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

[agedman]

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.

But choose to do what?

Heathen's can and do serve God - but they are not saved.

 

[agedman]

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).

You could be correct, however, because Peter had yet to receive the Holy Spirit, I do place more emphasis upon the direct influence of God. Similar to how the Scriptures of the OT were written - under God's direct authority and oversight.

Perhaps, the problem with the statement you made is the use of the word volition. I don't see Peter expressing much in the way of self control over some of his thoughts and resulting actions. His impetuousness seems to rule him until Pentecost causing him to blurt out and act out of exuberance. What is neat is to read how that impetuous exuberance when channeled by the Holy Spirit delivered an outstanding testimony.

 

[Gorship]

But choose to do what?

Heathen's can and do serve God - but they are not saved.

Keep in mind that the context of this passage is the OT - there is no physical Jesus yet. Only the promises of Yahweh ; Also my understanding of servant-hood would have been reliance on the master for everything. So I disagree with you that this is some how not attempting to bring people to God. You can argue with Joshuas evangelism methods in heaven.

 

[jonathanD]

Perhaps, the problem with the statement you made is the use of the word volition.

Self control or lack there-of doesn't really affect volition. I only mean that Peter does what he wants. Arminians like to use the hypothetical man who desires to be saved, but cannot because he's not elect. That man doesn't exist. In this very thread, we've read of those who want to rebel, but are dragged into the kingdom against their will. Again, this man doesn't exist. No one had a gun to the Assyrians head commanding them to plunder the people of God. They did what they wanted to do (they acted according to their own volition).

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Convicted, where it MAY be correct that we choose more often than not what "appeals most to us", that is certainly not a given. I am confident that you would agree that MANY have made decisions, altruistically, such as in battle to save the lives of others,,,, and not necessarily in battle. Only one counter example in mathematics, has the ability to nullify a conjecture.

 

[jonathanD]

I am confident that you would agree that MANY have made decisions, altruistically, such as in battle to save the lives of others,,,, and not necessarily in battle.

I don't know that this would necessarily work against AM's point. If one were to value altruism, they could make an altruistic decision gladly and without coercion.

 

[Gorship]

Yup yup - we've hit words I dont know lol! Back to just reading the thread O_O

 

[Benjamin]

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.

Simply some do not choose to love the Truth. That is a choice. But looks like someone has bought into that one's nature predetermined to choose a certain way is still having a choice. Such a belief on having true choice is not to believe the truth about choice based on what? - a choice to believe one would still maintain to have a choice according to very poor reasoning (T+F=T) designed declare choice remains to fit into a system and avoid theological fatalism, typical illogical double-talk to do so, but equals nothing more than a choice not to believe a simple truth. Only T+T=T!!!

 

[convicted1]

Simply some do not choose to love the Truth. That is a choice. But looks like someone has bought into that one's nature predetermined to choose a certain way is still having a choice. Such a belief on having true choice is not to believe the truth about choice based on what? - a choice to believe one would still maintain to have a choice according to very poor reasoning (T+F=T) designed declare choice remains to fit into a system and avoid theological fatalism, typical illogical double-talk to do so, but equals nothing more than a choice not to believe a simple truth.

Okay Brother Benjamin, let's look at this through the natural to convey something spiritual. Look at Ted Bundy for instance. He was a prisoner that was found guilty. We were the same way, guilty and in bondage, in prison, if you will. Now, he was in prison, found guilty, and did he have a choice to be set free? No. Why? He was found guilty, rightfully so, and no one could set him free, or even pay his bail to get him out. And he most assuredly couldn't set himself free, either. He was completely helpless and hopeless w/o someone coming to his rescue. We were that way, and would have stayed that way, unless Jesus paid our sin debt in full. Jesus paid something He didn't owe, because we owed something we couldn't pay....I don't know who first said that, but it's true, nonetheless.

In sins, we were in bonds, and nothing to pay with. Then here came Jesus, who paid our sin debt in full, unshackled us, set us free, if you will, to come to Him. Anyone who is in bondage to sin, isn't free to make a choice. Show me one slave that has ever been free to make a choice to be free. Left to ourselves, we have no ability to come. By the divine work of Christ, He enables us to come to Him. He, as the last Adam, undid what the first Adam did.

 

[convicted1]

Convicted, where it MAY be correct that we choose more often than not what "appeals most to us", that is certainly not a given. I am confident that you would agree that MANY have made decisions, altruistically, such as in battle to save the lives of others,,,, and not necessarily in battle. Only one counter example in mathematics, has the ability to nullify a conjecture.

