Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God

[childeye]

="Stan1953, post: 940648, member: 6948"]Paul said; For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
This illustrates the truth already stated in v19; since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
No excuse to not believe. No excuse to say I didn't know. No excuse to not submit to God.
There is no doubt vanity plays a role with some, but it is no excuse. They are still aware of the truth, and CHOOSE to ignore it. THAT is free will.

Stan, I am simply going to reply again and hopefully more accurately address your points. Paul is indeed talking about no excuse to not submit to God, since He is after all Who sits at the Godhead. Let us agree that there is a Truth that all men must submit to and have life. Let us also agree therefore that there is clearly some known Truth being suppressed which angers God, otherwise God's wrath is not valid. It does not immediately follow that mankind has a free will to not submit but rather the opposite, that mankind has an obligation to submit. Why do people always try to establish the existence of a free will based on the disability to sin? Show me a man who distrusts the Holy God and I will show you a man who thinks he knows better than God. What excuse does any man have to think he is free in his will to decide he knows better than God? Such reasoning is not sound of mind.

However Paul also clearly states that man does not esteem God as God despite the fact he knows God. So why is there a lack of esteem? To simply answer by saying because man has a free will is not an answer. It is like saying because he can. As I said before, being truly thankful is not the product of a free will. See the prodigal son. For Paul then describes this lack of esteem giving examples. He states, " 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
It is not enough to say a man chooses to engage in unrighteousness because he has a freewill. I study the underlying reasons why men choose one way or the other. Vanity is indeed the problem. By vanity I mean that men and also angels usurp that which is God's attributes and takes them as their own in vanity. I can't think of any sin that is not founded upon pride in some form or another.

I take note that Satan possessed the sum of knowledge but yet he fell because of vanity. In my most honest appraisal, it is therefore fitting for me to lean toward humility and consider that vanity could blind anyone. To not do so is to think I would never be like Adam or Eve or the devil for that matter. Hence I take it to heart when Romans two says, Therefore you are inexcusable O man, whosoever you are that judges; for wherein you judge another you condemn yourself, for you that judges does the same things.

Rom 1. That was after at least 14 years of tutelage under Jesus personally. Paul also affirms free will in Philemon 1:14 (NASB)

I take it that you agree with my point concerning Paul. My point being that Paul was ignorant while persecuting those who served the Gospel, and that his will to do so was not made from a free choice made out of any real knowledge. Therefore not all choices are made freely based upon knowledge of the Truth. More semantics with the word chose. Of course he chose. Every action or inaction of every moment can be construed as a choice whether one does something or does nothing. However as regards to a free choice, I would respectfully submit that it is speculation to say Paul could choose otherwise than how he chose. He often claims he is in chains to Christ and I believe it is for that very reason. More semantics In Philemon. The phrase free will in verse 14 is meant to mean voluntarily. Paul is simply saying he did not want to exploit his relationship with Philemon but rather wants his whole hearted approval. He is not advocating that mankind has a free will in the theological sense.

God draws us to His son. That drawing is not forceful compliance, but an appeal to our spirit from His Spirit to accept His truth and gift of salvation. We choose to either accept that truth, or deny it.

​

I agree we will either trust in Jesus or not. That is an unavoidable consequence of having the choice placed before us through the Gospel, not because we chose to make a choice. There are objective and subjective connotations to the word choice. Objectively it is applied to various options while subjectively it refers to a decision made. Often these connotations are conflated when actually only the subjective form can be applied to the assertion of free will.

It is also true that God does not force a man to comply so long as Love and Truth are not counted as a force or power. Hence I reiterate that most people try to rationalize the existence of free will based upon the disability to sin rather than the ability to be righteous. But once again this is just semantics. As for me, the words of Christ were in accord with the Word of God in my heart and I could only agree. I could not choose otherwise. His desire to return good for evil and the forgiveness upon those who beat him and crucified him impressed upon me the Love that is divine. That I cannot deny and therefore was not a free choice, but rather a conviction in my heart. God did not force me by threat of hell to Love this image of Him presented in the Christ. But I cannot help but be moved so long as I have Love and therefore know Love when I see it. Why someone would choose otherwise has probably more to do with a blindness than with a freewill. It is ironic to me therefore that Christ forgives and excuses saying, "they know not what they do", while the term free will is used to promote blame.

