Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God

[Deborah13]

I find the term 'Reformed Theology' to be too misleading because Jacob Arminius to his dying day was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church (see HERE). Therefore, it is just as valid to refer to Arminius' theology as 'Reformed Theology'. There is a book, J Matthew Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four views on eternal security (Zondervan) that has one chapter by Stephen M Ashby on 'A Reformed Arminian view'. Those who are classical Arminians are often called Reformed Arminian as slightly different from Wesleyan Arminians.

I really didn't know there was a difference. I just performed a search and found an article that said,

"Ironically, Arminius himself claimed that he wasn't prepared to take a position on whether or not a genuinely saved person could ever make shipwreck of his faith, explaining there are strong passages on both sides of the issue, and urging that further study is needed." http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-reformation-arminianism.html

 

[OzSpen]

Good to hear.

Sovereignty does NOT connote micro managing. There are sovereigns in our world today and there are dictators. NOT the same thing, and God is NOT a dictator. The spiritual powers/principalities in this world, are in the control of the devil and his angel. THAT is God's design and clearly shown in His Word. We, being in time, don't see as God does, not being subject to time. His plan is perfect and has already been established. When God is ready, Jesus will return, and not one moment before. 2 Peter 3:9 NIV

That seems close to an Arminian understanding of the sovereignty of God as I posted above.

This is my understanding of it. God is the absolute sovereign of all the universe and its powers. In his sovereignty, he has permitted human beings and the evil spiritual powers to operate in our world. Therefore, as a practical example, what is happening in Iraq today with its brutality is what human beings are doing - not overlooking the influence of the Satanic-demonic realm - but God is still in sovereign control.

The world is functioning according to God's agenda, but since we don't see the unseen realm, we don't see it as God sees, understands, and plans.

 

[agua.]

We cannot definitively say all men will come to the knowledge of the Truth, nor can we definitively say they all won't. But it is right and it is Love and humility to hope they all will.

This is interesting because we're told that many, or most, people don't repent and turn to Yahweh.

Mat 7:13-14 KJV Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Let's be clear, James is not saying we are responsible for our flesh putting forth fleshy desires, since that is what flesh does by its' nature. Nor has James even used the word responsible. He is just saying how it is. But why does he say it at all? He's just saying it isn't right to say it is God putting forth the fleshy desires lest the lesson be turned on it's head. God is only perfect good and without any darkness. As elsewhere Paul says, "I know that there is nothing good in my flesh". So likewise it is not God the perfect good bringing forth wicked desires in the flesh nor even tempting with those desires even as James says.

James is saying that we're responsible for following our desires. Where they come from isn't the issue but our decision to succumb or resist is dependent on us. Paul's message is the same as James as you say in that our flesh brings forth temptations that we must resist.

Rom 7:25 KJV I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

It's interesting that Paul says he serves the law of God with his mind but in his flesh he serves the law of sin. The battle he faces is choosing which one he will serve.

How then do I say God restrains the flesh? Because God is the power of Love in man that would cause a man to sacrifice his own pleasures of the flesh so as not to inflict pain upon another person or persons. I say again. God is the Love, that is He is the Spiritual power, that fulfills loving others as we would want to be loved. And that is how God restrains the flesh and without His Spirit, there is no restraint.

Non believers also face temptations and the too must choose to either sin or not. Do you suggest a non believer is incapable of ever restraining their flesh ie they will always do what is sin ?

Hence when God gives over a man to the lusts of the flesh, the man becomes filled with vile affections such as raping little children or taking pleasure in torturing others. Yet it is not God tempting a man to do these things but rather God has removed in some degree His restraining Love. The greater the degree, the more depraved the wicked desires become. That is what happens when God gives a man over to the lusts of his flesh as per Romans 1:24-32. But let no man say he is tempted by God as per James 1:13.

In Romans 1 we see that Yahweh gave the people who chose to not credit Him, and make their own gods, up to vile affections etc. Lets's look at the word "gave" when we see what Yahweh did with these people.

Rom 1:26 KJV For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


G3860
παραδίδωμι
paradidōmi
par-ad-id'-o-mee
From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, yield up, intrust, transmit: - betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

It fits well that Yahweh left them to their own devices to sin willy nilly.

