Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?

[convicted1]

Willis, I have to leave for work in a few minutes, but I promise I will get back to you this afternoon (Lord willing).

But I'll leave you with this verse;

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Willis, does God give us the choice whether we will serve and love him, or does he irresistibly CAUSE us to love him?

That is the whole ball of wax right there.

Are people in bondage able to really make a choice? We, as sinners, we in bondage to sin, a bondage that only Jesus Christ can break. IOW, we can't break it ourselves. No slave can make a "choice" to be free. Just ask any slave pre-emmancipation proclamation if they had a "choice" to get loose from their slavery. Only Christ can break that bondage. If we choose to break that bonadage and then make a choice to either choose or reject Him, where does it leave us? In a state where we really didn't need Him?

In sin, we were in bondage, slaves to sin, entangled, immersed, saturated, and loved it. We, left to our own devices, had no desire to come out of sin.....I said left to ourself. We loved ourself too much, and loved sin too much to even think about God. Then, when Christ comes and frees us from this bondage, we are then free to make the choice to serve Him. Christ, as the last Adam, came to undo what the first Adam did. Adam sold us unto sin, into bondage, and Christ bought, and brought, us out of it. By Him doing this, we are sanctified first and foremost, then justified(this is where the gift of faith from God comes in...and you know I have always stated that faith is a gift of God), then repentance, salvation, and at the end of it all, glorified when He returns.

 

[Fred's Wife]

No choice is a choice.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

I'm gonna have to put ya on the firing line Brother Winman and ask you to support your claim why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. I believed that and I couldn't support it scriptually, just my opinion. You very well may be right, but what verses are you backing it with?

Genesis 2 shows a perfect example of God permitting free will and proscriptive will at the same time.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

The question shouldn't be WHY God did this, the question is DID He do it and Genesis 2 is clear that He DID show the difference between giving man free will and consequences for disobeying a command that he was free to choose to obey or not obey.

Notice the elements of choice and thought process that Eve went through after listening to the lie of the serpent. She exercised sight, and desire both freely. Genesis 3:6.

But something to ponder in Genesis 3 that is wholly inconsistent with Calvinist thought on the matter of depravity/inability is that in the Calvinist thought, man that is dead in sin can not perceive the grace of God, can not respond to it -"dead men can't dial 911" as they say. Now I'm sure you agree that Adam is the federal head of all sinners. That means for Adam to be the head of all sinners (Romans 5) he must have been dead in sin, right? If so, just WHEN did he become dead in sin? That answer is obvious because Genesis 3:7 shows that their eyes were open, and they attempted their own righteousness by covering themselves with fig leaves. (I believe the "fruit" they ate was a fig, and the leaves were taken from a fig tree, but that's a whole other topic! but if you study the fig and its analogy to Israel compared with the garden its a fascinating study!)

Now that we know Adam was spiritually dead, this SHOULD be where the Calvinist view of depravity and inability applies. BUT IT DOESN'T. Notice that the fig leaves were not good enough, and God provided His own covering for them in verse 21, which means that AN ANIMAL HAD TO BE KILLED AND SACRIFICED. But when did this occur? AFTER ADAM HAD ALREADY RESPONDED TO GOD!!

God called to Adam in verse 9, and ADAM HEARD and RESPONDED to God BEFORE GOD MADE THE SACRIFICE for him. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the Calvinist system of thought.

.

Another question. What is meant by "many called but few are chosen"?

Again, I don't know all the answers, but I see where I have been wrong on a few things, and after studying it out, with God's help of course, I may end up back where I started at. But I owe it to Him to understand Him, and how He operates.

Only few are chosen because only some TAKE THE WEDDING GARMENT.

Notice the numerous passages regarding those being called:

"And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come." Matt 22:3

According to Calvinism, the elect would be "those who were bidden" but yet those WHO WERE BIDDEN DID NOT COME.

Nevertheless, this is a clear reference to Israel as a whole being bidden and then rejecting Christ, and the gospel then going to the Gentiles (verses 9-10) both GOOD AND BAD. How's THAT for election!

Now notice verse 12, "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless."

THAT is why many were called and few chosen. The first call went to the Israelites and they rejected him, afterward the servents were sent to find ANYONE to come in, but even then, without the garment they were not welcomed. So the reason only few were chosen is because the ones who were not chosen are the ones who REJECTED THE WEDDING GARMENT.

This passage has nothing to do with predestination or certain elect being chosen to salvation as a result of an effectual calling followed by an irresistible grace.

