Proof text for the free will of man?

[preacher4truth]

I ALSO agree, man that is lost without Christ without real freedom. But this only tangentially intersects with man's free ability to reject God.

Then mans freedom of the will is also in bondage.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Is it possible that God chooses all men to be saved through the vehicle of his son's sacrifice?

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV)

Is it possible possible that the Holy Spirit moves upon men with the intent on leading them to Faith.

John 16:8 And when he [Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (KJV)

Is it possible that the activity of the Holy Spirit can be received resulting in a softening of the heart towards faith and that same activity be rejected by other men resulting in the hardening of their heart?

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (KJV)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So then is it possible, therefore, that the elect are those who would be saved rather than can be saved?

Or maybe the Elect are those who will to be saved rather than those who are willed to be saved.

 

[quantumfaith]

No scripture reference? Well then, how do you see passages like John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

I contend that Christ draws all men. "If I be lifted up.....

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The problem is that you are confusing freewill with just simply a "will." The fact that man has a will is not the issue. The plain and simple fact is that the will is not free, and cannot be by strict definition.

The issue is: Does God leave it up to man to decide how much that man will love Him?

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. - 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Sanctification is being done in all believers, they are not perfect nor have they attained to the Lord's standard. It is a journey, we come closer and closer as HE keeps us in HIS hand.

I believe this. I believe the command to love God with our whole heart was given to all men, not just believers. So, sanctification is not relevant at this point.

Please do not ignore everything else I said. It is an easy escape to only pluck out one little part and ignore the rest...

I have no desire to escape, my friend.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So then is it possible, therefore, that the elect are those who would be saved rather than can be saved?

Or maybe the Elect are those who will to be saved rather than those who are willed to be saved.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (KJV)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thanks Pastor Bob.

 

[JoelMT]

The issue is: Does God leave it up to man to decide how much that man will love Him?

2Cr 10:13 But we will not boast of things without [our] measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.

Also take the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 into account, each was dependent upon where it was sown. So, I think it is not up to man.

I believe this. I believe the command to love God with our whole heart was given to all men, not just believers. So, sanctification is not relevant at this point.

It should have already been established that though the commands are given to all men, that does not mean we all have the ability. Only believers have teh ability to comply and come. So it is pointless to ask if the unregenerate can try to love God, because the wicked do not seek after God at all (Romans 3:10-11). The Lord must draw them and quicken them so they are able to follow.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. - John 10:26

This is extremly clear. They do not believe, why? Because they are not sheep. So, if they were sheep, then they would believe. The fact that they do not believe is a direct result of them not being sheep. Jesus has been giving them the commands, yet HE tells them they do not have the ability to obey them.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Who comes to Christ? Those who were given to Christ (6:37). Who has the ability to come and follow the commands given? Only those who are drawn (6:44).

Those who are not saved are not free:
John 8:32-36 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Only the Son makes a man free. Thus, those who are not free and unable to love the Lord with all, even though they are requierd too. I feel like you did ignore most of my first post, because this issue was already addressed. Not all men have the ability to obey as a direct result of sin, remember, for by one man sin entered into the world...?

I contend that Christ draws all men. "If I be lifted up.....

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and he that cometh to me I will in no w ise cast out."
John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 12:32 "And, I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

See that John 6:37 states that all who are given to Jesus will come to HIM. 6:44 states that when the Father draws a man, that man will be raised up at the last day. Now, if John 12:32 means that HE is drawing every single person, then we would have no other choice but to conclude that the Bible teaches that all men will be saved. John 6 makes it clear that all who are drawn will be saved.

But, if those 3 verses teach that all men will be saved we then have a contradiction with other scripture, because we know that not all men will be saved. This leads us to conclude that John 12:32 cannot mean that HE is drawing every single man on earth.

So, John 12:32 does not work with John 6. Do you see what I am saying? We must find what it really means, so that scripture truly does work together and not contradict itself. When looking at John 12:32, note, that the word "men" has the brackets and in your Bible will be in italics. That means that the word is not in the Greek but was written in by the translators because they thought it should be there.
So what it would read in English is "will draw all unto me."

But, looking at the context, I believe it means all types of men. There is also the issue of those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. So, either Jesus was mistaken in what He said, or He did not mean "all men everywhere" but rather, all types (kinds) of men.