In my personal experience, I chose to accept my savior, as Paul also instructs in Rom 10:9-11 (NIV)

God draws us to His son. That drawing is not forceful compliance, but an appeal to our spirit from His Spirit to accept His truth and gift of salvation. We choose to either accept that truth, or deny it.

This is a good example of what I mean by the term free will being lost in semantics. Every decision is a choice but not necessarily a free choice. There are reasons that convince the mind to choose one way or the other.

Sometimes, we may even know the Truth yet doubt ourselves and choose against our own better judgment. Mistakes happen. In the case of Paul's no excuse in Romans 1, I do not think this is the case, but regarding Adam and his disobedience I do.

 

[Stan1953]

Stan, I am simply going to reply again and hopefully more accurately address your points. Paul is indeed talking about no excuse to not submit to God, since He is after all Who sits at the Godhead. Let us agree that there is a Truth that all men must submit to and have life. Let us also agree therefore that there is clearly some known Truth being suppressed which angers God, otherwise God's wrath is not valid. It does not immediately follow that mankind has a free will to not submit but rather the opposite, that mankind has an obligation to submit. Why do people always try to establish the existence of a free will based on the disability to sin? Show me a man who distrusts the Holy God and I will show you a man who thinks he knows better than God. What excuse does any man have to think he is free in his will to decide he knows better than God? Such reasoning is not sound of mind.

Sorry, lost track of this thread.

God's wrath is clearly against those who knowingly supress the truth of who He is. Let's be careful to fully understand what "THE wrath of God" is.
No doubt God's will needs to be obeyed, but it isn't in every man's case, which is why His wrath comes against those who don't agree with it. They used their own will to disobey God. Repercussions are inevitable when we disobey God, as His children, but wrath comes to those who go further and knowingly make others disobey and challenge His will and authority. There is nothing God does that can be deemed to be invalid because we are mere humans and do not have the wherewithal to come close to understanding God. It appears you answered your own question here but also fail to see that the reason we are punished or suffers God's wrath IS because we pit our will against His. If we didn't have free will, we would do what God tells us to do, We could not disobey. God is always sovereign and doesn't require our recognition of such to validate Him, but He does require our allegiance and obedience.

However Paul also clearly states that man does not esteem God as God despite the fact he knows God. So why is there a lack of esteem? To simply answer by saying because man has a free will is not an answer. It is like saying because he can. As I said before, being truly thankful is not the product of a free will. See the prodigal son. For Paul then describes this lack of esteem giving examples. He states, " 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
It is not enough to say a man chooses to engage in unrighteousness because he has a freewill. I study the underlying reasons why men choose one way or the other. Vanity is indeed the problem. By vanity I mean that men and also angels usurp that which is God's attributes and takes them as their own in vanity. I can't think of any sin that is not founded upon pride in some form or another.

You are answering your own questions, which indicates to me you are not really willing to look at the actual condition of man and his nature outside of your own understanding. Suffice it to say that as we are "made in His image", and that image includes free will, I see no way to deny it unless someone is taking the same position of those in Rom 1:18-19.

I take note that Satan possessed the sum of knowledge but yet he fell because of vanity. In my most honest appraisal, it is therefore fitting for me to lean toward humility and consider that vanity could blind anyone. To not do so is to think I would never be like Adam or Eve or the devil for that matter. Hence I take it to heart when Romans two says, Therefore you are inexcusable O man, whosoever you are that judges; for wherein you judge another you condemn yourself, for you that judges does the same things.

IMO, your view of Satan and his capabilities is far to generous. He is the FATHER of lies. He is the Great Deceiver. He has ONLY what God allowed him to have, which is NOT the sum of all knowledge. The verse you quote has to be read along with the end of Romans 1 to fully integrate it into the truth of what Paul was teaching here. Context is everything and using s single verse out of context to make a point that isn't In the context is called Eisegesis.

I take it that you agree with my point concerning Paul. My point being that Paul was ignorant while persecuting those who served the Gospel, and that his will to do so was not made from a free choice made out of any real knowledge. Therefore not all choices are made freely based upon knowledge of the Truth. More semantics with the word chose. Of course he chose. Every action or inaction of every moment can be construed as a choice whether one does something or does nothing. However as regards to a free choice, I would respectfully submit that it is speculation to say Paul could choose otherwise than how he chose. He often claims he is in chains to Christ and I believe it is for that very reason. More semantics In Philemon. The phrase free will in verse 14 is meant to mean voluntarily. Paul is simply saying he did not want to exploit his relationship with Philemon but rather wants his whole hearted approval. He is not advocating that mankind has a free will in the theological sense.

Paul was doing what he believed was righteous as it was coming from the Sanhedrin, which he was a part of and believed had ultimate authority in the affairs of the Jews. Jesus had a personal encounter with him, and showed him the truth of the matter. He used his free will to accept the truth shown to him.
Well that may be your opinion of Philemon 1:14, but more qualified scholars than I translated it as free will and regardless of equivocating on the semantics, it is still a matter of free will, because that is what voluntary would infer. IMO you are reacting to anything that confirms free will, rather than embracing the truth therein.
Who shows more love and obedience. Those who can or those who can't?

I agree we will either trust in Jesus or not. That is an unavoidable consequence of having the choice placed before us through the Gospel, not because we chose to make a choice. There are objective and subjective connotations to the word choice. Objectively it is applied to various options while subjectively it refers to a decision made. Often these connotations are conflated when actually only the subjective form can be applied to the assertion of free will.

Sorry but this just sounds like double speak to me. We either have choices or we don't. If we do then we have free will. If we don't then we don't have free will.
James 1:5-8 deals with this kind of vacillation/ambivalence/double mindedness.

It is also true that God does not force a man to comply so long as Love and Truth are not counted as a force or power. Hence I reiterate that most people try to rationalize the existence of free will based upon the disability to sin rather than the ability to be righteous. But once again this is just semantics. As for me, the words of Christ were in accord with the Word of God in my heart and I could only agree. I could not choose otherwise. His desire to return good for evil and the forgiveness upon those who beat him and crucified him impressed upon me the Love that is divine. That I cannot deny and therefore was not a free choice, but rather a conviction in my heart. God did not force me by threat of hell to Love this image of Him presented in the Christ. But I cannot help but be moved so long as I have Love and therefore know Love when I see it. Why someone would choose otherwise has probably more to do with a blindness than with a freewill. It is ironic to me therefore that Christ forgives and excuses saying, "they know not what they do", while the term free will is used to promote blame.

I'm sorry but you seem to define all these things from your POV, which is bias. You give an example but qualify it with "so long as". Force is force my friend, and it can be good or bad, but if a man does not really have a choice to obey God, then he has to, which means he has no free will. Reality should tell you that as countless people have and will disobey God, they indeed have free will. You can't choose if your don't have a choice.
"Choose you this day, who you will follow".

 

[childeye]

Sorry, lost track of this thread.

God's wrath is clearly against those who knowingly supress the truth of who He is. Let's be careful to fully understand what "THE wrath of God" is.
No doubt God's will needs to be obeyed, but it isn't in every man's case, which is why His wrath comes against those who don't agree with it. They used their own will to disobey God. Repercussions are inevitable when we disobey God, as His children, but wrath comes to those who go further and knowingly make others disobey and challenge His will and authority. There is nothing God does that can be deemed to be invalid because we are mere humans and do not have the wherewithal to come close to understanding God. It appears you answered your own question here but also fail to see that the reason we are punished or suffers God's wrath IS because we pit our will against His. If we didn't have free will, we would do what God tells us to do, We could not disobey. God is always sovereign and doesn't require our recognition of such to validate Him, but He does require our allegiance and obedience.

A good post Stan. I agree with everything you say here except for, "If we didn't have free will, we would do what God tells us to do", It doesn't require a free will choice to disobey God. It requires distrust. I would rather you have said if we had a freewill we would always do what God tells us to do. That would make better sense to me. A man who trusts God in all things is indeed free in his will.

You are answering your own questions, which indicates to me you are not really willing to look at the actual condition of man and his nature outside of your own understanding. Suffice it to say that as we are "made in His image", and that image includes free will, I see no way to deny it unless someone is taking the same position of those in Rom 1:18-19.

I'm not sure what you mean by " outside of your own understanding". Respectfully, one understands only what he is able to understand. I don't know why you would say God has a freewill if that same freewill is premised to exist on the ability to disobey God.

IMO, your view of Satan and his capabilities is far to generous. He is the FATHER of lies. He is the Great Deceiver. He has ONLY what God allowed him to have, which is NOT the sum of all knowledge.

My mistake. I should have said the sum of perfection. I was recalling Ezekiel 28:12 , not very well I might add. The sentiment remains the same.

