Man left to himself?

[4study]

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.

 

[4study]

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]

I think it would be better said that God can always choose to bring someone to him no matter what their condition. I noticed someone asked what gave them up mean. I tend to understand it as God allowing sinner's to indulge themselves in their natural desires, and to death. Notice that he gives them over to their depraved selves, implying that he will let them do their own desires. Which is to not call and not draw them to him, so their natural response to God will be to deny him.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by 4study:
I guess my point is God is ALWAYS working with the human heart thus there is never a point of no return.

Do you have scripture to support this?

 

[Kismet]

4 study,

When it says "God gave them up", etc. ,etc., it doesn't mean God left them alone, to themselves, closing the door to let them go on their merry wicked way. He NEVER closes the door. And I guess that's my point. Conviction, no matter how bad things get, never ceases to be in action. If God is, conviction is there! Man is never "left to himself".

Left to themselves does not necessarily mean man is 'alone' in that God is absent as in His presence. Rather, I would think the phrase implies the absence of God's influence, manifest power, or if you will permit, His working in the persons life.

This is what both the Westminster and London Confession refer to as secondary causes (which there are many). God is One of many causes that exist and manifest themselves. We are also causes (secondary causes). In this one can see the efficient cause, material cause, instrumental cause, etc. etc.

If left to ourselves we will manifest affects of a combination of a series of other causes... including that of our material makeup and that of Satan as in "The sifting of Peter by Satan."

The heart of man is wicked and deceitful, who can trust it. This is to include both yours and mine. If left to the propensities of our own heart we would be in a serious pickle (to put it mildly). I hope this helps you in your quest to understand the truth of God and that of others.

Affectionately Yours,

Kismet

 

[4study]

timothy27,

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

 

[4study]

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.

 

[4study]

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]

Originally posted by 4study:
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.

That proves what God did in one specific case. It does not prove what He always does in every case.

You keep making statements like this:

"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."

Yet you haven't proven your assumption yet.

 

[4study]

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]

4study,

The main problem I see with your approach is this: what if your presuppositions are wrong? How would you ever know?

For example, if you decide that "God is ALWAYS working with the human heart" and then you go to the Bible which says that "God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven" or that "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" then you have to conclude that the Bible means something other than what it sounds like it says. Well, it could be that the Bible means exactly what it sounds like, and that your presupposition is wrong. How would you know? That is why I would like to see from the Bible why you think that "God is ALWAYS working with the human heart".

I have had to leave behind many presuppositions in the past just because what I thought was true contradicted what the Bible seemed to say, and I had to choose which was more reliable. For me there is no question that the Bible is more reliable than any presupposition of mine.

Let me ask a pointed question. You have probably seen what is happening in New Orleans in the hurricane's aftermath. Pick a looter - in what way is God influencing that person's actions? God could prevent every bit of that nonsense, and yet He doesn't. How is His influence at work in people like those?

 

[4study]

whatever,

The main problem I see with your approach is this: what if your presuppositions are wrong? How would you ever know?

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.

Let me ask a pointed question. You have probably seen what is happening in New Orleans in the hurricane's aftermath. Pick a looter - in what way is God influencing that person's actions? God could prevent every bit of that nonsense, and yet He doesn't. How is His influence at work in people like those?

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.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by 4study:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Let me ask a pointed question. You have probably seen what is happening in New Orleans in the hurricane's aftermath. Pick a looter - in what way is God influencing that person's actions? God could prevent every bit of that nonsense, and yet He doesn't. How is His influence at work in people like those?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I do not believe that. Pharaoh is one good example to the contrary.

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.

And I say that if all God did was convict people of wrong but not encroach upon human choice then no one would ever choose to believe. That's what we mean by leaving people to themselves - leaving them to do what they wanted to do from the beginning. What is it that causes some people to believe and others to not believe, when the Holy Spirit convicts all in this way?

 

[4study]

No, I do not believe that. Pharaoh is one good example to the contrary.

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

And I say that if all God did was convict people of wrong but not encroach upon human choice then no one would ever choose to believe. That's what we mean by leaving people to themselves - leaving them to do what they wanted to do from the beginning. What is it that causes some people to believe and others to not believe, when the Holy Spirit convicts all in this way?

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]

Originally posted by 4study:
So would you say Pharaoh was "left to himself" or did he choose to rebel against God?

That is a false dilemma - I would say that God hardened Pharaoh by leaving him to himself, and that is why Pharaoh chose to rebel against God.

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.

But why do some choose to believe and others choose to not believe if the Spirit convicts both the same? What makes the difference?

 

[4study]

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]

Originally posted by 4study:
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.

Me: Why do we choose differently?

You: Because we make different choices.

Me:

Why do we make different choices?

 

[4study]

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?

 

[BobRyan]

In Calvinism "you" never do ANYTHING out of "FREE WILL".

In Calvinism "people" are always MADE to do something BECAUSE something MAKES them do it.

In Calvinism it makes no sense to say 1/3 of the angels CHOSE rebellion and 2/3's CHOSE to remain faithful.

Rather it is more acceptable in modern Calvinism to say "GOD MADE 2/3's of the Angels BETTER than HE made 1/3 of them".

OR something of that nature.

Because the idea of CHOICE being "the REASON" is foreign to the Calvinist MODEL.

Therefore when they debate with Arminians - they will always IGNORE the response that "FREE WILL" is the REASON for "anything".

Either the sinful nature MADE you choose evil OR God ZAPPED your brain and MADE you choose correctly -- or God CREATED you so that you would choose good while MAKING someone else so they would choose evil.

Every choice is then "NOT" a real choice but rather the PREDICTABLE OUTCOME of the way you are MADE or the way the environment FORCED you to do something.

That is all fine and danddy IF it is two Calvinists talking about how much they like Calvinism. But if it is a Calvinist trying to enter into an objective dialog with an Arminian - you would think they would have to DROP the ASSUMPTION that Calvinism is correct -- as the STARTING point.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by 4study:
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.

Yes - but that is the Arminan answer based on the Arminian model. That will not be acceptable to someone that assumes "Calvinism is correct" as the STARTING point for the discussion.

In the Arminian model - choice and free will are NOT "deterministic". One can not conclude that BECAUSE God made all the angels perfect IN a perfect heavenly environment - that ALL the angels would remain faithful.

I.E - the Collapse of Calvinism!

IN Christ,

Bob