Open your Bible to John 12, that way I don't have to write all of John 12 in here. Look at 12:20, it says certain Greeks came unto him. Which means the crowd is made up of Jews and Gentiles. Considering that John 12:32 and John 6:44 cannot work together, the only other logical idea is that the context limits the meaning. The same as we seen in 1 John 2:2. It is to say Gentiles and Jews together.

And we know that "world" does not always mean every single person.

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. - John 2:1

World does not always mean everybobdy who ever lived. it can be used to speak of worldings or the unsaved. As in John 15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." Clearly they do not hate themselves, but it is referring to non-believers.

When John says "not for ours only" but also for the "whole world" he is comparing Jews and gentiles. John was a Jew and an Apostle to the Jews, and the letter was addressed to the Jews. The Jews did not believe that the gentiles were to be included. Thus, he says "not ours only."

It is quite common in Jewish writings to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world"; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture. Note also that in Jewish writings the "world" and "whole world" were used in a limited sense. Proof of such is in this list:

"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''

which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere it is said,

"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''

which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place,

"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''

where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said, when

"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''

that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added,

"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''



Now, also consider Col 1:5b-6a "...whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world;..."

Have all people of the world heard the gospel? Has it even reach the whole world? Certainly not at that time nor is it in our modern time or the times in-between. The obvious meaning is that the gospel has gone out abroad from Judaea into the world.

Even more so, what about all the natives who never heard the gospel message?

To take it further, if HE died for all, then did HE die for those already in hell? Or even for the son of perdition?...

Here is the most important question. If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world then why are most unsaved and going to hell? Was not their sin paid for at the cross? The only way you can make this work is if you are a universalist and believe all men will get saved. Otherwise, why are their sins not paid for??

Next, if you say, HE died for the sins of all, but their sins are only forgiven IF they realize their need of HIM" then you believe in works for salvation. Because it is a conditional statement.

There is more than ample amount of scripture to show that "world" is limited, often to simply mean the gentiles, meaning that jews and Gentiles of any type can be saved.

See, the "world" must be understand in context with its given limitations.

We base things on scripture alone to the glory of God alone, that is what it is all about, nothing less.

 

[quantumfaith]

Then mans freedom of the will is also in bondage.

So man cannot choose to reject God?

 

[JoelMT]

So man cannot choose to reject God?

Man by nature rejects the Lord. As soon as the human becomes a living soul they are God rejectors.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Psalm 58:3-4 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Psalm 51:5 (Youngs Literal) Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

 

[preacher4truth]

So man cannot choose to reject God?

That would prove mans will in bondage. And said mans course would not change. Man is in bondage, including the will, not free "...and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

 

[Doubting Thomas]

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and he that cometh to me I will in no w ise cast out."
John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 12:32 "And, I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

See that John 6:37 states that all who are given to Jesus will come to HIM. 6:44 states that when the Father draws a man, that man will be raised up at the last day. Now, if John 12:32 means that HE is drawing every single person, then we would have no other choice but to conclude that the Bible teaches that all men will be saved. John 6 makes it clear that all who are drawn will be saved.

No it doesn't--it simply says no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him, and the one who comes will be raised on the last day. The one drawn still has to come. It seems you are making an unwarranted indentification between "all that the Father gives to Christ" to "(any/every) one drawn by the Father". If these are in fact not expressing exactly equivalent concepts, (and the terms themselves do not logically necessitate such an equivalence) then the universal drawing Jesus speaks of in John 12:32 does not necessitate universal salvation.

I also think that in discussing this passage in John 6, what often gets missed is verse 45 in which Christ states "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me" which follows His quotation of Isaiah 54:13. So comparing verse 37 to verse 45, since the first states that all whom the gives to Christ comes to Him and the latter states that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Him, one can reasonably conclude that the ones whom the Father 'gives' to the Christ are the ones who have heard and learned from the Father--not necessarily everyone who has ever been "drawn" by the Father. However, even here there is no affirmation that those who cease coming to Christ will be among those raised on the last day. (*After all, it is possible for those initially "given" by the Father to Christ to be finally lost--see the case of Judas in John 17:12 in which he is included by Christ among those whom the Father "gave" Him.

 

[JoelMT]

No it doesn't--it simply says no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him, and the one who comes will be raised on the last day.

There is where you messed up. John 6:44 doesn't say, "and the one who comes." It says ""No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." It says that the Father will draw, and HE will raise him up at the last day. You either added to the one verse or were merging vs 37 with 44. 6:44 makes a direct connection between being drawn and being raised up on the last day.

