Review of Martin Luther and Free Will

[atpollard]

I do not reject these things. I believe God is Sovereign and Omnipotent.

I'm not sure if I'm tracking you here.

This is a false dichotomy--Either He is fully able to or He's powerless. There is a third option--He gives man the ability to respond to the Gospel.

Once again, you present a false dichotomy. There are other options. One being He has given us the ability to believe Him or reject Him. This is a reality all throughout the OT and NT. John's prologue details that--A reception of Christ (Samaritan woman, Mary, Martha, etc.) or a rejection of Christ (Religious leaders, Pilate, etc.).

Let’s try again.

FACT: Some people go to Hell.

Since “some people go to Hell”, then one of two things must be true. EITHER God allows some people to go to Hell, OR God is powerless to stop some people from going to Hell.

Are you following me so far?
Is this a ‘false dichotomy’?
What other choice is there besides the two presented?

 

[JonShaff]

Let’s try again.

FACT: Some people go to Hell.

Since “some people go to Hell”, then one of two things must be true. EITHER God allows some people to go to Hell, OR God is powerless to stop some people from going to Hell.

Are you following me so far?
Is this a ‘false dichotomy’?
What other choice is there besides the two presented?

I'm following. Yes, In my Biblical worldview, God allows people to reject Him (while giving them the ability to receive him).

 

[atpollard]

This isn't even talking about individual salvation (Concerning our convo). This passage is addressing the Person who thinks they should be saved because they were BORN a PHYSICAL JEW.

Even if that were true, it still answered the question.

Did God gain Glory through the stubborn opposition of Pharaoh and his ultimate destruction as a direct visible contrast to the salvation of the chosen through the Passover and the parting of the Red Sea? Then you have your answer to why God does not save all ... just like Romans 9 says.

 

[atpollard]

I'm following. Yes, In my Biblical worldview, God allows people to reject Him (while giving them the ability to receive him).

So God allows some people to be damned.

Could God save all?
Is it within his power to do so?
We know that he has chosen not to, but surely God could have ... the blood of Christ was sufficient for the task was it not?

 

[JonShaff]

So God allows some people to be damned.

Could God save all?
Is it within his power to do so?
We know that he has chosen not to, but surely God could have ... the blood of Christ was sufficient for the task was it not?

I'm agreeing with you here.

 

[JonShaff]

Even if that were true, it still answered the question.

Did God gain Glory through the stubborn opposition of Pharaoh and his ultimate destruction as a direct visible contrast to the salvation of the chosen through the Passover and the parting of the Red Sea? Then you have your answer to why God does not save all ... just like Romans 9 says.

I'm fine with that, God will get glory through even those who reject Him. But in the calvinist's framework, if they were to stay consistent (because God's grace is "irresistible") the only logical conclusion is that God saves everyone because no one can reject Him.

 

[Rockson]

It's not usually advisable to press parables too far, but in this case, it seems to work quite well. God sends His evangelists out to call all men to come. But the fact is, as I explained in post #106, that people do not come to Christ of their own volition. 'He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him' (John 1:11). But Christ has a people, given to Him by God, whom He has redeemed through His blood, and they will come-- God will 'compel them to come in.' And so the Scripture is fulfilled that says, 'many are called, but few are chosen.' 'Few,' however, is a relative term in the light of Revelation 7:9.

I'd suggest it still doesn't work well for you in this parable for Lk14:21 says that the master of the house was angry or upset that the first ones didn't come. Why would he be upset if he didn't want them there? So if he wanted them there why no irresistible grace?

 

[Rockson]

Unless you are going to reject both the OMNIPOTENCE and SOVEREIGNTY of God, then the fact that anyone is not saved must mean that God has allowed them to perish even though God could have saved them. Anything that tries to explain a God who can do anything except make his will reality is ultimately just smoke and mirrors.

Well sovereignty is described by some as the supreme authority without any interference from outside sources or bodies, in other words God can do whatever he wants. Well who are you or I to say that God can't decide to use his omnipotence in such a way which complements all aspects of his character? Does he not have a right to do so?

I have no idea WHY God does what he does and does not do what he chooses not to do, but INABILITY is an unacceptable answer since it transforms the “God” into a “god”.

Well look I'm sure we can both agree God can't make a square circle?

If God wanted people saved in the same way that God wanted “let there be light” then it “would be so” and everyone would be saved.

Physically created things aren't even alive and are not spiritual beings.

That everyone is not saved indicates that God wants some saved and some not saved.

I think we're both in agreement that God wanted something. You would claim God didn't want them saved or they would be. I would claim God chose what was preferable. Having robotic family which wouldn't have liberty or freedom which without such there would be no joy or having a family who's love towards him would be absolutely genuine. It came at a high cost for he's not willing that any should perish 2 Pt 3:10 and finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked Ezek 33:11 but to have a LOVE family trumped all this potential for grief.

 

[JonShaff]

Well sovereignty is described by some as the supreme authority without any interference from outside sources or bodies, in other words God can do whatever he wants. Well who are you or I to say that God can't decide he only uses his omnipotence in such a way which complements all aspects of his character? Does he not have a right to do so?



Well look I'm sure we can both agree God can't make a square circle?



Physically created things aren't even alive and are not spiritual beings.



I think we're both in agreement that God wanted something. You would claim God didn't want them saved or they would be. I would claim God chose what was preferable. Having robotic family which wouldn't have liberty or freedom which without such there would be no joy or having a family who's love towards him would be absolutely genuine. It came at a high cost for he's not willing that any should perish 2 Pt 3:10 and finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked Ezek 33:11 but to have a LOVE family trumped all this potential for grief.