I understand the conveyance here, but those who choose to die in the attempt to save a loved one, would be such that I would consider it their greatest desire to die in their stead. Jesus said that "no greater love that a man has than that he lay down his life for his friend". Granted, that's probably Jesus referring to Himself, more than anything else. But, I would lay my life down for my wife, family, and in-laws, because I love them as much as, if not more than, I do myself.

 

[convicted1]

Simply some do not choose to love the Truth. That is a choice. But looks like someone has bought into that one's nature predetermined to choose a certain way is still having a choice. Such a belief on having true choice is not to believe the truth about choice based on what? - a choice to believe one would still maintain to have a choice according to very poor reasoning (T+F=T) designed declare choice remains to fit into a system and avoid theological fatalism, typical illogical double-talk to do so, but equals nothing more than a choice not to believe a simple truth. Only T+T=T!!!

BTW, I haven't "bought" into anything just yet. While, I agree with that which I have posted, I am still learning, and leaning on Him for His guidance. If I do become a full-fledged Calvinist, I will have been convinced via His Word, and not "bought into it".

 

[convicted1]

To honestly know the oppositon's POV, you have to see things through their eyes. Like in battles, there are spies sent in to survey the land, see the opposition's layout, to see how they are operating things, etc. Now, I am not saying I am a spy sent to infiltrate the DoG camp, but I am coming at this debate from their POV, and I am finding tons of merit to it. I am seeing things differently now. That is why I continually state to be patient with me.

 

[convicted1]

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.

Let's examine both systems for a minute or two, okay?

Do both sides of this ginormous debate want all to be saved? Yes.

Do both sides believe all will be saved? No

Do both sides believe that way many more will die lost than saved? Yes

Do both sides grieve when someone they love died, probably in a lost state? Yes

Do both sides desire any to live in a lost state? No

Do both sides preach to all that are there, and not just a select few? Yes

Do both sides rejoice when one obtains salvation? Yes

Do both sides agree that God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked? Yes


There is a lot of common ground betwixt the two systems, and yet, the battle ground is as big as the Gaza strip.

 

[saturneptune]

Let's examine both systems for a minute or two, okay?

Do both sides of this ginormous debate want all to be saved? Yes.

Do both sides believe all will be saved? No

Do both sides believe that way many more will die lost than saved? Yes

Do both sides grieve when someone they love died, probably in a lost state? Yes

Do both sides desire any to live in a lost state? No

Do both sides preach to all that are there, and not just a select few? Yes

Do both sides rejoice when one obtains salvation? Yes

Do both sides agree that God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked? Yes


There is a lot of common ground betwixt the two systems, and yet, the battle ground is as big as the Gaza strip.

Very good points, and I am convinced of this. We will not know the minute details of where human choice meets God's sovereignty other than what He has revealed to us. This I do know. God is in charge, and God chose me. I also have a hunch that those who are obsessed with the one subject on this board, a 24/7, are the laughing stock in the inner chambers of heaven. I can just see the heavenly being saying now, "Look at the created beings telling us how we run the show."

The main conclusion I draw from all of this is that many Baptist pastors have too much time on their hands.

 

[Winman]

We all like a cup of hot coffee in the morning,

We all like to watch pro football,

We all like cute little puppies, ...

Willis, these are not reasons to adopt Calvinism. Whether to be a Calvinist or not should not be judged by a personal experience, this is what Charismatics do. Calvinism should be judged by the Word of God.

Willis, do you suddenly believe in Limited Atonement? Do you believe that Jesus only died for the few elect and that God passes over everyone else?

Does that match up with scripture and how it portrays God? Isn't Jesus the Good Samaritan who refused to pass by the half dead stranger but stopped and saved him?

Jesus doesn't pass by sinners Willis, Jesus died to save all sinners.

The real issue concerning Calvinism versus non-Calvinism is not how it views man, but how it views God. Calvinism teaches that God simply passes by billions of his own creatures and lets them perish without trying to help them.

Is this what you now believe? I will NEVER believe that.

Luk 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Do not be deceived Willis, God does not pass people by.

 

[agedman]

Very good points, and I am convinced of this. We will not know the minute details of where human choice meets God's sovereignty other than what He has revealed to us. This I do know. God is in charge, and God chose me. I also have a hunch that those who are obsessed with the one subject on this board, a 24/7, are the laughing stock in the inner chambers of heaven. I can just see the heavenly being saying now, "Look at the created beings telling us how we run the show."

The main conclusion I draw from all of this is that many Baptist pastors have too much time on their hands.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: