Yep, he could've stayed flat on his back and blind in the middle of the road!
I don't remember Jesus asking him to reconsider. In any sense, doesn't seem like much of a freewill situation.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The Fallacy of Freewill
- Thread starter Pard
- Start date
Yep, he could've stayed flat on his back and blind in the middle of the road!
I don't remember Jesus asking him to reconsider. In any sense, doesn't seem like much of a freewill situation.
former atheist
Member
God did not stripe away Saul’s free will. God striped away his intellectual pretenses that allowed him to reject God in the first place. In seeing God, and in that moment knowing that his pretenses of God were false, Saul cried out: “Lord, what would YOU have me to do?â€
It is Saul who requested of God to know Gods Will for him. God did not force his own Will upon Saul wherefore that Saul had to do anything other than actually hear him. That does not invalidate Saul’s Free Will no more than it invalidates your Free Will that I might say something to you that you do not wish to hear.
No, Saul, seeing the Glory of God, his pretenses striped away, decided for himself to change his ways to serve the God in which he persecuted. I have a large amount of respect for Saul, that he did not after which try and rationalize away his experience and continue to reject God.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
He could have chosen to disobey, so he was not forced to obey. God has foreknowledge, so God already knew that before He even approached Saul that Saul of his own choice would respond in an obedient way. Saul was already one that had a will to obey God, yet he was just going about it the wrong way till he was corrected.
Was God's choice of Abraham some arbitrary, random choice? No, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen 18:19. God knew/foreknew that Abraham would obey Him enough that God would then be able to bring about those promises He had spoken of Abraham, so God did not have to force Abraham to obey Him. No reason for God to chose someone that He knew would be so disobedient that those promises could be brought about. Likewise, God foreknew Saul would obey and Paul would be able to carry out God's will in the gospel being taken to the Gentiles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Former Christian
Member
Pard
Jesus never laughed. It’s only recorded he cried over and got mad at the Jews.
In the Old Testament, when God laughed, it was only in scorn against those who thought they could oppose him or not take him seriously. Imagine not taking the creator seriously. If you believe Jesus is God, then guess what that means to you? There isn’t even any record of the Jews laughing at Jesus. They took him very seriously. To the point of complicity in his death. The Romans didn’t laugh at him humorously. They mocked him. There’s a difference. Jesus took very seriously what he was sent here to do. It was no laughing matter to him. Or to the God who sent him.
There are plenty of things to laugh about if you want to laugh. Can’t have much regard for your religion if you regard it as a joke. Leave it to non-believers to laugh at your religion. It should be a serious matter to you.
Free will isn’t a doctrine, it’s reality. The idea there is no free will, now that’s a doctrine. A doctrine of man. While non-Christian religions may believe in the power of their own works, they usually agree that fate has a large part to play in their religion. And here it is again showing up in the Christian religion, only in the person of God. In spite of all the commandments in the bible that show the opposite to be true.
The idea that free will is a fallacy wasn’t proposed by John Calvin first, but he made it popular in Protestantism. You will note that neither of the two Christian denominations who have a far longer historical footprint than Protestantism do NOT believe in it. And neither do Protestant apologists who have a far better track record than Calvin. Those who believe that free will is a fallacy will generally also believe in the other doctrines of Calvin. Because Calvin’s doctrines are the only doctrines that make sense in the context of the idea that free will is a fallacy.
Free will: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.†(Oxford Dictionary)
It refers to the ability to make decisions voluntarily without coercion.
Satan can only coerce his own or believers who let him. Not all non-believers belong to Satan in the strict sense. Common sense should be enough to see this. Believers have the advantage because they can knowingly choose to resist Satan.
God predestines no one except Jesus Christ. Those who are in Christ are predestined in him. Those who are in Christ are in Christ because God was revealed to them as existing, that mankind is in a fallen state, and that Jesus Christ is God’s provision for mankind’s dilemma. They must choose to believe or not what was revealed. Then they express that faith by some work, generally water baptism. Only after one has made the decision to believe and express that belief does the Spirit baptize one into Christ. Free will in action. As far as salvation is concerned, human free will in synergy with God’s free will.
