Poll on Doctrines of Grace and Free Will

[SRBooe]

Well, I have truly been blessed this morning. Thank you, brother.

 

[glfredrick]

He makes me sing all day long!

This isn't me, but I often feel like it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpVsF4W8V2Y

 

[menageriekeeper]

"Accepting a mixture" for ME means that neither side has it completely right. If you don't like that, well, learn to live with it.

A couple of points:

Someone said, where did Adam have the choice in his salvation? I believe that choice to be demonstrated a few pages later in the story of Cain:

Gen 4:5 but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it.

What is God doing here, if not reminding Cain that he has a choice to make? What does it mean that God tells Cain in the last part of v4 that he(Cain) rules over the desire of sin?

So no, I don't believe man has no choice whatsoever, no power whatsoever. I believe God within His sovereignty has given man this choice. I do NOT believe that God in any manner loses His sovereignty by giving man the choice to follow or not. And I don't believe it can be shown scriptually that He does.

The fact that God chose certain individuals down through the ages to spread His word and do great things in His name does not lead me to believe He takes this choice from man. It is simply as Christ once said: He is the potter. He chose some for greatness and others for humbleness. This is a dispensation of gifts, not salvation.

Any one of those men from Adam on down, could have said no. Cain did. Lot's wife did. The path of salvation was provided and they rejected it. Could God have "forced" them into His way? Absolutely. But He didn't. He permits man to choose for himself.

Second point:

Predestination and election is God's prerogative and not our free choice. Otherwise, God would not be sovereign. He would be at the mercy of puny men.

God is never at the mercy of puny men. He is only "at the mercy of" His own rules. Rules He made for Himself, without the input of men, angels or anyone/thing else that has been revealed to us. That He chose to put a condition upon Himself (that of allowing men to choose Him freely), does NOT put Him at the mercy of puny men. It only means He checks His own behavior. He has great self-control. He could have exterminated man from the face of the earth during the flood, but He chose to allow a handful of people that believed to survive and then promised never to bring man to the brink of extinction again. Why? Because it accomplished His purpose and *WE* do not have to understand all aspects of that purpose!

Where in the story of Noah, was God ever at man's mercy? Nowhere! This is not a two-way street. God allowing us to chose Him or death, doesn't mean that we affect any of God's purpose. He is flexible enough to accomplish His purpose with or without us!

Some of ya'll restrict God by saying He must be following a strict plan. I don't believe that. That makes God rather inflexible. And inflexible does not mean unchanging. God can be flexible and unchanging at the same time. Some ya'll don't seem to believe that.

 

[webdog]

"Accepting a mixture" for ME means that neither side has it completely right. If you don't like that, well, learn to live with it.

A couple of points:

Someone said, where did Adam have the choice in his salvation? I believe that choice to be demonstrated a few pages later in the story of Cain:

Gen 4:5 but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it.

What is God doing here, if not reminding Cain that he has a choice to make? What does it mean that God tells Cain in the last part of v4 that he(Cain) rules over the desire of sin?

So no, I don't believe man has no choice whatsoever, no power whatsoever. I believe God within His sovereignty has given man this choice. I do NOT believe that God in any manner loses His sovereignty by giving man the choice to follow or not. And I don't believe it can be shown scriptually that He does.

The fact that God chose certain individuals down through the ages to spread His word and do great things in His name does not lead me to believe He takes this choice from man. It is simply as Christ once said: He is the potter. He chose some for greatness and others for humbleness. This is a dispensation of gifts, not salvation.

Any one of those men from Adam on down, could have said no. Cain did. Lot's wife did. The path of salvation was provided and they rejected it. Could God have "forced" them into His way? Absolutely. But He didn't. He permits man to choose for himself.

Second point:



God is never at the mercy of puny men. He is only "at the mercy of" His own rules. Rules He made for Himself, without the input of men, angels or anyone/thing else that has been revealed to us. That He chose to put a condition upon Himself (that of allowing men to choose Him freely), does NOT put Him at the mercy of puny men. It only means He checks His own behavior. He has great self-control. He could have exterminated man from the face of the earth during the flood, but He chose to allow a handful of people that believed to survive and then promised never to bring man to the brink of extinction again. Why? Because it accomplished His purpose and *WE* do not have to understand all aspects of that purpose!