The verse you quote has to be read along with the end of Romans 1 to fully integrate it into the truth of what Paul was teaching here. Context is everything and using s single verse out of context to make a point that isn't In the context is called Eisegesis.

Respectfully, I am not taking it out of context. The very reason I used that scripture is because Romans 1 and 2 are linked. That is to say that when Romans 1 speaks of the unrighteousness of men who suppress the Truth and do not esteem God as God, Paul is generally referring to all of mankind. That is why no man can judge another without condemning themselves.

Paul was doing what he believed was righteous as it was coming from the Sanhedrin, which he was a part of and believed had ultimate authority in the affairs of the Jews. Jesus had a personal encounter with him, and showed him the truth of the matter. He used his free will to accept the truth shown to him.

The Truth of God convicts. Respectfully, the same freewill that Paul used to accept the false truth of the Sanhedrin was the same freewill that he used to reject the truth of the Sanhedrin. It seems to me the Truth of Christ was more powerful than those who persecuted the Truth with a false truth. The freewill you speak of was just the mechanics of reasoning.

Well that may be your opinion of Philemon 1:14, but more qualified scholars than I translated it as free will and regardless of equivocating on the semantics, it is still a matter of free will, because that is what voluntary would infer. IMO you are reacting to anything that confirms free will, rather than embracing the truth therein.

Yes, voluntary is a viable connotation of the term freewill in that they are not required to do something. It doesn't establish that men sin because they volunteer. Nor does it establish that the proper esteem of God comes because men volunteer to do so.

Yes I don't like the term freewill. The free in front of will is the problem. It imagines no powers of darkness or Light behind the wills of men. Moreover, to ponder the premise of a choice between God and something else, is the temptor.

Sorry but this just sounds like double speak to me. We either have choices or we don't. If we do then we have free will. If we don't then we don't have free will.
James 1:5-8 deals with this kind of vacillation/ambivalence/double mindedness.

I'm sorry you feel that way, with all sincerity. It is not doublespeak. Notice you say, we either have choices or we don't'. This pertains to options as if you had said, we either have options or we don't. There's only One True God is all I'm saying. There is no other choice (option). This is why freewill is an illusion to me, a deception.

I'm sorry but you seem to define all these things from your POV, which is bias. You give an example but qualify it with "so long as". Force is force my friend, and it can be good or bad, but if a man does not really have a choice to obey God, then he has to, which means he has no free will. Reality should tell you that as countless people have and will disobey God, they indeed have free will. You can't choose if your don't have a choice

.
The way I see it, a man has to obey God or he dies. So if I want to live I have no choice but to obey. There's the choice, obey or die.

"Choose you this day, who you will follow".

Respectfully, with all humility, please allow me to point out the key qualifier for choosing in this scripture, of which you only quoted in part. "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord".

 

[Deborah13]

A good post Stan. I agree with everything you say here except for, "If we didn't have free will, we would do what God tells us to do", It doesn't require a free will choice to disobey God, it requires distrust. I would rather you have said if we had a freewill we would always do what God tells us to do. That would make better sense to me. A man who trusts God is indeed free in his will.

I'm not sure what you mean by " outside of your own understanding". Respectfully, one understands only what he is able to understand. I don't know why you would say God has a freewill if that same freewill is premised to exist on the ability to disobey God.

My mistake. I should have said the sum of perfection. I was recalling Ezekiel 28:12 , not very well I might add. The sentiment remains the same.

Respectfully, I am not taking it out of context. The very reason I used that scripture is because Romans 1 and 2 are linked. That is to say that when Romans 1 speaks of the unrighteousness of men who suppress the Truth and do not esteem God as God, Paul is generally referring to all of mankind. That is why no man can judge another without condemning themselves.

The Truth of God convicts. Respectfully, the same freewill that Paul used to accept the false truth of the Sanhedrin was the same freewill that he used to reject the truth of the Sanhedrin. It seems to me the Truth of Christ was more powerful than those who persecuted the Truth with a false truth. The freewill you speak of was just the mechanics of reasoning.

Yes, voluntary is a viable connotation of the term freewill in that they are not required to do something. It doesn't establish that men sin because they volunteer. Nor does it establish that the proper esteem of God comes because men volunteer to do so.

Yes I don't like the term freewill. The free in front of will is the problem. It imagines no powers of darkness or Light behind the wills of men. Moreover, to ponder the premise of a choice between God and something else is the temptor.

I'm sorry you feel that way, with all sincerity. It is not doublespeak. Notice you say, we either have choices or we don't'. This pertains to options as if you had said, we either have options or we don't. There's only One True God is all I'm saying. There is no other choice (option). This is why freewill is an illusion to me, a deception.

The way I see it, a man has to obey God or he dies. So if I want to live I have no choice but to obey. There's the choice, obey or die.

All that going around in circles for you to say what has been said many times.....
There is a choice to make.

Respectfully, with all humility, please allow me to point out the key qualifier for choosing in this scripture, of which you only quoted in part. "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord".

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

 

[OzSpen]

Doulous Lesou,

Thanks for taking the time to start this thread and explain your Armeniastic views. These views do seem to have much more in common with Calvinistic views than the Armeniasm I grew up with; however, I do realize that a lot of beliefs are simply classified as Armenian if they espouse free will even if none of the other views line up with those you've described.

eng35,

Please understand the difference between Arminians and Armenians. Armenians are from the country of Armenia, which is in eastern Europe, south of Georgia.

 

[Deborah13]

eng35,

Please understand the difference between Arminians and Armenians. Armenians are from the country of Armenia, which is in eastern Europe, south of Georgia.

Yep, and quite a few live in Jerusalem and have been there for over 1,000 yrs.
Armenia was the first state to legally declare itself a Christian state.

 

[childeye]

All that going around in circles for you to say what has been said many times.....
There is a choice to make.

To be precise the issue is whether men have a freewill, not whether there is a choice to make.

 

[agua.]

To be precise the issue is whether men have a freewill, not whether there is a choice to make.

Aren't they mutually inclusive ?

 

[OzSpen]

Aren't they mutually inclusive ?

I thought so. Let's seek some biblical examples.

When we ask, ‘What is the nature of free will or free choice?’ we may be asking: How long is a piece of string in theological terms? If we are going to answer this question with biblical accuracy, we will need to ask further questions about:

1. Free will / free choice and the power of God (see Isa 45:11-13; 46:4; Jer 32:16-44; Acts 4:24-31);
2. Free choice and the decrees of God (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:9, 11; 3:11;
3. Free choice and the salvation of human beings (Tit 2:11; Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; Matt 18:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 16:31; 17:30; Phil 1:39; 1 Jn 3:23);
4. Free choice as it is related to God’s providence (Jas 4:2);
5. Free choice and God’s foreknowledge (Rom 8:29-30; 2 Cor 6:1-2; 1 Pt 1:1-2);
6. Free choice and a human being’s moral nature (Jn 1:12-13; 7:17; Rom 3:26; Heb 3:7-8, 15; 4;
7. Free choice and Adam’s original sin (the origin of the sin of the human race) [Gen 3:1-8; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 1 Tim 2:13-14];
8. Free choice and human depravity (Deut 6:4-5; Matt 22:35-38; Rom 2:14; 7:18; 8:14; 2 Tim 3:4;;
9. Free choice and eternal security/perseverance of the saints (Jer 3:12, 14, 22; Hos 14:4; Mt 24:13; Mk 4:16-17; 7:21-23; Jn 6:66-67; 13:10-11; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 2 Pt 2:20-22; 1 Jn 2:19)[listed in Thiessen 1949:524].

Oz

Works consulted
Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[Deborah13]

To be precise the issue is whether men have a freewill, not whether there is a choice to make.

So what do you call what man makes a choice with?
Man has a mind with the ability to reason? If so, what do you call this ability to reason?

 

[childeye]

Aren't they mutually inclusive ?

Aren't they mutually inclusive ?

No they are not. Free will denotes a freedom of choice not that a choice will be made. That is to say, with a free will there are no higher powers compelling or restraining the choice made. Therefore If when God reveals to children what He hides from the learned and scholarly, it cannot be said that those who were made able to believe,then believed and chose accordingly of their free will. Nor could those who were disabled to believe and their subsequent choices be considered made with a free will. Note that the Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind. Then look at 1 Corinthians 1: 27-28.

 

[childeye]

So what do you call what man makes a choice with?
Man has a mind with the ability to reason? If so, what do you call this ability to reason?

I do not discount that men reason. Most animals reason in some capacity. Reasoning is simply weighing pros and cons, left and right, give and take, accuse and excuse. However some people have more knowledge and some are ignorant, which increases or limits their ability to produce correct answers to questions, or arrive at the correct decision. The carnal mind reasons differently than the spiritual mind. All binary terms such as good and bad, success or failure, rich or poor, are defined differently according to whether a mind is spiritual or carnal. For example the riches in Christ are not same riches as those of the world.. The Carnal mind cannot even discern spiritual things. Jesus spoke in parables that the carnal mind cannot even understand, precisely because they were not supposed to understand..

