F
felix
Guest
(John 6:44) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
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
ivdavid,
The curse we are under is NOT sin. We are under the curse of death, the condemnation that resulted from Adam's sin. Christ freed mankind from the bondage to both death and sin. That freedom was already known by God in Gen 3:15. There has never been a condition whereby man could not choose. If man was not capable of responding God would not have commanded.
The reason Christ was necesary was that man could not give himself life, an eternal existance. ONly Christ could overcome death. But man could always respond to God for a relationship.
All men were under the curse. All men were condemned through Adam, not because of anything each man did. Man could not possibly choose the death that was the curse of Adam. The curse of Deut 11:28 is not about death, but about having a relationship with God. What Christ did for mankind has nothing to do with free will. Just as much as God's creation has nothing to do with man's will. However, the purpose of God creating man and Christ's redemption is so man could again freely choose life or death (relationship) as He purposed from the beginning. Christ overcame the fall, death, so that man coud be joined with God. this is the choice that is being spoken of in Deut and Lev and in Gal. It is presupposed upon man's free will. The command would be utterly irelevant if man did not have free will.
You are very confused as to what Christ did and what man can do and in fact what man is expected to do. Christ was predestined, elected in fact, to be the redeemer of the world, of mankind. God was not about to let satan rule this world through his power of death so that man and the would would simply dissolve into nothingness.
ONly Adam chose the death that overwhelms this universe by sinning. We all inherited that death by propagation.
God, in His great love, mercy and justice, did not want all of his creatures to be condemned to death, by the one sin of one man. Rather, Christ freed mankind from that bondage, so that each and every human being would be required, obligated, to make an active choice either for God or apart from God. Death, made man's free will null and void. Christ restored the Image of God in man so that man, created to be free, could actually make a free choice of choosing life or death, meaning spiritual death and life, not physical. Man now is resposible for what he does. Man cannot die physically more than once.
your theology assumes Christ never came, Christ accomplished nothing to overcome the fall, which God promised to Adam in Gen 3:15. All men are sustained by grace and grace alone. But man must choose to be in the flesh or in the spirit. Those that reject Christ have made the free will choice of remaining in the flesh. Those that believe freely chose to life in the spirit. NOthing in scripture, from OT to NT changes that concept.
YOur statement is a contradiction. It is absurd to say that man has options, but chooses always against God. Man has not always choosen against God's will. From Enoch, Abraham, all the other patriarchs, many in Isreal, true Isreal, and thousands upon thousands of Christians since Pentacost. Man has never been condemned by the law of works. Man was condemned through Adam, we inherited death, the curse which Christ overcame for us.
You are clearly explaining scripture from the acronym of Tulip. Unconditional election is evident, as is irresistable grace, and limited atonement is in sight, not to say total depravity. Obviously, if we went further, perseverance of the saints would also be visible. NOne, not one of those tenets is a scriptural one. They are all imposed based on the supposition of predestination which also is not scriptural.
YOu'll need to try much harder. Just a hint, there is no answer for predestination in scripture as understood and developed by Calvin.
The curse we are under is NOT sin. We are under the curse of death, the condemnation that resulted from Adam's sin. Christ freed mankind from the bondage to both death and sin. That freedom was already known by God in Gen 3:15. There has never been a condition whereby man could not choose. If man was not capable of responding God would not have commanded.
The reason Christ was necesary was that man could not give himself life, an eternal existance. ONly Christ could overcome death. But man could always respond to God for a relationship.
All men were under the curse. All men were condemned through Adam, not because of anything each man did. Man could not possibly choose the death that was the curse of Adam. The curse of Deut 11:28 is not about death, but about having a relationship with God. What Christ did for mankind has nothing to do with free will. Just as much as God's creation has nothing to do with man's will. However, the purpose of God creating man and Christ's redemption is so man could again freely choose life or death (relationship) as He purposed from the beginning. Christ overcame the fall, death, so that man coud be joined with God. this is the choice that is being spoken of in Deut and Lev and in Gal. It is presupposed upon man's free will. The command would be utterly irelevant if man did not have free will.
You are very confused as to what Christ did and what man can do and in fact what man is expected to do. Christ was predestined, elected in fact, to be the redeemer of the world, of mankind. God was not about to let satan rule this world through his power of death so that man and the would would simply dissolve into nothingness.
ONly Adam chose the death that overwhelms this universe by sinning. We all inherited that death by propagation.
God, in His great love, mercy and justice, did not want all of his creatures to be condemned to death, by the one sin of one man. Rather, Christ freed mankind from that bondage, so that each and every human being would be required, obligated, to make an active choice either for God or apart from God. Death, made man's free will null and void. Christ restored the Image of God in man so that man, created to be free, could actually make a free choice of choosing life or death, meaning spiritual death and life, not physical. Man now is resposible for what he does. Man cannot die physically more than once.
your theology assumes Christ never came, Christ accomplished nothing to overcome the fall, which God promised to Adam in Gen 3:15. All men are sustained by grace and grace alone. But man must choose to be in the flesh or in the spirit. Those that reject Christ have made the free will choice of remaining in the flesh. Those that believe freely chose to life in the spirit. NOthing in scripture, from OT to NT changes that concept.
If one holds to predestination then there are no options. That is why predestination is a fallacy and an errant supposition imposed on scripture. Scripture is all about man being free, able to choose his relationship with God.
YOur statement is a contradiction. It is absurd to say that man has options, but chooses always against God. Man has not always choosen against God's will. From Enoch, Abraham, all the other patriarchs, many in Isreal, true Isreal, and thousands upon thousands of Christians since Pentacost. Man has never been condemned by the law of works. Man was condemned through Adam, we inherited death, the curse which Christ overcame for us.
You are clearly explaining scripture from the acronym of Tulip. Unconditional election is evident, as is irresistable grace, and limited atonement is in sight, not to say total depravity. Obviously, if we went further, perseverance of the saints would also be visible. NOne, not one of those tenets is a scriptural one. They are all imposed based on the supposition of predestination which also is not scriptural.
NO, grace is part of it, but it is through and by faith in which we do good things. I Cor 1:29 does not even address the point you are trying to make. This is part of your confusion between what God did for man, so that man could do what he was created to do with God, freely.
Ah, but you fail to go far enough. The summation of that whole discourse which is about Christ's redemptive purpose, is Rom 11:32. Every single human being will receive God's mercy, love and justice in that Christ, His Son would redeem the world, all of mankind, not just some, which is your errant view of election, which in fact makes God a respector of persons. You have God playing poker and randomly, selects some to salvation as individuals, and some to hell. Hardly what scripture teaches.
YOu'll need to try much harder. Just a hint, there is no answer for predestination in scripture as understood and developed by Calvin.
felix,
Then all men are taught by God John 8:45.
All things were given to Christ, Col 1:20 and redeemed through His Blood. Aligns with John 6:39 in that all the things given to Him, he will lose nothing, He will raise it up in the last day.
Where is predestination in John 6:44?
Simply citing a text does not help you unless you can explain just how predestination is visible in this text.
If you want to call the idea that God created everything, predestination.
If you want to call that Christ was elected to redeem mankind, the world, II Cor 5:18-19, John 4:42, I John 4:14 as predestination, OK, but that has nothing to do with the doctrine of predestination as developed by calvin.
Well, let's see. Christ draws all men to Himself, John 12:32.
Then all men are taught by God John 8:45.
All things were given to Christ, Col 1:20 and redeemed through His Blood. Aligns with John 6:39 in that all the things given to Him, he will lose nothing, He will raise it up in the last day.
Where is predestination in John 6:44?
Simply citing a text does not help you unless you can explain just how predestination is visible in this text.
If you want to call the idea that God created everything, predestination.
If you want to call that Christ was elected to redeem mankind, the world, II Cor 5:18-19, John 4:42, I John 4:14 as predestination, OK, but that has nothing to do with the doctrine of predestination as developed by calvin.
F
felix
Guest
May be the way I understand 'predestination' is not the way the very definition of predestination is.
God is not bound by time is so important for this discussion because, our future is already a past for Him irrespective of whether we have freewill or predestination.
There is "no time" where God is, as He is not bound by time. The "very moment" God created time in the beginning is same as the very moment He will destroy earth in end times. There is no past, present or future for God as He is eternal and not bound by "any time".
