"Argument by Verse"

[Drew]

The purpose of this post is to try to make a case that many matters of controversy among bible-believing Christians simply cannot be solved by posting a whack of verses that support one's position. Since I have thought about this most frequently in the context of the whole Calvinism / Arminianism issue, I will use that issue to illustrate.

Consider Romans 3:11:

"There is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God."

I am fairly confident that this text has been provided as evidence to support a Calvinistic take on total depravity - the notion that man in his fallen state simply cannot or will not seek after God. Of course, the text could indeed mean this.

Then we have texts like Jeremiah 29:13:

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

A Calvinist will argue that Roman 3:11 supports total depravity, an Arminian will argue that Jer 29:13 denies this doctrine.

Lets get a little deeper. When the "Calvinist" approaches Romans 3:11, two possibilities exist in respect to the intended meaning that will make him "correct" in his Calvinist reading:

1. The text's intended meaning is indeed "as it reads" - no one seeks God (and therefore no one in the fallen state seeks God).

2. The text's intended meaning can only be discerned upon an interpretive act of disambiguation performed by Calvinist, who, on some basis, correctly resolves the ambiguity in favour of the "total depravity" reading.

To clarify what I mean by item 2, I will refer to an argument put forth by unred typo who argues, in regard to Romans 3:11, that context dictates as follows:

we have here a written example of a case in point showing both Jews AND Gentiles not doing good. Paul is using this text to say, “How can you say Jews are better than Gentiles when we have proof that at the time of this passage’s writing, both were being evil?

In other words, the intent of Romans 3:11 is to demonstrate, by a kind of poetic exaggeration, that Jews and Gentiles are on the same footing, and that the text was never meant to be a technically precise statement that "no one seeks God under any circumstances whatsoever".

I can almost hear some of you licking your chops in anticipation of undermining unred typo's "interpretive", "non-literal" reading. Please stand by.

Let's suppose that the Calvinist argues that unred typo is making an unjustified "addition" to the plain meaning. In his defence, I will say that the Calvinist is indeed correct in his assertion that the most direct "literal" and "uncontaminated by other considerations" reading is indeed that "no one seeks God". Period. End of argument.

Here is where the problems arise for this fictional Calvinist. When he reads Jer 29:13 with the same "technically precise, take 'em at their literal meaning" approach he is faced with the following problem: This time it is the Calvinist who must "add something" to the plain reading - namely that some prior act of divine "enabling" by God is required in order for someone to "seek". This is not there in the text, it is added.

Remember, when someone refers to one who seeks, there is indeed an entirely legitimate implication of "ability to seek". This is how we use this word. When we say "Fred seeks Joes" in a game of hide and seek, we do not mean anything at all like "Fred seeks only after being enabled to do so by some external power" - we mean that Fred seeks Joe of his own accord. In short, the verb "to seek" carries with it, at least in western culture, the idea of autonomous freedom to engage in the "seeking".

Perhaps the Calvinist will attempt to justify this "addition" to Jer 29:13 by referring to the "plain literal reading" of texts like Romans 3:11. I should not have to point the problem with such a justification. Hint: "What's good for the goose...."

Although I refer to a fictional Calvinist, the argument would work the other way as well - the Arminian could not simply point to a "literal" reading of Jer 29:13 and then take liberties in respect to "adding" something to Romans 3:11.

 

[gingercat]

Arguments by verses never reaches to anything but more arguments. It is just a waste of time.

It seems that whoever joins this kind of arguments simply want to show off their capability of quoting the Scriptures.

 

[Novum]

With so much disagreement on even the most fundamental issues, it's sometimes a wonder you can call Christianity a religion at all. As I've posted elsewhere...

Christian 1: I believe, as the Holy Spirit is my witness, that statements A, B, and C are true.

Christian 2: Absolutely not. Statements A, B, and C are all wrong, and Jesus agrees with me, as you can see in scriptures D, E, F, and G.

C1: Blasphemer! Scriptures X, Y, and Z clearly show you to be wrong.

C2: Nonsense. I shall not be led astray by any man; as Jesus agrees with me, I still know A, B, and C to be wrong.

C1: But look here, in scriptures F, G, and H - it clearly shows Jesus to be on my side.

Christian 3: You're both wrong! It is clear in scriptures J, K, and L that Jesus agrees with me.

C1 & C2: Go away!

C3: I shall not be silenced by mere men! I know that the Holy Spirit has shown me that you are both wrong!

Forum mods: Sorry C3, but we have banned discussion on your theory as you describe it from scriptures J, K, and L.

Nonbelievers: How is it possible for Jesus to be agreeing with people who argue for mutually exclusive positions? Logically, it must be true that either at least one of these people is mistaken, or all of these people are wrong...

C1, C2, & C3: Shut up, Nonbeliever. You wouldn't understand, as you're spiritually dead.

 

[unred typo]

Novum:

C1, C2, & C3: Shut up, Nonbeliever. You wouldn't understand, as you're spiritually dead.

LOLROF….I luvit. :

Ok, now why can’t we all jus git along? I, for one would be more than happy to simply go back to the teaching of love and forgiveness and selflessness and forget all those divisive doctrines that Jesus never taught, but it seems like the fearful, the abominable, the anal and all liars like to stir up a little dissention among the faithful and the frightened. I feel I should put in my time to undo some of the error I taught while I was under the influence of the wrong spirit. :evil: It’s a self inflicted punishment of sorts. :wink:

Drew wrote:

Perhaps the Calvinist will attempt to justify this "addition" to Jer 29:13 by referring to the "plain literal reading" of texts like Romans 3:11. I should not have to point the problem with such a justification. Hint: "What's good for the goose...."

