Free will, the sovereignty of man, and the impotence of God in salvation

[mondar]

Yes it is God's will that none perish. However, God has created man with his own sovereign will, and He respects it.

I must admit surprise that anyone who believes in free will would articulate their position in terms of the "sovereignty of man." Yet, after thinking about it, I agree with the writer of the above post, that the sovereignty of man in salvation is exactly what the free will doctrine accomplishes. God then is no sovereign. He gave up his sovereignty. Then God cannot save anyone, but sits on the throne of his non-sovereignty creates a salvation power, and then watches and hopes that man, in mans sovereignty will make use of that power of salvation and save himself with the power of salvation created by God.

I am not asking if anyone believes in free will, or does not believe in free will. I am asking if you agree that the doctrine of mans free will makes man sovereign? I would define the term "free will" as that doctrine which affirms denies mans nature as so sinful that all mankind is in rebellion against God. The doctrine of "free will" then means that mans nature is morally neutral, so that man can make either the good choice in salvation, or the bad choice and reject Gods power for salvation that is provided.

 

[Nathan]

While people can, and will, believe what they want; you have made up your own definition of "free will". But that is your 'free will' to do so. If I told you I believe in free will you would automatically think that I believed the same thing you do about it. But its not true.

I do not believe in the idea of free will as you have described it, but I believe in free will. Prejudice is an ugly thing. With it we can never communicate effectively because we have a 'preconceived idea' of what the other person believes and does not believe. Oh, I am sure you are going to get a lot of people going with this topic. But the big question is are you doing it to fight? Or are you doing it to understand someone else's view?

No where in the Bible will you find the idea that man's nature is basically 'neutral'. But that is where you find fault with your definition of "free will", and rightfully should, because you see that as a person who studies the Bible. Very well then; why discount all the other passages that speak for mans will in the matter of choosing whom he will serve? If man does not have a choice to make in choosing who he will follow after, then why the abundance of passages that speak to it? Are they just there for no reason? Are they not a clear indication of a persons ability to choose?

 

[Nathan]

Free will, the sovereignty of man, and the impotence of God in salvation

Do you not feel a little weird about how you titled this thread? Just a little bit over the edge? Do you think that He was grinning at your sarcastic statement? After all it is sarcastic right? You truly do not believe He is the way your describing Him, so that would mean that you are being sarcastic. Right?

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

I must admit surprise that anyone who believes in free will would articulate their position in terms of the "sovereignty of man." Yet, after thinking about it, I agree with the writer of the above post, that the sovereignty of man in salvation is exactly what the free will doctrine accomplishes. God then is no sovereign. He gave up his sovereignty. Then God cannot save anyone, but sits on the throne of his non-sovereignty creates a salvation power, and then watches and hopes that man, in mans sovereignty will make use of that power of salvation and save himself with the power of salvation created by God.

Yes, he articulates the mindset of all religionist, he is more blatant, but God is showing us how the Man of sin is now reigning in that mindset.

2 thess 2:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Thats the freewill mindset, that its Sovereign as God, that is Satans desire :

Isa 14:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[mlqurgw]

While people can, and will, believe what they want; you have made up your own definition of "free will". But that is your 'free will' to do so. If I told you I believe in free will you would automatically think that I believed the same thing you do about it. But its not true.

I do not believe in the idea of free will as you have described it, but I believe in free will. Prejudice is an ugly thing. With it we can never communicate effectively because we have a 'preconceived idea' of what the other person believes and does not believe. Oh, I am sure you are going to get a lot of people going with this topic. But the big question is are you doing it to fight? Or are you doing it to understand someone else's view?

No where in the Bible will you find the idea that man's nature is basically 'neutral'. But that is where you find fault with your definition of "free will", and rightfully should, because you see that as a person who studies the Bible. Very well then; why discount all the other passages that speak for mans will in the matter of choosing whom he will serve? If man does not have a choice to make in choosing who he will follow after, then why the abundance of passages that speak to it? Are they just there for no reason? Are they not a clear indication of a persons ability to choose?