Where in the story of Noah, was God ever at man's mercy? Nowhere! This is not a two-way street. God allowing us to chose Him or death, doesn't mean that we affect any of God's purpose. He is flexible enough to accomplish His purpose with or without us!

Some of ya'll restrict God by saying He must be following a strict plan. I don't believe that. That makes God rather inflexible. And inflexible does not mean unchanging. God can be flexible and unchanging at the same time. Some ya'll don't seem to believe that.

Good stuff and much wisdom :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

Some of ya'll restrict God by saying He must be following a strict plan. I don't believe that. That makes God rather inflexible. And inflexible does not mean unchanging. God can be flexible and unchanging at the same time. Some ya'll don't seem to believe that.

I presume that you are aiming this at me, since I've had the largest recent post that supported a Calvinistic point of view...

Question for you... Do you support open theology?

Also, I'd not noticed any place where I placed any restrictions on God in any way, shape, or form. You might be reading something into what I posted.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Actually glfredrick, I wasn't. The comment was made about the theme of the previous posts in general, not to anyone in particular, even though I quoted Jim1999. His post was merely a good place to begin.

Open Theology. Hmmm, if by that you are asking if I believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of every human ever born, past or future, the answer is yes. If you are asking if I believe every human ever born, past or future, will at some point in time be saved, the answer is no.

I believe, as the scriptures say, "if I be lifted up I will draw all men to me" to be true. Men will be drawn, buy many will say no, just as in the wilderness when the snakes ran among the people of Isreal and they had to choose to look upon the brass snake that was lifted up in the midst for healing. Those who looked were healed, those who didn't, died.

 

[CF1]

Great examples above of asking for more clarity, getting more clarity, probably needing to ask for yet more clarity and get more clarity again, but nevertheless as we clarify thoughts more and more, this process sometimes shows the reasons we view things the way we do, and we help each other see God's greatness. Sometimes it changes our minds to see something more accurately than we thought before.

In the process of studying and clarifying we see the Glory of God more clearly.

All of us see through a dim glass, and can't see it all.

But sometimes we catch the rays of a diamond sparkling with God's love.

We should never stop trying to clarify our view of God on Earth, as we Love God more. Like Pilgrim, in Pilgrim's progress, we are all at a different place in the journey, but heading to the same destination.

1 Peter 2:2 (New American Standard Bible)
like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

What a privilege to "long for the Word"

 

[pinoybaptist]

........ We do what we desire, but our desires change when we're given a new nature.

and sometimes the old nature is still able to win...which is why the only being with true free will or ability to choose obedience or disobedience is the regenerate...the unregenerate always goes by his old nature ...

 

[Amy.G]

and sometimes the old nature is still able to win...which is why the only being with true free will or ability to choose obedience or disobedience is the regenerate...the unregenerate always goes by his old nature ...

Pinoy, you know I luv u, but I totally disagree with this. The unregenerate do go against their nature every time they resist the temptation to lie, steal, commit adultery, ect. Some of the unregenerate are actually very good people. But that will not get them to heaven, since their sin is still held against them and the payment for that is death.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually glfredrick, I wasn't. The comment was made about the theme of the previous posts in general, not to anyone in particular, even though I quoted Jim1999. His post was merely a good place to begin.

Open Theology. Hmmm, if by that you are asking if I believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of every human ever born, past or future, the answer is yes. If you are asking if I believe every human ever born, past or future, will at some point in time be saved, the answer is no.

I believe, as the scriptures say, "if I be lifted up I will draw all men to me" to be true. Men will be drawn, buy many will say no, just as in the wilderness when the snakes ran among the people of Israel and they had to choose to look upon the brass snake that was lifted up in the midst for healing. Those who looked were healed, those who didn't, died.

Thanks for clarifying the direction of your post...

Here is a link that explains open theism, also called open theology and a few other names:

http://www.theopedia.com/Open_theism

I see you as holding to this position, but since you've not been exposed to the teaching, you may not have had time to process all the implications of it. It has become popular in some circles in the past decade and many hold to a "soft" position on open theology without even really knowing that they do.