The Word who was with God, became flesh as Jesus Christ and came as 100% man, bound Himself under time during the period He spent in this world. "Everyone" is bound by time except Christ who is not of this world. This is why, He is the beginning and the End and our Eternal life.
Eternal life is not living for ever but rather living in a place not bound by any time.
It is impossible for us to even imagine a place where no time exists. From that place, if we look our place where time exists, our present, our past, our future all looks the same.
This is why God Himself said:
(Heb 4:3) For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest,' " although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Because, from God's view, beginning and the end are same.
Right, so according to you, we have a distinction in the very usage of what "curse" we are under - we were under the "curse of death" which is not a matter of freewill at all since it is borne solely out of Adam's choice in transgression and from which all of us have already been redeemed by Christ's work - and we are hence redeemed unto the Deut 11:26-28 choice where it's entirely possible that we could choose against the "curse of lacking a relationship with God". Have I understood your position correctly here? If so, the necessary inference is that the passages that proclaim Christ's work of redeeming us from the 'curse' must not refer to the Deut 11:28 curse (since it should refer to the 'curse of death' borne by adam's choice in transgression).Cassian said:
Cassian: "Man has never been condemned by the law of works."
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
We see two things here - that Man under the law of works is indeed condemned under the curse of the law and that the curse here does refer to the Lev 18:5 and Deut 11:26-28 condition to do the commandments of God. How do you reconcile this?
Cassian: "this[relationship with God] is the choice that is being spoken of in Deut and Lev and in Gal. It is presupposed upon man's free will."
Let us explore Gal 3 further -
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Note in the above v.12 that Lev 18:5 is quoted as the law that is not of faith. See the continuation in v.13 where Christ is proclaimed to have redeemed us from the curse of this very Lev 18:5 law. You can see the same pattern in Rom 10:3-5. If Christ's redemptive work is from the curse of this law of works, and if every created man has redemption in Christ and Christ alone, isn't it imperative that all men must be under the curse of the law of works? Then doesn't that conclude that man in the flesh is utterly not able to uphold the Lev 18:5, Deut 11:27 condition of God that is not only given unto him as an option to choose from but is also commanded to be chosen? How do you reconcile these inferences with your own?
If I were to hold out chocolate in my one hand and some spinach in my other and asked a little child to choose from one of these two options, would you not at least grant a theoretical possibility (I'd say it's more a practical plausibility), that the child would always choose chocolate over spinach? Why then must my statement be a contradiction?Cassian said:
This raises more questions - if only Adam sinned and chose death and all of us are condemned to die because of his sin and choice, doesn't that go against God's ways of justice in Ezekiel 18 ?Cassian said:
You have also said,
Cassian: "Anything outside of man making the choice dismisses man for any responsibility and thus cannot be judged."
How can we be first condemned to die, on the basis of a choice that we did not make (Adam's sole choice), to then receive God's mercy in Christ when anyway, according to your above statement, man cannot be held responsible and be judged into condemnation in the first place?
Rom 5:12 clarifies this by stating that what has been propagated in the flesh is not Adam's guilt or condemnation - rather it is sin in the flesh that has been propagated across all ages. Rom 5:16 upholds that Christ atoned for the many transgressions and not just the single offence of Adam's - and sets us free from the guilt and the power of sin in us ie in our flesh(described in Rom 7:17-20).
heymikey80
Member
I've looked, really heavily studied into the history of the concept of free will, and I can't say I have all the answers, but maybe I have a few touchstones that would help with this. At least from a human standpoint of comprehending where we've been & where we're going.
An Enlightenment idea emerged a few centuries ago which philosophy calls "libertarian free will", which is what most people today reduce to "free will". It's the modern idea of our wills being completely unhinged from God's support. To me this philosophy really is illogical -- so my connotation, "completely unhinged", seems accurate to me. It seems nonsensical to me. Can an unhinged will actually hold the owner responsible, seeing that the will has no basis in control? It doesn't even stand up to external examples: people change their wills and minds based on emotions that you or I could engender through a facial expression; an action; or a hot-button statement. Is that an uncontrolled will, or a heavily-controlled one?
On the other hand, the ancient concept of "free will" was not nearly so unhinged. In Christian thought the expectation was that God transcends such human notions and in the Ultimate sense, we were not transcendantly free, while at the same time God established the liberty that He granted to human beings (the Law actually grants people liberty). Significantly, if you ask someone today what's the difference between liberty and freedom, he can't answer.
I think the concepts of liberty and freedom have changed; they've become shallow, indistinguishable, "dumbed down" to our modern materialism and reductionism.
That's how I see it today. In theology I'm a Calvinist. But that doesn't deprive me of using the ancient concept of "free will", really "free agency", or of "liberty" to describe the right that God has granted to human beings. But libertarian free will -- it's just not a logically-consistent scheme, and it's not even observable in the world, seeing how we control people's decisions with just the blue or black connotations of words.
An Enlightenment idea emerged a few centuries ago which philosophy calls "libertarian free will", which is what most people today reduce to "free will". It's the modern idea of our wills being completely unhinged from God's support. To me this philosophy really is illogical -- so my connotation, "completely unhinged", seems accurate to me. It seems nonsensical to me. Can an unhinged will actually hold the owner responsible, seeing that the will has no basis in control? It doesn't even stand up to external examples: people change their wills and minds based on emotions that you or I could engender through a facial expression; an action; or a hot-button statement. Is that an uncontrolled will, or a heavily-controlled one?
On the other hand, the ancient concept of "free will" was not nearly so unhinged. In Christian thought the expectation was that God transcends such human notions and in the Ultimate sense, we were not transcendantly free, while at the same time God established the liberty that He granted to human beings (the Law actually grants people liberty). Significantly, if you ask someone today what's the difference between liberty and freedom, he can't answer.
I think the concepts of liberty and freedom have changed; they've become shallow, indistinguishable, "dumbed down" to our modern materialism and reductionism.
That's how I see it today. In theology I'm a Calvinist. But that doesn't deprive me of using the ancient concept of "free will", really "free agency", or of "liberty" to describe the right that God has granted to human beings. But libertarian free will -- it's just not a logically-consistent scheme, and it's not even observable in the world, seeing how we control people's decisions with just the blue or black connotations of words.
that must be true, because time has absolutely nothing to do with predestination as understood in Calvin's theory and stated in the Westminster Confession.
ivdavid,
Yes, that is within the freedom of man due to the fact that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of death. Earlier you equated the concept that all men were condemned by the law, We are not, we were condemned by death through Adam. Man, respective of our relationship with God, not our state of being, has always had the choice of doing good works or not doing them. We cannot ever keep the law perfectly, especially perfect enough to save ourselves. That is what Christ did for us, and we simply believe that He did that work for us and it becomes justification by faith, not works.
There is a huge difference between the two aspects of our salvation which you tend to mix together.
Look at it this way. If you assume that Christ is not part of redemption, then we have man condemned to death through ADam. Even if man could have keep the law perfectly, all it would do is enable him to have a relationship with God in this life. We would have still died under the curse of death. Pefection of the law does not grant life, eternal existance which is what man lost in the fall. Man cannot give himself life even if he kept the law. This is the whole argument of Paul when he is discussing the works of the law not able to save.
You is not referring to our relationship with Christ, but our condemnation of death through Adam.
Christ perfectly keep the law, which is why He became the spotless Lamb and sacrifice for sin. But Christ's resurrection also gave life to us, redeemed us from death.
To put this back on track with the concept of free will. Man in his free will, using the example above, could have kept the law perfectly, but it cannot grant life, physical life. However, once man has life, has an eternal existance again, now our free will has consequences again. It is why God has held man responsible for his actions from the fall onward because Christ would be our redeemer.
You are also confused on Rom 10:3-5. this has to do with Christ overcoming the curse of the law, death, and has nothing to do directly with man's free will or man's relationship with Christ. The former makes the latter possible and gives consequence to man's actions, because he has an eternal existance. In other words, man has never been without the ability to use his free will.
Rom 5:12 says explicitly that it was death the condemnation to Adam that has spread to all men. This is confirmed in Heb 2:14, I John 3:8 as well. Death, mortality is the fall. Adam's sin or guilt has nothing to do with me or you directly. The same thing that Eze 18 is stating. Adam's sin nor guilt cannot be passed on to any other human being. We sin all on our own, but the cause of it is death, our mortality, we fall to the passions of our flesh.