 

[agua.]

cont. ( I don't like long posts sorry )

childeye said: ↑

Please note the word enticed. The word means being offered something unto one's pleasure or advantage. Hence Satan tempted Jesus to change the stones into bread to end the pain of his hunger. Satan was not the hunger or the desire to eat. But yet he uses the hunger to tempt. In this way he is seen tempting Jesus. I say this to point out that although the flesh is not an entity, the devil is and he can tempt us through the flesh.

Right. Satan used the current state of Jesus to offer temptations which were relevant at the time. In the same way we may be tested in areas when we're weak/hungry/struggling etc and must resist. We have Jesus' help in doing this being believers whereas the non believer must rely upon his own strength as shown in Romans 1.

We can agree the flesh is not an entity so let's not use that term. I am not saying nor have I ever said the flesh is an entity. However regarding whether his flesh is him there are semantics here in his statements and we must take that into account when trying to understand his sentiments. For when Paul says he knows there is nothing good in the flesh, he starts out by saying there is nothing good in me, when he actually means his flesh. And then he claims it is not him that desires to do bad, but sin in the flesh. The statement above in bold is asserting that Paul is claiming it is him not something else and that Paul can control it. Yet this is what Paul actually says: 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Ok sure. It looks to me though that Paul is simply saying he wants to do the right thing ( serve God ) but sometimes fails. Sin isn't an entity it's the result of breaking Yahweh's holy standards so sin doesn't actually dwell in him. He means the propensity to sin is always present and he must resist/war it.

Hence therefore with all respect, contrary to what your statement implies, it is indeed not Paul who does it(evil) and nor is he able to control it. Otherwise, he would have simply said that we all can control our flesh so let's be good. And if that is the case, all of Romans one, where God gave us up to the lusts of the flesh is meaningless since we are able to control all of that too. But that is not what Romans one says for it finishes with this to drive home the point:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. So no, Paul is not claiming we are in control, so be good. He is making the point that there is a thing called the law of sin, as in like a law of physics such as gravity.

Interesting. I still see Paul is simply saying he can serve Yahweh or sin. The juxtaposition of Romans 1 is that the non believer has no assistance from Yahweh to resist whereas, although we still have the flesh desires, we have help in resisting them. Also Paul shows what we think and desire indicates what we prefer to do ie. serve Yahweh or sin.

Please note that when Paul says "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me", he is referring to the Old Testament laws. He then proceeds to say how he wills to do good but instead only does evil. Even so that he can come to explain why he has need of salvation. Wherein he cries out, "O wretched man that I am, who can save me from this body of death? Therefore this all takes place before regeneration. Sure this writing is looking back after regeneration and describing prior events, but the message here is not I have to keep battling to be good.

Yes Paul is saying before regeneration he was on his own as per Romans 1. After regeneration his desire was to serve Yahweh but he still had the same things tempting him which he battled against but he had an Ally.

You say you're not sure what I mean here. I mean that God is the power of goodness in us. That we take Gods' attributes for granted when we think we choose to be good or do good or choose to be evil and do evil. I'm saying that because we think we can take God or leave it (Him) with our supposed freewill, we are unthankful for His Spirit and have become vain, and therefore God gave us over to the lusts of our flesh wherein we can only do evil. I'm saying God puts forth the laws (the Old Testament) so that He can prove we cannot do it no matter how hard we try, so as to show us we need Him to be good and do good, that it is not something we choose. I'm saying that the New Testament is all about restoring us back to God through admitting this. That is what it means to repent.

ah ok that;s a doozy. Interesting idea. The NT is about Jesus and His atoning work being the culmination of Yahweh's plans. I don't accept your premise.

This may be your definition, but in fact you are simply describing a will. The will is the reasoning of man. To me, the term freewill in the moral/immoral sense implies there are no higher powers that rule in our wills.

Here again is this left to our own devices statement. I would point out that a righteous man would not devise unrighteous devices. Hence John says,
1 John 3:7
New International Version (NIV)

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

Ironically, you quote a scripture that denies a freewill. For if you serve sin it is not your will that is free since it is in servitude to a master. Hence when Jesus said this it was in response to those who claimed they were free and in bondage to no one.

The only higher power that can rule our will is Yahweh but the indication is He only intervenes when He desires. When it comes to sin we can choose to follow the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life in which Satan is ever present to bring temptations. All these fall into the category of us choosing whether to serve Yahweh or sin.

Not willingly.

What do you mean ? When was the last time you sinned ?

. Sin is a direction away from and in separation from God. That is why it is seen as both an action and a state of being in scripture.

Yup i pretty much agree aside from that sin is the result of the action and leaves a person in a sinful state. ie. sin isn't an entity.

It is the Holy Spirit of Truth that does it. If I sin it is because there was a lie I did not perceive in time to alter course. This happens sometimes. Afterwards the Holy Spirit shows me my error and I am humbled and thankful. I am also told by The Spirit and shown by the Spirit where and how I had begun to take pride in my righteousness and that needed a reminder to restore humility.

Ok this sounds fine aside from that you seem to be suggesting you never commit a sin when knowing it is a sin. Can you give me an example of a sin you have committed that falls into this category ? Have you ever knowingly sinned since becoming a Christian ?

 

[OzSpen]

I really didn't know there was a difference. I just performed a search and found an article that said,

"Ironically, Arminius himself claimed that he wasn't prepared to take a position on whether or not a genuinely saved person could ever make shipwreck of his faith, explaining there are strong passages on both sides of the issue, and urging that further study is needed." http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-reformation-arminianism.html

Deborah,

This is straight from the Works of James Arminius, vol 1:

V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

So Arminius’ view was that:

1. It is not possible for Christian believers, through the work of Satan, to be dragged out of their salvation in Christ. Therefore, a true Christian believer can never finally fall away from the faith.

2. BUT, there are some passages of Scripture that give us the aspect of falling away from the faith.

3. BUT, there are also some passages that support the unconditional perseverance that are worthy of much consideration.

His writings that follow the above statement give some further clarity on his views. But from the above statement on 'Perseverance of the saints', he was not prepared to state categorically that a person can fall away from the faith, but there were verses that indicate both ways - conditional perseverance and unconditional perseverance. I find that fence-sitting view not to be helpful. But I have more work to do on understanding Arminius' views on continuation of salvation - especially on how he understands the Scripture.

 

[childeye]

Good post.
I've never understood why someone thinks that if God allows man to make decisions it takes away from God's sovereignty.

No offense intended Deborah 13, but this statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding if that someone you are referring to refers to me. I am not saying God doesn't allow men to make decisions as in men are not given a will as you assert here.

It's bizarre to me to believe that God created someone to be a child abuser, a drug addict, etc., things that He clearly hates. That is placing all the evil in the world in the very heart of God.
If this is true then surely God did force me to believe the gospel.

Of course it is bizarre to think God would create someone to be anything but good. God is the goodness in mankind not the wickedness. Nonetheless, Believing in the Gospel is a good thing, hence it is the God in us who does it.

 

[Deborah13]

No offense intended Deborah 13, but this statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding if that someone you are referring to refers to me. I am not saying God doesn't allow men to make decisions as in men are not given a will as you assert here.
Of course it is bizarre to think God would create someone to be anything but good. God is the goodness in mankind not the wickedness. Nonetheless, Believing in the Gospel is a good thing, hence it is the God in us who does it.

Hi childeye, I was not referring to anyone in particular at all, only to a doctrine which says these things.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Of course it is bizarre to think God would create someone to be anything but good. God is the goodness in mankind not the wickedness. Nonetheless, Believing in the Gospel is a good thing, hence it is the God in us who does it.

Hi Childeye,

I don't believe anyone here believes that someone can believe in the gospel apart from the grace of God.

Blessings,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Deborah,

This is straight from the Works of James Arminius, vol 1:



So Arminius’ view was that:

1. It is not possible for Christian believers, through the work of Satan, to be dragged out of their salvation in Christ. Therefore, a true Christian believer can never finally fall away from the faith.

2. BUT, there are some passages of Scripture that give us the aspect of falling away from the faith.

3. BUT, there are also some passages that support the unconditional perseverance that are worthy of much consideration.

His writings that follow the above statement give some further clarity on his views. But from the above statement on 'Perseverance of the saints', he was not prepared to state categorically that a person can fall away from the faith, but there were verses that indicate both ways - conditional perseverance and unconditional perseverance. I find that fence-sitting view not to be helpful. But I have more work to do on understanding Arminius' views on continuation of salvation - especially on how he understands the Scripture.

Arminius definitely was torn on the issue. Personally I think while there is a strong assurance of salvation, there still remains the condition that one must remain in faith, and the clear warning such as this convince me that it is possible.

That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. Romans 11:20-22 (ESV)

The Jews were broken off because of their unbelief, and we only remain because of our faith, and that if we fall into unbelief we too will be cut off. And in order to be "cut off" one had to genuinely belong. I believe that this is a general warning to the Gentiles, but it only makes sense in the context of being applicable to individuals. If a bunch of Gentiles remain in unbelief, it doesn't mean that the Gentiles are totally cut off, just the same as the Jews as Paul demonstrated that he himself was a Jew who believed.

 

[childeye]

cont. ( I don't like long posts sorry )



Right. Satan used the current state of Jesus to offer temptations which were relevant at the time. In the same way we may be tested in areas when we're weak/hungry/struggling etc and must resist. We have Jesus' help in doing this being believers whereas the non believer must rely upon his own strength as shown in Romans 1.

Agua, I feel you have worded this well. I can agree with this.

Ok sure. It looks to me though that Paul is simply saying he wants to do the right thing ( serve God ) but sometimes fails. Sin isn't an entity it's the result of breaking Yahweh's holy standards so sin doesn't actually dwell in him. He means the propensity to sin is always present and he must resist/war it.

Sin is not an entity. So we agree there. When Paul says sin is in him he is referring to a state of corruption. There is nothing good in the flesh so as to will to do good. He does not say he sometimes fails to do good or that all the time he fails to do good. He is saying the law as in the Old Testament caused sin to revive. For every time he seeks to do good, evil is present. So I think we can agree here also.

Interesting. I still see Paul is simply saying he can serve Yahweh or sin.

The juxtaposition of Romans 1 is that the non believer has no assistance from Yahweh to resist whereas, although we still have the flesh desires, we have help in resisting them. Also Paul shows what we think and desire indicates what we prefer to do ie. serve Yahweh or sin.



Yes Paul is saying before regeneration he was on his own as per Romans 1. After regeneration his desire was to serve Yahweh but he still had the same things tempting him which he battled against but he had an Ally.



ah ok that;s a doozy. Interesting idea. The NT is about Jesus and His atoning work being the culmination of Yahweh's plans. I don't accept your premise.



The only higher power that can rule our will is Yahweh but the indication is He only intervenes when He desires. When it comes to sin we can choose to follow the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life in which Satan is ever present to bring temptations. All these fall into the category of us choosing whether to serve Yahweh or sin.



What do you mean ? When was the last time you sinned ?



Yup i pretty much agree aside from that sin is the result of the action and leaves a person in a sinful state. ie. sin isn't an entity.



Ok this sounds fine aside from that you seem to be suggesting you never commit a sin when knowing it is a sin. Can you give me an example of a sin you have committed that falls into this category ? Have you ever knowingly sinned since becoming a Christian ?[/quote]

cont. ( I don't like long posts sorry )



Right. Satan used the current state of Jesus to offer temptations which were relevant at the time. In the same way we may be tested in areas when we're weak/hungry/struggling etc and must resist. We have Jesus' help in doing this being believers whereas the non believer must rely upon his own strength as shown in Romans 1.



Ok sure. It looks to me though that Paul is simply saying he wants to do the right thing ( serve God ) but sometimes fails. Sin isn't an entity it's the result of breaking Yahweh's holy standards so sin doesn't actually dwell in him. He means the propensity to sin is always present and he must resist/war it.



Interesting. I still see Paul is simply saying he can serve Yahweh or sin. The juxtaposition of Romans 1 is that the non believer has no assistance from Yahweh to resist whereas, although we still have the flesh desires, we have help in resisting them. Also Paul shows what we think and desire indicates what we prefer to do ie. serve Yahweh or sin.



Yes Paul is saying before regeneration he was on his own as per Romans 1. After regeneration his desire was to serve Yahweh but he still had the same things tempting him which he battled against but he had an Ally.



ah ok that;s a doozy. Interesting idea. The NT is about Jesus and His atoning work being the culmination of Yahweh's plans. I don't accept your premise.



The only higher power that can rule our will is Yahweh but the indication is He only intervenes when He desires. When it comes to sin we can choose to follow the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life in which Satan is ever present to bring temptations. All these fall into the category of us choosing whether to serve Yahweh or sin.



What do you mean ? When was the last time you sinned ?



Yup i pretty much agree aside from that sin is the result of the action and leaves a person in a sinful state. ie. sin isn't an entity.



