• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

That's all I was saying. I would talk to people about the bible, and even enjoyed it, and got goosebumps at times. But when it came to the point they tried to "convert" me, I'd back away. I wanted to live my sinful life, and still, find some way to get to heaven when my life here was through. Sometimes I'd go to church to satisfy my parents, but I had no desire to become a member. One morning on the way home from work, I heard a FWB preach from Daniel 3, and I realized I was going to hell, if a change in me wasn't made. God rattled my cage really good. I then began to call out to Him, seeking His grace, love, and mercy. I had it all wrong though. I thought I had to make myself saveable, which I couldn't. My travail from nature to grace showed me I could do nothing to merit salvation. He saved me because I couldn't save myself. :jesus::jesus::jesus::jesus:<--------I want more and more of Him every day of my life!! Praise to His sweet name!!!
 
As I have already stated, please be patient with me. Change is NEVER easy, I don't want to do, or say, anything that misrepresents Him and His Word.
 
I don't have the answers, but I know THE One who does. His name is :jesus: and it's in Him, and Him alone, that I place my trust.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.


Good response, Convicted1.

However, the emphasis that Winman would have you place on the verse is upon the word "choose" and not "serve."

God had already CHOSEN the Israelite folks to separate unto Himself for His purpose.

They didn't have to choose God.

Joshua was stating the SERVICE, the duty, the obligation, ... to follow God's law and principles of the torah.

Joshua was not calling the Israeli to "accept God as their savior" but to SERVE God by their actions.

The two are completely different. Joshua was calling the people to be different than the world standard around them.

This is similar to Jame's letter on what demonstrates real believer's faith.

It is also not unlike Paul's message to the church members. Encouraging them to lay aside the worldly and establish upon the foundation that which is a worthy building.

Because the Israeli people of Joshua's day (as the heathen people are in our day) were NOT given the Holy Spirit to indwell them, there was no new created nature but only that fallen nature to which failure would come and God's rebuke resulting.

Consider this as a typical modern day evangelist who can "pump up" a crowd to garner support for some theme, and folks may loudly proclaim agreement, however, it doesn't guarantee that there is true change or long lasting embracing of what was "pumped up."

The chapter that Winman selected ends with the death of Joshua, and the slide into bondage. As long as the evangelist and those that served with the evangelist were there to guide, instruct, encourage... the folks, they lived by the laws of the Torah. When the evangelist left, because there was no real life in them, they returned to the demands of the true human nature.

NOTE: NO one is made righteous by the "deeds of the law." One can keep the law from their youth to old age and still be hell bound at death.

That is the state of the Israeli in Joshua's day as it is in our day.

The service of the law is to point to the promise of a messiah. Belief without serving is fake; serving without belief is fake; belief that serves is true faith.

Example: Look at the old man's statements and what he was doing when he saw, and held the infant baby Jesus? (Luke 2:25... note the "Holy Spirit was upon him)
 
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.

Look at the first words that Joshua stated, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD". He's telling them to choose which one is their greater desire, God or false gods. Now, if it seemed evil unto them to serve the LORD, then they will choose the false gods. They wouldn't choose to serve the LORD if it seemed evil to do so. IOW, they chose their greatest desire.
 

Gorship

Active Member
Look at the first words that Joshua stated, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD". He's telling them to choose which one is their greater desire, God or false gods. Now, if it seemed evil unto them to serve the LORD, then they will choose the false gods. They wouldn't choose to serve the LORD if it seemed evil to do so. IOW, they chose their greatest desire.

This is just it right here. over complicating scripture in order to fit an agenda. He mentioned the Flood right after - letting them know what happened to those who didn't serve the God of Israel.

The more I read Calvinistic arguments the further and further I want to distance it from myself. Regardless I would suggest youtubing Norman Geislers "why im not a 5 point Calvinist" and giving it a watch, hes not super boring and uses nice - simple logic to get his point across.
 
This is just it right here. over complicating scripture in order to fit an agenda. He mentioned the Flood right after - letting them know what happened to those who didn't serve the God of Israel.

The more I read Calvinistic arguments the further and further I want to distance it from myself. Regardless I would suggest youtubing Norman Geislers "why im not a 5 point Calvinist" and giving it a watch, hes not super boring and uses nice - simple logic to get his point across.

What's so overcomplicated about stating for them to choose their greatest desire? If you are offered a $100 bill or a .50 cent piece, which would you choose? Odds are the $100 bill. Why? Because you'd want it more. Only a nut would take the .50 cent piece.
 
As sinners left to our own devices, have a sinful desire. Neither side of this theological debate denies this. As sinners, we are under it's(sin) clutches, iow, it's(sin) bondage. We're not free to make a choice for Christ, because it's our desire to sin. Christ has to come along and change our spiritual "mindset", our "want to" etc. Both sides agree that it takes Him to change us.
 

jonathanD

New Member
This thread is so huge...There is no conflict between divine sovereignty and human freedom unless freedom must be libertarian or contra-causal. I think what we see in Scripture is different.

The Assyrians freely chose to attack Israel. Yet, God ordained that it would happen to bring judgment upon Israel.

Joseph's brothers freely chose to sell him into slavery. Yet, God ordained that Joseph would be sent to Egypt so as to preserve a remnant.

Peter proclaimed, by his own volition, that Jesus is the Christ. Yet, he only proclaimed that because the Father had opened his eyes to that truth.

Why do we (by and large) insist upon libertarian freedom?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is just it right here. over complicating scripture in order to fit an agenda. He mentioned the Flood right after - letting them know what happened to those who didn't serve the God of Israel.