A solitary verse plucked from a passage can be manipulated to say any which wutever thing. If an argument cannot be supported by at least the entire chapter, something is wrong with the interpretation. I believe that’s called ‘taking a verse out of context.’ Most of the Calvinist’s favorite big guns can be unloaded by just reading the previous and/or following verse. Unfortunately, we abiding in the flesh are basically lazy and don’t bother to check it out, so we fill our heads with the most inane illogical doctrines.

 

[JM]

The problem is, the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible making it stand alone. Paul makes it clear that man, in his nature state is hostile toward God, there's no trick to it...the text reads..."Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The word enmity means hostility and hatred. This text explicitly teaches the nature of man BEFORE he is regenerated by the power of God. The natural mind CANNOT be subject to God's Law because if it remains in it's natural state. Drew builds his cases upon one verse here, on this topic, and one verse there on another topic and hopes to convince you with his arguments from humanistic philosophy.

For further study please see the list below, if you don't study, you shouldn't and can't form a proper opinion. Emotions on any doctrine or subject in the Bible shouldn't be used to influence your understanding of the word, rather, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Genesis 2:16-17 Adam's death for disobedience
Romans 5:12 That same death passes upon us
Ephesians 2:1-3 Necessary for us to be quickened who were dead
Colossians 2:13 Necessary for us to be quickened who were dead
Psalm 51:5 David a sinner from conception onward
Psalm 58:3 Wickedness from birth
John 3:5-6 New birth necessary to enter kingdom
Genesis 6:5 The thoughts of man's heart only evil continually
Genesis 8:21 The heart evil from youth
Ecclesiastes 9:3 Hearts are filled up with evil
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all else
Mark 7:21-23 Evil acts come from a depraved heart
John 3:19 Men love darkness rather than light
Romans 8:7-8 The mind is set against God and cannot please him.
1 Corinthians 2:14 Unregenerate cannot understand spiritual things
Ephesians 4:17-19 dark understanding & hardness of heart
Ephesians 5:8 We also were once darkness
Titus 1:15 The unbelievers very minds and consciences are corrupt
John 8:44 The will of the unbeliever is to do devil's will
Ephesians 2:1-2 following the prince of the power of the air
2 Timothy 2:25-26 captured by the devil
1 John 3:10 children of the devil
1 John 5:19 world in the power of the evil one
John 8:34 everyone who sins is slave to sin
Romans 6:20 slaves to sin
Titus 3:3 slaves to sinful passions
2 Chronicles 6:36 true of entire human race
Job 15:14-16 man cannot be clean
Psalm 130:3 nobody could stand if the Lord marked iniquity
Psalm 143:2 no living man is righteous before Lord
Proverbs 20:9 none can say they made their heart clean
Ecclesiastes 7:20 not a just man on earth
Ecclesiastes 7:29 not created that way, but fell
Isaiah 53:6 all have gone astray and each has gone astray
Isaiah 64:6 even righteous deed like a polluted garment
Romans 3:9-12 all are under the power of sin
James 3:2, 6, 8 unable to bridle any passion
1 John 1:8, 10 if we say we have no sin we are self-deceived
Job 14:4 impossible to bring a clean thing out of an unclean
Jeremiah 13:23 Cannot change ourselves
Matthew 7:16-18 a bad tree cannot bear good fruit
Matthew 12:33 Must make the tree good for fruit to be acceptable
John 6:44 No one can come apart from being drawn
John 6:65 Coming must be granted by the father
Romans 11:35-36 We cannot give a gift to God
1 Corinthians 4:7 If you are different, it is because God made you that way
2 Corinthians 3:5 We are not sufficient of ourselves (this deals with Paul's call
to the ministry primarily, of course)
2 Timothy 3:7-8 never able to come to a knowledge of truth
Titus 1:12-13 Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Titus 1:15-16 even their mind and conscience is defiled... reprobate
James 2:10-11 offense in one point of the law renders one guilty of the entire law
James 3:12 no fountain can bring forth both salt water and fresh.
Psalm 22:29 none can keep alive his own soul

 

[Drew]

The problem is, the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible making it stand alone.

Why would you expect the reader to not assume that this is also true of the Calvinist and the closed theist? This is just an assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

Paul makes it clear that man, in his nature state is hostile toward God, there's no trick to it...the text reads..."Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The word enmity means hostility and hatred. This text explicitly teaches the nature of man BEFORE he is regenerated by the power of God. The natural mind CANNOT be subject to God's Law because if it remains in it's natural state. Drew builds his cases upon one verse here, on this topic, and one verse there on another topic and hopes to convince you with his arguments from humanistic philosophy.

I plead "no contest" to trying to build a careful and well thought out case - if that's what makes up "humanistic philosophy", then I am guilty as charged. And, how is my provision of "one verse and another verse there" any different from your listing of verses? Are we supposed to believe that your 20 verses outweigh my 2 or 3. And what about the list compiled by unred typo that seem to support the idea that men can indeed seek.

I think your position would be best served by facing what seems inarguable - the only way to preserve exhaustive foreknowledge, for example, in light of texts like 2 Kings 20 and Genesis 22 is to not take the texts at their literal reading. And yet this is the very thing you are implicitly asking us to do in respect to the lengthy list of verses you provide in defence of a Calvinist position. And this is exactly your explicit argument in respect to the words you quote from Paul (i.e. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be").