The simple fact is that what mondar has posited is the logical conclusion of man having a sovereign "free will." No one denies that man has a will or that man makes a conscious choice. What we deny is that man's "free will" is the determiner of eternal destiny. We deny it for the very reasons that mondar laid out. If man's will determines one's eternal destiny then it is obvious that man is his own savior rather than God. The purpose of the passages in the Scriptures that call on men to choose is to make it clear that man is responsible for not believing and to show the utter insanity of unbelief. But responsibility in no way implies ability. My responsibility to pay my debts in no way imply I am able to pay them. We are responsible to worship and believe God not because we are able to but because we are His creatures and He owns us. God's cammand to keep the law in no way implies an ability to do so. None were ever able to do so but Christ. The argument that God doesn't force anyone because forced love isn't real love is a farce. Love, no matter how it comes about, isn't defined by cause but by intensity and result. My wife forced me to love her by being the person she is. I couldn't help myself. God forces elect sinners to love Him by showing us Himself in Christ.

 

[mondar]

Do you not feel a little weird about how you titled this thread? Just a little bit over the edge? Do you think that He was grinning at your sarcastic statement? After all it is sarcastic right? You truly do not believe He is the way your describing Him, so that would mean that you are being sarcastic. Right?

NH, do you claim to be sovereign to be able to know the motives of men? You also seem very confused. I did not make the statement in quotes in the OP. I copied it from someone who you might agree with. The reason I made the OP was because was impressed at the logic of the person who made the statement. While I do not agree with him on his concept of "Free will," I do agree with his concept that his doctrine (and yours) makes man sovereign over salvation and not God. I see his claim as consistent with his theology. Your not willing to be that consistent, are you?

 

[Drew]

I must admit surprise that anyone who believes in free will would articulate their position in terms of the "sovereignty of man." Yet, after thinking about it, I agree with the writer of the above post, that the sovereignty of man in salvation is exactly what the free will doctrine accomplishes. God then is no sovereign. He gave up his sovereignty. Then God cannot save anyone, but sits on the throne of his non-sovereignty creates a salvation power, and then watches and hopes that man, in mans sovereignty will make use of that power of salvation and save himself with the power of salvation created by God.

Although I will grant that you have not explicitly said so, the wording you choose seems to imply that those who believe man "freely accepts" salvation are thereby buying into the position of believing that man is deserving of the "credit" for the end result.

That is not the case. One can perfectly coherently argue as follows: The "work" to achieve a man's salvation is entirely the work of God in the same sense that the saving of a man's life in a detailed surgery is entirely the work of the skilled surgeon. Yes, the man "freely" opts for the surgery. And yes, if he had not done so, he would have died. But no reasonable person would characterize such a situation as one in which the patient "saves himself" or otherwise deserves credit.

Same thing with the notion of a man freely accepting a gift of salvation. This morest certainly does not logically lead to a conclusion that man has, in any reasonable sense, "earned" his salvation.

I am not asking if anyone believes in free will, or does not believe in free will. I am asking if you agree that the doctrine of mans free will makes man sovereign?

I do not agree that the doctrine man's free will "makes man sovereign".

 

[Drew]

If man's will determines one's eternal destiny then it is obvious that man is his own savior rather than God.

This is simply not true, as per arguments in my previous post. It is unfortunate that we see such a spurious argument appear over and over again. The view that man needs to "do something" to actualize his salvation - freely accept a gift - does not, in any reasonable sense place man in the position of being the Saviour and displace God from that role.

I politely suggest that no reasonable person would say that the Chilean miners "saved themselves". Yes, they freely got into that rescue capsule. But the clear "saviours" were the engineers and technicians who drilled the hole, built the rescue pod, etc.

It is manifestly incorrect to argue as follows:

1. Agent X needs to do something to actualize a consequence "A";
2. Therefore agent X is the agent substantively responsible for the achievement of consequence A

 

[mlqurgw]

This is simply not true, as per arguments in my previous post. It is unfortunate that we see such a spurious argument appear over and over again. The view that man needs to "do something" to actualize his salvation - freely accept a gift - does not, in any reasonable sense place man in the position of being the Saviour and displace God from that role.

I politely suggest that no reasonable person would say that the Chilean miners "saved themselves". Yes, they freely got into that rescue capsule. But the clear "saviours" were the engineers and technicians who drilled the hole, built the rescue pod, etc.