 

[convicted1]

Romans 6:16-23

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Look at this, Brother Winman. As sinners, we were servants unto sin, and subsequently, satan, who was our lord(lower case "L"). We were under his bondage, and only Christ could break this bondage. We can't break this "yoke" ourselves. If we are under this "yoke of bondage", and we were as sinners, we weren't free to make any choice. It's only after Christ came along and broke this "yoke of bondage", that He freed us from it's grasp so that we could flee to Him. We couldn't run to Him as sinners, because, first, we loved ourselves, and sin, way too much to ever do that. Secondly, we were under satan's yoke and there was no way he was going to let us go. Christ breaks satan's yoke from around our necks, and then we take His yoke upon ourselves and learn of Him, because His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.


The first Adam put us under the "yoke of bondage", the last Adam breaks it and then we flee to Him. If we broke it and then had free will, then why the need of Christ ever coming to begin with? This is something I am trying to get a deeper understanding of, and that's why I am not "full committal" at this time. But I see much merit in it. Do not take what I am about to say as a snide, or hateful remark, because I am not that way, not will my disposition change if I do fully endorse DoG. Please respect me enough to allow me to fully study this out, without any of your outside influence. I want to do this without the assistance from either camp. Please, Brother Wes, respect me this much. I owe it to Him to learn more of Him.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Are people in bondage able to really make a choice? We, as sinners, we in bondage to sin, a bondage that only Jesus Christ can break. IOW, we can't break it ourselves. No slave can make a "choice" to be free. Just ask any slave pre-emmancipation proclamation if they had a "choice" to get loose from their slavery. Only Christ can break that bondage. If we choose to break that bonadage and then make a choice to either choose or reject Him, where does it leave us? In a state where we really didn't need Him?

In sin, we were in bondage, slaves to sin, entangled, immersed, saturated, and loved it. We, left to our own devices, had no desire to come out of sin.....I said left to ourself. We loved ourself too much, and loved sin too much to even think about God. Then, when Christ comes and frees us from this bondage, we are then free to make the choice to serve Him. Christ, as the last Adam, came to undo what the first Adam did. Adam sold us unto sin, into bondage, and Christ bought, and brought, us out of it. By Him doing this, we are sanctified first and foremost, then justified(this is where the gift of faith from God comes in...and you know I have always stated that faith is a gift of God), then repentance, salvation, and at the end of it all, glorified when He returns.

Notice how Paul defines bondage in Romans 6:16, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

Freely trusting to choose Christ is called OBEDIENCE to the gospel. Notice Paul's testimony to Agrippa in Acts 26:19 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision". Also 2 THess 1:8, "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". Romans 2:8, "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath". 1 Peter 4:17, "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

The Bible is clear that bondage and slavery to sin is CHOSEN through DISOBEDIENCE to the gospel, and salvation is by OBEDIENCE to the gospel. The Calvinist obscures the depravity and bondage issue by failing to separate the sinners NATURE which provides their INCLINATION to sin, from the ACTIONS of the sinner of which he has choice to obey unrighteousness, or obey the gospel of Christ in which the Holy Spirit enters in and battles the old nature. Gal 5:16-17. The fact that the sinful nature IS STILL INTACT AFTER SALVATION shows that it is not the sinful NATURE of man alone that causes him to remain in sin. Paul could not be anymore clear about this in Romans chapter 7. This is why repentance involves turning to God for what you ARE instead of what you DO. Your sin nature provides the FOUNDATION of your sinfulness, but it is not the CAUSE of your CONTINUED REBELLION in and of itself. The CAUSE of continued rebellion is WILLFUL REFUSAL TBEY THE GOSPEL, yielding as Paul said in Romans 6:16, to unrighteousness, and NOT YIELDING to the righteousness of Christ. Yielding and obedience BOTH imply acts of the will, and it is because of a sinners refusal to yield his will and obey the gospel that he is damned, not because God did not elect him and choose not to overcome his will.

 

[Benjamin]

Not one time in the Bible, NOT ONCE, is there EVER a distinction between GENERAL CALL and EFFECTUAL CALL. Calvinism has made God out to have one weak Spirit over a stronger Spirit, one that CAN over come mans will, and one that CAN'T.

I'm seeing this pattern throughout Calvinist' reasoning as they try to make their system fit.

One true call, one not true call.

True that God determines all things, not true that God determines all things.

Faith comes before regeneration and regeneration comes before faith.

Grace through faith but not Grace because of faith.

Faith from one's own heart but one's heart is not able to have faith.

Irresistible grace is not actually irresistible grace but resistible grace until it is irresistible grace.

 

[convicted1]

When Gomer was on the "selling block", did she have a choice, or did Hosea simply pay to get her back? That's the way it is as sinner. Jesus has to do that which we can't do, and that's to set us free. As sinners, we are yoked to satan, and it takes God to break it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

When Gomer was on the "selling block", did she have a choice, or did Hosea simply pay to get her back? That's the way it is as sinner. Jesus has to do that which we can't do, and that's to set us free. As sinners, we are yoked to satan, and it takes God to break it.

