Free will or no free will?

[mondar]

...this gift of life (birth of the spirit) is WITHOUT human decision.

BTW - it looks as though part of your text ended up being attributed to me.

Blessings to you too Bro

Is the gift of life without human decision, or is the human decision by Gods work (regenertion) and will?

 

[Bubba]

Out of curiousity, is the reason those who insist that man has a choice in their salvation due to a need to justify the problem with evil and eternal punishment in the next life?
Bubba

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:

“I think you are making an implicit assumption that the ability to recognize and freely act on one's fallen state is itself in the category of being a "thing of the Spirit of God".â€Â

Yes, Drew I am saying (or the Bible) that man will not seek the things of God that lead to salvation because he is blinded to the truth. In essence that is what Eph. 2:1-5 is referring to, in that man must be made alive to the truth of Jesus Christ.

I do not see how Ephesians 2:1-5 supports the assertion that there is not a principled distinction between our "moral depravity" and a cognitive capability to recognize that state and to seek external assistance to deal with it.

We know that this kind of thing happens all the time in the more concrete issues of life. People can and do recognize and act on compulsions. The key point is that humans do indeed seem to have the ability to reason about their moral shortcomings and then seek solutions that "circumvent" the particular moral problem. For example, the alchoholic does not overcome his disease by "willing to resist the compulsion to drink". Instead, he takes some medication that makes him vomit at the taste of alchohol.

The key difference between our positions is that you seem to think that "being dead in sin" entails that we are also "dead to the recognition of that state" whereas as I do not. I see nothing in the following text that requires or even compels an objective reader to take the step from a clear statement that we are hopelessly dead in our sins (and I agree with this), to a conclusion about an entirely different category of human "mind-stuff" - the faculty to reason and think.

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsâ€â€it is by grace you have been saved.

What, exactly, in the above text, supports your seeming claim that "man is blinded to the truth about his state". I can see how you might get some support from 2 Corinthians 4:4

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

At the end of the day, I think that the "argument by text snippets" is doomed to failure. And this problem affects both your argument and mine here - I can find texts whose surface sense suggests just the opposite to what 1 Cor 4:4 seems to suggest. For example:

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

And I know from past interactions with you (Bubba) that you are wise enough to not make what would be an obviously circular argument about how there is an unstated requirement that the person first be "elected" to even have the ability to make the choice referred to in the above.

And I will now generalize beyond the free will issue. I think we need an entirely new approach to these kinds of discussions - an approach that few will be willing to take because it is so demanding and time-consuming. We need to do things like:

1. Get the "big" picture and let that inform how we resolve some of the "text-snippet" contradictions.

2. Get inside the culture of the time and try to read the words not as 21st century westerners but as people living in the culture and the times the texts were written.

3. Understand the peculiar styles of each writer.

4. Etc.

 

[Drew]

Drew, The terms "free will" and "total depravity" have specific theological meanings. Neither term applies to the extent of sin. Certainly man can self reform themselves. As bubba said, "Man is capable of making moral decisions, loving their children, living a halfway decent life, able to say no to alcohol, drugs, and etc."

If the definition of terms is not agreed upon, you will talk right past each other.

Agree, but neither of us can simply claim a definition - we need to make a case for our claim as to what the definition should be.

 

[Drew]

Out of curiousity, is the reason those who insist that man has a choice in their salvation due to a need to justify the problem with evil and eternal punishment in the next life?
Bubba

I am not entirely sure I understand what you are getting at here, but I will take a shot.

As you may recall, I believe that the scriptures teach the unredeemed are annihilated. So I think that I have no "motive" about the "problem with eternal punishment" that would colour my take on the free will issue.

 

[Imagican]

Hi MEC

Are we talking about the same thing? I contend LIFE is the gift. When did it ever become possible for the gift of life to be rejected? Can a fetus of its own volition decide not to be born? And scripture tells as that this gift of life (birth of the spirit) is WITHOUT human decision.

BTW - it looks as though part of your text ended up being attributed to me.