It is manifestly incorrect to argue as follows:

1. Agent X needs to do something to actualize a consequence "A";
2. Therefore agent X is the agent substantively responsible for the achievement of consequence A

The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the fact that in the free will concept of salvation the eternal destiny of the saved depends entirely on the will of the saved. While no reasonable man may argue that the miners saved themselves in reality they did under the free will scheme. Their salvation depended on their choosing to get into the capsule. It was provided by the engineers and others but in the final analysis it was the miners who made the difference by making the choice. That is the logical conclusion of the free will argument. The engineers certainly deserve credit for doing all that they could to provide a rescue but it was still up to the miners to avail themselves of it and therefore saved themselves. Logic dictates that conclusion. If agent x must do something then the consequence is entirely dependant on agent x. If everything is provided by another but that one thing that must be done then all depends on that one thing that must be done. If you place a condition on a gift it ceases to be a gift. It then only becomes an offer. There is a reason why they are two different words.

Now the miners didn't choose to get into the capsule they were forced to. They were forced by the consequence of not getting into the capsule. Only an insane man would have remained in the mine. But even he would have been forcefully put in it and not left to die. Would you call those engineers saviors if they had left any miner to die because he chose not to get into the capsule? Would you call that love that would leave him there? I think not.

 

[Drew]

The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the fact that in the free will concept of salvation the eternal destiny of the saved depends entirely on the will of the saved.

But this is not true - you are repeating the same error. The fact that "Fred" needs to 'freely accept' salvation most certainly does not mean that Fred's destiny depends entirely on Fred's will - God needs to have created the conditions that would allow Fred's will to "actualize" his salvation.

In other words, Fred can do all he "freely" wants to do, but if God has not dealt with sin on the cross, all of Fred's "free will" efforts get him nowhere.

 

[mondar]

Although I will grant that you have not explicitly said so, the wording you choose seems to imply that those who believe man "freely accepts" salvation are thereby buying into the position of believing that man is deserving of the "credit" for the end result.

That is not the case. One can perfectly coherently argue as follows: The "work" to achieve a man's salvation is entirely the work of God in the same sense that the saving of a man's life in a detailed surgery is entirely the work of the skilled surgeon. Yes, the man "freely" opts for the surgery. And yes, if he had not done so, he would have died. But no reasonable person would characterize such a situation as one in which the patient "saves himself" or otherwise deserves credit.

Same thing with the notion of a man freely accepting a gift of salvation. This morest certainly does not logically lead to a conclusion that man has, in any reasonable sense, "earned" his salvation.

I know a friend that had surgery. He chose the doctor, he chose the hospital, and he made some smart choices. There was another patient that did not make the same choices and he died. Maybe my friend did not save himself 100% but I think he deserves at least some of the credit.

 

[mondar]

But this is not true - you are repeating the same error. The fact that "Fred" needs to 'freely accept' salvation most certainly does not mean that Fred's destiny depends entirely on Fred's will - God needs to have created the conditions that would allow Fred's will to "actualize" his salvation.

In other words, Fred can do all he "freely" wants to do, but if God has not dealt with sin on the cross, all of Fred's "free will" efforts get him nowhere.

In other words, Fred should not take "all the credit." Certainly that is true, he should only get some of the credit.

 

[mlqurgw]

But this is not true - you are repeating the same error. The fact that "Fred" needs to 'freely accept' salvation most certainly does not mean that Fred's destiny depends entirely on Fred's will - God needs to have created the conditions that would allow Fred's will to "actualize" his salvation.

In other words, Fred can do all he "freely" wants to do, but if God has not dealt with sin on the cross, all of Fred's "free will" efforts get him nowhere.

Exactly true. But the logic still follows that all that God did is pointless unless Fred does that one thing needful. Therefore that one thing needful is the most important thing. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. You are ignoring the logic. Your argument is, a depends on b therefore a doesn't depend on b.

 

[mlqurgw]

Let me put it another way, is Fred saved if he doesn't make the right choice, accept the gift , meet the condition? If the answer is no he isn't then his salvation necessarily depends on him.

 

[Nathan]

NH, do you claim to be sovereign to be able to know the motives of men? You also seem very confused. I did not make the statement in quotes in the OP. I copied it from someone who you might agree with. The reason I made the OP was because was impressed at the logic of the person who made the statement. While I do not agree with him on his concept of "Free will," I do agree with his concept that his doctrine (and yours) makes man sovereign over salvation and not God. I see his claim as consistent with his theology. Your not willing to be that consistent, are you?

Umm....I am speechless. Not only do you not find any remorse for how you describe a sovereign God, you also have some very abrupt ways of 'boxing' in someone. While some may bow down to your cunning remarks, trying to place me at a point of 'decision', a point under your 'spot light, I will not. I should not have even stepped into this forum, much less even the thread. However, it is obvious that the path you set out to trod on has been a good one for you.

I have never stated that man was sovereign over God in salvation. You LIE when you post that. If it is not a lie, then prove where I have said that. If it is a lie, then will you apologize for the accusation that you place against me?

What you have cleverly done is to bypass the rest of the questions I pose. It is easy to respond to someone with an attack rather than to engage in peaceful discussions. I will refuse to engage in this discussion unless it can be done in a peaceful manner. If you so choose, I would happily oblige.

Man has free will given to him by a more than capable and completely sovereign God. God in no way is anywhere related to any human malfunction in sexual reproduction. What God sets forth will always 'reproduce'. If God so chooses to give man a will to choose between life and death, then His sovereignty will not fail in that.

 

[Nathan]

The simple fact is that what mondar has posited is the logical conclusion of man having a sovereign "free will." No one denies that man has a will or that man makes a conscious choice. What we deny is that man's "free will" is the determiner of eternal destiny. We deny it for the very reasons that mondar laid out. If man's will determines one's eternal destiny then it is obvious that man is his own savior rather than God. The purpose of the passages in the Scriptures that call on men to choose is to make it clear that man is responsible for not believing and to show the utter insanity of unbelief. But responsibility in no way implies ability. My responsibility to pay my debts in no way imply I am able to pay them. We are responsible to worship and believe God not because we are able to but because we are His creatures and He owns us. God's cammand to keep the law in no way implies an ability to do so. None were ever able to do so but Christ. The argument that God doesn't force anyone because forced love isn't real love is a farce. Love, no matter how it comes about, isn't defined by cause but by intensity and result. My wife forced me to love her by being the person she is. I couldn't help myself. God forces elect sinners to love Him by showing us Himself in Christ.

Seems that this logic is in direct opposition to the Bible's deffinition of love.

1Cr 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant

1Cr 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

1Cr 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Seems that this logic is in direct opposition to the Bible's deffinition of love.

1Cr 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant

1Cr 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

1Cr 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

Well mans freewill insists on its own way..

 

[savedbygrace57]

mlq:

Love, no matter how it comes about, isn't defined by cause but by intensity and result. My wife forced me to love her by being the person she is. I couldn't help myself. God forces elect sinners to love Him by showing us Himself in Christ.

You know, The First commandment and the greatest is this:

matt 22:


36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

Now, man in Adam, before his will became enslaved to sin, could not keep this commandment, if he could, then eve would not have ate of the fruit, and given to her husband to eat as well.

So, what hope is it of any man doing the First commandment now ? The only hope is that of a new heart, which causes a man to Love God the way he suppose to..

Man, in order to Love God must be born again or become a new creation, which he has no will to do. Its up to God..

 

[mlqurgw]

Seems that this logic is in direct opposition to the Bible's deffinition of love.

1Cr 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant

1Cr 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

1Cr 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

A total mis-application of the passage to what I said. Why not respond to my argument instead of to a sentence in it? It is frustrating, to say the least, when folks here choose to ignore the whole of an argument and pick and choose statements that they think they can rebut.

Paul's atatement in 1Cor. 13 in its context is speaking about love not being selfish or self serving. It has nothing to do with whether loving compassionate force is used to direct the object of love to the best end. Any parent knows this kind of force.

 

[mlqurgw]

The simple fact is that what mondar has posited is the logical conclusion of man having a sovereign "free will."

Can this be denied?

No one denies that man has a will or that man makes a conscious choice. What we deny is that man's "free will" is the determiner of eternal destiny. We deny it for the very reasons that mondar laid out. If man's will determines one's eternal destiny then it is obvious that man is his own savior rather than God.

Can this be denied?

The purpose of the passages in the Scriptures that call on men to choose is to make it clear that man is responsible for not believing and to show the utter insanity of unbelief. But responsibility in no way implies ability. My responsibility to pay my debts in no way imply I am able to pay them. We are responsible to worship and believe God not because we are able to but because we are His creatures and He owns us. God's cammand to keep the law in no way implies an ability to do so. None were ever able to do so but Christ.

Please answer this.

The argument that God doesn't force anyone because forced love isn't real love is a farce. Love, no matter how it comes about, isn't defined by cause but by intensity and result. My wife forced me to love her by being the person she is. I couldn't help myself. God forces elect sinners to love Him by showing us Himself in Christ.

Please answer the argument as a whole not just the last sentence.