I am not saying that I have made a case against Calvinist doctrine, I am merely arguing that listing verses is insufficient. I am more than happy to entertain an argument that rests on something a little more sophisticated than a "list of verses".

Do you not see that I could equally well say something like the following:

In 2 Kings 20, the text tells us that God says to Hez "you will not recover". A few verses later, Hez, in fact recovers. This will seem just as clear to a reader as being problematic for exhaustive foreknowledge as your quote of Paul is for someone who argues that we can seek God in our natural state.

If you don't study, you shouldn't and can't form a proper opinion.

This is true. And neither can you form a proper opinion if you do not apply consistency in your method for reading scripture (i.e. not "picking and choosing" where a literal reading can and cannot be made)

Emotions on any doctrine or subject in the Bible shouldn't be used to influence your understanding of the word

I hardly think that you are in a position to tell me about emotional over-commitment to a position. But, of course, you are indeed correct. I see little "emotion" in my OP. Why not critique the content of my OP and not make (unjustified, of course) implications (to be fair, this is indeed only an implication on your part) that I do not "study" or that I have "emotional" biases.

 

[unred typo]

JM said:

The problem is, the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible making it stand alone. Paul makes it clear that man, in his nature state is hostile toward God, there's no trick to it...the text reads..."Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The word enmity means hostility and hatred. This text explicitly teaches the nature of man BEFORE he is regenerated by the power of God. The natural mind CANNOT be subject to God's Law because if it remains in it's natural state. Drew builds his cases upon one verse here, on this topic, and one verse there on another topic and hopes to convince you with his arguments from humanistic philosophy.

OK. Everyone read what Paul really said, paying attention to the words like ‘if‘ and ‘but‘:

Romans 8: 1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7. because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8. and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 12. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- 13. for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

 

[JM]

JM:
The problem is, the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible making it stand alone.
Response: Why would you expect the reader to not assume that this is also true of the Calvinist and the closed theist? This is just an assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

Firmly believing the word of God is the final authority; I gather ALL the holy Scriptures on a topic, such as the list above before I make up on ming. This is not just an assertion; it’s supported by the Bible, history [the Council of Orange] and inconsistently by some Arminians.

JM wrote:
Paul makes it clear that man, in his nature state is hostile toward God, there's no trick to it...the text reads..."Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The word enmity means hostility and hatred. This text explicitly teaches the nature of man BEFORE he is regenerated by the power of God. The natural mind CANNOT be subject to God's Law because if it remains in it's natural state. Drew builds his cases upon one verse here, on this topic, and one verse there on another topic and hopes to convince you with his arguments from humanistic philosophy.
Response: I plead "no contest" to trying to build a careful and well thought out case - if that's what makes up "humanistic philosophy", then I am guilty as charged.

See, we do agree on a few things.

And, how is my provision of "one verse and another verse there" any different from your listing of verses?

As stated above, the Bible should be viewed as a whole, which are you not doing by “plucking†verses here and there.

Are we supposed to believe that your 20 verses outweigh my 2 or 3. And what about the list compiled by unred typo that seem to support the idea that men can indeed seek.

YES. If these verses speak to the same topic, in many cases explicitly and in some cases implicitly. Logically we can deduce [using our regenerated God given faculty of reason] to build a solid doctrine. As for the list typo has, I’d like to see it, and offer an interpretation of the verses given. ;)

I think your position would be best served by facing what seems inarguable - the only way to preserve exhaustive foreknowledge, for example, in light of texts like 2 Kings 20 and Genesis 22 is to not take the texts at their literal reading.

Well, isn’t the pot calling the kettle black! Acts 2:23 Christ was delivered by God's determinate counsel and foreknowledgeActs 4:27-28 Herod, Pilate, Gentiles and people of Israel gathered to do whatever God's counsel determinedMatthew 10:29 God's determination of minute details of providencePsalm 103:19 God rules over all thingsDaniel 4:35 God does whatever he will - none can stay his hand or question his willIsaiah 59:1 God's hand is not shortened that it cannot saveExodus 15:8 The Lord reigns for ever and everDeuteronomy 10:17 God has no regard for personsDeuteronomy 32:39 God kills, makes alive, wounds, heals and none can deliver1 Samuel 2:6-8 God makes poor, makes rich, brings low, lifts up, pillars are the Lord's1 Chronicles 29:11 All in the earth and heavens is the Lord's1 Chronicles 29:12 riches and honour come from the Lord - his hand rules over all2 Chronicles 20:6 none is able to withstand the power and will of the LordJob 9:12 God does whatever he will and none can question himJob 36:22-23 God lifts up by his power and none can say he has worked iniquity.Psalm 10:16 The Lord is king forever and everPsalm 22:28 The Lord is the governor among the nationsPsalm 47:8 God reigns over the heathen; he sits upon his holy thronePsalm 66:7 He rules by his power foreverPsalm 75:7 God exalts one and puts down anotherPsalm 115:3 God has done whatsoever he pleasedPsalm 135:6 whatsoever the Lord pleased - that did heEcclesiastes 9:1 all things are in the hands of GodIsaiah 40:23 God brings princes to nothing and judges as they were vanityIsaiah 45:7 God creates light, darkness, peace, evil; he does it allJeremiah 10:10 The nations shall not abide the indignation of the LordJeremiah 18:6 Israel is as clay in the hands of the potterJeremiah 27:5 God's gifts given to whom it seemed good to him to give them.Lamentations 3:37 A human cannot say something will come to pass unless decreed by God.Daniel 2:21 It is God who gives wisdom and knowledgeMatthew 11:25 God hides truth from some and reveals it to othersMatthew 20:15 God is free to do with his own as he willLuke 10:21 God hides truth from some and reveals it to others because it seems good in his sight.John 19:11 Even Pilate's power came from GodRomans 9:19 None is able to resist the will of GodRevelation 4:11 All creation for Christ's gloryJob 23:13 God does whatever he desires and no one can turn him from it.Drew, you shouldn’t cast stone while living in a glass house.

And yet this is the very thing you are implicitly asking us to do in respect to the lengthy list of verses you provide in defence of a Calvinist position. And this is exactly your explicit argument in respect to the words you quote from Paul (i.e. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be").

Now, get your Bible and read it folks.

I am not saying that I have made a case against Calvinist doctrine, I am merely arguing that listing verses is insufficient. I am more than happy to entertain an argument that rests on something a little more sophisticated than a "list of verses".

This “sophisticated†argument cannot be found in Scripture, but humanistic philosophy, and I doubt Drew will deny his use of philosophy in coming to his complicated argumentation of multiple possibilities over a clearly stated teaching. - Martin Luther wrote, "Whilst a man is persuaded that he has it in his power to contribute anything, be it ever so little, to his salvation, he remains in carnal self-confidence; he is not a self-despairer, and therefore is not duly humbled before God, he believes he may lend a helping hand in his salvation, but on the contrary, whoever is truly convinced that the whole work depends singly on the will of God, such a person renounces his own will and strength; he waits and prays for the operation of God, nor waits and prays in vain . . ."

Do you not see that I could equally well say something like the following: In 2 Kings 20, the text tells us that God says to Hez "you will not recover". A few verses later, Hez, in fact recovers. This will seem just as clear to a reader as being problematic for exhaustive foreknowledge as your quote of Paul is for someone who argues that we can seek God in our natural state.

Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority, and you keep proving that by your use of secular reasoning. The Bible does say God knows all [see the list above] and you seem to forget that God added a certain number of days to Hezekiah’s life…we can LOGICALLY DEDUCE that God knows how long Hezekiah will live. The Bible is filled with “IF†as a means of warning against certain conduct. The Bible is also filled with certianities and you ignore this for your vain self promoting doctrine.

JM wrote:
If you don't study, you shouldn't and can't form a proper opinion.
Response: This is true. And neither can you form a proper opinion if you do not apply consistency in your method for reading scripture (i.e. not "picking and choosing" where a literal reading can and cannot be made)

I will admit, you’re consistent, but you consistently deny God’s freedom for you own.

JM wrote:
Emotions on any doctrine or subject in the Bible shouldn't be used to influence your understanding of the word
Response: I hardly think that you are in a position to tell me about emotional over-commitment to a position.

This is a first. Usually the Calvinist is called cold, emotionless and heartless for claiming God’s sovereign choice in everything He does. Besides, you’re reading too much into a comment that was written for those who may read this thread, not you.

But, of course, you are indeed correct. I see little "emotion" in my OP. Why not critique the content of my OP and not make (unjustified, of course) implications (to be fair, this is indeed only an implication on your part) that I do not "study" or that I have "emotional" biases.

The use of emotion in your doctrine is simple and clear to anyone reading this, it’s the cry of the rebel against God, “it’s not fair I’m not that bad of a person.†It’s a childish rant hidden in “sophisticated argument†that is meant to steal from God HIS choice in giving Salvation and directing the future. Augustus Toplady wrote, “The greatest judgment which God Himself can, in this present life, inflict upon a man is, to leave him in the hand of his own boasted free-will.â€ÂThe comment, “study to shew thyself approved†was made for the encouragement of the reader and not directed to you Drew.

OK. Everyone read what Paul really said, paying attention to the words like ‘if‘ and ‘but‘:

Concerning the “good†we do…
Phi 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

A description of man…
Romans 3
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Above we find how God truly views fallen man with the cross telling us not how much man is worth, but how sick and depraved the natural man is.

JM

 

[Drew]

In what I believe is in the spirit of unred's last post, please consider the following snippet from Romans 8 (as per the King Jim version which I believe JM has quoted from):

1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I propose that a "contextual" type argument can be made which is at odds with the notion of "total depravity".

Consider verses 1 and 4. They both refer to "walking after the spirit" and "walking after the flesh". In our culture at least, the implication of a phrase like "walk after" entails implicit ideas of "voluntary action" - the metaphor of "walking down a certain road" is generally an expression of free, purposeful action.

With this in mind, verse 5 can surely read an expression of the state of mind one is in after "freely" walking down a certain road.

Same idea with verse 6 - being of these minds is a consequence of a free act to walk after the flesh or after the Spirit, as the case may be.

Now we come the verse that JM has quoted. If one accepts that an initial free choice to walk after the flesh has resulted in a "carnal mind", then, of course, that mind will be at emnity with God. And, by virtue of the very meaning of what a carnal mind is, such a mind cannot be subject to the law of God. But this does not speak to inherent inability, but rather to the natural consequence of a free choice - walking after the flesh.

So in verse 8, those who cannot please God are not in that state due to fundamental inability (e.g. being totally depraved), but rather by virtue of "the consequence of their choice" - people who have (freely) chosen to walk after the flesh cannot, of course, please God in that state.

 

[Drew]

JM:
The problem is, the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible making it stand alone.
Response: Why would you expect the reader to not assume that this is also true of the Calvinist and the closed theist? This is just an assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

Firmly believing the word of God is the final authority; I gather ALL the holy Scriptures on a topic, such as the list above before I make up on ming. This is not just an assertion; it’s supported by the Bible, history [the Council of Orange] and inconsistently by some Arminians.

You have done it again - you have merely asserted the truth of your position that "the Open Theist or Arminian will try to "pluck a verse" here and there and divorce it from the rest of the Bible". How is this not just simply a statement that, to be frank, blatantly begs several questions at issue? I really am stumped that you would think that "its supported by the Bible" is an argument or that "the word of God is the final authority" is an argument. As for the Council of Orange, I could turn your own dismissal of "humanistic philosophy" against your position and ask the question: "On what basis do you know that this Council was not engaged in such erroneous human philosophy"?

 

[Drew]

And, how is my provision of "one verse and another verse there" any different from your listing of verses?

As stated above, the Bible should be viewed as a whole, which are you not doing by “plucking†verses here and there.

I am puzzled. Later on in your most recent post, you list a long array of verses. In many of your earlier posts, you provide long lists of verses. For example in a recent OP, you list a set of verses and then simply add the following one line: "open theism is proven false".

Do you really think the reader will not see you as exhibiting the very "plucking" behaviour that you attribute to me. I am genuinely interested in how you explain how your posts are not often "plucking" posts.

I assume your argument will not be based on sheer numbers of verses. While it is true you have posted an impressive number of texts, the sheer numbers do not support your case - the essence of "plucking" lies in the act of taking a verse and plopping it down as if no "contextual" interpretation is required. One can pluck 100 verses or 2 - more verses simply listed is simply more "plucking".

What would make a post (by either you or me) not simple "plucking" would be some kind of higher level analysis / synthesis that explains / justifies the conclusion one has reached. Since texts obviously cannot be taken at their literal reading (by your very own reasoning in respect to 2 Kings 20), they simply cannot be listed and supplemented by some kind of simple declaration (such as "open theism is proven false").

If you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in advocating for a certain point of view, you need to make an actual argument, not just list verses and then essentially just declare a conclusion. This will not convince anyone worth convincing.

 

[Drew]

I think your position would be best served by facing what seems inarguable - the only way to preserve exhaustive foreknowledge, for example, in light of texts like 2 Kings 20 and Genesis 22 is to not take the texts at their literal reading.

Well, isn’t the pot calling the kettle black!

Who are you arguing with here? As anyone who has been following these interactions will know, I have granted the possibility that the seeming fatal blow to exhaustive foreknowledge provided in these texts can be avoided provided that the text is not taken literally. I don't actually think this is a good argument, but I have granted that it might be correct. So I simply cannot be the pot in your response. Please tell us who is of the mind that one can assume a "literal meaning" in reading the Scriptures. I shall join you in hunting the wascally wabbit out myself.

 

[Drew]

Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority

Unless my memory is faulty, I have never stated such a thing. Please provide the post where I stated this.

 

[unred typo]

JM wrote:

Concerning the “good†we do…
Phi 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Do you think just because a person has free will that they can’t be a subject of God’s leading? I work in my grandson to will and to do of my good pleasure but I do not spiritually overrule his will to do that. If I as mere mortal can inspire and lead another free willed soul to do my bidding, without using hypnotic mind control, why couldn't God? :roll:

 

[Drew]

The Bible does say God knows all [see the list above]

The only 2 ways I can see to justify this claim are as folllows:

1. One or more texts directly says God knows everything - not that he knows the number of hairs on your head or the number of your days, but that He knows everything.

2. The combined effect of these texts shows that God knows everything. For example, if one text says God knows the names of all men and another says that God knows the names of all women, we can our powers of logic to conclude that God knows the names of all people.

Can you justify your claim? Or can you argue that there are other criteria for such a justification?

and you seem to forget that God added a certain number of days to Hezekiah’s life…we can LOGICALLY DEDUCE that God knows how long Hezekiah will live.

One of the nice things about logical deductions are that they can be demontrated through an argument. Please provide such an argument. The fact that God promises 15 years does prove one thing - that He (God) knows how long Hez will live after He (God) grants Hez's plea to be spared. I have, of course, never disputed this. I will be interested to see how one proves that God know how long Hez would live before Hez made his plea. Remember, you have claimed a logical deduction can be provided.

The Bible is filled with “IF†as a means of warning against certain conduct.

If you are suggesting that there is an implicit "if you do not turn to me" associated with the "you will not recover" statement, you should know that I have granted this possibility, but in so doing, I took the very legitimate step (not rocket science, people) of concluding that literal readings cannot always be assumed to be correct - if they cannot work for 2 Kings 20, they cannot just be assumed to be correct for all the verses you list.

your vain self promoting doctrine.

Do you think this will convince readers of the correctness of your position? I would tend to think it will come across as an attempt to demonstrate your point by impugning the motives of your opponent. A full frontal assault on my argument is what I think you should really undertake.

 

[unred typo]

Sorry, I missed this one...
JM wrote:

As for the list typo has, I’d like to see it, and offer an interpretation of the verses given.