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I do not discount that men reason. Most animals reason in some capacity. Reasoning is simply weighing pros and cons, left and right, give and take, accuse and excuse. However some people have more knowledge and some are ignorant, which increases or limits their ability to produce correct answers to questions, or arrive at the correct decision. The carnal mind reasons differently than the spiritual mind. All binary terms such as good and bad, success or failure, rich or poor, are defined differently according to whether a mind is spiritual or carnal. For example the riches in Christ are not same riches as those of the world.. The Carnal mind cannot even discern spiritual things.

Do consider that all Christians then have a spiritual mind? It seems that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 3 contradicts your understanding of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, where he states.

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (ESV)

The Corinthians were "people of the flesh," and therefore by your understanding unable to accept the gospel. Yet, they are "infants in Christ," which denotes their immaturity, and Paul recognizes that it is the mature who impart the true spiritual wisdom and who can understand it (See 1 Corinthians 2:6).

Jesus spoke in parables that the carnal mind cannot even understand, precisely because they were not supposed to understand..

This seems to be a misunderstanding of NT theology, and the unveiling story that Jesus was within.

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them,“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Mark 4:10-12 (ESV)

In the NT, the gospel was to be sent to the Gentiles on account of the Jews rejection of the gospel (Romans 11:11). Jesus therefore taught the Jews in such a way that would support there rejection of the gospel, and that there has been a partial hardening over Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25).

To then take these Scriptures such as Jesus' teachings on the parables to then say that Jesus was teaching in a way that only some people "the elect" can understand them is grossly inaccurate in my estimation.

 

[childeye]

Do consider that all Christians then have a spiritual mind? It seems that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 3 contradicts your understanding of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, where he states.

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (ESV)

The Corinthians were "people of the flesh," and therefore by your understanding unable to accept the gospel. Yet, they are "infants in Christ," which denotes their immaturity, and Paul recognizes that it is the mature who impart the true spiritual wisdom and who can understand it (See 1 Corinthians 2:6).


This seems to be a misunderstanding of NT theology, and the unveiling story that Jesus was within.

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them,“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Mark 4:10-12 (ESV)

In the NT, the gospel was to be sent to the Gentiles on account of the Jews rejection of the gospel (Romans 11:11). Jesus therefore taught the Jews in such a way that would support there rejection of the gospel, and that there has been a partial hardening over Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25).

To then take these Scriptures such as Jesus' teachings on the parables to then say that Jesus was teaching in a way that only some people "the elect" can understand them is grossly inaccurate in my estimation.

First off, thank you for your attention to the matter. I must admit however that I am somewhat at a loss of what it is you are trying to covey. I never said anything about "the elect". I think you are assuming I believe something and arriving at some conclusions based on that assumption. I will therefore address the only part I think I understand. The question is, do you then consider that all Christians have a spiritual mind? I think all True Christians experience a renewing of the mind. After that you say, "It seems that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 3 contradicts your understanding of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2". Here is where you lose me. You must be referring to another post wherein I used 1 Corinthians 27,28 to point out the difference between freewill and making choices. So I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

 

[agua.]

No they are not. Free will denotes a freedom of choice not that a choice will be made. That is to say, with a free will there are no higher powers compelling or restraining the choice made. Therefore If when God reveals to children what He hides from the learned and scholarly, it cannot be said that those who were made able to believe,then believed and chose accordingly of their free will. Nor could those who were disabled to believe and their subsequent choices be considered made with a free will. Note that the Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind. Then look at 1 Corinthians 1: 27-28.

Sure. But the instances of blindness etc inflicted by Yahweh seem to be temporal and because of the current free will condition of the person. eg. Israel was/is blinded because of their unbelief not to cause it.

1Co 1:27-29 KJV But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

This choosing by Yahweh is simply that He doesn't show preference to those who are strong / wise etc . It can't mean that a strong or wise person isn't ever saved ( or selected by Yahweh ) because we have instances this isn't true. So this passage teaches that these high positions of human standards have nothing to do with Yahweh/s standards. ie. He doesn't judge as men do when looking at a person.

 

[Deborah13]

Do consider that all Christians then have a spiritual mind? It seems that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 3 contradicts your understanding of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, where he states.

