Witnesses Against You

[Allan]

You mean circumcision of the heart does not happen NOW for a believer?

And by unconditionally, do you mean that their heart-circumcision will not be conditioned upon their free will?

Those are your words J.D. not mine. I never even alluded to this.

So it in non-siquitur.

Unconditionally, as in they (at the second coming who survive) will not have to meet any conditions, just as we non-Jews do not with the exception but to believe. Who said anything about free-will, except you in that portion.

 

[Allan]

Uh, they SAID they would obey. But what did they DO?

How can a depraved man choose to love God, whom he hates?

THEY obeyed. That is WHY "they" could take the promised land as a condition for obedience to walking in line with the Covenant.

I agree J.D., with the understanding youhave much to reconcile with what scripture actually says.

But that is not my issue, it is your since it does not contridict what I believe in accordance with scripture.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

D'Quixote you are a very funny guy.:godisgood: I used to get in these conversations but learned you can't say much that a calvinist will actually listen to, they seem more interested in propogating thier agenda thjen a free discussion and exchange of ideas. The calvinists I have come to know and admire on this board don't usually get ino these little forays either.

If you are an evangelistic calvinist you are fine with me just as the Weslyan who is evangelistic.You are both wrong but close enough and do no real harm as long as you stay in the book and spread the gospel.I figure we will get our theology just right the momment we are home with the Lord.

 

[DQuixote]

Thanks, Bill. Humor is important, kind words can turn away wrath.

My prayer is that folks will come to realize that Calvin's doctrine is based upon OT passages in many cases. That simply is not necessary when dealing with God's ministry to the Christian church. One must always ask to whom a passage is written, when it was written, where it was written, and what do the passages before and after it speak to: check out the "wherefores" and "therefores". Where there is confusion, we own it, and scripture is compared to scripture in order to remove it.

It all boils down to rightly dividing scripture.

:jesus: :godisgood: :laugh: <---the best medicine.....

 

[J.D.]

THEY obeyed. That is WHY "they" could take the promised land as a condition for obedience to walking in line with the Covenant.

I agree J.D., with the understanding youhave much to reconcile with what scripture actually says.

But that is not my issue, it is your since it does not contridict what I believe in accordance with scripture.

I don't understand your doctrine, Allen. Are you saying that they obeyed the law? I thought that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight. And I'm not sure what you're agreeing with me about.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

It seems to me that the free willers do not understand the soverignty of GOD and thus their doctrine of GRACE is in error....

God saves by GRACE and HE saves men without any help of men trying to EARN their salvation...

Source: The BIBLE......

Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, the whole books of GALATIONS and Romans and etc.....

I've never understood the argument that God's Sovereignty is upheld more by beings who simply do what He forces them to do than by the free will choice of those who has a choice. Perhaps a non free willer can explain that to me.

 

[npetreley]

I've never understood the argument that God's Sovereignty is upheld more by beings who simply do what He forces them to do than by the free will choice of those who has a choice. Perhaps a non free willer can explain that to me.

You've fallen into the fallacy of no third option. I can see why you're confused given the only two options you've considered (God forcing people to do things against their will - which is what "force" implies - vs. free will of man).

 

[Allan]

I don't understand your doctrine, Allen. Are you saying that they obeyed the law? I thought that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight. And I'm not sure what you're agreeing with me about.

It is simple JD.

God said IF YOU WILL (in vs 16) - Love me, AND Obey My commands AND statutes AND walk in His way...

At this point you are saying no one can do this, it is impossible.
I AGREE!

But what did God say to those people who WOULD DO these things (later part of 16):

...that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Now a funny thing about this is, THEY WENT AND POSSESSED THE LAND (the land God promised their fathers and them and is part of the blessing set forth in chapter 29 for their obedience), and LIVE and MULTIPLIED!!

This was the blessing to those who DID JUST WHAT GOD COMMANDED. It wasn't a blessing to just anyone but ONLY to those who obeyed GOD'S COMMANDS to do "X" amount of things.

So please tell me HOW they they did this if NO man can it.
I can tell you. It is prefaced in vs 15 with a decision... I have set before you life and death. God (Yes God) gave them an option!
And we see in vs 17 that THEY CAN ALSO turn away... and there is a curse that follows that decision, which continues even into vs 18. What is interesting in verse 17 though is that they can be drawn away so that (or to the point) they CAN NOT hear ANYMORE.

And then God explains HOW they can be able to fulfill, that which no man of himself can fulfill in vs 19.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: - KJV

"Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, that you and your descendants might live! - NLT

So God desires them to "choose" life in God, or death - seperation from God.
Now watch what vs 20 states IMMEDIATELY following "choose life that you and your children may live".

Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

The ONLY way they could fulfill (according to God) their obligation is to "choose life - salvation" AND ONLY THEN scripture says "that you mayest..." recieve all the promised blessings of those who fulfill Gods commands and reveal they are Gods people. They could not do it but in "choosing" God, HE would do it through them. It is the same in the NT.
Their obedience was incumbent upon or possible only when they "choose life" for unless they did, they would stay in disobedience or in unbelief.
They didn't meet the works criteria they met Gods faith criteria, and in that alone did their works have any eternal significance with God.

That is what scripture says verse for verse. If our theology is butting heads with what this passage says explicitly then it is not scripture that must rectify but our own theology that must come in line with scripture.

And what I said I agree with you on, is that what you understand does not mesh with what scripture is stating here. But I see why you didn't understand what I said I left out [you have] a second time

I agree J.D., with the understanding you have, [you have] much to reconcile with what scripture actually says.

 

[windcatcher]

I remember as a teenager being taught by a fundamental pastor who loved the Word of God:

God has 3 wills:
One is permissive will: We are given choice; His response is dependant on our choice. Also, under this is 'when bad things happen to good people' or God allowing the rain on both the just and unjust: Suffering is already here because of sin and our choices, but not all suffering is a judgement of God against those who suffer. God being no respecter of persons is included here.

Gods' directive will (seems like another term was used instead of 'directive' but I can't remember what it was: In this, God speaks and whatsoever he says is done; there are no choices, or this is beyond choice; Creation occurs. A heart is hardened. Judas will betray. Judgement will occur. Sin brings forth death. God chooses this people, this tribe: He has a purpose and plan and nought will come between----it will be done.

God's perfect will;
In this God's will is done as with creation. It is not his will that any should perish but many do. But the perfect will of God is honored by the power of the Holy Spirit bringing holiness and santification in those who chose, by their own free will, to align themselves with God and submit to his will. We are not perfect in this walk, so God, by his permissive will may allow us to venture and stray from his perfect will, allowing us choices, and use this to develope our character, faith, and dependance on him, chastening us as a Father loves his son.

All of this may sound like separate 'wills' but the concepts of each overlap and include the others so our ability (our finite knowledge and understanding is limited) to distinguish the operation of each may be flawed but this expresses both the sovereignty of God and the choice he's given us.

As he knows the end from the beginning, he knows who are his 'elect'. He knows who will choose him. His foreknowledge doesn't keep us from making choices. His foreknowledge doesn't stop a person from responding to 'whosoever will may come.' We give testimony to him, preaching the gospel to all people: So then those who hear are left without excuse.

 

[J.D.]

It is simple JD.

God said IF YOU WILL (in vs 16) - Love me, AND Obey My commands AND statutes AND walk in His way...

At this point you are saying no one can do this, it is impossible.
I AGREE!

But what did God say to those people who WOULD DO these things (later part of 16):


Now a funny thing about this is, THEY WENT AND POSSESSED THE LAND (the land God promised their fathers and them and is part of the blessing set forth in chapter 29 for their obedience), and LIVE and MULTIPLIED!!

This was the blessing to those who DID JUST WHAT GOD COMMANDED. It wasn't a blessing to just anyone but ONLY to those who obeyed GOD'S COMMANDS to do "X" amount of things.

So please tell me HOW they they did this if NO man can it.
I can tell you. It is prefaced in vs 15 with a decision... I have set before you life and death. God (Yes God) gave them an option!
And we see in vs 17 that THEY CAN ALSO turn away... and there is a curse that follows that decision, which continues even into vs 18. What is interesting in verse 17 though is that they can be drawn away so that (or to the point) they CAN NOT hear ANYMORE.

And then God explains HOW they can be able to fulfill, that which no man of himself can fulfill in vs 19.



So God desires them to "choose" life in God, or death - seperation from God.
Now watch what vs 20 states IMMEDIATELY following "choose life that you and your children may live".


The ONLY way they could fulfill (according to God) their obligation is to "choose life - salvation" AND ONLY THEN scripture says "that you mayest..." recieve all the promised blessings of those who fulfill Gods commands and reveal they are Gods people. They could not do it but in "choosing" God, HE would do it through them. It is the same in the NT.
Their obedience was incumbent upon or possible only when they "choose life" for unless they did, they would stay in disobedience or in unbelief.
They didn't meet the works criteria they met Gods faith criteria, and in that alone did their works have any eternal significance with God.

That is what scripture says verse for verse. If our theology is butting heads with what this passage says explicitly then it is not scripture that must rectify but our own theology that must come in line with scripture.

And what I said I agree with you on, is that what you understand does not mesh with what scripture is stating here. But I see why you didn't understand what I said I left out [you have] a second time

I guess what's confusing me is that I thought you believed in prevenient grace. But you seem to defend the idea that people can choose to obey God by natural ability in this passage. Am I debating Arminian Allan or Pelagian Allan?