Calvinists would say that it's pride that keeps us from believing what they assert to be true. Well, if that is the case, then pride can be the culprit for preventing a person from believing any other truth, even the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Rockson]

Could God save all?
Is it within his power to do so?

Could God have saved all? Not without changing his character of LOVE. God doesn't force people into relationship with him with something like irresistible grace any more than a good person won't handcuff to them one they want as a spouse who of their own will wants somebody else. Some want darkness rather than light!

We know that he has chosen not to, but surely God could have ... the blood of Christ was sufficient for the task was it not?

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ justifies only those to whom believe with their hearts unto righteousness. Rom 10:10

 

[Rockson]

Calvinists would say that it's pride that keeps us from believing what they assert to be true. Well, if that is the case, then pride can be the culprit for preventing a person from believing any other truth, even the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Funny you should say this although I don't believe coincidences for just about 6 hours ago I wrote this on a different web site.

1Cor. 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Cor 1:26 (ESV)


Now here's something Calvinists should consider. Obverse something here. Who are the ones to whom the call or God's choosing generally speaking is given? As a non-Calvinists we'd say to those who have chosen to receive. Calvinists say to the elect...for no reason....just because they're the elect. We see indication here such IS NOT TRUE.

Conditions....or status...what the sinner has done in this world themselves can effect... if they're chosen. Why? Because influential people and those who are noble tend to have what characteristic more that others? PRIDE.

As a general rule they tend not to see their need for spiritual things or that they're a self-made person. So what actions these people did are very much hinged on whether they'll be saved.

When one takes the wraps off PRIDE or not having PRIDE or not so much of it is the strong determining factor as to whether one is saved. People levels of resistance to God various from person to person on this issue.

Calvinists say that all men are totally depraved and there's no variation on how much anyone resists God. But the verse above, 1 Cor 1:26 says different. Doesn't it clearly reveal some people are more open to the gospel than others?

If not why then say not many of type A people will be saved and not many of type B, but more so of type C will be. Why should anything of worldly status matter if God does all through irresistible grace? I'd suggest this is a clue for Calvinists to follow which can cause some to set aside their belief of irresistible grace. It most certainly does not add up.

 

[Yeshua1]

If God effects salvation with zero response from man, and salvation brings the most glory to Christ, and God determines everything to Himself the Most glory, and if Spiritual Death is something God does not desire for an individual, then in conclusion, because He controls the destiny of all, He would save everyone to get the most glory.

He does not see that saving all would be as glorifying to Him as saving ther remant some out though! You are presuming that he thinks and sees this as we do!

 

[Yeshua1]

Unless you are going to reject both the OMNIPOTENCE and SOVEREIGNTY of God, then the fact that anyone is not saved must mean that God has allowed them to perish even though God could have saved them. Anything that tries to explain a God who can do anything except make his will reality is ultimately just smoke and mirrors.

I have no idea WHY God does what he does and does not do what he chooses not to do, but INABILITY is an unacceptable answer since it transforms the “God” into a “god”.

If God wanted people saved in the same way that God wanted “let there be light” then it “would be so” and everyone would be saved. That everyone is not saved indicates that God wants some saved and some not saved.

God choose to save the way that he does in order to do what was both most glorifying to himself, and what was the best thing to do for sinfull humanity!

 

[Yeshua1]

Could God have saved all? Not without changing his character of LOVE. God doesn't force people into relationship with him with something like irresistible grace any more than a good person won't handcuff to them one they want as a spouse who of their own will wants somebody else. Some want darkness rather than light!



This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ justifies only those to whom believe with their hearts unto righteousness. Rom 10:10

The onlky ones who want Jesus to save them are the Ones God chose to save by Him!

 

[Rockson]

The onlky ones who want Jesus to save them are the Ones God chose to save by Him!

But what's your point? Calvinists believe these only ones that want to be in relationship with God really didn't want that really. So if they really didn't want that REALLY than how can you not say they were forced against their will?

I have to be clear. I'm not saying a sinner can't go from not wanting God and from hearing the gospel now they want him and that is God doing that. But that's a far cry from saying he just makes a sinner want him through some irresistible grace of which he doesn't have a choice.

 

[Yeshua1]

But what's your point? Calvinists believe these only ones that want to be in relationship with God really didn't want that really. So if they really didn't want that REALLY than how can you not say they were forced against their will?

I have to be clear. I'm not saying a sinner can't go from not wanting God and from hearing the gospel now they want him and that is God doing that. But that's a far cry from saying he just makes a sinner want him through some irresistible grace of which he doesn't have a choice.

God does not force any of His own to get saved, for once he enables them to receive jesus thru faith, we will desire to have Him save us!

 

[Rebel1]

If you defended God 1/100th as hard as you do this mythical free will, boy, you’d be something.

In defending free will, I am defending God and His nature against fatalistic determinism which denigrates God's character.

 

[Rebel1]

Man lost that freedom in the fall. Man is a slave to sin now. You’ve been shown this NUMEROUS times in here. Yet, you lower your head and keep plowing along, tearing verses from their context, with a bull in a china shop mentality.

I've been shown nothing of the kind. Man never loses the right to choose. This is taught all through the Bible. Your Calvinistic determinism is a johnny-come-lately theology.

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinists believe these only ones that want to be in relationship with God really didn't want that really.

Why do you continually tell untruths regarding what other people believe?

In defending free will, I am defending God and His nature against fatalistic determinism which denigrates God's character.

And why do you continue to deny what the bible says?

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.

If Paul's will was NOT free prior to his salvation he told the truth. If his will WAS free prior to his salvation then he lied in the above verse.

If his will WAS free he did not need Jesus to set him free. He was already free.

 

[Rebel1]

Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you.
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.

Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I.
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by. [Christina Rosetti]

One of my favorite poets.