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (ESV)

The Corinthians were "people of the flesh," and therefore by your understanding unable to accept the gospel. Yet, they are "infants in Christ," which denotes their immaturity, and Paul recognizes that it is the mature who impart the true spiritual wisdom and who can understand it (See 1 Corinthians 2:6).


This seems to be a misunderstanding of NT theology, and the unveiling story that Jesus was within.

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them,“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Mark 4:10-12 (ESV)

In the NT, the gospel was to be sent to the Gentiles on account of the Jews rejection of the gospel (Romans 11:11). Jesus therefore taught the Jews in such a way that would support there rejection of the gospel, and that there has been a partial hardening over Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25).

To then take these Scriptures such as Jesus' teachings on the parables to then say that Jesus was teaching in a way that only some people "the elect" can understand them is grossly inaccurate in my estimation.

Sure. But the instances of blindness etc inflicted by Yahweh seem to be temporal and because of the current free will condition of the person. eg. Israel was/is blinded because of their unbelief not to cause it.

1Co 1:27-29 KJV But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

This choosing by Yahweh is simply that He doesn't show preference to those who are strong / wise etc . It can't mean that a strong or wise person isn't ever saved ( or selected by Yahweh ) because we have instances this isn't true. So this passage teaches that these high positions of human standards have nothing to do with Yahweh/s standards. ie. He doesn't judge as men do when looking at a person.

PostS

 

[childeye]

Sure. But the instances of blindness etc inflicted by Yahweh seem to be temporal and because of the current free will condition of the person. eg. Israel was/is blinded because of their unbelief not to cause it.

My point here is to establish that men do not have free wills like they think..

1Co 1:27-29 KJV But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

This choosing by Yahweh is simply that He doesn't show preference to those who are strong / wise etc . It can't mean that a strong or wise person isn't ever saved ( or selected by Yahweh ) because we have instances this isn't true. So this passage teaches that these high positions of human standards have nothing to do with Yahweh/s standards. ie. He doesn't judge as men do when looking at a person.

Respectfully you are mistaken, I am not implying it is about a strong wise person isn't ever saved. The point is that God does the choosing not us. I'm saying men are not free in our wills to pick and choose God. Why is that important to God for us to realize? Because it is vanity that believes we choose God or deny Him at our own discretion. Look at verse 29 , "that no flesh should glory". 1 Corinthians 1:30 "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus."

 

[agua.]

My point here is to establish that men do not have free wills like they think..

Sure but I've shown that the instances of blindness etc are temporal and inline with the persons free will choices. ie. Yahweh only blinded in accordance with what was already chosen.

Respectfully you are mistaken, I am not implying it is about a strong wise person isn't ever saved. The point is that God does the choosing not us. I'm saying men are not free in our wills to pick and choose God. Why is that important to God for us to realize? Because it is vanity that believes we choose God or deny Him at our own discretion. Look at verse 29 , "that no flesh should glory". 1 Corinthians 1:30 "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus."

The point of the passage is that Yahweh judges differently than man. It's not about Him specifically choosing inferior people because that isn't seen in Scripture and so the passage can't be about invalidating man's free will. Yahweh blinds in accordance with the decision people have already made.

1Cor 1:30 tells us that Yahweh has made the provision that we can be saved ( be in Christ ) through providing the ransom sacrifice. ie. Yahweh has made it possible for us to be in Christ which makes salvation completely his doing.

 

[childeye]

Sure but I've shown that the instances of blindness etc are temporal and inline with the persons free will choices. ie. Yahweh only blinded in accordance with what was already chosen.



The point of the passage is that Yahweh judges differently than man. It's not about Him specifically choosing inferior people because that isn't seen in Scripture and so the passage can't be about invalidating man's free will. Yahweh blinds in accordance with the decision people have already made.

1Cor 1:30 tells us that Yahweh has made the provision that we can be saved ( be in Christ ) through providing the ransom sacrifice. ie. Yahweh has made it possible for us to be in Christ which makes salvation completely his doing.