So are you saying that Hosea raped Gomer? If this is an example of election, then God could have (and according to Calvinist thought WOULD HAVE) told Hosea WHICH WOMAN TO TAKE. But notice in Hosea 1:2,

"The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord."

God didn't select Gomer, Hosea did. For Calvinism to be consistent in using this verse, it would have to be GOD doing the choosing. Your emphasis on this verse has man doing to "forcing". Not God. God allowed Hosea to make a choice in the selection. Although this is still not a "force". The Heberw laqach in this context is to marry, unless you believe Hosea raped her.

 

[Herald]

Are people in bondage able to really make a choice?

Willis,

People in bondage to sin freely choose to sin. In this way God is not the author of sin.

Chapter 9 of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith explains it well (with scripture proofs):

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )

5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )

No person will be able to stand before God and say, "You forced me to sin."

James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Willis

Willis

,

Now Willis, notice that the Non Calvinists have painstakingly explained our views directly from SCRIPTURE, and the Calvinists have explained their views directly FROM CONFESSIONS. Which do you think God prefers? (See Matthew 15:9)

People in bondage to sin freely choose to sin. In this way God is not the author of sin.

Chapter 9 of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith explains it well (with scripture proofs):

And yet this is not REALLY what Calvinism teaches. When you read the Confessions OBJECTIVELY you will see the contradictions.

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )

Now pay attention to the contradiction below:

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )


Notice how the Confession begins with an attempt to PREEMPT the conclusion that they know logically follows other sections that have clearly demonstrated God as being determinisitic. But notice the contradiction even in this passage.

*Man is not forced NOR BY ANY NECESSITY OF NATURE DETERMINED to do good or evil"

and then

*When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;

You even admitted yourself that the sinner before Christ is under bondage to sin, he acts because he is forced to act that way, yet the confession attempts to deny this, and then admits to it just a few paragraphs later. These confessions are LOADED with constant double speak and blatant contradictions.

Notice also a BLATANT FALSEHOOD in paragraph 4.

"but doth also will that which is evil"

Paul did not say in Romans 7 that he WILLED TO DO EVIL. Paul WILLED the exact opposite. Paul said "to WILL is present with me, but HOW TO PERFORM that which is good I find not". Paul says, " For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." The distinction within a Christian is that he does not WANT to sin. That's the part of the believer that God does change is the will to want to do right. A Christian CAN sin after salvation, but not because he WILLS IT.

This is an outright heretical statement which is why Christians need to study the SCRIPTURES instead of memorizing CREEDAL STATEMENTS based upon "the commandments and doctrines of men" Matt 15:9

 

[DrJamesAch]

Herold wrote:

No man can say to God 'you forced me to sin'

And yet that's exactly what the logical conclusion the Confessions hold,

"No person will be able to stand before God and say, "You forced me to sin."

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" Westminster Confession III, 1.. Although they attempt once again to speak from "both sides of the mouth" by adding "so that yet God is not the author of sin". NON SENSE. Just because you add a preemptive statement doesn't mean you eliminate the logical conclusion of your premise. Calvinism boldly states that God ordains WHATSOEVER comes to pass. They use this argument when it comes to the future, they use this argument when it comes to the will of man, they use this argument when it comes to the damnation of sinners, they use this argument for even the weather and storms, but then REJECT IT when it implies that God is the author of sin.

This is like the obfuscation that you see in your white house. (God knows we have enough of it here, too). 'Well Mr President, did you do such and such or not.' "Well, our POLICY states that I couldn't have so I guess I didn't". Corporate lawyers rely in this type of argument all the time. That their client isn't guilty simply because there's a preemptive clause in their job description that says they are not permitted to perform certain tasks, and so the lawyer argues that his client couldn't have done something simply because the policy says he couldn't have. (Also note that John Calvin WAS A LAWYER "WAH, but John Calvin didn't write the confession" No, they're just taken practically verbatim from his Institutes, and it's called 'Calvinism' for entertainment.)

That's exactly what the confession does. It attempts to exonerate God by writing in a preemptive clause that God is not the author of sin, when the clear and unambiguous language of the opening paragraph says that GOD ORDAINS ALL THINGS WHATSOVER COME TO PASS. Calvinists can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't pick and choose when and what events God ordains when it's convenient, and reject that He ordains ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER COME TO PASS when it demeans your theology.

 

[Aaron]

Why is everyone spending so much time arguing against a straw man OP?