 

[Allan]

I guess what's confusing me is that I thought you believed in prevenient grace. But you seem to defend the idea that people can choose to obey God by natural ability in this passage. Am I debating Arminian Allan or Pelagian Allan?

We were speaking of the passage in question in relation to its exegetical meaning. It told you EXACTLY what it says verse for verse. That differing generations of Israel will "choose life" and others will not.

I said NOTHING concerning man being able to 'choose' without to obey God without Grace or that man was capable of do so, which is the Pelegan view. Of which I reject completely. You are the one trying to bring this into the conversation.

However the passage does speak specifically to preveient grace since THEY must "choose" and that choice can only be given by God through His grace. And we know they will go through blessings and curses do to the choices they make as a Nation BECAUSE the blessings and Curses are dependent upon the "choices" they make concerning Life (God) and Death (seperation).

I do hold to prevenient grace but not to the Arminian theolical construct.

Actually you aren't debating either you asked a questions about what I said and haven't even addressed the passage concerning the OP.

If you wish to debate, please address the passage in like manner as I have, since the debate concerns not what I believe or what you believe but what the scripture says in Duet 30.

 

[J.D.]

We were speaking of the passage in question in relation to its exegetical meaning. It told you EXACTLY what it says verse for verse. That differing generations of Israel will "choose life" and others will not.

I said NOTHING concerning man being able to 'choose' without to obey God without Grace or that man was capable of do so, which is the Pelegan view. Of which I reject completely. You are the one trying to bring this into the conversation.

However the passage does speak specifically to preveient grace since THEY must "choose" and that choice can only be given by God through His grace. And we know they will go through blessings and curses do to the choices they make as a Nation BECAUSE the blessings and Curses are dependent upon the "choices" they make concerning Life (God) and Death (seperation).

I do hold to prevenient grace but not to the Arminian theolical construct.

Actually you aren't debating either you asked a questions about what I said and haven't even addressed the passage concerning the OP.

If you wish to debate, please address the passage in like manner as I have, since the debate concerns not what I believe or what you believe but what the scripture says in Duet 30.

Hello Allan, glad you were on line tonight. I am comforted in seeing your affirmation of prevenient grace. I thought you were going Pelagian on me, but my misunderstanding.

I agree that the exigesis is more important than our systematic, but the OP, if I'm in the right thread, presents the passage in question in support of the reformed theological view; which view I support. And your posts are supporting an opposing theology. I don't think you can objectivley separate your exigesis from your theology, neither can I. Exigesis leads to Biblical theology, which leads to systemic theology; and once we have a systematic framework in our minds, the circle begins and our exegises is now tainted, either for good or bad, by our systematic.

We all desire to view scripture objectively, but are we able?

Allan, I want to challenge your doctrine of prevenient grace some day, but I'm shutting down for the night and will be going on a trip later this week, so I try to catch you in a few days.

See ya later.

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan, glad you were on line tonight. I am comforted in seeing your affirmation of prevenient grace. I thought you were going Pelagian on me, but my misunderstanding.

I agree that the exigesis is more important than our systematic, but the OP, if I'm in the right thread, presents the passage in question in support of the reformed theological view; which view I support. And your posts are supporting an opposing theology. I don't think you can objectivley separate your exigesis from your theology, neither can I. Exigesis leads to Biblical theology, which leads to systemic theology; and once we have a systematic framework in our minds, the circle begins and our exegises is now tainted, either for good or bad, by our systematic.

We all desire to view scripture objectively, but are we able?

Allan, I want to challenge your doctrine of prevenient grace some day, but I'm shutting down for the night and will be going on a trip later this week, so I try to catch you in a few days.

See ya later.

I'll pray that God keep you safe J.D. if it be His good pleasure and maybe we can pick this up again. Enjoy your trip and find all the elect you can, time is growing short!

PS - Actually the OP is about the free-willers use of this verse to support - free-will.

 

[Rippon]

Allan , I know you were giving JD some pleasantries , but we do not " find all the elect we can ." We can be in fellowship with Christians ( and real Christians are indeed the elect ) . However , if you think that we Calvinists have a special radar device to seek out elect ones ( who have yet to believe ) you are mistaken .

 

[Allan]

Allan , I know you were giving JD some pleasantries , but we do not " find all the elect we can ." We can be in fellowship with Christians ( and real Christians are indeed the elect ) . However , if you think that we Calvinists have a special radar device to seek out elect ones ( who have yet to believe ) you are mistaken .

IF your looking for an argument you wont find it.


I was merely stating that where ever he is going, to present the Word of God any who will hear that the elect may recieve it.

I DO find all the elect I can for that is commanded of me. Go into all the world and preach the gospel...batpising them...and teaching them.

If you don't, well... whatever.