Blessings to you too Bro

Wow, I guess I have become as confused with others posts as they are with mine.

Let's see if I am understanding what is being said here.

Mutz,

Is your contention that we have NO choice whether we ACCEPT the gift of life? That it is offered REGARDLESS of ANY decision on OUR part?

And IF SO, that is where I have 'come in' and offered that I do NOT believe that this is SO.

The fetus to which you refer DOES NOT have a choice to be BORN in the Flesh. But we have been offered a chance at RE-Birth. But we have been offered MUCH that states that it is NOT something that will be FORCED upon ANYONE. That it is being BORN AGAIN in Spirit that will bring into fruition the POSSIBILITY of redeeming the gift that has been offered. And even those that ARE 'born again' have been STERNLY warned NOT to 'fall back' into their PREVIOUS state.

Now, if it is NOT we that HAVE the choice to REMAIN in The Spirit, HOW is it POSSIBLE for us to RETURN to a state WORSE than when we FIRST began?

We are TOLD to 'put on' the WHOLE armor of God. Now, do not these words PUT ON offer Pure evidence that this IS an EFFORT that WE must MAKE. that it IS a 'choice' that WE must opt in order for it to TAKE PLACE. For us to PUT ON shows CHOICE in it's very context.

And WHAT are the possible consequences to those that ARE 'born again' and CHOOSE NOT to 'put on' the WHOLE armor of God? What is there POSSIBLE state AFTER 'not putting it on'?

And are YOU saying that we have NO choice but to offer our love WITHOUT FAIL once we are 'born again'. For IF that is what is being indicated here, I have YET to MEET one that is TRULY born again. For we EACH must "WORK OUT" our Salvation. IF we CHOOSE to accept the gift, it IS our duty to OVERCOME temptation. For we have the words offered that God CANNOT tempt us. So the ONLY one able is Satan. And IF we are NOT fully armored EVERY SECOND OF EVERY MINUTE of EVERY DAY, then we ARE subseptable to HIS TEMPTATIONS. WE AS CHRISTIANS, those that ARE 'born again', those that KNOW the truth are JUST AS subseptable to the temptations of the devil as ANY OTHER, IF we are NOT in the Spirit at ALL times. And this in todays secular society is ALMOST an impossibility.

That leaves us with a CONTINUAL choice. To REPENT, to ask for forgiveness, to turn our backs on temptation, to ask for guidance and strength, etc,,,,,,,,,,,, These are NOT naturally occuring instances of Grace. These are THINGS that we are INSTRUCTED TO DO. Not FORCED through The Spirit, but GUIDED from. And ANY guide can BE ignored. Will God send the Spirit to 'bring us back'? Perhaps, but that is certainly NOT a guarantee. At WHAT point does God deem one incorrigible? At what point in a man's life does God simply 'let him alone'?

No, all that I have read from most would negate the PERSONAL responsibility that WE possess and are to MAINTAIN. A relationship with God will NEVER be FORCED upon ANYONE. For even Paul after SEEING Christ on the Road to Damascus COULD have simply 'turned away' to choose destruction over LIfe.

It's EASY for those that 'don't know any better' to SAY that ONCE one is SAVED that they are UNABLE to 'chooe again'. And to 'back up' their statement offer that ANYONE that has EVER appeared to do so, wasn't REALLY saved to START with. Bogus mentality. And NOTHING offered in scripture would 'back up' such a BELIEF system. I KNOW that it is taught by MANY, but so are MANY things that are AGAINST the Word of God. Just because PEOPLE believe it does NOT make it SO.

How one COMES to God is as mysterious to US as any other mystery contained within the relationship. But it is how HE chooses and NOT us. But He HAS offered HIS WORD that shows us THE WAY. The ONLY WAY? I cannot say. All I can offer is what the Spirit has revealed to ME. But in that offering is that it is UP TO ME to tend to MY Salvation. It is NOT somehting that God is simply going to instill in ME without ANY effort on my part. I CANNOT simply 'sit back' and ENJOY the gift that has been offered and THING that I am ASSURED of ANYTHING without being able to fulfill that which has BEEN required of ME. We have a loving God indeed. But we also have a God that expects those that LOVE Him to FOLLOW Him. And when we CHOOSE NOT to, there are consequences to such action.

Jonah is a PRIME example of one that was instucted yet TURNED HIS BACK on what He had been TOLD to DO. So, don't thing that the Spirit that was guiding Johah was ANY different than that SAME Spirit that exists today. For the Spirit of God has been in effect BEFORE even MAN was created. And that Spirit has ALWAYS communicated that which God wished others to KNOW. But Jonah was a PERFECT example of one that CHOSE to ignore what was instructed. And Job was the perfect example of one that chose NOT to ignore but to FOLLOW regardless.

My replies have been in response to the OPENING of this thread and the answers that I have seen since. The answer is NOT either A nor B, the answer most likely lies SOMEWHERE in the MIDDLE. And to even offer such limited choices is to SHOW how we ARE able to confine ourselves and understanding by simply BELIEVING in such a LIMITED manner. For to CHOOSE between A and B is to CUT out all that may be contained within one that is NOT complete without the OTHER. Think about it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and it has NOTHING to do with someone BEING smarter than another. It's a matter of WHO will submit themselves and who won't. Being BORN intellegent or with a lack thereof has NO bearing on WHO's heart is able to BEAR the UNDERSTANDING that is offered or who will REJECT It.

MEC

 

[Bubba]

Drew,
I bring up the possible motivation for one to insist on freewill, may be due to the idea that God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) to contrast that which is good in His unveiling of grace throughout the history of man, as being repulsive (the experience of evil events upon our love ones, i.e. terminal illness for a child would be a good example). As is the notion that God planned that there would be those who are reprobate (Proverb 16:4) and would never experience the opportunity for salvation (which I once believed). I like you, believed in annihilation a few years ago, which did bring ease to my concern with the lost, especially being a Calvinist, yet though this view is more palatable it doesn’t completely satisfy my thought of a loving God. As you have probably figured out, I am now on the side of universal reconciliation, which I believe is supported by Scripture as good if not better then both the Annihilation or Eternal Punishment camps. I came to this conclusion in part, after looking at the literal translation of key words.
Now in respect to Ephesians 2:1-5, my take is that God has to make the individual alive to cause them to realize their need for a Saviour. One may argue if at this point of enlightment, they could say no, which I do not believe. I think the enlightenment is a change in the nature of the person to accept things of the Spirit. Though individuals after regeneration can go through a spiritual desert experience, sometimes for years, they are still regenerated and will go through consequences for their disobedience (Heb. 12:6-11).
My thought now a days, is that this “chastisementâ€Â, even if it extends to the next realm for those once saved, it is nonetheless remedial (correctional)and for those not saved in this realm the trying by fire will eventually bring revelation of Jesus as Saviour.
Grace, Bubba

 

[mondar]

Drew, The terms "free will" and "total depravity" have specific theological meanings. Neither term applies to the extent of sin. Certainly man can self reform themselves. As bubba said, "Man is capable of making moral decisions, loving their children, living a halfway decent life, able to say no to alcohol, drugs, and etc."

If the definition of terms is not agreed upon, you will talk right past each other.

Agree, but neither of us can simply claim a definition - we need to make a case for our claim as to what the definition should be.

Drew,
With reference to the definition of "total depravity" In my opinion there is a problem. From my perspective I see your quibbling over the definition of "Total Depravity" as profitable in any way.

Is not the term "total depravity" a Calvinist term? Are not Dutch Calvinists of Dort, Calvin, and Augustine the founders of the term "total depravity?" It would be fair to challenge Calvinist teachings on the basis and say we have no properly understood the scriptures, but the redefinition of Calvinist terms is the mere setting up of a straw man. If Calvinists originated the term, and have historically defined the term, and Calvinists do not include the concept concerning the "extent" of sin or sin nature, what intregity would it have to make your case on those exact points that Calvinists have denied? That would be to do no more then set up a straw man.