The more I read Calvinistic arguments the further and further I want to distance it from myself. Regardless I would suggest youtubing Norman Geislers "why im not a 5 point Calvinist" and giving it a watch, hes not super boring and uses nice - simple logic to get his point across.

Perhaps you distance from what you miss think - as (in my opinion) does Geisler. He desires to be considered a "modified Calvinist" and presents ideas that are more aligned with the Arminian.

Which over complicated the Scripture are you seeing in the posts?

Are you considering to be my post?

If you are, then you would be supporting Winman, who took a relatively simple verse and attempted to show "freedom of choice" as applied to salvation when the verse didn't support that view?


There is room for different focus adjustments when peering through the lens of views at the scripture.

But NOT ONE should allow their view to remove from the Scripture what is actually stated.

That was done with Winman's post on Joshua. Certainly you can agree that he was placing the emphasis upon choice and not serve.
 

jonathanD

New Member
Geisler's opposition to Calvinism finds its true basis in the Kantian concept that ought implies can. I have several friends who studied under him and came out more "reformed" than they were when they went in because of this.
 

Gorship

Active Member
That was done with Winman's post on Joshua. Certainly you can agree that he was placing the emphasis upon choice and not serve.

There was no issue in how he presented the scripture.

Geisler's opposition to Calvinism finds its true basis in the Kantian concept that ought implies can. I have several friends who studied under him and came out more "reformed" than they were when they went in because of this.

Havn't heard this before - (the reformed thing). I just know those particular set of videos were a good starting point.
 

Gorship

Active Member
What's so overcomplicated about stating for them to choose their greatest desire? If you are offered a $100 bill or a .50 cent piece, which would you choose? Odds are the $100 bill. Why? Because you'd want it more. Only a nut would take the .50 cent piece.

Going with this - he is still asking them to choose. He's asking them to choose what may appear to them to be the 50 cent piece.

They have to decide. but as for Joshua and his house - they will serve the Lord.
 
Going with this - he is still asking them to choose. He's asking them to choose what may appear to them to be the 50 cent piece.

They have to decide. but as for Joshua and his house - they will serve the Lord.

Remember, not everyone that Joshua was talking to were believers. Many died before they could reach the promised land because of their lack of belief. Not all of Israel is Israel. The remnant that followed God was the Israel of God. Those who chose God, chose of their greatest desire. Those who chose false gods, chose of their greatest desire. We all choose according to what we want(desire) most. No one will choose something they don't want.
 

Gorship

Active Member
Remember, not everyone that Joshua was talking to were believers. Many died before they could reach the promised land because of their lack of belief. Not all of Israel is Israel. The remnant that followed God was the Israel of God. Those who chose God, chose of their greatest desire. Those who chose false gods, chose of their greatest desire. We all choose according to what we want(desire) most. No one will choose something they don't want.

Your evading the point ;

Believers or unbelievers He's asking them to choose. He mentions the Flood after to tell them about what happened to those who weren't sided with the God of Israel . Consider it the early example of the law and gospel approach.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This thread is so huge...There is no conflict between divine sovereignty and human freedom unless freedom must be libertarian or contra-causal. I think what we see in Scripture is different.

The Assyrians freely chose to attack Israel. Yet, God ordained that it would happen to bring judgment upon Israel.

Joseph's brothers freely chose to sell him into slavery. Yet, God ordained that Joseph would be sent to Egypt so as to preserve a remnant.

Peter proclaimed, by his own volition, that Jesus is the Christ. Yet, he only proclaimed that because the Father had opened his eyes to that truth.

Why do we (by and large) insist upon libertarian freedom?


This is a good question and worthy to be explored!

Who did Jesus state would be "free indeed?"

Does that not imply that all others (those without Christ) are not free?

If Christ makes us "free indeed" and there is some freedom outside of Christ then what freedom does Christ offer that is "indeed" free?

In your examples above, did the Assyrians "freely cho(o)se" to attack or were they doing what the fallen nature demanded and their culture expected (built upon fallen nature philosophy and rules). Was there true "free indeed" ability in the Assyrian?

Did Joseph's brother's freely sell him into slavery, or was it the matter of two choices of fallen decision making - murder or slavery? That they sinned by being jealous and sought to vent a certain amount of that jealousy is (again as the Assyrians) just an example of the depravity of their human nature. Where was there true "free indeed" ability in Joseph's brothers?

Peter certainly proclaimed the truth, but was it "free indeed" volition choice to him?

Look carefully at the passage from Matthew:
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

So, Peter was not expressing a "by his own volition (cognitive process)" but what was revealed to Him by Christ's Father - something beyond his power to control.

He was in essence parroting what the Father revealed - not what Peter thought through. That is evidenced later when he publicly denied Christ three times.

Of course, Christ was always a bit more graciously patient and understanding with the one Satan desired to sift and used each opportunity in which impetuous Peter spoke or acted out to give both instruction and encouragement.

I hold with the thinking that there is no true "freedom of choice" outside of Christ who truly states that He "will set you free indeed."
 

jonathanD

New Member
[/INDENT]So, Peter was not expressing a "by his own volition (cognitive process)" but what was revealed to Him by Christ's Father - something beyond his power to control.

I disagree here. I believe that Peter was, by his own volition, making the proclamation. His volition is drastically affected buy the Father's revelation, but that does not mean that Peter is being forced to make this proclamation against his will. I don't see how his denial is evidence of anything other than his doubt (which we all experience in one form or another).
 

Gorship

Active Member
I agree that they are told to choose. The question is, why do they choose what they choose?

This is probably why im not an arminian either. There is an undeniable tension between a drawing and a reaction from man. We are bent in a sinful nature as we are born with a sinful nature. So I would say they denied God out of love for their own Sins, but the desire for all to be saved is apparent in scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top