He that seeks, finds. Here is a partial list of verses that clearly show that men can and do seek God and God is pleased by their attempts to walk in his ways:

Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
Psa 27:8 [When thou saidst], Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.
Psa 34:10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good [thing].
Pro 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all [things].
Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments [are] in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged.
Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Hsa 10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for [it is] time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.
Amo 5:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live:
Amo 5:14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.
Zep 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find [him], if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Psa 40:16 Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: let such as love thy salvation say continually, The LORD be magnified.
Psa 69:32 The humble shall see [this, and] be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Psa 83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
Psa 105:3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
Psa 105:4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.
Psa 119:2 Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart.
Psa 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
Psa 119:155 Salvation [is] far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
Psa 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.
2Ch 31:21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did [it] with all his heart, and prospered.
2Ch 34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.
Ezr 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat,
Ezr 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do [it], and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.
Ezr 8:22 For I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way: because we had spoken unto the king, saying, The hand of our God [is] upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath [is] against all them that forsake him.
Psa 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

Read'em an weep... :wink:

 

[JM]

JM wrote:
Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority

Response: Unless my memory is faulty, I have never stated such a thing. Please provide the post where I stated this.

Quoting Drew: “However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures.â€Â

And

“The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.â€Â

http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0

Humanism.

Do you think just because a person has free will that they can’t be a subject of God’s leading?

God can’t lead without violating man’s libertarian freewill. This is the inconsistency of your argument. If man has a freewill that isn’t determined by either sin or God, God can’t lead that person in any meaningful way.

I work in my grandson to will and to do of my good pleasure but I do not spiritually overrule his will to do that. If I as mere mortal can inspire and lead another free willed soul to do my bidding, without using hypnotic mind control, why couldn't God?

A person’s will is determined by something. We are speaking of the will BEFORE regeneration, aren’t we? John Nelson Darby wrote, “If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any place.†In another work he wrote, “I believe we ought to hold to the word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Freewill is a state of sin.â€Â

The only 2 ways I can see to justify this claim are as folllows:

1. One or more texts directly says God knows everything - not that he knows the number of hairs on your head or the number of your days, but that He knows everything.

Drew, if only it were that simple.

Matthew 10:29 God's determination of minute details of providence
Ecclesiastes 9:1 all things are in the hands of God
Lamentations 3:37 A human cannot say something will come to pass unless decreed by God.

And this is why it isn’t so simple Drew…
Luke 10:21 God hides truth from some and reveals it to others because it seems good in his sight.

2. The combined effect of these texts shows that God knows everything. For example, if one text says God knows the names of all men and another says that God knows the names of all women, we can our powers of logic to conclude that God knows the names of all people.

Can you justify your claim? Or can you argue that there are other criteria for such a justification?

Premise One: God’s determination of the smallest details of life, Matt. 10:29.
Premise Two: All things in life are in the hands of God, Ecc. 9:1
Premise Three [and you know we only need two valid premises to create a logical argument]: Man cannot even say something will come to pass unless it was decreed by God, Lam. 3:37.
Conclusion: God, with determination over the smallest details of life and with all things in His hands, decrees and that decree comes to pass. [Look up: “You meant it for evil, God meant it for good.â€Â]

Premise One: Romans 9:19 None is able to resist the will of God
Premise Two: Matthew 20:15 God is free to do with his own as he will
Premise Three: Daniel 4:35 God does whatever He wills
Conclusion: God does whatever He, not man, wills.

JM wrote:
your vain self promoting doctrine.

Response: Do you think this will convince readers of the correctness of your position? I would tend to think it will come across as an attempt to demonstrate your point by impugning the motives of your opponent. A full frontal assault on my argument is what I think you should really undertake.

Love it, thanks. What is it your arguing for? Isn’t it the ability for YOU to decide, for YOU to be in control and for YOU to be the deciding factor in YOUR salvation? Yup, that’s YOU.

I’ll do what Drew or typo won’t and look at the verses listed.

Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

No mention of ability on the part of man, this is assumed.

Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

The assumption is on the person ALREADY loving God, the enmity [hostility] toward God that Paul mentioned, has ALREADY been removed. They seek because they love, they love because they have been given the will to do so.

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

lol! Did you even read the chapter or just post after doing a quick search? These folks were in covenant ALREADY v. 53. Read the chapter and weep.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Psa 27:8 [When thou saidst], Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.

Was David a believer? This is really say typo, you didn’t “study to shew thyself approved.†You simply did a search on the word “seek,†didn’t you…in v. 1 David has ALREADY made a profession of faith. I would quote v. 1 but I want you to look it up.

Psa 34:10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good [thing].

The samething, v. 1 a profession has been made. Please, use context when quoting, this is really a waste of my time.

Pro 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all [things].

Assumption of ability. Nothing about the will, enslaved to sin or not, is mentioned.

Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments [are] in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Once again, assumption of ability is made without establishing that man, in his natural state, has the ability. Paul tells is in no unclear terms that “no one seeks God.†You know what they say about assuming?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged.

I love this verse! It speaks to God’s aggressive pursuit of His elect in bringing them back in line! AMEN. God is calling His elect “Hearken to me.†This is conquering Grace. Back it up a bit, remove the chapters and verses that man added, in 50:8 we find Isaiah is speaking of his close relationship to God [“He is near that justifieth me…â€Â]

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Back up a couple of verses, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD…†ESV God’s plan, man’s response once they’re free. This isn’t AMWay.

Hsa 10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for [it is] time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

Hosea is a prophet speaking to God’s people, telling them to soften up there hard heartedness and return to God’s way. Dr. John Gill wrote, “for his grace; as the husbandman seeks, prays, and waits for rain, when he has tilled his ground, and sowed his seed, to water it, and make it fruitful, that he may have a good reaping time, a plentiful harvest; and as there is a time to seek for the one, so for the other.â€Â

Amo 5:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live & 14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.