Thus, drawing and being raised up on the last day have a connection. Those who are drawn always will be raised up at the last day, you cannot seperate the two.

I also think that in discussing this passage in John 6, what often gets missed is verse 45 in which Christ states "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me" which follows His quotation of Isaiah 54:13. So comparing verse 37 to verse 45, since the first states that all whom the gives to Christ comes to Him and the latter states that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Him

It says "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Is this true? Does every single person who hears get saved? No. Do not forget the statement we find in the Bible, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Which indicates that not all men can hear. They are blind too, Eph 4:18 tells us that there heart is blind. Only if a man has an ear to hear can they do so.

It should be plain that vs 45 continues this idea of only the elect being drawn.

As for Judas, he was chosen to fulfill a purpose. It is interesting to note that none of the disciples were saved at this point. Jesus tells Peter, "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." - Luke 22:32. So, Judas was not chosen unto salvation

I want to take this further. Look at Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This is quite interesting. It seems to be a good example of John 6:37, that all who were given to Christ will come to HIM. All of this must be keep in perspective with verses like Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." AND 2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." All this was done before the foundation of the world. This helps make sense of John 6:37. This "giving" as found in John 6:37 was done before the foundations of the world.

Acts 13:48 is solid proof that John 6:37 means that all who are given to Christ will come to HIM. This isn't "maybe" or anything like that. It is "will come." Those who are ordained will come as they did in Acts 13:48.

 

[Sapper Woody]

There is where you messed up. John 6:44 doesn't say, "and the one who comes." It says ""No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." It says that the Father will draw, and HE will raise him up at the last day

It doesn't have to say that. The ambiguous "him" after the colon is exactly that: ambiguous. When you use an ambiguous pronoun in English, there are two types of resolution, the "first mention" account and the "subject preference" account.

The first mention account says that the first noun in a sentence is automatically the antecedent. In this case, it would be "man". So it would be saying that the man would be raised up in the last day. Using this, there is no English connection between being drawn and being raised. So, to paraphrase, "No man can come, unless my Father draw him: and *then* I will raise him up..."

Using the subject preference account, the "him" would be pointing back to "Father", and Christ would be saying that He would be raising the Father up at the last day.

It says "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Is this true? Does every single person who hears get saved? No.

When in High School, me and a few of my buddies took the same class. We heard the same lectures, and were of approximately the same intelligence. However, I paid attention and learned, even though we all heard it. Does this mean that they did not have the ability to learn?

if you say, HE died for the sins of all, but their sins are only forgiven IF they realize their need of HIM" then you believe in works for salvation. Because it is a conditional statement.

So, when I get my kid a present, and all they have to do is acknowledge my present and accept it, they are working for the present? Besides, it being a conditional statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is works. The Bible is full of conditional statements regarding Salvation.
"But if thou shalt confess with thy mouth..." for instance.

 

[JoelMT]

Very nice English skills...Too bad that the Bible was actually first written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

You cannot add to the scripture, to add a "then" to the verse simply because proper English dictates such does not make it so. Proof of such is that no manuscript nor literal translation of the Bible indicates such.


JOHN 6:44
KJV
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Smiths Literal
None can come to me, except the Father having sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Youngs Literal
No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

The English Majority Text Version
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me should draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I will aslo suggest you look at the greek, particularly in a Greek/English Interlinear. Here is one if you do not have one: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh6.pdf (Scroll to verse 44).

So, I do not mean to be rude, but that was a pretty pathetic suggestion. There is nothing out there, particularly in the greek, which would indicate the need for adding "then."

So, when I get my kid a present, and all they have to do is acknowledge my present and accept it, they are working for the present? Besides, it being a conditional statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is works. The Bible is full of conditional statements regarding Salvation.
"But if thou shalt confess with thy mouth..." for instance.

The problem here is that your child knows that he/she is getting the gift. Sinful man has no clue as to his need for Christ. According to Ephesians 4:18 he has a heart that is blind and an understanding that is darkened. Romans 3:10-11 teaches that no man understands or seeks after God.

Is accepting Christ working for salvation? It depends. If it is done through the regenerating work of Christ, through election, irresistable drawing ect, then it is not a work, because Christ did the work of enabling you to choose. But, if you choose without Christ's help then it is a work.