Ok this sounds fine aside from that you seem to be suggesting you never commit a sin when knowing it is a sin. Can you give me an example of a sin you have committed that falls into this category ? Have you ever knowingly sinned since becoming a Christian ?

Agua I don't like long posts either. I feel we are getting off track from the basic issue. I am going to address what I feel is necessary and productive. Sin is not an entity, I agree. Flesh is not an entity, I agree. Here is where our statements are confounded by the semantics involved with the term freewill: The will is the reasoning of man. With it we make decisions. Hence when I say I see no freewill I am not saying we don't make choices or decisions. I am not saying we don't have a will.

For example, you say we must resist any desires that would cause us to sin. With this I would agree 100%, because it is a circumstance that we find ourselves, wherein Love dictates that we must resist for the sake of others. However if you said we can choose to not, then contrary to Love, you have now said we don't really have to resist it, we can submit to it and not care about what it does to others. I understand what you mean by this. In your view this is a freewill wherein a person can essentially choose to Love or not Love. But to me this is an illusion based on a vanity. A deception which entices a man to accept the premise that a man need not trust in Love (God). This diminishes the value of God in the imagination of a man and elevates the man, particularly because the word free is placed in front of the word will. So as to say it is our freedom to not trust God or trust God, when in fact there is no question that God is trustworthy above all else, even our own reasoning. The reality that I don't choose to sin is the same reality that I must resist sin. It is the same reality that I did not choose to have any sinful desires that I would have to resist in the first place.

 

[childeye]

What do you mean ? When was the last time you sinned ?

I mean when I sin it is because, I didn't see it coming. I don't remember exactly when the last time I sinned.

Ok this sounds fine aside from that you seem to be suggesting you never commit a sin when knowing it is a sin. Can you give me an example of a sin you have committed that falls into this category ?

I have a tendency to be impatient. For example, driving in my car I may begin to get angry at the way someone is driving. But then the Holy Spirit comes in and interrupts my anger by reminding me of the things I am not seeing. Perhaps that person is old and doesn't have the same driving capabilities as myself which I take for granted. This dissuades my anger and causes me to ponder what a jerk I would be without the Holy Spirit. Thank you Lord, lest I be a complete jerk without you. This is why I have a problem with the term freewill. I didn't choose to be a jerk, I just am a jerk without Him.

Have you ever knowingly sinned since becoming a Christian ?

I was a Christian at around nineteen or twenty with a head full of ignorance, a fully loaded libido and the energy to party all night. Still this is a difficult question to answer because of the semantics involved.

It took me a while to learn to hear God. After that It took some lessons to learn to trust God. Now during the lesson period, I would have to admit I tested God a few times by doing some things He would not approve of. Therefore I cannot honestly say I didn't know. But afterward, I was very sorry for what I did. Not because I wanted to show I was obedient, but because I saw how I had hurt others. Now If I had known ahead of time about the hurt I would cause, I don't believe I would have done any of those things. Without Love (God), I wouldn't even be sorry. Hence to me, it is not belief in freewill that promotes responsibility, it is Love, It is God. All is grace to me. Faith is trust, and only if I care not what happens to others including myself would I ever distrust God. Personally I think my will is free knowing that there is no choice.

 

[Deborah13]

I mean when I sin it is because, I didn't see it coming. I don't remember exactly when the last time I sinned.


I have a tendency to be impatient. For example, driving in my car I may begin to get angry at the way someone is driving. But then the Holy Spirit comes in and interrupts my anger by reminding me of the things I am not seeing. Perhaps that person is old and doesn't have the same driving capabilities as myself which I take for granted. This dissuades my anger and causes me to ponder what a jerk I would be without the Holy Spirit. Thank you Lord, lest I be a complete jerk without you. This is why I have a problem with the term freewill. I didn't choose to be a jerk, I just am a jerk without Him.
I was a Christian at around nineteen or twenty with a head full of ignorance, a fully loaded libido and the energy to party all night. Still this is a difficult question to answer because of the semantics involved.

It took me a while to learn to hear God. After that It took some lessons to learn to trust God. Now during the lesson period, I would have to admit I tested God a few times by doing some things He would not approve of. Therefore I cannot honestly say I didn't know. But afterward, I was very sorry for what I did. Not because I wanted to show I was obedient, but because I saw how I had hurt others. Now If I had known ahead of time about the hurt I would cause, I don't believe I would have done any of those things. Without Love (God), I wouldn't even be sorry. Hence to me, it is not belief in freewill that promotes responsibility, it is Love, It is God. All is grace to me. Faith is trust, and only if I care not what happens to others including myself would I ever distrust God. Personally I think my will is free knowing that there is no choice.

This is imo a great post and I see someone who truly loves the Lord and knows he is loved by the Lord.

Can we simply say that there is no good choice besides doing things God's way and that it is Him in us that gives us the strength and wisdom to walk in His ways?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I mean when I sin it is because, I didn't see it coming. I don't remember exactly when the last time I sinned.


I have a tendency to be impatient. For example, driving in my car I may begin to get angry at the way someone is driving. But then the Holy Spirit comes in and interrupts my anger by reminding me of the things I am not seeing. Perhaps that person is old and doesn't have the same driving capabilities as myself which I take for granted. This dissuades my anger and causes me to ponder what a jerk I would be without the Holy Spirit. Thank you Lord, lest I be a complete jerk without you. This is why I have a problem with the term freewill. I didn't choose to be a jerk, I just am a jerk without Him.
I was a Christian at around nineteen or twenty with a head full of ignorance, a fully loaded libido and the energy to party all night. Still this is a difficult question to answer because of the semantics involved.

It took me a while to learn to hear God. After that It took some lessons to learn to trust God. Now during the lesson period, I would have to admit I tested God a few times by doing some things He would not approve of. Therefore I cannot honestly say I didn't know. But afterward, I was very sorry for what I did. Not because I wanted to show I was obedient, but because I saw how I had hurt others. Now If I had known ahead of time about the hurt I would cause, I don't believe I would have done any of those things. Without Love (God), I wouldn't even be sorry. Hence to me, it is not belief in freewill that promotes responsibility, it is Love, It is God. All is grace to me. Faith is trust, and only if I care not what happens to others including myself would I ever distrust God. Personally I think my will is free knowing that there is no choice.

I'm not sure where you get this theology from, I see Scripture teach something quite different.

Let's look to the phrase free will a little bit and then a Scripture to support my supposition. The word "will" is one's volition, their power to make their own choices and decisions. The description of "free" means a couple things, 1) that there is not an outside agent controlling their decisions, i.e. men are not robots, 2) that these agents have the power of contrary choice.

For example, when I am making a decision to sin or not to sin, the concept of free will being true would mean that I am able to make contrary choices. That my decision is not set in stone or 100% determined, but that I could have acted otherwise than I did.

Scripture supports this notion.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Here we have a promise from God, that he will not let us be tempted beyond our ability. Even providing the way of escape for us so that we can endure the temptation. Yet, we sometimes give in to temptation, despite it being not beyond our ability to endure it. One can only conclude that in this scenario Paul has painted, that we have a choice to make. That God will be faithful and will to some degree protect us from temptation, he does so by not allowing us to be tempted beyond the point where we are helpless to choose otherwise, and by also providing a way of escape from that temptation. Since, this text seems to clearly indicate a scenario where one can choose otherwise than they might have, we can reasonably assert that Scripture supports the concept of free will, or in other words, the power of contrary choice.

The Holy Spirit does not make us robots who cannot help but obey God and believe in him, we are in fact told not to grieve or quench the Spirit who is indeed at work in us. The fact of the matter is, despite God's faithfulness and aid, we sometimes sin whether it be intentional or not. It is because of this fact that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. We struggle to make the right decisions in this process of sanctification, and we can choose to obey God or not, but it is important to note in this conception of free will that we are not alone in our decision. God is faithful and is limiting temptations power over us, so that we might be able to endure it, but as is sadly evidenced, sometimes we don't endure the temptation.

Blessings,
DI

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'm not sure where you get this theology from, I see Scripture teach something quite different.

Let's look to the phrase free will a little bit and then a Scripture to support my supposition. The word "will" is one's volition, their power to make their own choices and decisions. The description of "free" means a couple things, 1) that there is not an outside agent controlling their decisions, i.e. men are not robots, 2) that these agents have the power of contrary choice.

For example, when I am making a decision to sin or not to sin, the concept of free will being true would mean that I am able to make contrary choices. That my decision is not set in stone or 100% determined, but that I could have acted otherwise than I did.