For the record, I am not for open theism. I hold that God knows all things, even those that have not yet happened, which I believe is the biblical position, not the logical position. Logic dictates that what has not yet happened cannot yet be known, but God has shown us constantly in the Scriptures that He knows what will come about -- even to the finest points of detail -- and that He is always right, even if we misinterpret His prophecies (as did the Jews if the 1st century).

 

[glfredrick]

Great examples above of asking for more clarity, getting more clarity, probably needing to ask for yet more clarity and get more clarity again, but nevertheless as we clarify thoughts more and more, this process sometimes shows the reasons we view things the way we do, and we help each other see God's greatness. Sometimes it changes our minds to see something more accurately than we thought before.

In the process of studying and clarifying we see the Glory of God more clearly.

All of us see through a dim glass, and can't see it all.

But sometimes we catch the rays of a diamond sparkling with God's love.

We should never stop trying to clarify our view of God on Earth, as we Love God more. Like Pilgrim, in Pilgrim's progress, we are all at a different place in the journey, but heading to the same destination.

1 Peter 2:2 (New American Standard Bible)
like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

What a privilege to "long for the Word"

Amen and Amen!

 

[webdog]

I see you as holding to this position, but since you've not been exposed to the teaching, you may not have had time to process all the implications of it. It has become popular in some circles in the past decade and many hold to a "soft" position on open theology without even really knowing that they do.

I don't see how her position is open theism. Was it open theism when God granted Hezekiah an additional 15 years? The non calvinist position can be one of open theism, but it is not the natural conclusion by default.

 

[glfredrick]

I don't see how her position is open theism. Was it open theism when God granted Hezekiah an additional 15 years? The non calvinist position can be one of open theism, but it is not the natural conclusion by default.

This is what led me to see the position as "open theism"

Some of ya'll restrict God by saying He must be following a strict plan. I don't believe that. That makes God rather inflexible. And inflexible does not mean unchanging. God can be flexible and unchanging at the same time. Some ya'll don't seem to believe that.

From the link I posted above:

Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

...

Open Theists argue that people are created to be in meaningful relationships with God and others and as moral beings must have the ability to make real, responsible choices in their lives. Open Theists argue that this cannot be accomplished as long as God exercises exhaustive control of the universe or predetermines the future because this would remove humanity's free will. The counter point to this is that critics of Open Theism say that if God is not exercising meticulous control of the universe, or does not exhaustively know the future, then this would imply that He is not in control and we are not able to completely trust in God's sovereignty. Furthermore, the question remains, will God actually be able to triumph over evil? Open Theists answer these critiques by noting that while God does not exercise meticulous control, he is "ultimately" in control.

There are two primary motivations for Open Theism. The first is to express a relationship with God that Christians experience devotional. God, Open Theism says, because He desires relationship, has given us real freedom to respond to Him relationally [2]. Secondly, Open Theism focuses on the issue of theodicy. In this Open Theists claim that God's omnipotence does not mean that He is the author of every evil, but that God will ultimately triumph over evil. [3]

The following (and many more!) theologians have expressed opposition to open theism, most of them in considered peer-reviewed articles and books:

John MacArthur
R.C. Sproul
Josh McDowell
D.A. Carson
A.B.Caneday
Al Mohler
Charles Stanley
Charles Swindoll
Alistair Begg
Alister McGrath
Norman Geisler
Hank Hanegraaff
Adrian Rogers
Millard Erickson
Douglas Moo
John Feinberg
Ken Ham
D.James Kennedy
David Jeremiah
John Maxwell
Max Lucado
Tom Schreiner
John Stott
Ravi Zacharias
Charles Colson
Os Guinness
J.I. Packer
Bruce Ware
John Piper
John Frame
William Lane Craig

 

[webdog]

I know what Open Theism is. You can add me to your list

What she said does not mean she is an open theist. The fact is, there is a tension in Scripture how an infinite God deals with finite man within the confines of time, the story of Hezekiah being such an example. He had decreed that Hez needed to get his house in order as he was going to die. God heard Hez's prayer, and granted him an additional 15 years of life. From this we get:

God decreed he was going to die.
God told him to get his home in order.
The message was delivered to him stating he was going to die.
Hez prayed.
God heard his prayer.
God granted him 15 more years of life.