Maybe my language in this post is too harsh, I do not know. I have read non-Calvinists redefining Total depravity and taking the word out of its historical context. These non-Calvinists generally claim to believe in total depravity because they believe man is incapable of maintaining a perfect record of righteousness. That is not total deprative as historically defined. That is simply a redefinition of the term. It would seem more honest to me to just simply deny total depravity then redefine the term.

For many of you, you should be saying "I dont believe in total depravity because I do not believe that the nature of man is so sinful that sin nature controls the will of man in respect to his ability to seek God." Of course that is not a biblical position. No man seeks God.

If you need a quote, feel free to consult the Canons of Dort. Let me quote from the Canons of Dort, Canon III and IV, article 4.

"The result of the fall is total depravity or corruption. By this is meant that every part of man is rendered corrupt. The Canons say that man "became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, obdurate in heart and will and impure in his affection." There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word "total" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be. Article 4, which we hope to consider more fully later in this series, speaks of "glimmerings of natural light which remain in man since the fall." God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy; and the good he does is done for God and for His glory."

I have underlined and bolded certain parts of the definition for emphasis. The quote is copied from... http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter1.html

All this is important because the entire basis of your argument was on the basis that because men reform themselves at times (from Alcohol or drugs). Both Bubba and I hinted at the fact that your argument does not address the issue because Calvinists do not believe man is as sinful as he could be. Is not then your argument a straw man? This has to do with the "extent" of sin or sin nature. Generally you will see statements in definitions that "total depravity" does mean that sin nature permeates all parts of mans being... his will, his heart, his character, etc.

Feel free to challenge my theological understanding of the scriptures, but if you are going to challenge my definitions of theological terms, you need some support. Where are your definitions coming from? You just make them up?

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

Interesting suggestion:

1. Get the "big" picture and let that inform how we resolve some of the "text-snippet" contradictions.

2. Get inside the culture of the time and try to read the words not as 21st century westerners but as people living in the culture and the times the texts were written.

3. Understand the peculiar styles of each writer.

4. Etc.

While it 'makes sense', I BELIEVE that we are liable to discuss issues with those that WOULD NEED to spend the TIME and effort to SEE the 'big picture'.

And I believe that there ARE some instances where the CULTURE may well have had a bearing on that which was offeered, but I DO NOT believe that it would BE such a major necessity in understanding scripture as offered. For RARELY does ANY offer 'personal opinion' based on culture.

Now, the SYLE of the writter. This one is interesting indeed. For there is MUCH to be gained in an understanding of the one WRITTING. For there have been many that have contributed to the Bible as compiled today. And EACH was as different as NIGHT and day ONCE one is ABLE to SEE the differences in, NOT ONLY their style, but WHO they were and HOW they came to BE who they were. Neat stuff.

But back to the culture thing. While it is truth that the Jewish religion WAS basically their CULTURE, we NEED not get 'caught up' in the SAME situation as Peter. For we CANNOT please God by living in a PAST covenant. And that 'relationship', (between the Jews and God), was FOR a TIME and A particular PEOPLE. If we are able to successfully separate the TWO, then it IS relatively easy to SEE that what had been offered to THEM thousands of years before, was but a premontion of that which was to come. in the HOPES of PREPARING them for a 'future covenant'. Many DID see and accept, but many to this day have yet to come into such recognition.

And Drew, I believe that we are BOTH trying to explain a similar view of 'free will'. While there ARE MANY that believe and teach this 'election', I don't THINK that it is the 'election' that is WRONG, but simply the understanding of it that has been altered.

For IF this election as offered by some was indeed truth, then there would be NO reason to 'spread the Word' or 'offer testimony', or really, to EVEN have FAITH. For those that were ELECTED would KNOW without the NEED for Faith. And what purpose would it SERVE for the Word to EXIST to 'start with' if it was simply a matter of election that was preconceived before the foundation of this earth.