Let me give you an example:
Two men just happen to go to a church one Sunday. The entire sermon was dedicated to the gospel message. Now, both of these men are vile and wicked men, with no intentions of getting saved or of repenting and ect. But, while there the first man gets saved and lives the rest of his life for Christ. The second man, however, does not and becomes more hardened and goes on and dies in his sin.

What is the difference between the two men?

Lets say that freewill is true, just for the example. What made the first man "choose" to get saved? Was he smarter than the second man? Clearly he made the rational and sound choice. Was the first in a better position or state to get saved? Was he just better at understanding? They both have the freewill to choose, but only one does. The only logical conclusion is that the first man is smarter than the second, because he made the wisest choice. That, however, is based solely upon the man, making it no longer grace. The first man got saved because he realized he needed to. The source of this was not Christ, making it works.

According to the Bible, though, it all started with election (Ephesians 1:4). Next, the man was drawn (John 6:44) and saved because it was God's purpose to save him through a holy calling from before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9).

Acts 13:48 is a verse you must take into consideration and not ignore (as it has been). And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

Those who are ordained are drawn (John 6:44) and then saved, as seen in the above verse. It states "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." That is election in a nutshell. They were ordained and as a result they confessed with their mouths and put their faith in Christ.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Wow, a lot to discuss in your last couple of posts, JoelMT. :smilewinkgrin:

Hopefully I'll get back to you in a week-and-a-half, since I'm going on the annual family vacation this weekend (lot to do), and we can then resume this debate.

 

[JoelMT]

Wow, a lot to discuss in your last couple of posts, JoelMT. :smilewinkgrin:

Hopefully I'll get back to you in a week-and-a-half, since I'm going on the annual family vacation this weekend (lot to do), and we can then resume this debate.

Well, hopefully we will be able too, since that is quite aways away. Maybe we will have to have a seperate formal debate. On Facebook a friend of mine hosts formal moderated debates with set rules decided upon by the debators. Which would work better as the debate here on this forum will likely get other posts and lead on to many different points. Let me know if you are interested in that.

 

[billwald]

>So, when I get my kid a present, and all they have to do is acknowledge my present and accept it

You pay cash for a car and have the title put in his name it is his whether he wants it or not. The corollary is that after title passes it is none of your business what he does with the car unless you have also kept him on your insurance policy.

If God gives eternal life when does the title pass?

 

[Dr. Walter]

It doesn't have to say that. The ambiguous "him" after the colon is exactly that: ambiguous. When you use an ambiguous pronoun in English, there are two types of resolution, the "first mention" account and the "subject preference" account.

The first mention account says that the first noun in a sentence is automatically the antecedent. In this case, it would be "man". So it would be saying that the man would be raised up in the last day. Using this, there is no English connection between being drawn and being raised. So, to paraphrase, "No man can come, unless my Father draw him: and *then* I will raise him up..."

Using the subject preference account, the "him" would be pointing back to "Father", and Christ would be saying that He would be raising the Father up at the last day.

When in High School, me and a few of my buddies took the same class. We heard the same lectures, and were of approximately the same intelligence. However, I paid attention and learned, even though we all heard it. Does this mean that they did not have the ability to learn?


So, when I get my kid a present, and all they have to do is acknowledge my present and accept it, they are working for the present? Besides, it being a conditional statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is works. The Bible is full of conditional statements regarding Salvation.
"But if thou shalt confess with thy mouth..." for instance.

You have this same phrase repeated twice by Christ previous to verse 44 in verses 39 and verse 40 and in neither case can the pronoun refer to the Father. In each case the same one who is being given is being raised and therefore the same one who is being drawn is being raised.

Secondly, your alternative makes no sense as verse 45 further describes how the Father draws "him" and concludes with the same kind of conclusion:

Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Verse 44 and the final phrase therefore is equally applied to those coming to Christ in exact use of the same phrase repeated in verses 39-40:

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Finally, drawing in verse 44 is not only described in verse 45 as to the internal work of God but is explained further by Christ to refer to the ability to believe in Christ in verses 64-65:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

What is "given unto him" by the Father? The Ability to "believe" as Jesus defines "draw" to be equal to be "given" and what was not "given" unto those in verse 64 "FROM THE BEGINNING" was the ability to "believe" in Christ. Why? Because the Father never drew them (v. 44) as no man CAN come to Christ except the Father DRAW him! Why? Because these "from the beginning" were never taught of the Father (v. 45). Why? Because "EVERY MAN" who is taught of the father comes to him (v. 45