. Election is salvation sure and certain to come.

Election here is NOT to salvation but to purpose.

Is it? Not in my books. in order that God's purpose in election might stand: He shows us a couple of examples. These examples are meant to demonstrate God's purpose in election and you dare change the simple clear meaning of Jacob and Esau into Israel and Edom? And you call me? Cool nerve man. Just as it is written: is not there by accident it is there as a warning.

For you to be right I must change my bible. Why do you not read what was written instead of imposing your own belief and changing scripture? It does not talk of Israel and Edom but Jacob and Esau. It talks of their mother Rebekah.

Will the real Israel please stand up.

The Nation of Israel was chosen by God to act out in a physical way spiritual truths. They were theatre intended to show how spiritual Israel behaves. A physical way to descibe spiritual realities to us. When He calls them stiff-necked He is talking to us. (Not all instructions to Israel are meant for true Israel.)

The nation of Israel never replaced spiritual Israel. As you say, not all of Israel is Israel but it is only those of the promise that are God's Children and God's Children existed before Abraham and Isaac. Christians are the true Israel along with Israelites like Moses and Peter and Noah.
The promise remains that God will regraft the nation of the Israelites back when He has collected all the elect coming from the Gentiles.

How am I doing?

john.

 

[johnp.]

Andy.

In one sense, God is the 'immediate cause once removed' of all that comes to pass, since He is the one who created the universe and ordains all that comes to pass.

Why once removed?

But we cannot cross the line and claim that God is the immediate cause of sin...

Why not and what's the difference? If I push something over in an effort to hit someone on the head I am not the immediate cause of pain but I am guilty, the thing I pushed is not. Why have you got different rules for God. Cause and effect is God's invention.
Not that I'm saying God is guilty, God cannot be guilty unless He decrees a thing He does is sin. I don't think God ever allows us to think He is under some law or other does He? DA 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

...because the Bible is so clear that is not the case.

I don't see that show me where.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Andy, I don't believe tension is there either. But on the other hand, as you said, I also believe there is at least a "thin layer" between God and sin. I will need to study some more on that issue. I have some ideas as to what that thin layer consists of, but if I shared them now I might be embarrased later.

Maybe "tension" isn't the right word. Technically, there's no tension for me, either, because I accept fully that God is God, and He'll do all His pleasure. Last time I checked, He never came to me for advice or approval. So I have no problem with the idea that God can foreordain sin and yet still hold the sinner responsible, but I accept the fact that others see a tension between the two.

I don't know about the thin layer. God obviously cannot sin. He cannot disobey Himself. Anything beyond that is in God's sovereign hands, and we have no grounds upon which to argue against Him.

 

[johnp.]

Andy T.

Nicholas, all I can say is read guys like Piper or R.C. Sproul's "The Hidden Hand" (I think that's the title - it is on God's providence) and they are not in the same camp as Johnp.

And just who would have heard of them if they were in my camp? Who mabe them Pope? God can speak through the uneducated and the simple, you judge men falsely. Who is Piper that you bring him in to argue with me?

Johnp says that Joseph's brothers did not mean it for their own selfish reasons, because it was not them sinning. It was God causing them to sin.

That is not true, I never said that. God caused them to mean it for harm and God holds them responsible. The bible often talks from man's perspectives never caring if this is mistaken for choice, free will is the delusion He sends. He says He caused our disobedience and He will punish us for it. That He wills in men's hearts makes them willing, mean, spiteful or nice.

Johnp says he is an "uncompromising Calvinist". Well, I am a Biblical one.

Let's see some scripture then. God is Sovereign. Does He share His glory with another? Do two sovereigns exist at once. How is that different from dualism? Two powers determining the ends?

Johnp says he is an "uncompromising Calvinist". Well, I am a Biblical one.

If double predestination bothers you as a Calvinist then let Calvin reassure you: By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

And God: RO 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
What if man? What if the only reason people go to Hell is for us to see and glory that much more. What are you going to do about it? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " ...who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

I forget who mentioned this. He concluded means He caused.
concluded : to shut up together, enclose of a shoal of fishes in a net to shut up on all sides, shut up completely
(Strong's)

For God shut all men up completely to disobedience. Trapped by God in sin. All men being Jews and Gentiles.

P.S. - let post #100 stand as more evidence for the jury.