I BELIEVE that the elect are most LIKELY more aptly defined as THOSE THAT ELECT than those ELECTED. In other words: those that ELECT to believe and follow. Verses those that are ELECTED of God to follow.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bubba]

Would you not agree that sin and death had to be an integral part of God’s plan for the human race prior to creation? Scripture tells us that Jesus the Lamb of God was “slain from the foundation of the earth,†(Rev. 13:8) meaning that God had a plan for man’s salvation prior to the actual disobedient act of Adam and Eve. This plan included the death of Jesus for man’s sins prior to creation. God’s sovereignty includes the evil act of our first parents, if this be not the case there would have been no need of a Saviour slain before the foundation of the earth. Does God’s sovereignty include creating evil, using evil or simply allowing evil (I let you be the judge?) to be the catalyst to unfold His plan of salvation. Obviously, evil and its influence affected the outcome of Adam and Eve, who actually had a measure of freewill, since they were not born or created in their case with a sin nature. How about the rest of mankind, do we really think the circumstances that enter our lives are under the total control of our will? In reality God is the only Being that is not hindered by the chains of circumstances. In fact, I believe that God orchestrates the circumstances of all of our lives and within these circumstances we make real choices that He knew we would make. Like the Prodigal, these circumstances will eventually bring each of us into a relationship with the Father. Ephesians 1:11 reads, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,â€Â. In the process of working out His purposes in our lives, we are refined, chastised (punished) and even judged, but ultimately brought into a loving relationship nonetheless. We may think we are the captain of our ship, but in reality his or her sails are set in direction by the winds of the Holy Spirit. Proverbs 21:1 states,†The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a atercourse wherever he pleases.â€Â
Bubba

 

[mutzrein]

...this gift of life (birth of the spirit) is WITHOUT human decision.

BTW - it looks as though part of your text ended up being attributed to me.

Blessings to you too Bro

Is the gift of life without human decision, or is the human decision by Gods work (regenertion) and will?

Yes it is without human decision and scripture confirms it.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[mondar]

...this gift of life (birth of the spirit) is WITHOUT human decision.

BTW - it looks as though part of your text ended up being attributed to me.

Blessings to you too Bro

Is the gift of life without human decision, or is the human decision by Gods work (regenertion) and will?

Yes it is without human decision and scripture confirms it.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Are you making a difference between a human decision, and faith?

 

[mutzrein]

Out of curiousity, is the reason those who insist that man has a choice in their salvation due to a need to justify the problem with evil and eternal punishment in the next life?
Bubba

I suspect that those who say that man has a choice are trying to justify the thought that a righteous God would not condemn man for something that was outside of his own decision. And if you are wondering, I don't subscribe to either thought.

 

[Imagican]

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Let us EXAMINE the entire scripture:

BUT, as MANY as RECEIVED him, TO THEM gave He power to BECOME the Sons of God.

Now, here we see the word BUT to begin with. That the world chose NOT to SEE Him. BUT, for those that DID and CHOSE to RECEIVE Him. i BELIEVE that this is what is offered in the scripture offered.

Even to those that BELIEVE. Here again we see CHOICE. For what we BELIEVE is what we CHOOSE.

We can see by reading the entirety of the scripture offered in John that what is offered is a GIFT that is NOT able to BE secured WITHOUT conditions. That the gift offered MUST be ACCEPTED to BE received. For ALL will not experience the 'BIRTH' refered to above.

So, I BELIEVE we can conclude the following:

Christ REVEALED Himself to mankind. Some chose to RECEIVE and some simply REFUSED to receive. But to those that DID 'receive Him', He 'gave the POWER', (understand, that this does NOT SAY that He guaranteed ANYTHING, but simply gave them the ABILITY, or POWER), to BECOME, (and note here that this offering does NOT state that those that received, were granted ANYTING BUT the POWER to BECOME; that means that even these were NOT guaranteed ANYTHING other than the POWER to BECOME. To BECOME is a state in the FUTURE not the present. For ONCE one has passed BEYOND the BECOMING, only THEN are they complete), the sons of God.