...that is a very small view of God, IMO.

Been waiting a while to use that since I first illumined your dinky theology, haven't you?:tonofbricks:

 

[convicted1]

So are you saying that Hosea raped Gomer? If this is an example of election, then God could have (and according to Calvinist thought WOULD HAVE) told Hosea WHICH WOMAN TO TAKE. But notice in Hosea 1:2,

"The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord."

God didn't select Gomer, Hosea did. For Calvinism to be consistent in using this verse, it would have to be GOD doing the choosing. Your emphasis on this verse has man doing to "forcing". Not God. God allowed Hosea to make a choice in the selection. Although this is still not a "force". The Heberw laqach in this context is to marry, unless you believe Hosea raped her.

Whoa there, who said anything about rape? Hosea went and bought Gomer back. Hosea bought Gomer for, in essence, 30 pieces of silver. She was his wife, yet he had to buy her back. That's what I am trying to convey here. She would call him Ishi(my husband) afterwards.

 

[convicted1]

People will choose that which appeals the most to them. Ask a drug addict if they want another line of cocaine or a church service, and they'll choose the coke. Ask the drunkard if he wants a fifth of whiskey or a bible study class, and see which he chooses. God has to change our "want to" before we want to serve Him.

Ask someone to choose between a $100 bill or a .50 cent piece and they'll choose the $100. Why? The $100 appeals better to them.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Why would the Christian give a drug addict a choice of snorting a line or Bible study? Seems to me a Christian would not be offering coke or any drug

 

[convicted1]

Why would the Christian give a drug addict a choice of snorting a line or Bible study? Seems to me a Christian would not be offering coke or any drug

Let me rephrase it then. If a drug addict has a choice from two external options of cocaine or bible study, they'll choose the coke, if they aren't being drawn. The cocaine appealed better to them. As a sinner, I wanted nothing to do with going to church to be with them. Sinning was what appealed to me at that time. I chose my greatest desire. When God showed me I needed Him through His drawing me, I chose Him, because He appealed to me. I chose my greatest desire because He appealed to me more then. Sorry about that wrongly worded analogy. Thanks for the "rod of correction".

 

[preacher4truth]

Why would the Christian give a drug addict a choice of snorting a line or Bible study? Seems to me a Christian would not be offering coke or any drug

He's being hypotethical. :thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

Guys, please be patient with me. I am in unchartered territory as I attempt to evaulate the depths of how far sin has caused us to plunge. This is going to be a painstaking journey, and I may end up on the other shore, or I may drift back to where I approximately was. However, it will be worth the trip, because I will have a better understanding of Him.

 

[Luke2427]

Well Luke, was Jesus confused? Jesus clearly said that he desired the children of Jerusalem to come to him in Matthew 23:37, so obviously he was READY and AT THAT POINT to overcome their resistance with his irresistible effectual grace, and yet he was clearly grieved that they would not come.

I desire to eat the whole cake- but I desire something else, too- to not fall off into a diabetic comma.

This is really very simple, Winman.

If humans' desires are complex, how much more are God's?

Do you think that God can ONLY desire one of two things?

God really does desire to save all men. But he desires something more. He desires to bring glory to his Son like can only be brought to him in a fallen world like the one in which we live.

You guys can try to distract and claim we do not understand your doctrine all you want, that is nothing but pure smoke.

You are so terribly uneducated. You HONESTLY would not know Calvinism if it ran over you in the form of a Mack truck. You waste our time engaging us, attacking what we believe, not even KNOWING what we believe.

And what's worse is that guys like me and Icon have been trying to show you what Calvinists really believe for years now and you just CAN'T get it.

 

[agedman]

Guys, please be patient with me. I am in unchartered territory as I attempt to evaulate the depths of how far sin has caused us to plunge. This is going to be a painstaking journey, and I may end up on the other shore, or I may drift back to where I approximately was. However, it will be worth the trip, because I will have a better understanding of Him.

Look to your own testimony. How far did sin plunge you?

In a previous post, you mentioned that you had no desire for God and were rebellious in your nature. To quote you, "Sinning was what appealed to me at that time. I chose my greatest desire." Is that not the state of every unregenerate? To suppose that humankind has any desire for God and no core rebelliousness is contrary to even the outward evidence of human nature. The most "self" righteous are even rebellious within their own selfish desire to exalt human ability and glorify human "evolution" (typical of the Star Trek mentality).

By your own testimony, God had to change you FIRST before you believed.

Your expression of belief was a reaction or response to that change that took place in you.

Certainly, upon that response was greater change. We love Him because He first loved us. We serve Him because He first served us. We grow in wisdom and understanding because He gave us a new will and heart with which to seek Him.