A jury of my peers you mean? HaHa! I watch with bated breath but feel as if things are not going my way.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Romans 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong-- 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith.

Good to see you Nicholas.

So I have no problem with the idea that God can foreordain sin and yet still hold the sinner responsible, but I accept the fact that others see a tension between the two.

Freedom and responsibilty have been confused with each other. If God wants to condemn us I have no problems, He needs no reasons. JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.

The "Why does He still blame us... shows that He does. The ..."for who resists His will?" Shows us that all men do His bidding, in particular sinners because of the 'blame' attached.

This runs counter to our notion of justice and our notion of justice is imposed onto God. This is the tension, man comparing himself with God while disregarding scripture for their tradition.
God says He is not unjust when He says He will have mercy on who He wants and when He says He hardens whoever He wants He considers Himself just and makes a point of it. This knowledge is a rare and precious gift.

Grace and peace man.

john.

 

[Blammo]

Fake story:

An NFL defensive lineman took a toddler by the arm, stuck his hand in a cookie jar, then scolded the toddler about getting into the cookies. He stuck the toddlers hand in the cookie jar again. This time he not only scolded the toddler, he also physically punished the toddler. Each time the lineman stuck the toddlers hand into the cookie jar, he got more furious with the toddlers disobedient behavior, and punished the toddler in various ways. Finally he had enough of the toddlers bad behavior, he found the toddler guilty, and tossed it into a furnace to burn to death. Everyone was so impressed with the lineman, they showered him with glorious adulation. What a great guy that lineman. He can do whatever he wishes. He is so great, and the toddler is a dead, guilty, piece of crap. Who cares?!

The end

 

[J.D.]

Fake story:

An NFL defensive lineman took a toddler by the arm, stuck his hand in a cookie jar, then scolded the toddler about getting into the cookies. He stuck the toddlers hand in the cookie jar again. This time he not only scolded the toddler, he also physically punished the toddler. Each time the lineman stuck the toddlers hand into the cookie jar, he got more furious with the toddlers disobedient behavior, and punished the toddler in various ways. Finally he had enough of the toddlers bad behavior, he found the toddler guilty, and tossed it into a furnace to burn to death. Everyone was so impressed with the lineman, they showered him with glorious adulation. What a great guy that lineman. He can do whatever he wishes. He is so great, and the toddler is a dead, guilty, piece of crap. Who cares?!

The end

Blammo, are you seeing red? Time to get back to scripture and get away from emotionally driven analogies. You're better than this.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo, are you seeing red? Time to get back to scripture and get away from emotionally driven analogies. You're better than this.

Yes, J.D., I am a bit upset, and you are correct, my stupid little analogy means nothing without scripture. However, I have tried the scripture route, only to be told "that word is rhema, it doesn't mean what you think it means, well it does, but not the way you think, maybe a little, but not really, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...", and I am sick of it.

Relax, brother, as far as you're concerned God made me say these things, God made you say those things, God made johnp say his things, and on and on and on. As far as you're concerned, I won't get it unless and until God is willing to make me get it. So, all of this is just a waste of time... WAIT A MINUTE... according to you God is making us waste our time. No, this can't be a waste of time, it is part of a perfect plan, all scripted out. This is so wierd, if you are right, God is just making me ramble on and on and on. Why? I'm feeling convicted now, what am I guilty of?

 

[J.D.]

Yes, J.D., I am a bit upset, and you are correct, my stupid little analogy means nothing without scripture. However, I have tried the scripture route, only to be told "that word is rhema, it doesn't mean what you think it means, well it does, but not the way you think, maybe a little, but not really, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...", and I am sick of it.

Relax, brother, as far as you're concerned God made me say these things, God made you say those things, God made johnp say his things, and on and on and on. As far as you're concerned, I won't get it unless and until God is willing to make me get it. So, all of this is just a waste of time... WAIT A MINUTE... according to you God is making us waste our time. No, this can't be a waste of time, it is part of a perfect plan, all scripted out. This is so wierd, if you are right, God is just making me ramble on and on and on. Why? I'm feeling convicted now, what am I guilty of?

Blammo, the hairs on my head are numbered. God knows that number. He knows it, not because he counted them, but because he numbered them. I believe that, and I think you believe that too.

Now think of the implications of that truth. It's breath-taking.

