Man left to himself?

whatever,

Just making a point about "choice". As I understand, the concept of man being "left to himself" implies that a human being cannot CHOOSE one way or another. The idea being that if man is "left to himself", he will go his "natural" way, wherever his instincts lead him. And so "choice" usually becomes a point of debate along with "sin nature" and things like that. I guess my point is God is ALWAYS working with the human heart thus there is never a point of no return. A choice can ALWAYS be made in response to God.

 

philg,

Again, I don't believe Heb. 6:4-6 applies to this subject. "Falling away" does not necessarily mean "lost and going to hell". "Renewing unto repentance" does not necessarily mean "being saved". So the "impossibility" of these verses is not talking about man being "left to himself" or a "point of no return".

Even if there was a point of no return, one wouldn't arrive there because God left. It's the other way around. We forasake God. He, on the other hand, does not and cannot forsake us. So the point of no return is really not that at all. Apostasy is not God leaving man, it's man leaving God. Yet even when man leaves God, man is not "left to himself".

 

timothy27,

If I understand your explanation correctly, it’s precisely what I’m suggesting doesn’t make sense.

 

Whatever,

Sure. Take Gen. 6:3 for example and for simplicity’s sake. There’s a judgment day, BUT, “his days will be 120 years”. God did not stop striving with man until the floods came.

 

Kismet

Thank you Kismet! That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You’ve explained the one side of the discussion beautifully. Now I can make some direct comments.

My point is that God’s influence, just as His omnipresence, is never escapable. He’s ALWAYS working with the human heart. So to suggest that the human heart can be left to its own will is a fallacy (no disrespect intended). In fact, it’s an impossibility.

If we talk about God’s influence, we must keep the concept of Omnipresence intact. Otherwise, we’re making God out to be a piece of Swiss cheese; holes all over the place. So we cannot say man “left to himself”. It just can’t happen. Never has, never will.

The "natural desires" you speak of are the result of choice. Specifically, rejecting God's influence. Yet even in rejection, whether its by neglect, carelessness, arrogance, or just a flat out slap on His face, doesn't imply one can escape God's influence. He is still there, but the one rejecting doesn't want to listen!

 

whatever,

I'm not interested in debating per se. I just enjoy talking about God. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here or make a case of my own. I would just be very interested if someone could explain whey they believe God "leaves man to himself".

IMO, there are many preconceived ideas and assumptions we make BEFORE we even approach a verse of scripture. It's those presumptions that sway us one way or another. It's those same presumptions we should talk about BEFORE we discuss too much about a particular verse and what we think it means. So to me, the idea that man can be "left to himself", doesn't come from any particular verse of scripture. It's a principle someone is convinced of.

When I propose "God is ALWAYS working with the human heart", I'm giving you my starting point BEFORE I approach a verse. It's something that just makes sense to me. For years I've heard people say that "someone can go to far". "God will eventually stop working with them if they keep going down that road", etc., etc. And it just doesn't make any sense to me. How on earth can an omnipresent God's influence be absent from one person and not another? If God is omnipresent, then His influence is everywhere! It's as simple as that.

Now there are some presumptions that may be going through your mind and I just have to assume what they are. For example, you might think that wherever God's influence is, there is ALWAYS going to be a positive result (I don't mean to put words in your mouth - just an assumption). I don't believe that so I don't have a problem with saying God's influence is everywhere since I know some people reject it. Another assumption has to do with the way we look at human choice. I believe choice is the essence of a human being while you, on the other hand, may not. So it again doesn't bother me if God's influence is rejected because I believe individuals choose to ignore it. These assumptions among a host of others that we could not possibly cover even if we were talking face to face affect the way understand things.

Don't be too alarmed or disappointed if I don't use scriptures. I don't because it usually just introduces other things that just confuse what's being talked about.

 

whatever,

You’re absolutely right. That’s why we have to bring them out on the table. So we can see what we’re thinking. I too have been faced with my presumptions only to realize that I was wrong all along. Only because I was honest with myself and was interested in learning more about God did I come to change some of those presumptions.

I have to put a lot of study and thought into a verse if I’m interested in making a decision about what I believe it means. If it still doesn’t make sense, then yes, I try to go back to my presumptions and see if I’ve made a wrong turn somewhere. In many instances, however, I’ve already been exposed to commentaries, Sunday school teachers, preaches, etc. that say “this is what this verse means” before I even consider a verse myself. So I have all of these thoughts in my head and it may be I’ve already unconsciously chosen one that “sounded good” to me. Those thoughts are the most difficult ones to get over. For me, I study to learn about God so that it’s MY conviction, not somebody else’s.

I think a presumption here, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you believe God’s influence ALWAYS has a positive affect on someone. Yet I believe just because someone decides to loot in New Orleans doesn’t mean God’s influence isn’t there. Now let me tell you what my presumption is. When we say God’s “influence” in this thread, I’m thinking of the Greek word for “reprove” in John 16:8. I call it “conviction”. From my study of this word, it means God “convinces” someone of right from wrong. So that looter in New Orleans knows what they’re doing is wrong, but they do it anyway. And God doesn’t prevent any of it because He will not encroach upon human choice.

 

Interesting. So would you say Pharaoh was "left to himself" or did he choose to rebel against God?

He convicts of both wrong and right. To be convicted of righteousness is to be convicted of unrighteousness.

The answer to your last question is simple; choice. In order to choose the right, one must be convicted of the right. And they are. God convicts of righteousness. So we know enough about both sides of the choice in order to be held accountable for whatever choice we make.

 

whatever,

Why do some choose to believe and others do not if the Spirit convicts both the same? The explanation is simple. Choice. Each of us makes different choices.

 

whatever,

Ok. I sense we're at a breaking point and may not be able to go much farther.

To answer your question, I suppose one way to put it is to say "because God created us that way". He created us to be responsibe for what we do. How else can He hold us accountable?