Wondering Why?

So if a person has faith then it was given to him. Good, now we are getting somewhere.

No. I would say that what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write carries the same weight as a truth out of the mouth of Jesus.

 

There is a big difference in God knowing who will and who will not have faith and holding them accountable for their lack of it; and His determining who will and will not have faith and holding them accountable for it.

Why would men who are fallen be unable to believe in a message sent for the very purpose of reconciling them to God from that original fall? That makes no sense.

 

There is a big difference in God knowing who will and who will not have faith and holding them accountable for their lack of it; and His determining who will and will not have faith and holding them accountable for it.

Why would men who are fallen be unable to believe in a message sent for the very purpose of reconciling them to God from that original fall? That makes no sense. </font>[/QUOTE]1. Sure there's a big difference, but at a minumum you have to recognize that when God created, that all that He knew would come to pass was fixed, and would certainly come to pass, and in that sense every choice has been determined. When God created Adam, knowing that Adam would fall, was there a chance that Adam would not fall?

2. It makes as much sense as saying that the person who keeps the law shall live. The fact that no one (save Christ) could keep the law does not reduce that statement to nonsense. The message of the gospel alone saves no one. The work of the Holy Spirit is required as well.

 

Actually I would say that the Spirit must regenerate the target before the Gospel message can be believed.

 

Determined by whom? The only think "determined" is God's knowing of what is yet to be determined. He knows what people freely determine. That in no way compromises the idea that they make the determination.

Was it possible for Adam to "not sin." Yes, it was. RC Sproul agrees with me on that point.

I wrote:

But the law wasn't given for the purpose of saving anyone or bring them to life. Quite the opposite, the law brought death by showing people their sin. The gospel is given for the purpose of bringing reconcilation and life. You make a false comparison.

 

It will be what He knows it will be. It cannot be anything else. Compare it to the saints' prayer in Acts 4.

"... for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

So, God predestined ("determined before", KJV) what the Jews and the Gentiles and Herod and Pilate would do, and they all chose to do what they did freely. One truth does not negate the other.

Was it possible for Adam to "not sin." Yes, it was. RC Sproul agrees with me on that point.</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I asked. Was there a chance for what God foreknew would happen to not happen?

You completely missed the point, so let me try it again. You had said this:

"Why would men who are fallen be unable to believe in a message sent for the very purpose of reconciling them to God from that original fall? That makes no sense."

The gospel alone cannot save. Fallen men are unable to believe the gospel without the work of the Holy Spirit. The gospel was never intended to save apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Yes, it will be what he knows it will be, but my point is that is different from the concept of, "it will be what he determines it will be," which apparently is what you are seeking to prove as evidenced in your argument. But you don't need to make such an effort. I agree that what ever God determines will be, will be. He determined the death of Christ and hardened people in their rebellion and worked through human means to assure that came about according to His sovereign plan. I don't dispute that. There is a difference in what God permits and foreknows and what He determines and foreknows. You seem to equate the two.

That's not what I asked. Was there a chance for what God foreknew would happen to not happen?</font>[/QUOTE]I answered your question. Chance means possiblity. And I told you it was possible for Adam to "not sin." God's knowledge of Adam's choice doesn't determine what Adam will choose at that moment of choice, Adam does. Adam's determination determines what God knows. We are speaking about timeless and eternal matters that we aren't going to grasp in this life. You are arguing from a linear perspective as if God was before time waiting for certain events to happen. God is above time and unconstrained by it. There is never a "time" in which Adam had not sinned for God, because for God there isn't time. I don't pretend to understand it all myself, but I make this point to show that we are merely speculating about such eternal matters. The point is that Adam could have sinned and he could have not sinned, period.

Oh, you don't believe the gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit? I do. Paul calls it the "power of God unto salvation." The writer of Hebrews calls it, "living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." And Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

See how Jesus equates his words with the work of the spirit in quicking men? The gospel is never "alone" for it is the very truth and power of God unto salvation.

 

Not exactly - I am saying that the difference between the two does not mean what you think it means. Let's pretend that there is nothing but God. He knows that if He creates John Doe that John Doe will choose to rebel and will suffer eternal damnation, and He creates John Doe anyway, when He doesn't have to create him. What good does it do to say that God didn't decree John Doe's rebellion and subsequent just damnation, He only permitted it?

You reworded it again.

That's begging the question.

Not period - if what you say is true (and it is) that "there is never a 'time' in which Adam had not sinned for God, because for God there isn't time" then from that perspective there is no other alternative. That's the perspective I'm arguing from, not the linear perspective where Adam could have done otherwise up until a certain point at which he sinned, and after which it was too late.

Originally you wrote "why would men who are fallen be unable to believe in a message sent for the very purpose of reconciling them to God from that original fall?" We believe that men are unable on their own to believe the gospel. It seemed that you were referring to the gospel message and saying that men could believe it on their own without the quickening work of the Spirit - in fact, that original quote still looks that way.