If free will is a fallacy, then neither Adam nor his progeny are responsible for their dilemma. And God is shown to be, not sovereign, but tyrannical and an unjust judge. A God created by men. A God NOT the one portrayed in the bible. At least not the bible I’ve been reading. The God portrayed in the bible does not predestine anyone to anything. He provides a choice in relation to their fate. In Adam, mankind is already condemned to death. They have a choice to believe into Christ and be saved from that condemnation, gaining eternal life through the faith of Jesus Christ.
God’s glory and his due credit has nothing to do with man. It remains in spite of what man may think or do. Jesus said that God could raise up stones to give glory to God to man’s disgrace, if no man will do so.
If there’s no free will, it means mankind isn’t responsible for anything. For their inheritance in Adam or what they do with it after birth. Adam isn’t responsible for his sin and God judged him unjustly. If God does everything, ergo God’s responsible for everything. Which is a God that may exist, but in my own free will, I choose to believe does not. Too much like mankind to exist as anything more than a God created in the image of man. Yet the bible says that mankind was created in the image of God, not vice versa. God knew what would happen. And along with creation predestined Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, to be the solution to what Adam would do.
Adam was given a choice and chose wrongly. That’s free will. Adam’s choice was due to his own free will. If he had no free will, then the choice given to Adam was superfluous. If his progeny have no free will, then all of the places in the bible that show he has a choice to believe or not are also superfluous. Is your God given to saying and doing that which is superfluous? The God of the bible isn’t portrayed as such.
That is God. And God’s decision is his own, his own choice due to his own free will. As men, we have free will to implore God for that mercy on our behalf. There’s no connection between this verse interpretively understood and the fact of the free will of God or man.
Romans chapter 9 is part of a larger context (9-11) that shows how Jew and Gentile have been united in Christ, something like Ephesians 2. It has a larger context that includes Rom 1-8. And larger still the context includes a choice whether to be conformed to this world or transformed by the renewing of the mind. It isn’t something that sits out there on its own just to prove there’s no free will.
Contextually, drawn is the better translation. Coercion isn’t the point here.
And the good that men do, that isn’t according to their free will? As far as salvation is concerned, men are considered on a level playing field. All need Christ if they are to be saved. But that doesn’t mean that mankind is always sinning or does no good whatsoever. There wouldn’t be any civilization for men to record if that were the case. We would all be gang bangers until God forcibly put us into Christ whether we liked it or not. While the bible and human history is against you on this regard, so also is a little common sense.
At least you’re still seeking for what God says. That is a plus. Maybe one day you will learn that there is some jesting that is just from the flesh of man.
I rarely quote Scripture any more because Christians don’t agree on what it says. Or I would quote Eph 5:4, which jesters interpret away. I just present a point of view. Listen to what Jesus teaches you, not what man teaches you. Including this man. Listen to what the Spirit is saying to the “churchesâ€. Because what Jesus says and what the Spirit says are the same thing.
I only got to your post #29. I think I’ve said enough to get my view across.
In regard to the last few posts about the experience of Paul, Jesus came specially to Paul because he was chosen for a specific purpose. He was chosen because of his honesty. And he honestly changed his mind when confronted with Jesus himself. He chose honestly to follow the true representative of God, rather than the teachings of men among the Jews, when the truth was revealed to him in a very special way. Paul was the true twelfth disciple that replaced Judas. He was an Apostle of Christ. and also an apostle of the Church in Antioch chosen through the Spirit. He is the only one of the 12 Apostles to hold this distinction of dual Apostleship. Of course, the Roman Catholic denomination would contend this.
NC
Jesus never laughed. It’s only recorded he cried over and got mad at the Jews.
In the Old Testament, when God laughed, it was only in scorn against those who thought they could oppose him or not take him seriously. Imagine not taking the creator seriously. If you believe Jesus is God, then guess what that means to you? There isn’t even any record of the Jews laughing at Jesus. They took him very seriously. To the point of complicity in his death. The Romans didn’t laugh at him humorously. They mocked him. There’s a difference. Jesus took very seriously what he was sent here to do. It was no laughing matter to him. Or to the God who sent him.
There are plenty of things to laugh about if you want to laugh. Can’t have much regard for your religion if you regard it as a joke. Leave it to non-believers to laugh at your religion. It should be a serious matter to you.