Could God be so omniscient and omnipotent that He even determines when my next hair will fall out? It pushes against our nature to accept such a broad truth, but isn't that the God the Bible presents to us?

Think about it.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

Fake story:

An NFL defensive lineman took a toddler by the arm, stuck his hand in a cookie jar, then scolded the toddler about getting into the cookies. He stuck the toddlers hand in the cookie jar again. This time he not only scolded the toddler, he also physically punished the toddler. Each time the lineman stuck the toddlers hand into the cookie jar, he got more furious with the toddlers disobedient behavior, and punished the toddler in various ways. Finally he had enough of the toddlers bad behavior, he found the toddler guilty, and tossed it into a furnace to burn to death. Everyone was so impressed with the lineman, they showered him with glorious adulation. What a great guy that lineman. He can do whatever he wishes. He is so great, and the toddler is a dead, guilty, piece of crap. Who cares?!

The end

if this is an analolgy to what you think is true, then here's exhibit A for you

 

[webdog]

Blammo, the hairs on my head are numbered. God knows that number. He knows it, not because he counted them, but because he numbered them. I believe that, and I think you believe that too.

Now think of the implications of that truth. It's breath-taking.

Could God be so omniscient and omnipotent that He even determines when my next hair will fall out? It pushes against our nature to accept such a broad truth, but isn't that the God the Bible presents to us?

Think about it.

Think about this...each lustful thought was placed in my head. Now think about the implications if that were true. I wouldn't be so quick to call that breathtaking...

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

yes I believe God palces every lustful thought and urge and then destorys me for it. that's the only reason i've never been able to change for 12 years.

 

[Allan]

There is a better answer for James and the tempter but for now I will only say that God uses tempters to tempt. 1 Kings 22:20 And the LORD said, `Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'[/qutoe]
Unfortunately scripture (even the one you give) does not support your contention of God temping to do evil.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jam 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Are you in error here? It would appear so.

I made a mistake thinking Paul was blind for two days, it was three.

I knew what you meant.

Israel's election? Jacob's you mean? Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Was the mother of Israel told, Rom 9:12?

No, I was showing that Jacob is the head of the Nation God elected for His purpose. It is referneced much the same way but in reverse here:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

I know it was written and did not side step it, for when it was written it established the same thing it did when Paul wrote concerning it! Jacob was chosen to be God elected vessel through whom Gods purpose of bringing forth a people unto Himself will be fulfilled. Pure and simple reading of the text in both the OT and NT.

I see no reason to divide salvation and election. Election is salvation sure and certain to come.

Then you contention is a disasterous one for you. For if Election IS the same as salvation then ALL of Israel is saved. Don't speak from both sides of you mouth here and try to state that not all Israel is Israel. We know the election of Israel was Nationally from the scripture and that they were also called God's people (Nationally) by God Himself. Unless of course you also contend God is a liar, which I highly doubt. Again - Election IS NOT salvation. You have absolutely NO biblical evendence to support that contention.

Is it? Not in my books. in order that God's purpose in election might stand: He shows us a couple of examples. These examples are meant to demonstrate God's purpose in election and you dare change the simple clear meaning of Jacob and Esau into Israel and Edom?

It has nothing to do with nerve but proper exegsis and continuous scriptural support throughout the scriptures. I agree the examples were ment to shows Gods purpose in election does stand (or is revealed) though it is not concerning salvation. That contention in light of context disappears like ash into the night sky. Chapter 9 concerning Israels history from God to Abraham, to Issac, to Jacob, and onward, with regard to election for purpose...

For you to be right I must change my bible.

No, just your theology. It brings to the verses presupposition to change the meaning and intent of the writter to conform to your pre-text. Your theology defines what scripture says, and not scripture defining your theology.

Why do you not read what was written instead of imposing your own belief and changing scripture? It does not talk of Israel and Edom but Jacob and Esau. It talks of their mother Rebekah.