Rom 5:18 tells you again, that it is life, (the opposite of death) that is given to all men through Christ. I Cor 15:22 is another equation that makes and affirms death is our problem. Rom 7:24 death is your answer again.
That power to freeing us from the bondage to both death and sin, was available to all men from the beginning, because God knew that man would be redeemed from death and sin. Which is why the texts of Lev and Deut has nothhinig to do with not being able to obey God. That man is somehow bound to do only one thing, not being able to make free choices.
Yes, that is within the freedom of man due to the fact that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of death. Earlier you equated the concept that all men were condemned by the law, We are not, we were condemned by death through Adam. Man, respective of our relationship with God, not our state of being, has always had the choice of doing good works or not doing them. We cannot ever keep the law perfectly, especially perfect enough to save ourselves. That is what Christ did for us, and we simply believe that He did that work for us and it becomes justification by faith, not works.
There is a huge difference between the two aspects of our salvation which you tend to mix together.
The curse does NOt refer to Lev or Deut but it does for Gal 3:10. Christ by perfectely keeping the law, has redeemed us from that curse of keeping it perfectly which we could never do. It has nothing to do with free will in the least. However, Lev and Deut is all about our free will because it is dealing with man's relationship with God.
Look at it this way. If you assume that Christ is not part of redemption, then we have man condemned to death through ADam. Even if man could have keep the law perfectly, all it would do is enable him to have a relationship with God in this life. We would have still died under the curse of death. Pefection of the law does not grant life, eternal existance which is what man lost in the fall. Man cannot give himself life even if he kept the law. This is the whole argument of Paul when he is discussing the works of the law not able to save.
You is not referring to our relationship with Christ, but our condemnation of death through Adam.
Christ perfectly keep the law, which is why He became the spotless Lamb and sacrifice for sin. But Christ's resurrection also gave life to us, redeemed us from death.
To put this back on track with the concept of free will. Man in his free will, using the example above, could have kept the law perfectly, but it cannot grant life, physical life. However, once man has life, has an eternal existance again, now our free will has consequences again. It is why God has held man responsible for his actions from the fall onward because Christ would be our redeemer.
You are also confused on Rom 10:3-5. this has to do with Christ overcoming the curse of the law, death, and has nothing to do directly with man's free will or man's relationship with Christ. The former makes the latter possible and gives consequence to man's actions, because he has an eternal existance. In other words, man has never been without the ability to use his free will.
because many would also choose the spinach. Nothing in your example precludes that some will make the other choice. This is why you are confusing yourself over the work of Christ for mankind, vs the relatioship we have with Christ. Man has never been bound against not using his free will. As I stated, in the above example. Even if Christ did not come, man still had free choice. He could have kept the law, but it would have been futile, because he would have still died under the curse of Adam.
Why? Christ has redeemed man, so now man, as man has always been, responsible to God for his actions. That is exactly what Ezek(God) is saying in ch 18. Puts man's actions squarely as his responsibility. Which is why no man suffers punishment for the sin of another. That is one of the reasons that Christ redeemed mankind from death, from the condemnation of death through Adam.
Rom 5:12 says explicitly that it was death the condemnation to Adam that has spread to all men. This is confirmed in Heb 2:14, I John 3:8 as well. Death, mortality is the fall. Adam's sin or guilt has nothing to do with me or you directly. The same thing that Eze 18 is stating. Adam's sin nor guilt cannot be passed on to any other human being. We sin all on our own, but the cause of it is death, our mortality, we fall to the passions of our flesh.
Rom 5:18 tells you again, that it is life, (the opposite of death) that is given to all men through Christ. I Cor 15:22 is another equation that makes and affirms death is our problem. Rom 7:24 death is your answer again.
That power to freeing us from the bondage to both death and sin, was available to all men from the beginning, because God knew that man would be redeemed from death and sin. Which is why the texts of Lev and Deut has nothhinig to do with not being able to obey God. That man is somehow bound to do only one thing, not being able to make free choices.
I'd like to address the other points once this is clarified. You are here distinguishing between Gal 3:10-13, Rom 10:3-5 on the one side, which you say has nothing to do with free will and hence nothing to do with Lev 18:5 and Deut, since you hold Lev and Deut on the other side which is relevant to free will.Cassian said:
But Gal 3:12 AND Rom 10:5 specifically quote Lev 18:5 thereby making Gal 3 and Rom 10 all about Lev and Deut. They don't seem to be on different sides - for one is referring to the other directly. Gal 3:10 too is a quote out of Deut 27. How do you reconcile this?
Gal 3:10 and Rom 10:5 are not the same context. Secondly, Gal 3:10 is quoting Deut 27:26. Even then the context is not the same and it is not the whole verse that Paul is quoting. Lev 18:5 or Deut 11:25-26 is all about Moses giving the law, instructing the people to obey and follow his commandments. It is all about man's relationship with God, a relationship that is based on man freely desiring to obey and follow God.
Our relationship now, is under the very same command. The very same command Adam had in the beginning. We can choose spiritual life, (relationship) with God or reject Him by not obeying His commands.
Gal 3:10 and Rom 10:5 is about man trying to save himself by works of the law which he cannot do. It is in the context of justification by faith. Christ fulfilled the law for us, since we could not do it. However, therein lies your confusion. Respective of our personal salvation, our relationship with God we still need to obey the law. Christ fulfilled it but also established it. Violating the law is sin. Sin separates man from God, it breaks the relationship.
Before addressing this, a few quick points.Cassian said:
Cassian : "Secondly, Gal 3:10 is quoting Deut 27:26. Even then the..."
If this is meant as a counter-point, What point is this addressing? In my previous post, I did not say Gal 3:10 referred Lev 18:5 directly - I said Gal 3:12 referred it directly. Moreover, in my previous post I did clearly mention that Gal 3:10 is quoted out of Deut 27. Where is the point of contention here?
Cassian : "...and it is not the whole verse that Paul is quoting."
I hope you are aware that splitting Scripture into verses came much later and wasn't written that way originally. Chapter and Verse numbers are for our ease of reference. Should we then refute Rom 3:4 as directly referring Psalms 51:4 since it doesn't quote the whole verse? And likewise with Matt 4:4, since it doesn't quote the entire Deut 8:3?
The question here is whether Paul directly referred to Old Testament Scripture, specifically the part covered in Lev 18:5, when he wrote Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5. I'd say yes, he did - kindly tell me if you disagree.
Your understanding so far has inclined you to disassociate Gal 3 from the Lev and Deut texts - I infer from this that you too find a discrepancy in upholding the freedom of the will if Gal 3 is conceded to be referring directly and contextually to the Lev,Deut texts. I don't see them as two different contexts - but let's proceed with your understanding.
Right, so according to you, there are two contexts in which Lev 18:5 can be used in -
Context 1 :
1. Is about relationship with God.
2. Is a matter of human free will.
3. Does Christ's working play any role here?
4. Is the context used in say, Deut 11:26-28.
Context 2 :
1. Is about justification by faith and not by the works of the law.
2. Is not a matter of human free will.
3. Entire work done by Christ alone.
4. Is the context used in Rom 10:3-5 and Gal 3:10-13
If I've misunderstood your position, please clarify. If not, let's proceed and just deal with Context 2 for now.
If Christ fulfilled the law for us, does that mean we were somehow expected to fulfill it by ourselves in the first place? If that is so, then were we expected to fulfill something that "we cannot do"? And how can something which is not a matter of free will expect us to do something about it? On the other hand, if we were never expected to fulfill anything concerning the law, how then did we come under its curse to require Christ's redemptive work?Cassian said:
Another related point from our earlier posts,
Your answer seems satisfactory with respect to man AFTER he's redeemed from death by Christ's work. But why is man condemned to death in the first place for him to then be redeemed from death by Christ? What is the reason for his being condemned to death in the first place BEFORE the requirement for Christ's redeeming work - is it his own sinning or is it on the basis of Adam's transgression? If it's based on Adam's sin, that all mankind must be first condemned to die until Christ redeems us - doesn't it go against Ezekiel 18:4 ? How do you reconcile this?Cassian said:
Also, in all the Scripture you've quoted, you seem to be holding death as the cause for our sinning - Is this so? I'm in no way denying that death is the problem being addressed by Christ's redemptive work - but death is not the causative problem. We see in Rom 6:23 and James 1:15 that sin results in death, and not the other way around.
Ivdavid,
No, only one. Lev 18:5 and Deut 11:26-28 is all about man's relationship with God, in man having a mutual, free relationship in which man has obligations to meet in that relationship. Christ or God for the OT, accepts man's obedience by faith, as was the case for Abraham as well.
you re phrasing this incorrectly. The context is justification by faith, which is a mutual shared event with God, man acting freely. HOwever, the works that Paul is speaking about are those Christ accomplished in fulfilling the law for us, because even if we could fulfill the law themselves, works cannot save us from death. This work that Christ does for us has nothing to do with man's will. Man is not even involved, it is an Act of Christ for man, as much as the creation of man.
No, only one. Lev 18:5 and Deut 11:26-28 is all about man's relationship with God, in man having a mutual, free relationship in which man has obligations to meet in that relationship. Christ or God for the OT, accepts man's obedience by faith, as was the case for Abraham as well.
you re phrasing this incorrectly. The context is justification by faith, which is a mutual shared event with God, man acting freely. HOwever, the works that Paul is speaking about are those Christ accomplished in fulfilling the law for us, because even if we could fulfill the law themselves, works cannot save us from death. This work that Christ does for us has nothing to do with man's will. Man is not even involved, it is an Act of Christ for man, as much as the creation of man.
Thanks for the conversation
Folks,
I just recently got a second job and the work hours are piling up. Praise God for that! It has however, regulated me to bystander status over the last couple weeks. I simply don't have time to put together meaningful posts and replies to posts. In the past two weeks or so I think I've only put forth a great effort on one post to Cassian, and left a bunch of posts which seemed meant for me unanswered (I say, "seemed meant for me" since my quote was the one that was responded to). Stan was one of them and there was at least one other gent, who wrote about Eph 1:5.
Furthermore, any free time I do have away from work I long to get back to a few other hobbies, projects and readings. My interest level in this topic -- while pretty high -- is going to take a back seat. If you want to consider that a victory on your part or if you want to say I'm running away and think I'm doing so because I don't have an answer.... Fine. I would hope you would be better than that and understand that a man has priorities in his life, but fine....
Sorry Stan....Just simply don't have time. Things got a bit heated, but I'm happy that for a brief time, we were able to get back on track While I still think you're wrong, I do recognize you as someone who has Bible knowledge and worthy of a better reply than I'm able to give. I have a few comments for you:
You mentioned something about sheep running away when I brought up "my sheep hear my voice". That is true, but the Bible also says that Jesus would go find the one stray sheep and leave the other 99 in order to bring it back. Jesus simply doesn't shrug his shoulders and says, "Oh well.... They have free will and I hope they come back." No, he goes looking for them and said he would bring them back.
You also meantioned something about the Bible being filled with people who changed God's mind. Can you name 50? How about 45 examples? Do I hear 40 examples from you? What about 30? 20, then? OK... What about 10?
Perhaps you have enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that.... You mentioned the Bible being filled with examples and gave Abraham and Lot as an example.... I am assuming that you meant this about the destruction of Sodom, and that Abraham questioned God in like manner.
Perhaps my memory isn't as good, but I can only remember one example of anyone really changing God's mind, and it wasn't this incident. God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah! Abraham didn't change his mind unless you want to go into Abraham talking down the number of righteous people in the city.... Well, first, there weren't any righteous people in the city. Remember, there is only one that is righteous, and that is God. Second, God never from the start gave Abraham a number. He said the cry was great and he was going to check out the situation (through his angels), but he never said he was looking for a specific number. Third, God closed off the discussion at 10. Why? My believe is that it was getting pretty close to the number 4. That's how many left the city, and only 3 made it all the way. God shut down the discussion before Abraham even had the opportunity to get there.
So no.... Abraham did not change God's mind, but only showed he could commune and ask God about such things. By the way.... Moses is the sole example that I can think of. Moses actually did change God's mind about something. He used God's own words to do it. If God is the Word (which he is), then at best he was only reminding God of the plan.
To the fella who wanted to discuss Eph... It is inexusable for me not to remember your name and even more so that I could look it up, but won't. I'm just too tired. I mean no disrespect. But you put forth a theory and said you wouldn't elaborate at the time. That theory was something to the effect of that Eph 1:5 was not saying individuals were predestinated, but only the task of developing the Church in Ephesis was.
I would like to hear your reasoning. I probably won't respond, but I will eventually read it when I have time. I have enough knowledge of the Book to anticipate what you will say, and where you are going. But I'll hear you out.
As for you Cassian... I have nothing specifically to write to you about. I do, actually, but everything I've to say to you is pretty generic, because all that deny the Bible saying God is ultimately in control are of like mind of you. They make the same mistakes you do, and come to the wrong conclusions as you do.
You claim you are well read in what Calvin said, but some of the the things you ask and claim are contradictory with what he said. Not with "Calvinism" and not with those who have Calvin and Calvinism. But yes, with what he said in his writings.
Today, we have the Lutherian church. It's a far cry from what Martin Luther preached! And it's the same with Calvin. You want to bring up the Westminster Confession and pin it on Calvin, even though it was some 100 years after his death. And it's the same with all "Church founders"... Paul even prophesized of it.
So if you are truly one who has read Calvin, stop mentioning TULIP and such drivel and conceived objections to it, when he never said it! Quit deceiving people into believing that Calvin was responsible for it. Calvin's got enough problems with him being two faced with the Catholic Church and being an active participant in the death of a former friend and a supporter in the reformation movement that Calvin said he supported.
Speaking of Calvin, to those of you who believe you know more than he... Humble yourselves! He was brilliant. He sat down for countless hours combing the Bible and produced theories, commentaries and teachings from things we don't have. He didn't have a bookstore full of completed Bibles, the internet to look up references or tap into an online Bible, nor did he have the ability to email someone else to get opinions or references. He did it all from scratch.
We have resources. I use them and you probably do too. What? You don't use a Bible software program to find verses or keywords? I do. But I have studied enough to know what to look for. I imagine you have too.
Folks like Calvin didn't have that. What we can do in 10 minutes probably would take him 3 months. So get off his back. You are not smarter than Calvin and even with your technology, he'd run rings around you! Let's face it... We in his time and place would be looking like a monkey! And give Calvin our technology... He'd waste us. Why? He read the book and probably put 18 hours of study into our 1 or 2 a day.
Cassian, you and all the others have no answer for this. The word predesination is in the Bible. And it refers to individuals. To combat that, you rely on the theory and not scripture. In other words, Romans 8:28-30 cannot mean that God predestinates individuals because YOUR theory says he doesn't do that. Yet, that is what the verse says, and I used your own beliefs to prove it. If you believe that God foreknows individuals, the verses also say he predestinated those same individuals.
I also find it appauling that you would suggest you are explaining it (that which is pretty clearly said, and against what you say) and yet you claim others are twisting the scripture. As if you aren't.
I rely on Paul's words alone. You give a thesis on why he didn't mean what he said. Furthermore, you only back it with your theory, not the Bible. Paul can't possibly saying individuals are predestinated (but that is what he is saying) BECAUSE people have free will! Not because the Bible says so, but because your theory says so.
Hey... You know. The Bible is a stumbling block and he uses the simple to confound the mighty.... Yea, there are a lot of things in the Bible we have to study, but there are some things that are so simple that in their simplicity, they confound those who want to believe that the Blood of Jesus PLUS your efforts is what is needed.
And I just gotta ask.... Since when is being under a curse a choice? Are you stupid? It's not a choice! Either you believe in Jesus and what he said or you are going to burn in the lake of fire! What idiot who really understood this would pick free will over God's will? Sorry... Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
Here's another thing.... Do you have a verse that DIRECTLY says we have free will in the same manner that I have one that says we are predestined? You have to explain away predestination, so is their ample opportunity for me to explain away free will?
No.
You have verses that show God gave a choice and/or discussed Terms. In other words, you have, "If you do what I say...." That's an indirect piece of evidence, that is only inferrentential and only gives a temporary choice.
But I have plenty of verses that say there is predestination. You have "hundreds" of inferrential and circumstancial verses. Christianity is not free will. Either you accept Christ and do what he says or you are damned. That is the bottom line. Nice free will. Will you be preaching free will to others in the Lake of Fire? You think they will believe you?
So you are relying on circumstancial evidence which never says we have free will as well as your theory that denies predestination. Not scripture. "Oh... God gave me a choice in this scripture! That proves that he never interferes or directs my footsteps!"
Yea, right... You are nothing more than a dog in a yard just as I am.... We got free will in that yard, but we still got a fence.
Last, I want to bring up a verse. Somewhere in the book of Ester, it is asked of her how does she know that here prescence in the palace wasn't for this purpose? I am not going to ask about predestination at this point, because the detractors will gleeminly claim she had a choice. She did. My point is "How do you know?"
Joseph the son of Jacob went through a lot of circumstances and he ended up saving the world (or at least the region) from famine and death. It sucks. Look at what he went through! But he told his brothers, "you meant it for harm, but God meant it for Good." Yet, if the other 11 brothers didn't do what they did, Joseph isn't going to save the world! Is he?
This is why I believe Romans 8:28 so much.... All things work for my good. They may seem pretty bleak.... but eventually, there is a rainbow. I sometimes get mad at God because he put that verse in the Bible. It literally destroys my pitiparty! I can't even feel sorry for myself! And God said he planned it all before I was born.
So, how do you know that God hasn't preplanned your life? How do you know he hasn't known and influenced the decisions you make like he did Pharoah? You DON"T! But you do know that God knows the end outcome and that all things work together for good for them that love God.
And no.... Just because I'm predestinated doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. I was also predestinated to follow God's plan. You folks who don't want to talk about Calvin (but consistently do talk about him) fail to bring that up, huh?
So why do you not believe in predestination? Do you want some of the credit? You want to be able to say that you made a choice? Do you want something to put in your bags of works instead of simply putting all your hopes and righteousness on Jesus? Are you doubting that you are predestined and have a need to show your worthyness?
Well, I'll let you have the last word. Nighty nite.
Folks,
I just recently got a second job and the work hours are piling up. Praise God for that! It has however, regulated me to bystander status over the last couple weeks. I simply don't have time to put together meaningful posts and replies to posts. In the past two weeks or so I think I've only put forth a great effort on one post to Cassian, and left a bunch of posts which seemed meant for me unanswered (I say, "seemed meant for me" since my quote was the one that was responded to). Stan was one of them and there was at least one other gent, who wrote about Eph 1:5.
Furthermore, any free time I do have away from work I long to get back to a few other hobbies, projects and readings. My interest level in this topic -- while pretty high -- is going to take a back seat. If you want to consider that a victory on your part or if you want to say I'm running away and think I'm doing so because I don't have an answer.... Fine. I would hope you would be better than that and understand that a man has priorities in his life, but fine....
Sorry Stan....Just simply don't have time. Things got a bit heated, but I'm happy that for a brief time, we were able to get back on track While I still think you're wrong, I do recognize you as someone who has Bible knowledge and worthy of a better reply than I'm able to give. I have a few comments for you:
You mentioned something about sheep running away when I brought up "my sheep hear my voice". That is true, but the Bible also says that Jesus would go find the one stray sheep and leave the other 99 in order to bring it back. Jesus simply doesn't shrug his shoulders and says, "Oh well.... They have free will and I hope they come back." No, he goes looking for them and said he would bring them back.
You also meantioned something about the Bible being filled with people who changed God's mind. Can you name 50? How about 45 examples? Do I hear 40 examples from you? What about 30? 20, then? OK... What about 10?
Perhaps you have enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that.... You mentioned the Bible being filled with examples and gave Abraham and Lot as an example.... I am assuming that you meant this about the destruction of Sodom, and that Abraham questioned God in like manner.
Perhaps my memory isn't as good, but I can only remember one example of anyone really changing God's mind, and it wasn't this incident. God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah! Abraham didn't change his mind unless you want to go into Abraham talking down the number of righteous people in the city.... Well, first, there weren't any righteous people in the city. Remember, there is only one that is righteous, and that is God. Second, God never from the start gave Abraham a number. He said the cry was great and he was going to check out the situation (through his angels), but he never said he was looking for a specific number. Third, God closed off the discussion at 10. Why? My believe is that it was getting pretty close to the number 4. That's how many left the city, and only 3 made it all the way. God shut down the discussion before Abraham even had the opportunity to get there.
So no.... Abraham did not change God's mind, but only showed he could commune and ask God about such things. By the way.... Moses is the sole example that I can think of. Moses actually did change God's mind about something. He used God's own words to do it. If God is the Word (which he is), then at best he was only reminding God of the plan.
To the fella who wanted to discuss Eph... It is inexusable for me not to remember your name and even more so that I could look it up, but won't. I'm just too tired. I mean no disrespect. But you put forth a theory and said you wouldn't elaborate at the time. That theory was something to the effect of that Eph 1:5 was not saying individuals were predestinated, but only the task of developing the Church in Ephesis was.
I would like to hear your reasoning. I probably won't respond, but I will eventually read it when I have time. I have enough knowledge of the Book to anticipate what you will say, and where you are going. But I'll hear you out.
As for you Cassian... I have nothing specifically to write to you about. I do, actually, but everything I've to say to you is pretty generic, because all that deny the Bible saying God is ultimately in control are of like mind of you. They make the same mistakes you do, and come to the wrong conclusions as you do.
You claim you are well read in what Calvin said, but some of the the things you ask and claim are contradictory with what he said. Not with "Calvinism" and not with those who have Calvin and Calvinism. But yes, with what he said in his writings.
Today, we have the Lutherian church. It's a far cry from what Martin Luther preached! And it's the same with Calvin. You want to bring up the Westminster Confession and pin it on Calvin, even though it was some 100 years after his death. And it's the same with all "Church founders"... Paul even prophesized of it.
So if you are truly one who has read Calvin, stop mentioning TULIP and such drivel and conceived objections to it, when he never said it! Quit deceiving people into believing that Calvin was responsible for it. Calvin's got enough problems with him being two faced with the Catholic Church and being an active participant in the death of a former friend and a supporter in the reformation movement that Calvin said he supported.
Speaking of Calvin, to those of you who believe you know more than he... Humble yourselves! He was brilliant. He sat down for countless hours combing the Bible and produced theories, commentaries and teachings from things we don't have. He didn't have a bookstore full of completed Bibles, the internet to look up references or tap into an online Bible, nor did he have the ability to email someone else to get opinions or references. He did it all from scratch.
We have resources. I use them and you probably do too. What? You don't use a Bible software program to find verses or keywords? I do. But I have studied enough to know what to look for. I imagine you have too.
Folks like Calvin didn't have that. What we can do in 10 minutes probably would take him 3 months. So get off his back. You are not smarter than Calvin and even with your technology, he'd run rings around you! Let's face it... We in his time and place would be looking like a monkey! And give Calvin our technology... He'd waste us. Why? He read the book and probably put 18 hours of study into our 1 or 2 a day.
Cassian, you and all the others have no answer for this. The word predesination is in the Bible. And it refers to individuals. To combat that, you rely on the theory and not scripture. In other words, Romans 8:28-30 cannot mean that God predestinates individuals because YOUR theory says he doesn't do that. Yet, that is what the verse says, and I used your own beliefs to prove it. If you believe that God foreknows individuals, the verses also say he predestinated those same individuals.
I also find it appauling that you would suggest you are explaining it (that which is pretty clearly said, and against what you say) and yet you claim others are twisting the scripture. As if you aren't.
I rely on Paul's words alone. You give a thesis on why he didn't mean what he said. Furthermore, you only back it with your theory, not the Bible. Paul can't possibly saying individuals are predestinated (but that is what he is saying) BECAUSE people have free will! Not because the Bible says so, but because your theory says so.
Hey... You know. The Bible is a stumbling block and he uses the simple to confound the mighty.... Yea, there are a lot of things in the Bible we have to study, but there are some things that are so simple that in their simplicity, they confound those who want to believe that the Blood of Jesus PLUS your efforts is what is needed.
And I just gotta ask.... Since when is being under a curse a choice? Are you stupid? It's not a choice! Either you believe in Jesus and what he said or you are going to burn in the lake of fire! What idiot who really understood this would pick free will over God's will? Sorry... Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
Here's another thing.... Do you have a verse that DIRECTLY says we have free will in the same manner that I have one that says we are predestined? You have to explain away predestination, so is their ample opportunity for me to explain away free will?
No.
You have verses that show God gave a choice and/or discussed Terms. In other words, you have, "If you do what I say...." That's an indirect piece of evidence, that is only inferrentential and only gives a temporary choice.
But I have plenty of verses that say there is predestination. You have "hundreds" of inferrential and circumstancial verses. Christianity is not free will. Either you accept Christ and do what he says or you are damned. That is the bottom line. Nice free will. Will you be preaching free will to others in the Lake of Fire? You think they will believe you?
So you are relying on circumstancial evidence which never says we have free will as well as your theory that denies predestination. Not scripture. "Oh... God gave me a choice in this scripture! That proves that he never interferes or directs my footsteps!"
Yea, right... You are nothing more than a dog in a yard just as I am.... We got free will in that yard, but we still got a fence.
Last, I want to bring up a verse. Somewhere in the book of Ester, it is asked of her how does she know that here prescence in the palace wasn't for this purpose? I am not going to ask about predestination at this point, because the detractors will gleeminly claim she had a choice. She did. My point is "How do you know?"
Joseph the son of Jacob went through a lot of circumstances and he ended up saving the world (or at least the region) from famine and death. It sucks. Look at what he went through! But he told his brothers, "you meant it for harm, but God meant it for Good." Yet, if the other 11 brothers didn't do what they did, Joseph isn't going to save the world! Is he?
This is why I believe Romans 8:28 so much.... All things work for my good. They may seem pretty bleak.... but eventually, there is a rainbow. I sometimes get mad at God because he put that verse in the Bible. It literally destroys my pitiparty! I can't even feel sorry for myself! And God said he planned it all before I was born.
So, how do you know that God hasn't preplanned your life? How do you know he hasn't known and influenced the decisions you make like he did Pharoah? You DON"T! But you do know that God knows the end outcome and that all things work together for good for them that love God.
And no.... Just because I'm predestinated doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. I was also predestinated to follow God's plan. You folks who don't want to talk about Calvin (but consistently do talk about him) fail to bring that up, huh?
So why do you not believe in predestination? Do you want some of the credit? You want to be able to say that you made a choice? Do you want something to put in your bags of works instead of simply putting all your hopes and righteousness on Jesus? Are you doubting that you are predestined and have a need to show your worthyness?
Well, I'll let you have the last word. Nighty nite.
Re: Thanks for the conversation
Slider,
Given that you probably don't have a lot of time, it does not matter if don't you reply or that you reply but later. I don't spend a lot of time on this forum either or any other for that matter.
However, here are my replies to your comments.
Actually, the root of Calvinism is Augustine. Calvin was the first one to take the idea of predestination and flesh it out into a complete system of theology. What everyone has done since is refined, redefined, built upon it, but in the end, the whole doctrine of predestination as understood in reformed theology today, as it is called today, is rooted in a chain backward from calvin, to Augustine and Manicheanism/Gnosticism.
There is no apostolic teaching of such a notion. It has never been a teaching of scripture until Calvin. It is called Calvinism for a reason. It has never been a teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years. So it is hardly deceiving anyone but pointing out some historical and theological facts.
Never denied that the word exists, but the theory is nowhere to be found. Also, foreknowledge does not mean predestined. Also as it is used in both Rom and Eph it is not speaking about people being predestined, but acts upon or to those people.
Thankfully I don't need to lay claim to what I am explaining. It happens to be the Gospel of Christ as He gave it 2000 years ago. It is as the Apostles taught to the early Church. It is the Gospel that has been preserved unchanged over those 2000 years. Man has not been able to impose his ideas upon His Gospel. When man has tried, and many have, they have all been rejected. Since the Church was entrusted that Gospel, and the Church, the Body of Christ, is animated by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy spirit promised to lead the Church into all Truth, and guard both the Church, and the Gospel, I believe that what history shows is the Truth.
The unchanging Gospel and the existance of the Church is the witness of the power of the Holy Spirit in time.
there is a huge difference in your opinion of a text, than the Gospel as Christ gave and preserved it. So far, the theory has a 500 year of existance, and no one has shown that the Church ever held the view before Calvin. The theory never goes further back than Calvin, and the root to Augustine.
If it was actually part of the Gospel once given, I believe the Holy Spirit would have given it, and the Apostles would have taught it, but it seems to be missing for 1500 years as a belief.
It must be making you stumble. Your statment is a conflation of two disinct aspects of our salvation and they are not in opposition to each other. But that goes right back to Calvin's theory again.
I guess that must be given to your total misunderstanding. The curse against man actually is based on a choice. Adam freely sinned, and the consequence was the curse of death.
We are also still under a curse of sin. We can either choose to be a slave to Christ or we can be a slave to sin. If we choose sin, the curse of that sin is hell. Thus neither curse is a curse that God imposed upon man, but by man's own free will.
It happen's to have been God's will in creating man with a rational soul, a creature that could rationalize options, influences, to make free decisions.
It seems you are calling yourself names.
You don't have any verse that says any individual is predestined to do anything. Granted I don't either, but God's revelation is premised on the idea that we have a rational soul. If we did not, revelation would be quite irrelevant. Do animals or trees need to know about God. Do they need to know what God expects from His creatures. Why do we need to know God's will for us, it all He does is impose His will upon us?
ONly two times is the word used, and I believe, if my memory is correct two other words that have the same meaning. HOwever in no instance is man being predestined. YOu have a theory a philosophy of Calvin that is wholly a man made theory, and has never been a teaching of scripture.
And your comment of either accepting Christ and then doing His will, or you are dammed, is as straightforward free will as there ever will be. It is a direct contradiction to the verses you are so adament about regarding predestination. They are mutually exclusive terms. So, now you have a belief that holds two opposite views.
more confusion over terms. Free will has nothing to do with God not interfering or being providential. It requires it. Man does not create his own options or choices. In other words man is not autonomous. What it means is that man taking the options available makes his own choice. Both God and satan, and our own flesh can influence us, but neither God, Satan or your flesh makes the decision. It is your will, your desire. The fulcrum of all of man's actions is the will, and the will if free to act unencumbered by force.
I think you actually don't understand the concept of free will. Isn't any wonder your comments don't make sense relative to free will.
because she is a human being. She of her own free will followed the guidelines, followed the options that were before her. She does the same thing you do when a traffic cop tells you to take a detour. YOu can obey, or you can knock him down and proceed. Why do you think we were given a rational soul. Do you not think man can reason based on the conditions, options, influences, providence places before him? Or do you interpret the word, direct our paths as forced us to take that path?
and this is a great example of God's foreknowledge, providence and man's free will. NOt a thing needed to be predestined in order to happen. God does this all the time. If He knows something, do you think He is incapable of directing it without predestination?
Predestination is fate, in it more modern form it is Deism. It is making God completely and only transcendent and not operating in His created order. He is just sitting on His throne and the plan is simply running as He predestined it.
Everything that you do as a human being, called experience, loudly rejects such a notion, yet we have individuals who what to ascribe such to God.
which again is based on not just Calvin but the satisfaction theory of atonement as well, which by the way, Calvin added the penal part to the Anselmian theory. I don't believe in it because it is not scriptural. It has nothing to do with Credit, but obedience. Obligations in my relationship with God. It is why we were given His Revelation so that we could make rational choices, knowing consequences as well. Choices for which we will be judged. It is not that I want to be able to make a choice, it is because God created me such that I am obligated to make the choice. It is an active choice. NO man can get around it. He will either accept Christ or reject Him. God does not make the choice. God does not forcefully make you believe, nor even to remain, nor can satan force you to accept him. God made sure that in creating man, and giving to man all the necessary gifts, every man has the ability, capability to respond to God. No man will be left out of God's call to join with Him for an eternity.
God is not a respector of persons, whereby He chose some to be in union with HIm, and then, even though all theologians say, passively, God predestined all others to hell. Such a notion is nowhere in scripture. Scriputre loudly proclaims that man is responsible for his relationship with Christ. God created man as a creature who could respond to God freely. He was not created a tool, an object to be manipulated to force some to love him and some not to love him. Hardly jives with scripture.
Slider,
Given that you probably don't have a lot of time, it does not matter if don't you reply or that you reply but later. I don't spend a lot of time on this forum either or any other for that matter.
However, here are my replies to your comments.
Actually, the root of Calvinism is Augustine. Calvin was the first one to take the idea of predestination and flesh it out into a complete system of theology. What everyone has done since is refined, redefined, built upon it, but in the end, the whole doctrine of predestination as understood in reformed theology today, as it is called today, is rooted in a chain backward from calvin, to Augustine and Manicheanism/Gnosticism.
There is no apostolic teaching of such a notion. It has never been a teaching of scripture until Calvin. It is called Calvinism for a reason. It has never been a teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years. So it is hardly deceiving anyone but pointing out some historical and theological facts.
Never denied that the word exists, but the theory is nowhere to be found. Also, foreknowledge does not mean predestined. Also as it is used in both Rom and Eph it is not speaking about people being predestined, but acts upon or to those people.
Thankfully I don't need to lay claim to what I am explaining. It happens to be the Gospel of Christ as He gave it 2000 years ago. It is as the Apostles taught to the early Church. It is the Gospel that has been preserved unchanged over those 2000 years. Man has not been able to impose his ideas upon His Gospel. When man has tried, and many have, they have all been rejected. Since the Church was entrusted that Gospel, and the Church, the Body of Christ, is animated by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy spirit promised to lead the Church into all Truth, and guard both the Church, and the Gospel, I believe that what history shows is the Truth.
The unchanging Gospel and the existance of the Church is the witness of the power of the Holy Spirit in time.
there is a huge difference in your opinion of a text, than the Gospel as Christ gave and preserved it. So far, the theory has a 500 year of existance, and no one has shown that the Church ever held the view before Calvin. The theory never goes further back than Calvin, and the root to Augustine.
If it was actually part of the Gospel once given, I believe the Holy Spirit would have given it, and the Apostles would have taught it, but it seems to be missing for 1500 years as a belief.
It must be making you stumble. Your statment is a conflation of two disinct aspects of our salvation and they are not in opposition to each other. But that goes right back to Calvin's theory again.
I guess that must be given to your total misunderstanding. The curse against man actually is based on a choice. Adam freely sinned, and the consequence was the curse of death.
We are also still under a curse of sin. We can either choose to be a slave to Christ or we can be a slave to sin. If we choose sin, the curse of that sin is hell. Thus neither curse is a curse that God imposed upon man, but by man's own free will.
It happen's to have been God's will in creating man with a rational soul, a creature that could rationalize options, influences, to make free decisions.
It seems you are calling yourself names.
You don't have any verse that says any individual is predestined to do anything. Granted I don't either, but God's revelation is premised on the idea that we have a rational soul. If we did not, revelation would be quite irrelevant. Do animals or trees need to know about God. Do they need to know what God expects from His creatures. Why do we need to know God's will for us, it all He does is impose His will upon us?
ONly two times is the word used, and I believe, if my memory is correct two other words that have the same meaning. HOwever in no instance is man being predestined. YOu have a theory a philosophy of Calvin that is wholly a man made theory, and has never been a teaching of scripture.
And your comment of either accepting Christ and then doing His will, or you are dammed, is as straightforward free will as there ever will be. It is a direct contradiction to the verses you are so adament about regarding predestination. They are mutually exclusive terms. So, now you have a belief that holds two opposite views.
more confusion over terms. Free will has nothing to do with God not interfering or being providential. It requires it. Man does not create his own options or choices. In other words man is not autonomous. What it means is that man taking the options available makes his own choice. Both God and satan, and our own flesh can influence us, but neither God, Satan or your flesh makes the decision. It is your will, your desire. The fulcrum of all of man's actions is the will, and the will if free to act unencumbered by force.
I think you actually don't understand the concept of free will. Isn't any wonder your comments don't make sense relative to free will.
because she is a human being. She of her own free will followed the guidelines, followed the options that were before her. She does the same thing you do when a traffic cop tells you to take a detour. YOu can obey, or you can knock him down and proceed. Why do you think we were given a rational soul. Do you not think man can reason based on the conditions, options, influences, providence places before him? Or do you interpret the word, direct our paths as forced us to take that path?
and this is a great example of God's foreknowledge, providence and man's free will. NOt a thing needed to be predestined in order to happen. God does this all the time. If He knows something, do you think He is incapable of directing it without predestination?
Predestination is fate, in it more modern form it is Deism. It is making God completely and only transcendent and not operating in His created order. He is just sitting on His throne and the plan is simply running as He predestined it.
Everything that you do as a human being, called experience, loudly rejects such a notion, yet we have individuals who what to ascribe such to God.
but planned is not predestination. It is not a prerequisite for a plan to work.
He preplanned man as a creature. everything is preplanned. Both He and satan and my own flesh has influenced me. I can make no choice unless I have options in order to make rational choices. That is why I am going to be held resposible for my actions. God didn't make me do anything, neither does satan. I made the choice. Pharoah heart was not hardened against his will. This is the typical support for predestination. Pharoah had already hardened his heart, his life against God. God foreknew that, so He used this person to show his power to the Isrealites more than to the Egyptians. It was a temporary hardening because in each of the 10 plagues, Pharoahs heart was changed each time. I think that because you do not really understand free will, nor the real implications of a determinate notion of predestination for the acts of man, you come to these faulty conclusions.
NO, I understand him quite well. Both calvin and a lot of other theologians have worked 500 years trying to free God from the condemning notion that God must then cause you to sin as well. Unless, unlike Calvin, you will claim that no Christian ever sins again upon being saved by faith only.
which again is based on not just Calvin but the satisfaction theory of atonement as well, which by the way, Calvin added the penal part to the Anselmian theory. I don't believe in it because it is not scriptural. It has nothing to do with Credit, but obedience. Obligations in my relationship with God. It is why we were given His Revelation so that we could make rational choices, knowing consequences as well. Choices for which we will be judged. It is not that I want to be able to make a choice, it is because God created me such that I am obligated to make the choice. It is an active choice. NO man can get around it. He will either accept Christ or reject Him. God does not make the choice. God does not forcefully make you believe, nor even to remain, nor can satan force you to accept him. God made sure that in creating man, and giving to man all the necessary gifts, every man has the ability, capability to respond to God. No man will be left out of God's call to join with Him for an eternity.
God is not a respector of persons, whereby He chose some to be in union with HIm, and then, even though all theologians say, passively, God predestined all others to hell. Such a notion is nowhere in scripture. Scriputre loudly proclaims that man is responsible for his relationship with Christ. God created man as a creature who could respond to God freely. He was not created a tool, an object to be manipulated to force some to love him and some not to love him. Hardly jives with scripture.
Stormcrow
Member
She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more." John 8:11 (NASB)
Only beings capable of making the choice not to sin would be given the choice not to sin. Were your view true, Jesus would've told this woman, "I know you couldn't help sinning as you are a slave to it."
That's not what He told her.
Even slaves in ancient America had the option to flee the plantation if they wanted to. It wasn't easy but neither is obedience to the command to stop sinning. Both require(d) affirmative action on the part of those respectively enslaved.
It would be unjust of God to demand of us something He knows we cannot do, and yet here you have Jesus making this claim:
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 (NASB)
Every human heart has the capacity to turn to God for salvation or to reject Him. That is the essence of free will. He would not demand of us something we are incapable of doing.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-16 (NASB)
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2:21 (KJV)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43 (KJV)
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:12-13 (KJV)
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 1 John 5:1 (NASB)
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. Revelation 22:17 (NASB)
The invitation to come to Christ would not be offered to those incapable of accepting it, yet the invitation is open to any who wishes to accept it.
God gave man free will so that man could love God freely in return.
I see here that you have distinguished between two kinds of death - (1) the inherited death of Adam because of his transgression and (2) the spiritual death which is the breaking of our relationship with God. The death(1) is not a matter of freewill while death(2) is completely a matter of freewill. Christ has redeemed us from death(1), effective immediately after Adam's transgression, so that Adam's transgression has never affected any man after him - thereby letting each man deal with his own freewill with respect to choosing for or against just death(2).Cassian said:
Further, death(1) which results in our mortal and weak natures, causes our sinning - while our sinning results in death(2). The converse of death(1) would then be an eternal and corruption-free nature which we could label as say life(1) and the converse of death(2) would be spiritual life(2), which is our relationship with God.
Deut 11:26-28 instructs man to obey the commandments of God, which if he will do, he shall receive the blessing(2) of a relationship with God and which if he will not do, will be under the curse(2) of a broken relationship with God unto spiritual death(2). Likewise, Lev 18:5 states that if a man will do the commandments of God, he shall have spiritual life(2) ie a relationship with God. The converse is that he will be under the curse(2) of spiritual death(2) ie being apart from a relationship with God.
Have I so far understood your beliefs correctly? If I have misunderstood any of the above, kindly correct them. If I have, then please clarify the following -
In Deut 27:26, does the curse refer to curse(2) of being apart from God's relationship unto spiritual death(2) or does it refer to curse(1) - the inherited death(1) of Adam?
In Hebrews 2:14-15, does death there refer to the inherited death(1) of Adam or does it refer to spiritual death(2)?
Cassian : "HOwever, the works that Paul is speaking about are those Christ accomplished in fulfilling the law for us, because even if we could fulfill the law themselves, works cannot save us from death."
When you say works cannot save us from death, does it refer to death(1) or death(2) in the context of Gal 3:10-13 ?
Cassian : "Even if man could have keep the law perfectly, all it would do is enable him to have a relationship with God in this life. We would have still died under the curse of death."
Here, are you saying that if man keeps the law perfectly, he would have received spiritual life(2) of a relationship with God and hence be free from the curse(2) of spiritual death(2) ? And that still, apart from Christ, he would have anyway been under the curse of inherited death(1) of Adam?
Have I understood this correctly?
Also, you've said that after the fall, man is unable to keep the law perfectly. Why is man unable to keep the law perfectly after the fall - is it because of inherited death(1) of Adam causing us to sin and refraining us from keeping the law perfectly?
Does justification by faith result in man receiving life(1)[converse of inherited death(1) of Adam] or life(2)[converse of spiritual death(2)] ?
Could you clarify the above seemingly conflicting statements.Cassian said:
Are we or are we not responsible for our sin and our breaking the law?
What causes our breaking the law - our mortal natures of inherited death(1) which is not a matter of freewill or our freewill choices unto spiritual death(2)?
I wouldn't want to ask too many questions at a time - I shall save the rest for later, if necessary. And I will address our points of differences once I've understood your beliefs better.
ifdavid,
Excellent.
the physical, the inherited death, the loss of life, and eternal existance.
we have always been responsible for our actions, sin or not to sin. The inherited death, corruption has weakened man so that we succumb easily to sin, whether external temptations or temptations from our own flesh, the passions. It has always been about our free will. There have been righteous men all through history, men who have believed and by faith walked with God.
Excellent.
relational, apart from God.
inherited death. Why Christ needed to be Incarnated, assume our fallen human natures to overcome the condemnation of death through Adam, which was the power of satan.
the physical, the inherited death, the loss of life, and eternal existance.
Yes.
correct.
It re-enters man back into a relationship with Christ (spiritual life). We do this through baptism. Which is also why it is called regeneration because it re-establishes the broken relationship due to sin.
we have always been responsible for our actions, sin or not to sin. The inherited death, corruption has weakened man so that we succumb easily to sin, whether external temptations or temptations from our own flesh, the passions. It has always been about our free will. There have been righteous men all through history, men who have believed and by faith walked with God.
Butch5
Member
I think the premise is flawed. Do you have Scripture that supports some of these claims?
E
Elijah674
Guest
Freewill. It is the key point of many a person's understanding of both their own salvation and of God. I once thought freewill was the greatest thing in the entire world, and then I finally met God, and I understood that freewill is a really good lie that a lot of Christians believe because it enables them to, well I don't know actually, I have my ideas but I don't wish to presume upon people's reasoning, so i will stop my train of thought on that little matter right now!
What I can say is this, freewill takes from God. Freewill diminished God's story, which, by the way, is the Bible. Freewill takes away from God's love. Freewill supposes that a man can, without the help of God, make the active choice, while still in the flesh, to say no to what the flesh wants and to then deny the flesh, and pick God. But that's not how it works!!! It doesn't work that way at all! God doesn't let you decide for Him, because if He did that then He'd NEVER get anyone at all into Heaven.
Now, don't get me wrong, we humans have freewill. We really do. I can make the choice, without the intercession of the divine, to, say, paint my room red instead of blue. I can make the decision, without God's intervening, to buy an Xbox instead of a Playstation. I can, without any heavenly insight, choose to drive down to the cornerstore and purchase a big old stack of Playboys. I can, without divine intervention, pick someone at random and kill them. I can do a lot of really unimportant, sinful, and evil things without the help of the divine. That's freewill. Freewill always picks the pleasureful because we are sinful, we are fleshly, we are worldly.
To do anything that isn't neutral or negative towards the matter of salvation, that is to do anything positive towards your salvation, takes an act of God! It takes a miracle. It is literally God changing the invisible laws that bind this universe when a human being goes to Christ. It is God changing their heart. It is God, and not humans. It isn't God extending out His hand and a human looking up, seeing it, and then reaching for it. It is God reaching down from heaven and picking you up by the collar and yanking you up to be with Him.
Some people will call it rape, they say that for God to decide for you is raping your mind, depriving you of the intellectual ability to make the active and willing choice that you are rightfully entitled to as a human.
That's just wrong. Sometimes analogies are just wrong. I don't care if it flows really well, not all analogies work. They work really well when God picks them, but when a human gives the whole analogy thing a try it is like a crap-shot.
Well, to that person I'd have to say that they should go read Romans 9:20,21 because this literally speaks directly to your argument. It says "WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION GOD?! WHO ARE YOU, THE POT, TO QUESTION THE POTTER?" To paraphrase God in Job 40:7, "Put on your cup and lets fight like men!"
In fact Romans 9 speaks entirely of this matter of predestination, as well as some of the later verses in chapter 8. Go, read it.
John 8:34, Jesus says, “Everyone who commits a sin is a slave to sin.”
How many people here who have acquainted themselves in anyway with the history of slavery in America can point to any of those slaves and say "They decided to no longer be slaves and then they were no longer slaves?" You can't, because no slave can make the decision to no longer be a slave. It doesn't work that way. You cannot make that decision. You are a slave, you are at the mercy of your master and your master is Lucifer, the devil!
Romans 3:10-18 gives the account of all non-Christian hearts:
“No one is righteous, no not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together, they have become worthless. No one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. In their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Romans 8:7)
You are God's ENEMY! Look to the Old Testament and see what God does to His enemies! No white flag is going to save you, even if you could wave that white flag! But you cannot! You cannot wave that white flag because you do not want to, as an unsaved human you have no desire to raise the flag of surrender. As an unsaved human all you want to do is fight God, continuously. You want to sin all day, never ending.
Maybe the lynchpin in any freewill doctrine is 1 Corinthians 2:14:
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
There is no freewill when it comes to matters of salvation. Freewill in this regard is a fallacy, a lie, a ruse, a trick. It is a means of diminishing the glory of God. It is a way to remove His credit from the end of the movie. It is a way to rewrite the Bible so that man is shown in a kind manner.
Let's take one last look at the Bible on this matter, for the moment.
Paul. Paul is the premier writer on the topic of predestination, that is the absence of a freewill choice on the part of the believer before coming to salvation. He is probably the biggest writer on this topic because his coming to Christ was so dependent on this notion of predestination (that isn't to say that all the other apostles had something besides predestination, in fact you go and look. Each one came to Christ when Christ came to THEM and said COME. He didn't say "Hey wanna be me friend and come for a walk with me?" He said "COME!".).
Paul, he didn't meet Jesus from some nice apostle on the side of the road. No God struck him blind on the side of the road. God said, "WHY ARE YOU PURSUING MY PEOPLE?" And then God healed him of his blindness. Paul didn't go "Wow, God healed me, I am going to make the active choice to now believe in Him!" No Paul BELIEVED IN HIM because God changed his heart. Just as God changed ever single Christian's heart that has ever lived, lives, or will live.
Hi newbie
(more than 3000 posts yet with a new doctrine it seems?)Welcome to the forum of many pre/programed of God teachers that teach that they were created that way, and then some of us who teach that God created all of His humans with the 'image of God brain' to choose. With only God knowing the end of ones 'faith' but not any of them. (me)
And now this?? seems like you believe 1/2 free/will?
--Elijah
PS: And by the way, the 'post' was about as clear as mud?;)