Free will isn’t a doctrine, it’s reality. The idea there is no free will, now that’s a doctrine. A doctrine of man. While non-Christian religions may believe in the power of their own works, they usually agree that fate has a large part to play in their religion. And here it is again showing up in the Christian religion, only in the person of God. In spite of all the commandments in the bible that show the opposite to be true.
The idea that free will is a fallacy wasn’t proposed by John Calvin first, but he made it popular in Protestantism. You will note that neither of the two Christian denominations who have a far longer historical footprint than Protestantism do NOT believe in it. And neither do Protestant apologists who have a far better track record than Calvin. Those who believe that free will is a fallacy will generally also believe in the other doctrines of Calvin. Because Calvin’s doctrines are the only doctrines that make sense in the context of the idea that free will is a fallacy.
Free will: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.†(Oxford Dictionary)
It refers to the ability to make decisions voluntarily without coercion.
Satan can only coerce his own or believers who let him. Not all non-believers belong to Satan in the strict sense. Common sense should be enough to see this. Believers have the advantage because they can knowingly choose to resist Satan.
God predestines no one except Jesus Christ. Those who are in Christ are predestined in him. Those who are in Christ are in Christ because God was revealed to them as existing, that mankind is in a fallen state, and that Jesus Christ is God’s provision for mankind’s dilemma. They must choose to believe or not what was revealed. Then they express that faith by some work, generally water baptism. Only after one has made the decision to believe and express that belief does the Spirit baptize one into Christ. Free will in action. As far as salvation is concerned, human free will in synergy with God’s free will.
If free will is a fallacy, then neither Adam nor his progeny are responsible for their dilemma. And God is shown to be, not sovereign, but tyrannical and an unjust judge. A God created by men. A God NOT the one portrayed in the bible. At least not the bible I’ve been reading. The God portrayed in the bible does not predestine anyone to anything. He provides a choice in relation to their fate. In Adam, mankind is already condemned to death. They have a choice to believe into Christ and be saved from that condemnation, gaining eternal life through the faith of Jesus Christ.
God’s glory and his due credit has nothing to do with man. It remains in spite of what man may think or do. Jesus said that God could raise up stones to give glory to God to man’s disgrace, if no man will do so.
If there’s no free will, it means mankind isn’t responsible for anything. For their inheritance in Adam or what they do with it after birth. Adam isn’t responsible for his sin and God judged him unjustly. If God does everything, ergo God’s responsible for everything. Which is a God that may exist, but in my own free will, I choose to believe does not. Too much like mankind to exist as anything more than a God created in the image of man. Yet the bible says that mankind was created in the image of God, not vice versa. God knew what would happen. And along with creation predestined Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, to be the solution to what Adam would do.
Adam was given a choice and chose wrongly. That’s free will. Adam’s choice was due to his own free will. If he had no free will, then the choice given to Adam was superfluous. If his progeny have no free will, then all of the places in the bible that show he has a choice to believe or not are also superfluous. Is your God given to saying and doing that which is superfluous? The God of the bible isn’t portrayed as such.
That is God. And God’s decision is his own, his own choice due to his own free will. As men, we have free will to implore God for that mercy on our behalf. There’s no connection between this verse interpretively understood and the fact of the free will of God or man.
Romans chapter 9 is part of a larger context (9-11) that shows how Jew and Gentile have been united in Christ, something like Ephesians 2. It has a larger context that includes Rom 1-8. And larger still the context includes a choice whether to be conformed to this world or transformed by the renewing of the mind. It isn’t something that sits out there on its own just to prove there’s no free will.
Contextually, drawn is the better translation. Coercion isn’t the point here.
And the good that men do, that isn’t according to their free will? As far as salvation is concerned, men are considered on a level playing field. All need Christ if they are to be saved. But that doesn’t mean that mankind is always sinning or does no good whatsoever. There wouldn’t be any civilization for men to record if that were the case. We would all be gang bangers until God forcibly put us into Christ whether we liked it or not. While the bible and human history is against you on this regard, so also is a little common sense.
At least you’re still seeking for what God says. That is a plus. Maybe one day you will learn that there is some jesting that is just from the flesh of man.
I rarely quote Scripture any more because Christians don’t agree on what it says. Or I would quote Eph 5:4, which jesters interpret away. I just present a point of view. Listen to what Jesus teaches you, not what man teaches you. Including this man. Listen to what the Spirit is saying to the “churchesâ€. Because what Jesus says and what the Spirit says are the same thing.
I only got to your post #29. I think I’ve said enough to get my view across.
In regard to the last few posts about the experience of Paul, Jesus came specially to Paul because he was chosen for a specific purpose. He was chosen because of his honesty. And he honestly changed his mind when confronted with Jesus himself. He chose honestly to follow the true representative of God, rather than the teachings of men among the Jews, when the truth was revealed to him in a very special way. Paul was the true twelfth disciple that replaced Judas. He was an Apostle of Christ. and also an apostle of the Church in Antioch chosen through the Spirit. He is the only one of the 12 Apostles to hold this distinction of dual Apostleship. Of course, the Roman Catholic denomination would contend this.
NC
Last edited by a moderator:
The Damascus Road event Only Happened after God had been prodding Saul. The event happened at the right time and at the right place and God knew (because He knows all things) that Saul was ready to respond. The nature of the event I thing was not so much about Saul's salvation (though of course that is an essential element of it) but about that which God was calling Saul now to be Paul to undertake for the rest of His life and what it would cost him.
Paul went and studied the law (this is the same law he already knew by memory) but through the light of the new revelation he received and then when he was ready Paul became the man we know as an Apostle and the author of large portions of the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
Freewill operated at every level, Saul did not have to respond to Christ but was ready to respond, Paul did not have to reteach himself every aspect of the law but he was ready to do so, Paul did not have to go to Jerusalem but was ready to go even though he had a sense of the consequences.
Freewill does not conflict with the grace message and the faith message but it is an essential element. God create man in His image so that man would enjoy an eternal relationship with Him. God was not surprised and is not surprised by anything.
Remember if the result does not seem perfect its because its not the end yet. We see from the beginning towards the end God sees both the beginning and the end. He communicates both to us but we must trust that in the middle of the journey He has the end under control.
John O
This particular saying is ONLY used in Acts 26:24, when Paul was relating his conversion to King Agrippa. He didn't use this colloquialism in Acts 22 nor is it found in Acts 9. In any event, by it's use, Paul is showing that God had been trying to get his attention for a while. Saul had been ignoring Him, so I guess he was using his freewill to do that. The flash that happened at Saul's conversion, did NOT knock them down, they fell to the ground. I would hazard a guess, to say that anyone who experienced God in that fashion, would fall on the ground prostrate, before Him. Like in Matthew 17:6, John 18:6, and quite a few times this happened in Revelation. This is an involuntary response to God Himself. I have felt Angels of the Lord in the past, and trust me, you cower in fear and awe.
Just as the Apostle's did, Paul responded positively to Jesus calling Him, just like we who are saved, have done.
Actually slider you provided the scriptural backing in your original post so no more verses were required. I continually see pieces taken out of verses or verses taken out of context to push forward a view point and when challenged pot shots taken at the person who would dare offer a different thought on the matter.
With regard to my post if you have a point you wish to discuss or require clarity on please feel free to post.
John O
Well, first of all, I didn't give any Scripture. I just talked about an incident. So I don't see how you got scriptural backing from it. Speaking of that incident, Paul was knocked down, blinded and Jesus chided him and told him what to do next. He didn't ask, suggest or plead... he told him. Don't see how that's out of context. It was pretty straight forward.
But yea.... Paul had all kinds of free will and choices.
Sure.
jasoncran
Member
limited freewill but that said if it was that way since the beggining why does the torah say CHOOSE whom ye will serve? whether it be God or baal.And some are predestine to believe in freewill
Good to see we have jokers in both camps!
we do have a choice if we are shown what the lord is? we can refuse him.
i dont to my knowledge base my view on arminism or calvinism on the teachers alone. its solo fide that i decide what fits.
former atheist
Member
In simple English: Hey... dude.... Saul asked God what God would have him do. Saul asked this of God right before God told him what to do.
Did you not read the same passages in scripture that the rest of us have read? The last time my brain worked decently, it concluded that asking for instruction, is not the same as being forced into a command. Therefore, I cannot conclude that Saul didn’t have Free Will in his choice to ask of God what it was that God would have him do, because, asking for instruction is a perfectly reasonable expression of Free Will.
@ Former Christian, Post# 44. Very good post. I have to ask however, why the name Former Christian?
One factor seems to be absent in the discussion.
It is a matter of how freewill will choose in front of true choices.
God can grant us with full freewill. On the other hand, He can remove or place choices for us. Pre-destination can thus not only about freewill, but also about choices.
So to destine you to be saved, He doesn't need to alter any of your free will. He can remove the choices which will otherwise lead you astray. He also promised that for all the choices subject to a temptation, He will place at least one choice which will deliver you out of the temptation.
You have a fully functioned freewill, with a fringe of choices at the various stages of your life time. God the Holy Spirit tries to lead you to the choices of salvation. Satan will try his best to influence you to those choices of tempation and potentially leading you away.
You are thus pre-destined to choose from an option list approved by God at the various moments of your life. This way and theoretically, He doesn't need to remove any of your freewill for you to be destined to be saved.
Without destroying freewill, He can also allow Satan to try his best to lead you all away from God. Only then God chooses to pick whoever He likes. He will be able to feelfree to choose those who will love him and obey him in a time frame of eternity which He can accurately foresee.
That's why it is said that we are (everyone of us) the already dead (captive by Satan), yet can be the chosen to be saved, and the best part is we can still be given the freewill in full.
It is a matter of how freewill will choose in front of true choices.
God can grant us with full freewill. On the other hand, He can remove or place choices for us. Pre-destination can thus not only about freewill, but also about choices.
So to destine you to be saved, He doesn't need to alter any of your free will. He can remove the choices which will otherwise lead you astray. He also promised that for all the choices subject to a temptation, He will place at least one choice which will deliver you out of the temptation.
You have a fully functioned freewill, with a fringe of choices at the various stages of your life time. God the Holy Spirit tries to lead you to the choices of salvation. Satan will try his best to influence you to those choices of tempation and potentially leading you away.
You are thus pre-destined to choose from an option list approved by God at the various moments of your life. This way and theoretically, He doesn't need to remove any of your freewill for you to be destined to be saved.
Without destroying freewill, He can also allow Satan to try his best to lead you all away from God. Only then God chooses to pick whoever He likes. He will be able to feelfree to choose those who will love him and obey him in a time frame of eternity which He can accurately foresee.
That's why it is said that we are (everyone of us) the already dead (captive by Satan), yet can be the chosen to be saved, and the best part is we can still be given the freewill in full.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pard
Member
Interesting, Hawkins!
But as I read through the last two pages (and I am sorry for not responding. The other day I went to pray before going to bed and realized that I had spent my entire day on the computer and though I thought I was in the Word, I was enjoying myself in a rather idolatrous way, so I've reconciled and will be on here less, only to the point where I am in the Word) I notice one glaring issue that I brought up in brief before, but it is really the crux of the matter (or one of the main cruxes).
Given the free will (which I do acknowledge we have, like I said in my first post) a human (before Christ) will ALWAYS pick the sinful option. Always! Now you may say "but I picked Christ!" or "my friend picked Christ over blah blah blah!" Yeah? Me too! But I didn't pick Christ, I picked what He had. I picked eternal life. I picked comfort. I picked riches in Heaven. I picked the American Christ. The Christ that you subscribe to because that is what 78% of the country views is right. I picked the "Christ is in my top ten, but He is below family, job, friends, country, etc., etc.." I fear that is the Christ most people pick when they come and say "I choose Christ!" They pick Him for a sinful reason, for a purpose of idol-worship.
It can be anything. It can be a desire for the riches in Heaven. It can be a desire for an eternity of comfort and not pain. It can be for the religious aspect, as in the tradition. It can be for the power to use scripture as a weapon, which is wrong. It can be for a lot of really bad reasons, or it can be because you love Him, love what He did, and want to atone and repent for what you did to put Him on the cross. And, big pill to swallow, you need to ask yourself if that is the real reason you are a Christian or is it because of something else, but people told you that you need to feel bad, so you do.
Are you a Jude 1:4 Christian? Because that is not a Christian. That is a person who is going to Hell.
And this is why I have come to all the conclusion above:
Human beings (without a God given change of heart) CANNOT pick for God. We have dead hearts. We can pick to sin or we can pick to do something neutral in that regard, but we CANNOT pick to help our own salvation until Someone first helps us.
And maybe the awesome majesty of our Lord is that one day you just wake up with a changed heart, you don't even know it, but you just wake up and you have the ability to love Christ, and you do!
I don't pretend to know everything, I am pretty stupid, and this is why I have to admire the Lutheran conclusion. You can say it is a cop out, but I think it is a brave and very Biblical stance on the matter. We don't know. We cannot even begin to understand. God didn't explain it all in the Bible, He gave us enough to know about His doings and His Son. That's it. Genesis doesn't explain how the Earth was made in 6 days, but I believe it. The four gospels don't explain how Jesus died and rose again, but I believe it. God doesn't explain how He picks people but I believe He does.
We can presume, make logical leaps, but they are just that, leaps. They may be right or they may be wrong. For me, because I do believe in predestination, but I am also keenly aware of the command to go out make disciples of the world, I have to conclude that God changes the hearts of those He predestined when they come into contact with true followers of Christ who work hard and pray hard for that person's salvation. For me this is the way to rationalize what I believe to be true, predestination, with evangelism. All you can do is tell them the truth, tell them were they are going, and pray that God works in their hearts so that they can HEAR the truth and KNOW God.
But as I read through the last two pages (and I am sorry for not responding. The other day I went to pray before going to bed and realized that I had spent my entire day on the computer and though I thought I was in the Word, I was enjoying myself in a rather idolatrous way, so I've reconciled and will be on here less, only to the point where I am in the Word) I notice one glaring issue that I brought up in brief before, but it is really the crux of the matter (or one of the main cruxes).
Given the free will (which I do acknowledge we have, like I said in my first post) a human (before Christ) will ALWAYS pick the sinful option. Always! Now you may say "but I picked Christ!" or "my friend picked Christ over blah blah blah!" Yeah? Me too! But I didn't pick Christ, I picked what He had. I picked eternal life. I picked comfort. I picked riches in Heaven. I picked the American Christ. The Christ that you subscribe to because that is what 78% of the country views is right. I picked the "Christ is in my top ten, but He is below family, job, friends, country, etc., etc.." I fear that is the Christ most people pick when they come and say "I choose Christ!" They pick Him for a sinful reason, for a purpose of idol-worship.
It can be anything. It can be a desire for the riches in Heaven. It can be a desire for an eternity of comfort and not pain. It can be for the religious aspect, as in the tradition. It can be for the power to use scripture as a weapon, which is wrong. It can be for a lot of really bad reasons, or it can be because you love Him, love what He did, and want to atone and repent for what you did to put Him on the cross. And, big pill to swallow, you need to ask yourself if that is the real reason you are a Christian or is it because of something else, but people told you that you need to feel bad, so you do.
Are you a Jude 1:4 Christian? Because that is not a Christian. That is a person who is going to Hell.
And this is why I have come to all the conclusion above:
Human beings (without a God given change of heart) CANNOT pick for God. We have dead hearts. We can pick to sin or we can pick to do something neutral in that regard, but we CANNOT pick to help our own salvation until Someone first helps us.
And maybe the awesome majesty of our Lord is that one day you just wake up with a changed heart, you don't even know it, but you just wake up and you have the ability to love Christ, and you do!
I don't pretend to know everything, I am pretty stupid, and this is why I have to admire the Lutheran conclusion. You can say it is a cop out, but I think it is a brave and very Biblical stance on the matter. We don't know. We cannot even begin to understand. God didn't explain it all in the Bible, He gave us enough to know about His doings and His Son. That's it. Genesis doesn't explain how the Earth was made in 6 days, but I believe it. The four gospels don't explain how Jesus died and rose again, but I believe it. God doesn't explain how He picks people but I believe He does.
We can presume, make logical leaps, but they are just that, leaps. They may be right or they may be wrong. For me, because I do believe in predestination, but I am also keenly aware of the command to go out make disciples of the world, I have to conclude that God changes the hearts of those He predestined when they come into contact with true followers of Christ who work hard and pray hard for that person's salvation. For me this is the way to rationalize what I believe to be true, predestination, with evangelism. All you can do is tell them the truth, tell them were they are going, and pray that God works in their hearts so that they can HEAR the truth and KNOW God.
former atheist
Member
I more or less agree with your assessment Hawkins. Our Free Will is indeed limited to the choices that God has allowed for in our very existence. However, upon those choices we have total Free Will. With regard to things outside of the confines of our very existence, we have absolutely no say whatsoever.
Something else we all should very much consider in this conversation or point of debate is how we each define and understand Free Will as it pertains to our existence under God. I lean toward the definition that Free Will is the freedom from the power of God, granted by God, and so that humans can make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by Gods divine intervention or by divine force.
Something else we all should very much consider in this conversation or point of debate is how we each define and understand Free Will as it pertains to our existence under God. I lean toward the definition that Free Will is the freedom from the power of God, granted by God, and so that humans can make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by Gods divine intervention or by divine force.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Paul did not ask for options, much less what they were if he had any. Furthermore, Jesus answered "arise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou MUST do. " the word "must " does not indicate a choice is available like the word "should " is used.
Let me entertain the thought that there was a choice. Tell me what the Bible says that option was. We can imagine what it could have been. But the only reasonable conclusion based on Biblical evidence is that he would've stayed blind, lying in the street arguing with Jesus.
Furthermore, I believe we are looking at the situation with two different levels of severity. The way I see it, being immediately blinded and having Jesus personnally scold you and telling you what you must do doesn't seem like a situation that has choices.
Pard
Member
Truth! If a blinding light fell upon Richard Dawkin and he saw Christ come to him from heaven and say "Why do you persecute my people?" And then he was promptly struck blind he too would do whatever God asked of him, not because of his previous desire to please God, but because HE WOULD HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE THAN TO ACCEPT THE GLORY AND POWER THAT WAS JUST CAST UPON HIM AND THAT FOREVER CHANGED HIS VERY BEING!
You can't tell me that having God come upon you in a very real and physical manner wouldn't put a road block in front of you doing anything but His desire!
Ernest T. Bass
Member
Acts 9:6 "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 9:8 "And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus."
In v6 Saul asked what would the Lord have Him do. Saul of his own free will was willing to do what the Lord was directing him to do.
In v8 Saul arose from the earth and went to Damascus, he chose not to be disobedient to the heavenly vision, Acts 26:19.
Not force occurs here at all.
What was it he MUST do? Upon meeting Ananias, what was it Ananias told Saul he must do? "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized (imperative), and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16.
What Saul must do, what he was commanded to do was to be baptized, that is be born again as Jesus told Nicodemus "Ye must be born again.", Jn 3:7.
One MUST be born again if they are to be saved/enter the kingdom, yet Jesus does not force this new birth upon anyone, it was not forced upon Nicodemus or Saul or anyone else for it is a choice each must person must make himself/herself.
Again, God has foreknowledge so He already knew Saul would obey His will even before He approached Saul on the road in Acts 9. So why would God have to force Saul to obey when God already knew Saul would choose to obey of his own free will?
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 9:8 "And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus."
In v6 Saul asked what would the Lord have Him do. Saul of his own free will was willing to do what the Lord was directing him to do.
In v8 Saul arose from the earth and went to Damascus, he chose not to be disobedient to the heavenly vision, Acts 26:19.
Not force occurs here at all.
What was it he MUST do? Upon meeting Ananias, what was it Ananias told Saul he must do? "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized (imperative), and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16.
What Saul must do, what he was commanded to do was to be baptized, that is be born again as Jesus told Nicodemus "Ye must be born again.", Jn 3:7.
One MUST be born again if they are to be saved/enter the kingdom, yet Jesus does not force this new birth upon anyone, it was not forced upon Nicodemus or Saul or anyone else for it is a choice each must person must make himself/herself.
Again, God has foreknowledge so He already knew Saul would obey His will even before He approached Saul on the road in Acts 9. So why would God have to force Saul to obey when God already knew Saul would choose to obey of his own free will?
jasoncran
Member
he knows and allows you to act. that doesnt mean we dont have freewill just that he foreknows if we will come to us
all are called few will come. whosever cant be anything else but all they that will come
let me ask this. why would peter then say of the false prophets its better that they had NEVER known the lord then to reject him?a an athiest doesnt come the knowlegde of the lord by himself does he?
all are called few will come. whosever cant be anything else but all they that will come
let me ask this. why would peter then say of the false prophets its better that they had NEVER known the lord then to reject him?a an athiest doesnt come the knowlegde of the lord by himself does he?
Ernest T. Bass
Member
Because foreknowledge does not necessitate predetermination.