It does speak of and to Israel. It begins with Israel (History - ch 9)and ends with Israel (Future - ch 11) but you say somewhere in between the authors shifts gears midthought and speaks contrary to the established context wherein it was written. The veiw of Replacement Theology or True Spiritual Israel (which I presume you hold to but I could be wrong) was the sourse of such revising of scripture. If scripture maintains its truth that God is not finished with ethnic Israel Nationally then your pardigm falls apart and crumbles like dust. This is why Ch 9 and 10 MUST be speaking of salvation and of Israel being Spiritual and not literal. It would cause that area of theological thought to dispate like smoke. I understand this view, and I don't agree with it. I will hold to what God has revealed to me through His Spirit. Contend what you like, just remember God is making me set in my theology and understanding so to debate me is to debate God who has taught me. (Whoa, that was deep!) :laugh:

The Nation of Israel was chosen by God to act out in a physical way spiritual truths. They were theatre intended to show how spiritual Israel behaves. A physical way to descibe spiritual realities to us. When He calls them stiff-necked He is talking to us. (Not all instructions to Israel are meant for true Israel.)

Again, I understand Replacement Theology or True Spiritual Israel. I just don't accept it as scriptural truth. There is the Church (the Bride of Christ) and there is Israel (the wife of God), yes they are one in the Spirit but seperate as to purpose or election.

The nation of Israel never replaced spiritual Israel. As you say, not all of Israel is Israel

That scripture is out of context. It refers to National Israel. And Yes, Jacob is referenced scripturally as the culmination of Israel as I stated earlier concerning people of Jocab and Esau.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Interesting how once again Paul places Jacob AS the people and declares the sin of Israel which they enjoyed for time as the ungodliness of Jacob??

but it is only those of the promise that are God's Children and God's Children existed before Abraham and Isaac.

I agree that Gods people have been sinse Adam and Eve. We are speaking specifically to the Election of Israel that manifested itself in the Covenant of God to Abraham. They were Elect for purpose Not salvation in chapter 9 of Romans. Is there an election that concerns salvation? I believe there is, yes. But not established in chapter 9 but is brought forth in chapter 11 as the election of grace.

Christians are the true Israel along with Israelites like Moses and Peter and Noah.
The promise remains that God will regraft the nation of the Israelites back when He has collected all the elect coming from the Gentiles.

Noah was not an Isrealite as they were not even a Nation till Jacob or considered upon the earth till God said such to Abraham. Remember Noah was Abrahams grandfather down the line.

How am I doing?

To me, poorly - but then agian...what do I know, I was a sinner at the first and lousy saint at my best. But Christ is my all in all and that which is most lousy in now His best and worst sinner now the object of His great love.

I am only saved by the grace of God, and I'll do whatever I believe the scriptures speak to without hesitation or backing down.
I don't anything else but that He loves me and I love Him.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Blammo.

ISA 40:18 To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?

An NFL defensive lineman.

1 Kings 22:20 has God asking who will entice and sends him off to entice. Entice means to tempt.

1KI 22:22 " `By what means?' the LORD asked.
" `I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" `You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. `Go and do it.'
1KI 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

For if Election IS the same as salvation...

I never said election is salvation, how could I be saved before I was born? Salvation depends on election though. You can't have one without the other.

I was a sinner at the first and lousy saint at my best.

It's a good place to be. Reminds me of me.

john.

 

[mnw]

I know this will have no effect on humanists that worship at the altar of human will, potential, and ability; but here's some light from God's word for those that may have a desire to worship and honor the omnipotent God of Glory:

If that's the case then why post in the first place? If you already KNOW none of us wicked, idol worshipping, God-choosing reprobates are going to be changed then why post it in the first place?

Often times its the stinking pride and arrogancy of some calvinists that gets me annoyed and not so much their theology.

Believe what you will, but as long as you preach the Gospel it matters not to me.

But to try to convince those who have have been predetermined to believe something else just seems a complete contradiction in the whole system to me.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo, the hairs on my head are numbered. God knows that number. He knows it, not because he counted them, but because he numbered them. I believe that, and I think you believe that too.

Now think of the implications of that truth. It's breath-taking.

Could God be so omniscient and omnipotent that He even determines when my next hair will fall out? It pushes against our nature to accept such a broad truth, but isn't that the God the Bible presents to us?

Think about it.

J.D.,

I have no problem with God making my hair fall out. I'm one of those nice looking bald guys, I wear it well. I would probably look like a "fem" if I had a full head of hair. Pardon my digressing...

I have posted this verse:

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

johnp has informed me "it says 'Father', not God". I guess that means, he believes, the Father is not God. Is "the world" God? I hope you have a better answer to this question, cause I sure wasn't satisfied with john's.