Scripture supports this notion.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Here we have a promise from God, that he will not let us be tempted beyond our ability. Even providing the way of escape for us so that we can endure the temptation. Yet, we sometimes give in to temptation, despite it being not beyond our ability to endure it. One can only conclude that in this scenario Paul has painted, that we have a choice to make. That God will be faithful and will to some degree protect us from temptation, he does so by not allowing us to be tempted beyond the point where we are helpless to choose otherwise, and by also providing a way of escape from that temptation. Since, this text seems to clearly indicate a scenario where one can choose otherwise than they might have, we can reasonably assert that Scripture supports the concept of free will, or in other words, the power of contrary choice.

The Holy Spirit does not make us robots who cannot help but obey God and believe in him, we are in fact told not to grieve or quench the Spirit who is indeed at work in us. The fact of the matter is, despite God's faithfulness and aid, we sometimes sin whether it be intentional or not. It is because of this fact that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. We struggle to make the right decisions in this process of sanctification, and we can choose to obey God or not, but it is important to note in this conception of free will that we are not alone in our decision. God is faithful and is limiting temptations power over us, so that we might be able to endure it, but as is sadly evidenced, sometimes we don't endure the temptation.

Blessings,
DI

Good post DI, thanks.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure where you get this theology from, I see Scripture teach something quite different.

Let's look to the phrase free will a little bit and then a Scripture to support my supposition. The word "will" is one's volition, their power to make their own choices and decisions. The description of "free" means a couple things, 1) that there is not an outside agent controlling their decisions, i.e. men are not robots, 2) that these agents have the power of contrary choice.

For example, when I am making a decision to sin or not to sin, the concept of free will being true would mean that I am able to make contrary choices. That my decision is not set in stone or 100% determined, but that I could have acted otherwise than I did.

Scripture supports this notion.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Here we have a promise from God, that he will not let us be tempted beyond our ability. Even providing the way of escape for us so that we can endure the temptation. Yet, we sometimes give in to temptation, despite it being not beyond our ability to endure it. One can only conclude that in this scenario Paul has painted, that we have a choice to make. That God will be faithful and will to some degree protect us from temptation, he does so by not allowing us to be tempted beyond the point where we are helpless to choose otherwise, and by also providing a way of escape from that temptation. Since, this text seems to clearly indicate a scenario where one can choose otherwise than they might have, we can reasonably assert that Scripture supports the concept of free will, or in other words, the power of contrary choice.

The Holy Spirit does not make us robots who cannot help but obey God and believe in him, we are in fact told not to grieve or quench the Spirit who is indeed at work in us. The fact of the matter is, despite God's faithfulness and aid, we sometimes sin whether it be intentional or not. It is because of this fact that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. We struggle to make the right decisions in this process of sanctification, and we can choose to obey God or not, but it is important to note in this conception of free will that we are not alone in our decision. God is faithful and is limiting temptations power over us, so that we might be able to endure it, but as is sadly evidenced, sometimes we don't endure the temptation.

Blessings,
DI

It's funny how we can hear people very differently.
I didn't hear childeye saying he didn't have a will that he could make decisions with. He even said that he had made bad decisions and even tested God. He willfully did things that God did not approve of. That's not saying I'm a robot without a will that cannot disobey.
"Hence to me, it is not belief in freewill that promotes responsibility, it is Love, It is God."

It is not my belief in freewill that promotes Godly behavior in me either. It is knowing how much God loves me and loves others. It's God's Holy Spirit teaching me to love that promotes, strengthens and provides the ability in me to love and forgive others beyond what I could before.

 

[agua.]

I mean when I sin it is because, I didn't see it coming. I don't remember exactly when the last time I sinned.


I have a tendency to be impatient. For example, driving in my car I may begin to get angry at the way someone is driving. But then the Holy Spirit comes in and interrupts my anger by reminding me of the things I am not seeing. Perhaps that person is old and doesn't have the same driving capabilities as myself which I take for granted. This dissuades my anger and causes me to ponder what a jerk I would be without the Holy Spirit. Thank you Lord, lest I be a complete jerk without you. This is why I have a problem with the term freewill. I didn't choose to be a jerk, I just am a jerk without Him.
I was a Christian at around nineteen or twenty with a head full of ignorance, a fully loaded libido and the energy to party all night. Still this is a difficult question to answer because of the semantics involved.