This is getting silly. The above is speaking to the evidence of your faith, not the works upon which one is saved, but the fruit of that faith. If you don’t continue in faith and have no evidence of faith, then you have no faith to speak of.

Zep 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger.

As you may or may not know, “all ye meek of the earth†is better translated as “all you humble of the land.†ESV This land is Judea. This verse is speaking to believers who are among apostate believers, read the book. This is laughable.

Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

Read v. 13. This verse has nothing to do with this subject. Dr. John Gill wrote “And did not he make one?.... That is, did not God make one man, and out of his rib one woman? did he not make man, male and female? did he not make one pair, one couple, only Adam and Eve, whom he joined together in marriage? or rather, did he not make one woman only, and brought her to Adam to be his wife? which shows that his intention and will were, that one man should have but one wife at a time; the contrary to which was the then present practice of the Jews:

Yet had he the residue of the spirit; it was not for want of power that he made but one woman of Adam's rib, and breathed into her the breath of life, or infused into her a human soul or spirit; he could have made many women at the same time; and as the Father of spirits, having the residue of them with him, or a power left to make as many as he pleased, he could have imparted spirits unto them, and given Adam more wives than one:

[/b]And wherefore one?[/b] what is the reason why he made but one woman, when he could have made ten thousand, or as many as he pleased? the answer is,

That he might seek a godly seed; or "a seed of God" (d); a noble excellent seed; a legitimate offspring, born in true and lawful wedlock; see 1Co_7:14 a seed suitable to the dignity of human nature, made after the image of God, and not like that of brute beasts, promiscuous and uncertain:

Therefore take heed to your spirit; to your affections, that they do not go after other women, and be led thereby to take them in marriage, and to despise and divorce the lawful wife, as it follows:

and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth; by marrying another, or divorcing her: these words are differently rendered and interpreted by some; but the sense given seems to be the true one, and most agreeable to the scope of the place. Some render the first clause, "hath not one made?" (e) that is, did not the one God, who is the only living and true God, make one man or one woman? and then the sense is the same as before; or did not that one God make, constitute, and appoint, that the woman should be the man's companion, and the wife of his covenant, as in the latter part of the preceding verse Mal_2:13? or, "did not one do?" (f) that is, so as we have done, take another wife besides the wife of his youth? and so they are the words of the people to the prophets, justifying their practice by example; by the example of Abraham, whom some of the Jewish writers think is intended by the "one", as in Isa_51:2

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

This is instruction to believers and seeking the will of God in forming His Kingdom.

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

In v. 6 Christ uses the term “dogs.†Believers are never called dogs, Christ is speaking to the already saved.

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

This is a Gospel plea for repentance with no mention of ability, it’s assumed.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

And the Arminian claims faith has no merit! Hebrews 11 clearly details the merits of faith, “so and so did this by faith and got that…etc.â€Â

Is heartfelt repentance pleasing to God?

Yes.

Does heartfelt repentance result in a changed nature?

No, it can’t, “for those in the flesh cannot please God.â€Â

Hebrews 11 does more to support the Calvinist then the Arminian or Open Theist view.

Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find [him], if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

For those that don’t know, Deuteronomy is a detailed instruction manual for God’s people, a redeemed people, a believing people. The rebukes can be found in this book, but ability to accept God as saviour is not mentioned.

Psa 40:16 Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: let such as love thy salvation say continually, The LORD be magnified.

Read the Psalm for context: v.1/ David was already saved v.2/ he was singing praise to a God that saved him v.3/ God is directing his praise…etc. If you read the following Psalms you’ll find the similar context in each one. I see no need to keep going, here’s the list.

Psa 69:32 The humble shall see [this, and] be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Psa 83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
Psa 105:3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
Psa 105:4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.
Psa 119:2 Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart.
Psa 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
Psa 119:155 Salvation [is] far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
Psa 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.
Psa 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

2Ch 31:21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did [it] with all his heart, and prospered.

He was already in the “service of the house of God.â€Â

2Ch 34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.

See 2 Kings 22 lol, you guys kill me.

Ezr 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat,

Read, “And the children of Israel, which were come again out of…†they were faithfully following God’s religious feasts and observances. No mention of ability or inability found here.

Ezr 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do [it], and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

v. 9 reads, “…according to the good hand of his God upon him.†God’s hand was ALREADY UPON HIM.

Ezr 8:22 For I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way: because we had spoken unto the king, saying, The hand of our God [is] upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath [is] against all them that forsake him.

This is ridiculous. This is a quote from the king, not from God, and once again ability is inserted and assumed.

And I quote:

When a person makes the bold claim that human beings have a 'free will' then you may want to ask them to define terms by asking,"Free from what?" "Free from sin?", "Free from God's decree?" No, neither. So what do people actually mean when they claim man has a free will? I think many persons mean to say that man is free from external coersion. In this we all can agree, but just because someone is free from coersion does not mean his will is free. There are other ways in which man's will is not free. If the natural man make choices BY NECESSITY then he also lacks a kind of freedom. We might want to consider whether the Bible uses the expression 'freedom' to describe any fallen man. And the answer is no, not UNTIL Christ sets us free (Rom 6). Jesus says that prior to grace, persons are 'slaves to sin'. And, last time I looked, a slave is not free. If man is in bondage to a corruption of nature, as the Scripture attests, then he is not, in any sense, free as the Bible defines it. That is, until the grace of God in Christ sets him free. It would be correct to say man HAS A WILL and that his choices are VOLUNTARY (not coerced) but this does not make the choices free. Fallen man chooses sin of NECESSITY due to a corruption of nature, and this is just as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ, and a more properly biblical way of expression. Just because we make these choices, of necessity, does not alleviate our responsibility. If we borrow $5 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Las Vegas [like our condition of debt after the fall], our inability to repay the debt does not alleviate us of any responsibility to do so (see Rom 3:20). So I contend that whenever speaking about the concept of "free will," because of the confusion surrounding it, we should only define freedom as the Bible does: that man's will is not free, but rather is in bondage to sin. Clearly the Bible affirms that apart from a supernatural and merciful work of the Holy Spirit to change our naturally hostile disposition to God, no person would ever receive Christ (John 6:65). And Just as water does not rise above its source, so unspiritual men do not think or act spiritually (1 Cor 2:14). - J.W.H

As Paul t us, “no one seeks God.†Dr. James White who continues to seat on the translation community for the NASB tells us that in the literal rendering it means, “there is no God seeker.†Those are powerful words. The only person that seeks God is a person who has been called into a relationship with God, the hostile fallen nature removed, they are “set free indeed.â€Â

"Reformed definition of free will: "The power to choose according to one's strongest motive, nature and character." In the unregenerate, to freely choose evil. In the regenerate, to freely choose God and the good." - Byron Curtis

JM

 

[Drew]

JM wrote:
Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority

Response: Unless my memory is faulty, I have never stated such a thing. Please provide the post where I stated this.

Quoting Drew: “However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures.â€Â

And

“The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.â€Â

And this is supposed to be evidence that I do not hold the Bible to be the final authority?

I do not know how more simply it can be expressed: Scripture is made up of words, words have meanings that are not magically injected into our brains - such meanings are constructed out of the content of our life experience - what happens to us, what we read, what we hear from others, what meaning our culture applies to such words, etc.. When we read texts like "seek the Lord" and "love your enemy", where do you think the content of such concepts as "seek" and "love" comes from? How do we know what the word "love" actually means?

One of the "emperor has no clothes" statements of some evangelicals is that Scripture does not require interpretation. Just a little thinking should convince anyone that the chain of events that begins with the reading of a text and ends with the reader attributing meaning to that text necessarily involves all kinds of sophisticated acts of interpretation that cannot help but be influenced by factors that are extternal to the Scriptures.

And, of course, my holding such a view has nothing to do with whether I accord Scriptures the final authority. I do indeed accord Scriptures with final authority on matters of doctrine - I just have gotten past the naive fantasy that the meaning they impart to us is not informed by the content of "cultural" factors.

 

[Drew]

Premise One: God’s determination of the smallest details of life, Matt. 10:29.
Premise Two: All things in life are in the hands of God, Ecc. 9:1
Premise Three [and you know we only need two valid premises to create a logical argument]: Man cannot even say something will come to pass unless it was decreed by God, Lam. 3:37.
Conclusion: God, with determination over the smallest details of life and with all things in His hands, decrees and that decree comes to pass. [Look up: “You meant it for evil, God meant it for good.â€Â

Premise 1 is unjustified. The text says (NIV):

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father".

We have been down this road before, but for those who were not reading the last time around, here we go again (its a little long).

What is this text actually saying? It is actually a little ambiguous in respect to the matter we are discussing. I claim that the following 2 interpretations of this text are both true to the text:

1. Each and every bird that falls to the ground does so in accordance with the will of God that prescribed the details of that event.

2. Consider the set of birds that fall to the ground. No bird in this set falls so as to thwart the general will of the Father. Many a bird could fall, without prescription by God, and yet still not thwart this general will. All we can legitimately take away from this text is the notion that God will not allow a bird to fall if that falling bird will interfere with the fulfillment of his higher purposes.

Back to the chess analogy. Let's say that I am playing Kasparov (I think he is some chess master). Even in a situation where I am free to make whatever move I want, it could be said of me and Kasparov: "Not one of Drew's moves will take place outside the will of Kasparov". The reason why someone could say this is as follows: Kasparov's will is to win the game, not control my moves. Kasparov is so clever that he puts me in a situation where, even though I am free to make any legal move that I want to, I cannot thwart his will. Whatever move I make, he can deal with it and still accomplish his will.

Returning to the Matthew text, the only way I can think of the negate plausibility of this argument I have provided is to make a case that the "will of the Father" referred to in this text can only be interpreted as his specific will in relation to the birds, not as his more general will. If it can be read as referring to the relation of the birds to God's general will, then the text does not really require that God prescribe what happens to each and every bird.

I maintain that the above argument shows that premise 1 is not established. Now I am going to hop up and down and underscore that I am saying that I have shown premise 1 is incorrect, all I have shown is that is has not been established. There is an important difference.

In any event, if I have succeeded in showing the lack of establishment of premise 1, the rest of the "proof" fails in virtue of the failure of premise 1 to be established.

Which of ye shall challenge my argument against premise 1 (no, not just say I am wrong, actually challenge it?) Please, take your best shot...

 

[Drew]

I’ll do what Drew or typo won’t and look at the verses listed.

While it should be clear to the reader that JM has not established God's exhaustive foreknowledge, he (JM), on the other hand, seems to have the capacity to know the future. Here he seems to have knowledge that neither typo nor I will look at the verses.

I would like to have such knowledge of the future myself - perhaps my stock choices would be better..... :D