I think I can agree with everything you say here except I have a problem with how you say it's not about Him specifically choosing inferior people because that is not seen in scripture. I don't know what qualifies the word inferior, so I'm not sure if I am understanding your meaning. However, scripture clearly says He chooses the lowly and abased things over the high things. That is what the scripture says. Elsewhere scripture says He makes the mountains into valleys and the valleys into mountains, and again, He humbles those who exalt themselves and exalts those who humble themselves. He makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind, He reveals things to children which He hides from the learned and scholarly. This is a common theme in scripture. He does not like the proud. Why? Because men take His given attributes and counts them as their own in vanity. Hence He wants no man to glory in vanity which is why He chooses the lowly things to put to naught the high things. I don't think that is so hard to understand.

There is a problem with the semantics in freewill. The will is our reasoning which is ever limited without knowledge of Truth and even self - destructive when ignorant. To say it is free is a misnomer. Another freewill meaning however is a will that chooses without any antecedent events, restraints, compulsions, coercion, etc... However our wills are ever compelled by our flesh, and our flesh restrained by the Spirit of God. Roman 1 talks about God giving men over to the lusts of the flesh because we in vanity worshiped the creature over the Creator.

I understand that many think God wants us to come to Him of our own volition, but the fact remains there is no other God. There is no other choice. God wants us to come to Him of our own volition, but not because there is some other choice, but because we trust Him. That is why righteousness is by faith (trust). Not by choice. The parable of the prodigal son explains all of this. The ignorance of pride is behind the sons leaving and the knowledge and humility is behind the son's returning. The will is ever subject to the absolute of the Truth whether because of it's knowledge of it, or it's ignorance of it. Hence without the knowledge of God we are ruled by spiritual powers of darkness whether we claim our will is free or not..

 

[agua.]

I think I can agree with everything you say here except I have a problem with how you say it's not about Him specifically choosing inferior people because that is not seen in scripture. I don't know what qualifies the word inferior, so I'm not sure if I am understanding your meaning. However, scripture clearly says He chooses the lowly and abased things over the high things. That is what the scripture says. Elsewhere scripture says He makes the mountains into valleys and the valleys into mountains, and again, He humbles those who exalt themselves and exalts those who humble themselves. He makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind, He reveals things to children which He hides from the learned and scholarly. This is a common theme in scripture. He does not like the proud. Why? Because men take His given attributes and counts them as their own in vanity. Hence He wants no man to glory in vanity which is why He chooses the lowly things to put to naught the high things. I don't think that is so hard to understand.

Oky doky. I think we disagree with the implication of what Yahweh decides here but I agree it's the vanity that often goes along with high position, rather than the high position itself, that is rejected by Him and these often go hand in hand. It's the combined high position with self righteousness/vanity that is brought low. We can't suggest Yahweh is solely anti all people who are wealthy or strong or wise because there's evidence to the contrary in the Bible.

There is a problem with the semantics in freewill. The will is our reasoning which is ever limited without knowledge of Truth and even self - destructive when ignorant. To say it is free is a misnomer. Another freewill meaning however is a will that chooses without any antecedent events, restraints, compulsions, coercion, etc... However our wills are ever compelled by our flesh, and our flesh restrained by the Spirit of God. Roman 1 talks about God giving men over to the lusts of the flesh because we in vanity worshiped the creature over the Creator.

Still there's also evidence that man makes decisions totally separate from Yahweh's prodding or restraining and I think we can see this in both believers and unbelievers. When we talk about our flesh compelling us it's still "us" that controls this as per James

Jas 1:13-14 KJV Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

We can't suggest that these desires are an entity that somehow removes our free will. We are certainly compelled by both our flesh and Yahweh at times but we still have the ability to choose what we will do and who we will follow. when we think about Yahweh giving men over to the lusts of the flesh it simply means He leaves them to their own devices imo.

I understand that many think God wants us to come to Him of our own volition, but the fact remains there is no other God. There is no other choice. God wants us to come to Him of our own volition, but not because there is some other choice, but because we trust Him. That is why righteousness is by faith (trust). Not by choice. The parable of the prodigal son explains all of this. The ignorance of pride is behind the sons leaving and the knowledge and humility is behind the son's returning. The will is ever subject to the absolute of the Truth whether because of it's knowledge of it, or it's ignorance of it. Hence without the knowledge of God we are ruled by spiritual powers of darkness whether we claim our will is free or not..

Because there's only one God doesn't imply there's no choice to make because we can see in the Bible there's other things that we can choose. Like I showed above we can choose our desires over Yahweh's commands. So basically we are still fully responsible for our own destiny because we have the ability to follow what we hold most important to us. We are ruled by the spiritual powers of darkness when we choose not to resist them.

Are you able to resist satan ?