It took me a while to learn to hear God. After that It took some lessons to learn to trust God. Now during the lesson period, I would have to admit I tested God a few times by doing some things He would not approve of. Therefore I cannot honestly say I didn't know. But afterward, I was very sorry for what I did. Not because I wanted to show I was obedient, but because I saw how I had hurt others. Now If I had known ahead of time about the hurt I would cause, I don't believe I would have done any of those things. Without Love (God), I wouldn't even be sorry. Hence to me, it is not belief in freewill that promotes responsibility, it is Love, It is God. All is grace to me. Faith is trust, and only if I care not what happens to others including myself would I ever distrust God. Personally I think my will is free knowing that there is no choice.

Thanks Childeye for your explanation. I don't agree with you %100 but you have explained your position well and gracefully. I think we're not too far apart in our understanding of Yahweh's work in us even though on the surface it might look that way. God bless.

 

[childeye]

,

I'm not sure where you get this theology from, I see Scripture teach something quite different.

Let's look to the phrase free will a little bit and then a Scripture to support my supposition. The word "will" is one's volition, their power to make their own choices and decisions. The description of "free" means a couple things, 1) that there is not an outside agent controlling their decisions, i.e. men are not robots, 2) that these agents have the power of contrary choice.

For example, when I am making a decision to sin or not to sin, the concept of free will being true would mean that I am able to make contrary choices. That my decision is not set in stone or 100% determined, but that I could have acted otherwise than I did.

Scripture supports this notion.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Here we have a promise from God, that he will not let us be tempted beyond our ability. Even providing the way of escape for us so that we can endure the temptation. Yet, we sometimes give in to temptation, despite it being not beyond our ability to endure it. One can only conclude that in this scenario Paul has painted, that we have a choice to make. That God will be faithful and will to some degree protect us from temptation, he does so by not allowing us to be tempted beyond the point where we are helpless to choose otherwise, and by also providing a way of escape from that temptation. Since, this text seems to clearly indicate a scenario where one can choose otherwise than they might have, we can reasonably assert that Scripture supports the concept of free will, or in other words, the power of contrary choice.

The Holy Spirit does not make us robots who cannot help but obey God and believe in him, we are in fact told not to grieve or quench the Spirit who is indeed at work in us. The fact of the matter is, despite God's faithfulness and aid, we sometimes sin whether it be intentional or not. It is because of this fact that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. We struggle to make the right decisions in this process of sanctification, and we can choose to obey God or not, but it is important to note in this conception of free will that we are not alone in our decision. God is faithful and is limiting temptations power over us, so that we might be able to endure it, but as is sadly evidenced, sometimes we don't endure the temptation.

Blessings,
DI

Thank you Dolous Lesou. What I posted is not derived from either Arminianism or Calvinism.

My posts have been intended to highlight the inadequacy of words to articulate the Eternal sovereignty of God with terms based in a temporal understanding. I understand what you mean by freewill. But I find the term insufficient and duplicitous, leaving the one who reasons upon it with the inevitable conclusion that there must be a freewill or else all that is bad that happens is God's doing and man is not to blame.

Contrary to that, Calvinism, as I understand it, claims that there can be no freewill because all events that happen are predetermined. Hence, in most dictionaries, the opposite of freewill would be seen as determinism.

However, I ponder the Godhead, the meaning of the two Cheribum that face one another on the mercy seat. I find there the possibility that it is neither man's fault nor God's fault, but rather a matter of circumstance which occurs because of a distrust based on ignorance, that inevitably must be extinguished in the perfecting of the Word. For this purpose, flesh exists and the Christ is brought forth, the Word made flesh. The Christ is a creation in the creation which offsets the definitive conclusion that all creation happened at the beginning while confounding the terms by suggesting that God could create from inside the creation.

In this view Satan can be seen behind the guilt, using the issue of who's to blame, to play both sides against one another and thereby creating enmity between man and God. I wrote my post in a way, hoping to show it is possible that it is not God's fault He knows everything and it is not man's fault that he is a fool. Since Christ is the perfect image of God as the son of God to mankind, and the perfect image of man as the son of man to God, It is understandable that God has planned to gather all things both in heaven and earth into the authority of Christ. If Satan is playing both sides against one another, then freewill would be the perfect concept to promote the hypocrisy of both guilt and blame.

Hence we are judged according to what measure we use to judge others. Hence the Christ reconciles by condemning sin in the flesh.