 

Ask yourself why you aren't willing to just accept my answer that Adam was able to not sin?

You affirm that Adam was able to not sin, don't you? Of course you do. Everything beyond that is pure speculation based upon human logic and finite understanding of eternal matters.

What good does it? It is the difference of cupability. Descibing God's knowledge of John's determination to sin as being God's determination, as if God desired John's sin and even caused it. Its the very reason you won't accept the answer, "Adam was able to not sin." You know you must accept that answer because of cupability.

But what if John Doe has a son who God knows will choose to worship Him and lead many others to worship? We can't possibly see all the ramifications of each persons existance, even the existance of those who die in their sin.

Plus, I don't deny the truth that Calvinists affirm in which God does receive glory in the perishing of the wicked. I just believe they perish due to their own free rejection of Christ's words despite all that God did to provide them salvation; not because God didn't choose to save them.

 

What good does it? It is the difference of cupability. Descibing God's knowledge of John's determination to sin as being God's determination, as if God desired John's sin and even caused it. Its the very reason you won't accept the answer, "Adam was able to not sin." You know you must accept that answer because of cupability.

But what if John Doe has a son who God knows will choose to worship Him and lead many others to worship? We can't possibly see all the ramifications of each persons existance, even the existance of those who die in their sin.

Plus, I don't deny the truth that Calvinists affirm in which God does receive glory in the perishing of the wicked. I just believe they perish due to their own free rejection of Christ's words despite all that God did to provide them salvation; not because God didn't choose to save them. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Adam had a real choice and was able to not sin. I don't think I've ever denied that. I don't accept the answer because that's not the question I was asking.

And it is not all just speculation - in at least three cases (Joseph, Job, Jesus) we see things happening that are attributed to God, and yet the guilty in each case are culpable for the evil that they do, and God is not. If God can intend the evil that Joseph's brothers did for good, and if He can give and take away from Job through Satan and thieves and the weather, and if the Jews and Gentiles and Pilate and Herod can gather together against Christ to do "whatsoever [God's] hand and [God's] counsel determined before to be done", and in each case those human agents made freewill choices to do exactly what they wanted to do, and if those human agents are culpable for what God had planned for them to do, then the same can be true for John Doe's rebellion - God can decree it and yet John Doe remains culpable for it.

 

Great. Now let's turn it around and ask you the same question. Was their a chance Adam would not sin, eventhough God knew that he would sin?

If not, then reconcile that with the truth that Adam was able to not sin. How can it be that Adam was able to not sin but yet he didn't have a chance to not sin? What is the difference?

 

In regard to Joseph etc. I would describe it like this:

When you watch a puppet show you might say the puppet master controls the strings, but in the case of God could you not also say that it's not that the man upstairs is pulling their strings, it's just that he knows them intimately enough to know which move they will make. Therefore he builds his show around it, and then the audience watches the end result? A perfect harmony of free will and sovereignity.

 

Great. Now let's turn it around and ask you the same question. Was their a chance Adam would not sin, eventhough God knew that he would sin?

If not, then reconcile that with the truth that Adam was able to not sin. How can it be that Adam was able to not sin but yet he didn't have a chance to not sin? What is the difference? </font>[/QUOTE]Hope your head is screwed on tight. I've got a feeling that this will entertain you.

Were the Jews and the Gentiles and Pilate and Herod able to not crucify Christ? Of course they were. Was there a chance that they would not do what God had determined before that they would do? Of course not. God freely determined that they would all freely choose to participate in that sin, and He decreed that they would not have to but that they most certainly would.

Here's how our forefathers said it (hope you aren't creedophobic):

 

That's not the language that the Bible uses. Joseph says that God intended it for good. Job says that God took his stuff away, and the writer affirms that Job was correct. Peter says that God planned the murder of Christ, including who would be involved and what they would do. Why shouldn't we use the same kind of language?

 

Yes, Peter says in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost that God determined the death of Jesus [Acts 2:23], meaning that it was the Romans and the officials of Judaism who crucified our Lord. I do not think it also took the effort of Judas to place Christ on the Cross. God did not fore- ordained this man to Hell; Judas belligerently pushed his way forward and pointed out who Jesus was in the darkness of the night by kissing him, as was the custom of the day. Our Lord’s death would have happened with or without Judas even though the Bible says, that he was a devil from the beginning.

The previous quote was, ‘Peter says that God planned the murder of Christ, including who would be involved and what they would do.’ [/quote] You are holding the Calvinistic throttle a little too long.

 

Hi Wes;

It is true that the Father sent His son as a sacrifice for our sins, but Christ layed down His life willingly. No one took it from Him. It was not murder.

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike