Well said and so very true. God's love and mercy saved us but we are called to respond to that love. To not respond results in eternal separation.
John O
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
Well said and so very true. God's love and mercy saved us but we are called to respond to that love. To not respond results in eternal separation.
John O
Stan,
I have retracted myself from this discussion because my discussion with many of the participants has not progressed. They are either not understanding what I am saying, ignoring what I am saying or are refusing to agree with the points I've made. I'm not upset about it, but I'm not going to bring forth the same evidence for a third or forth time. So its a waste of all our time to continue.
However, I haven't discussed these points with you and I don't like to leave a conversation without a rebuttal or explanation. But, as with others, I suspect it won't get far and I won't dwell on it for more than one or two exchanges if you don't agree.
You wrote:
"I was the one that pointed out that Paul fell down, as did all the people travelling with him."
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did indeed go back and check the accounts and you are correct.
The Bible does say they fell down (fell, fallen to the earth), but it does not say how, why or what caused them to do so. He absolutely could have fell out of reverence for what was happening but he could have also been surprised and fell involuntarily. Both are plausible, with the latter being so after seeing a sudden bright light as well as being terrified and the text does say he was astonished. While I do have Bible presidence for both scenerios, since the Bible doesn't say either way, debating it won't lead to an absolute resolution on that point.
You wrote:
"We are not told if they converted with Paul or not."
That is true, so what is your point? The intervention wasn't for them. One account says they heard a voice but didn't see a man (acts 9) and another says they didn't hear a voice at all (acts 22). In any sense, it wasn't an intervention for them, it was for Paul.
You wrote:
"You assert he was terrified, but that does NOT show in the three accounts of this conversion. "
Please reread Acts 9:6. "And he trembling and astonished said...." 'Trembling' means to dread, terrify, be afraid or fear. I also said he was terrorized, and if you don't like "colorful" expressions, you may not like that one. However, when one is terrified, they are usually experiencing "terror". Both english words come from the same origin.
You wrote:
"You assume being scolded when that is not in evidence."
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?.... I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Now what would you call that?
You wrote:
"Yes, it was one option from Jesus, which he OBEYED. His recount in Acts 26 shows his willingness."
By definition, if you have only one option you have no choice to obey it! At least you aren't making the mistake of assuming he had other options. Yes, Acts 26 does say he was willing to carry out Jesus' one and only option, but it was after the intervention. I have said twice before to others that if you want to claim Paul had free will AFTER (and not during) the intervention, fine. I won't argue that point too strongly.
The evidence you have from Acts 26 that Paul was willing (it says not disobedient) comes from verse 19. That verse in context clearly shows he was not disobedient to carrying out the mission. Nothing shows he had options during the intervention other than to endure it and submit to it.
You wrote:
"As Acts 26:14 shows, this was not the first time God had poked or goaded Paul's spirit. It would appear that this time, God's goad was so noticeable, that Paul could no longer ignore it. "
Acts 26:14 (KJV)
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
Nowhere in this verse does it say there were other times he was poked or goaded. It seems that you are presuming that because Jesus said it is hard to kick against the pricks that there were other previous "goadings". But the verse nor any verse in the other two accounts says that. Furthermore, there is nothing in the accounts of the Bible that says there were.
I could almost agree with you if you were to use 26:8, in which Paul hints that he believed or heard that Jesus rose from the dead. That would insinuate that Paul at least had thought about it. However, even that verse doesn't say Paul believed it until after Acts 9:6, nor does it show he had a change of heart previous to 9:6.
You wrote:
"Well we do live by our words Slider, so saying beat down was not the best choice of words, and did not properly reflect the scenario be depicted the three times in Acts. "
With all due respect, you are making a big deal out of nothing by your protest over my "colorful expression." The facts are this: Paul was on his way to persecute christians. He saw a sudden light which caused him to fall to the ground, he was trembling (terrified), surprised, blinded, being scolded for his previous persecution, being held captive (because there is no indication Jesus intended to let him leave on his own accord) and given no other options other than to obey. he was told what he MUST do. Not what Jesus wanted him to do. Not what he should do, but what MUST do.
Now are you really going to make a fuss over me saying he was "beat down"?
To conclude:
Once again I am going to state (so that there is no misunderstanding) that if anyone wants to talk about Paul's "free will" after that intervention, I won't bother to argue. There are a few verses I could use from Paul's epistles, but despite them Paul showed nothing but willingness an even joy to carry out Jesus' commission.
The points that I am making pertain only to this intervention. To say that Paul had free will DURING this intervention is illogical and not supported by scripture unless you can show me that Paul had the ability to walk away from the situations he was facing at the point of contact.
If free will means that God does not intervene and force us to do something we arn't willing to do, then this incident shows that we don't always have free will. Paul's will was to persecute Christians, his mission changed and it was a sudden change, that at the time, wasn't very pleasant for him. In short, God got his way and Paul couldn't do anything about except to agree to Jesus' terms.
My views on free will go a little beyond that. Yes, I do believe that if you are the chosen, eventually you will submit to the calling. However, beyond that God has a planned agenda for our lives, which will play out exactly as God planned it. By that I mean not only does God know what's going to happen and how we will respond to certain situations, but that he ordained it, declared it and planned it from the beginning. That also includes our resistance to it, which also has a purpose.
On the other hand, we do have some "free will"; after all, we are the Lord's free man (just realize whose "free man" we are!). Furthermore, perhaps the concept of free will at least keeps us reminded of consequences. Without it, I imagine many would become lazy in their walk with God.
I'd discuss it, but if people won't accept that Paul's intervention was not of his will, I won't waste my nor their time debating my latter point.
Pard
Member
Good post, Slider!
I could see that this perhaps is further evidence FOR the doctrine of election. Here you have people who see a bright light, they fall over because of it, and they hear voice, but they do not respond, they cannot see Jesus Christ, because God has not uncovered the veil over their hearts.
Just a though, needs polish and such.
Just a note, I think that perhaps this topic and the posters in it need some Calvinism 101, because I keep seeing the same, reheated arguments that are always brought up and they are almost all solely derived from misunderstanding of the doctrine.
I could see that this perhaps is further evidence FOR the doctrine of election. Here you have people who see a bright light, they fall over because of it, and they hear voice, but they do not respond, they cannot see Jesus Christ, because God has not uncovered the veil over their hearts.
Just a though, needs polish and such.
Just a note, I think that perhaps this topic and the posters in it need some Calvinism 101, because I keep seeing the same, reheated arguments that are always brought up and they are almost all solely derived from misunderstanding of the doctrine.
Mike S
Member
I've hesitated to jump into this dicussion, I guess beause I've just seen and heard it discussed far too often. But, I will make this one post, because I'm Methodist, and this issue of election/free grace/free will was such a formative part of our early Methodist history. The conflicting views were between the Calvinist George Whitefield and the Arminianist John Wesley, both powerful and influencial men. The Arminian theology has become the dominate theology in today's Methodist churches, but there still remain some Calvinist Methodist congregations.
While I think the issue involves an interesting theological point, it's not something on which I have particularly strong opinions. I do believe in free will, but from a practical point of view, it has no effect on how I live my Christian life. I'm content to leave that bit of theology to others to agonize over. Whatever our beliefs, we all live as if we have free will.
While I think the issue involves an interesting theological point, it's not something on which I have particularly strong opinions. I do believe in free will, but from a practical point of view, it has no effect on how I live my Christian life. I'm content to leave that bit of theology to others to agonize over. Whatever our beliefs, we all live as if we have free will.
Well that is a problem using the Amplified to study the NT. Actually it is a problem period with using the Amplified anytime, as it is a type of paraphrase, and NOT a translation. It does convey notions and opinions NOT in evidence in the NT. I would recommend you use the NIV or NASB to study from. I use both. The NIV to get the clearer picture and the NASB to get the technical picture. Acts 9:6 translates in the NIV as; “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.†, and in the NASB; "but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.†I see nothing of the sort in the actual scriptures, and I think it only wise to never project your feelings onto the Word.
I call it Jesus getting straight to the point in His own inimitable fashion, just like He did when He said to His mother at the Wedding in Cana, John 2, "Woman, what has this to do with us" Now if you read the very next verse, it shows Mary's response to that statement by her son. “Whatever He says to you, do it.â€
Both Paul and Mary didn't need any mollycoddling. They simply did what they needed to do.
That is correct, Jesus only gave him one option. He had two choices, either obey or not. He chose to obey. We all have the minimum of two choices when it comes to God, obey or don't. It appears you think God gives us more than one option? NO, not at all. God has a will for us and in this case made it know to Paul very clearly and succinctly. In most cases He does the same with us, but sometimes I admit is is not always very clear. Bottom line though, is that it is not a multiple choice test where we have to guess. We either obey or disobey. Really simple.
My previous comment should deal with that.
The plural of the word indicates it wasn't the first time. This was the LAST one though. This was final goad or prick as you seem to refer OLD English.
These things are NOT mysteries if you simply read what the word says.
Paul was a Pharisee. That means he believed in the Resurrection. The Sadducees were the ones that didn't. I'm more than sure that Paul have heard the rumours in Jerusalem, after all He was persecuting The Way for WHAT they believed, which included Jesus' resurrection. Simply read Acts 7 to see that Paul knew of the resurrection story after Stephen's testimony and stoning to death. Didn't he guard all the Sanhedrin members coats? Remember Acts 6 is first hand testimony. Acts 22 & 26 are Paul's personal testimony.
Like I said Slider, we live and die by our words. English is a very technical language. You only use "Beat-down" when THAT is what you are trying to convey. Only you know if you meant to or were just being colourful, but I can't take that risk or assumption. It supports your assertion and argument, so it needs to be dealt with so as to properly refute your argument. You should look at John 18:6; So when He said to them, “I am He,†they drew back and fell to the ground.
If you read the rest of that section of text you will see that those that fell did not fear or tremble. They just got right back up and arrested Jesus.
I won't address your summation above as it is redundant, I already responded to all of that.
Well based on his testimony to Agrippa, he made it pretty clear he obeyed without hesitance. Acts 26:19-20; “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.NASB
This is pretty clear as a testimony. He didn't prove disobedience, so he proved obedience. He shows the two choices he had here, and by voicing the negative one, he shows the fact of two choices.
Again your view is personal and NOT in evidence. My previous responses deal with the rest of this redundant statement.
Well this ALSO is in opposition to scripture. Romans 8: 28-30 deal with that concept. God uses His foreknowledge to know what we will do and predestines us to be conformed to the image of His son. This does NOT take away our freewill. It only serves to enhance our understanding of God's mercy and grace. HE, is NOT willing that ANY should perish. Sorry but no programming going on here.
Acts 9 was not Paul's will that this happened, it was Jesus' will. He simply knew that it was needed to get Paul's attention so he would listen and positively respond to the call on his life. I am very thankful that he did.
Man has had a problem form the beginning, not accepting God as God. Adam had no choice in being created.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
None that seeketh..
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
None that seeketh..
This whole discourse of Paul in Rom 9-11 is not addressing specifically the salvation of our souls. Paul is pointing out to the hypothetical Judiazer that Christ did not come to save only the Jews, but that God would have mercy upon all, that Christ had come to save mankind from death, from the fall. It is a gross misapplication to use this discourse to show how Christ deals with individual men relative to the personal salvation of each.
The summary of this discourse is found in Rom 11:32.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
It was never shown from the context that Saul was being forced to obey, that idea is being assumed into the text.nice pleasant post slider
God's side for sure!
former atheist
Member
Excellent rebuttal! You left nothing for me to add or build upon.
I am happy and appreciate that you liked my post Pard and Reba
Good point, Pard. It wasn't where I was going, nor am I ready to accept it (after all, we don't know if they converted, they could've been). But the point is Jesus clearly came for one man : Saul. The others may have become Christians, and praise God if so. But the big fish (and that may confuse stan, because Paul was not literally a fish ) that Jesus was looking for was Paul.
Good point, Pard. It wasn't where I was going, nor am I ready to accept it (after all, we don't know if they converted, they could've been). But the point is Jesus clearly came for one man : Saul. The others may have become Christians, and praise God if so. But the big fish (and that may confuse stan, because Paul was not literally a fish ) that Jesus was looking for was Paul.
Well, yea it was. It was explained to you when I was answering your posts. But go on,little fox and tell us more about them sour grapes!
Ernest T. Bass
Member
Please show me that verse that says Saul had no other choice but was forced to obey against his will.
Already discussed it ... besides, I'm done with ya earnest. I told you I got off the merry go round. I tend to keep my word.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
Never said there was ...I simply said I've already dealt with it.The verse only exists in your imagination.
Have a nice day, earnest.