Now we can spin this any way we like using theological systems and logic, but it is immutable truth God did change His mind after hearing his prayer. To deny that is to deny absolute truth.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively.

This one point seperates me from Open Theism. I do NOT in any way shape or form believe that God doesn't know the future exhaustively. Rather I believe that He can see each and every future that could possible result from any decision made by any person during any timeframe. God is beyond time, outside of it and is the Creator of time. He has no problem seeing through what clouds our knowledge of it.

No, it is those who believe that God has set forth one single path and forces men to His story, who make God inflexible and deny His power.

In Webdog's story of Hezikiah, you would have God be made a liar, that He really didn't intend that Hezikiah die even though He told him specifically that he would. Not so! God told Hezekiah exactly what He meant, "go get your affairs in order for you will shortly die". (kind of a blessing in my book to have prior knowledge and time to get the living ready) Then God changed His mind, after hearing Hezekiah's plea. Do you really think that God didn't know what the outcome of both possibilities were? Do you think He was to dumb (ugg, I hate to use that word in reference to He who created me), to unpowerful, to shortsighted, to foresee the consequences of each decision? Say it ain't so!

 

[CF1]

I've often wondered with curiosity (don't know) if the way how God works together with our prayers is as complicated as how DNA reproduces itself. There is an intricate detailed plan, like a computer program, in DNA, but then you have all these enzymes working together as well. It's fascinating and amazing how intricate and detailed it all is. I see the fingerprints of God everywhere in DNA. I love the DVD "God of Wonders", available at online bookstores. It reminds me of doctrines of grace and free will. Perhaps there is a similarity or parallel in how God designed both with intelligent design. Can't wait to get to heaven to find out. Until then I am in awe of His works I see with my dim glass.

 

[convicted1]

Could somebody venture to explain what a mixture of Grace and Free Will is? I cant consieve of it. thanks.

"goobly glock"??? LOL

 

[glfredrick]

No, it is those who believe that God has set forth one single path and forces men to His story, who make God inflexible and deny His power.

Who has said this? I don't recall any of my posts where this was what was said or implied (by me). You have brought out a strawman argument that is indeed easy to defeat.

Now, if the wording were changed somewhat I would have no qualms in identifying with a statement of God's sovereignty in the world...

Perhaps: "God is working through history to accomplish His ultimate will, and no action of human man or woman nor of devil or fallen angel nor of the natural cosmos will thwart the success and implementation of that plan."

Your statement makes God out to be deterministic instead of sovereign. God is not deterministic in His sovereignty; Allah is. So in presenting a statement of God in a deterministic fashion for me to sign onto is in a sense, asking me to say yes to a supposed god alien from the One True God of the Bible.

Of note, the position you take with your statement above (assuming that you hold to some contra position) carries with it an implication that left to our own devices, we humans are not sinful and/or not in rebellion against God, and that we will work alongside God to accomplish His will, thus He has no need to direct history or the actions of persons in that history. Are you sure you wish to argue from that perspective? I would greatly prefer a deterministic God than a God who leaves us to our own will or our own actions to accomplish His divine purpose. Thank God, He has sovereignly -- in a way that we will probably never truly grasp -- made a way to be ultimately sovereign over every particle that makes up every atom that builds every substance and every life in this cosmos, but yet without being deterministic in that He "drags us kicking and screaming" to some place or action against our wills.

I have already described how God caused my own "kicking and screaming will" to bend to His, and for Him it was child's play. My heart turned gladly to my Lord and Savior when I came into His presence, but HE initiated that action, not me!

 

[webdog]

Of note, the position you take with your statement above (assuming that you hold to some contra position) carries with it an implication that left to our own devices, we humans are not sinful and/or not in rebellion against God, and that we will work alongside God to accomplish His will, thus He has no need to direct history or the actions of persons in that history.

Who has said this? I don't recall any of my posts where this was what was said or implied (by me). You have brought out a strawman argument that is indeed easy to defeat.

Hmmm....

 

[glfredrick]

Hmmm....

Hmmm... What?