So, we have here a granting of revelation, (the revealing), reception, and POSSIBILITY through ABILITY to BECOME sons of God.

Now, at which point is it offered that 'choice' has been ELIMINATED? And HOW do you suppose that one BECOMES, if they are NOT immediately granted what they are ABLE to obtain through the ability GIVEN. And what happens to those that SEE, accept, but do NOT follow to fruition that which has been offered? And HOW except through CHOICE are we to EXERCISE our POWER to BECOME?

I don't see any such FORCE being offered that supercedes the WILL Of man. The CHOICES that one is commanded to MAKE in regards to the gift offered.

I have companions that I discuss issues of faith with often. MOST are of the agnostic or even atheist persuasion. I ask them OFTEN, ''IF you don't BELIEVE in a God, what IS IT that guides you in your moral decisions. What is it that FORMS your character in a direction that would offer compasion, love, humility, empathy, etc........? There immediate answer is: the ability to REASON. I find this a difficult 'thing' to argue. For I have listened to those that would offer that ALL that have NOT accepted Christ into their hearts are EVIL continually. Yet the evidence is NOT SO. For even the MOST depraved of individuals is CAPABLE of moments of compassion. Moments of mercy, moments of LOVE.

And IF this state of depravity was ALL encompassing, HOW would one be ABLE to SEE the LIGHT? how would they RECOGNIZE that which is TRUTH and separate IT from that which is NOT?

NO, we are plenty capable of choice. That: ' does a broken branch make a noise if no one is there ot hear it' doesn't add up here. I could do something like this: apoij eriu'p and offer plainly that it was FREEDOM of choice, MY decision to scramble letters together just to make a point. And there would certainly be SOMEONE in the crowd that would say: 'but you don't know that what you did WASN'T predestined. Rubbish. For IF we are ALL simply here to be FORCED in any direction, we wouldn't have been offered the insights on HOW to protect ourselves against the DARK One. We are TOLD to RESIST the devil. If there were NO choice, then we would NOT BE ABLE to nor would we have been instructed as to HOW to resist.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bubba]

Out of curiousity, is the reason those who insist that man has a choice in their salvation due to a need to justify the problem with evil and eternal punishment in the next life?
Bubba

I suspect that those who say that man has a choice are trying to justify the thought that a righteous God would not condemn man for something that was outside of his own decision. And if you are wondering, I don't subscribe to either thought.

Mutzrein,
Would you elaborate on what you do subscribe to.
Bubba

 

[mutzrein]

Hi Bubba

In a nutshell, this is what I subscribe to.

Man is born devoid of spirit - dead in trespasses and sin. Jesus came that man might have life. He defeated death through his own death and resurrection. When He returned to the Father He sent the Holy Spirit that had previously dwelt WITH man to now dwell IN man. This impartation of the Spirit to dwell IN man is the birth of the spirit and everyone who receives this gift of life will live forever. Having been given the gift of life, man is made accountable for the gift and he will be judged according to what he has done with it – some to eternal reward and some to eternal punishment.

On the other hand the man who does not receive the gift of the Spirit will not live forever. And as one who is devoid of the spirit, as one who has not received life, he will perish just as the grass withers and return to the dust. He is not judged. There is no eternal reward or eternal punishment for this man. Just death.

Now I do not deny that the man of the flesh (who has not received the Spirit of life) has a will and is able to exercise it in terms of the flesh. Nor do I deny that the man of the Spirit (who has received the Spirit of life) is able to exercise his will.

But I do deny that the man of the flesh (who is void of the Spirit of life) can by any means ‘choose’ to appropriate it. It is impossible.

 

[mutzrein]

Are you making a difference between a human decision, and faith?

Absolutely. If you say that faith is a decision (rather than the gift of God) then the righteousness attributed to it is but filthy rags.

 

[mondar]

I don't see any such FORCE being offered that supercedes the WILL Of man.

John 1:13
"which were born... not of the will of man, but of God."

 

[mutzrein]

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

MEC - the former part of the scripture is a fulfilment of the latter