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

[Nathan]

I was not applying the clear definition of what love is only to one sentence in your argument. I was applying it to your whole argument. I underlined and bold the last sentence of yours because it was the ending, and summation, of what you had put forth. Your last sentence clearly lets the reader know that you believe that God 'forces' His some people to love Him. It is argued by you throughout the whole of your post.

The fact that Paul was defining love for one group of people does not make that definition any less applicable to anyone else. It is a definition. Plain and simple. It tells us that love does NOT insist on its own way. So, therefore, if God gives man a "will" to choose Him, then that means He does not "force" His love on us.

However, we see where there is no debate in the matter of His confinement of all under sin. He does indeed force us to that. But what do we know about this 'confinement'? Is it love?

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

So the wrath of God confined everything under sin. The LOVE of God gives faith to all and allows them to choose. The promise is then given to those who by faith choose to believe. Love does not 'force' us to believe in Christ for our sin payment.

To say that man does not have a "choice" in salvation would then say that man does not have a choice in faith. We DO NOT have a choice in whether we will hear the word of faith, but our choice rests on our belief in that faith that is given. We either obey and come to Christ, or we disobey and deny Christ. Either way, God stretches out His hand to us and give us the choice because of His love.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Rom 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

Rom 10:19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

Rom 10:21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

 

[mondar]

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?

NH, you are very confused about what has been written in this thread. Based upon your own confusion your making some wild moral accusations about "a lie.". In the OP, I was quoting Alabaster. Alabaster made the statement in the thread "all men without exception" that free will means man is sovereign over his own salvation. The thread was created by SBG.

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.

NH, I spent some time trying to understand what your talking about ("human malfunction is sexual reproduction). Probably you don't know what your talking about either. It does not seem to have anything to do with the thread anyway.

As far as me "bypass" your questions. I don't know what you are talking about there either.

NH, you muddy the water pretty bad sometime. You really should read a little bit about Reformed theology before trying to refute it.

 

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by nathanielhooper
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?

NH, you are very confused about what has been written in this thread. Based upon your own confusion your making some wild moral accusations about "a lie.". In the OP, I was quoting Alabaster. Alabaster made the statement in the thread "all men without exception" that free will means man is sovereign over his own salvation. The thread was created by SBG.

Originally Posted by nathanielhooper
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.

NH, I spent some time trying to understand what your talking about ("human malfunction is sexual reproduction). Probably you don't know what your talking about either. It does not seem to have anything to do with the thread anyway.

As far as me "bypass" your questions. I don't know what you are talking about there either.

NH, you muddy the water pretty bad sometime. You really should read a little bit about Reformed theology before trying to refute it.

Honestly I you have surprised me. If it was brought to my attention that I had lied about someone in what I have said, I would either refute it with solid evidence in backing up what I had said about that person, or I would apologize. You have done neither but have rather proceeded to make me out to be someone who "muddy's the water"?

You specifically said that I have, in my "doctrine", made man sovereign over salvation rather than God.

Originally Posted by mondar
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?

You were including me in with Alabaster and saying that my "doctrine" makes man sovereign over salvation and not God. I never said that, I never taught that, you LIED when you posted that. Post #6 if you are confused about where I have gotten this quote from. You cannot say that you were only talking about Alabaster, you specifically included me by addressing my post with quotes, and then with the words you placed in parentheses.

Also, you misquoted me in saying;

NH, I spent some time trying to understand what your talking about ("human malfunction is sexual reproduction). Probably you don't know what your talking about either. It does not seem to have anything to do with the thread anyway.

I did not say the word "is". If you specifically look at what I said it is the word "in". Which changes the whole concept around in one's mind. I specifically said;

God in no way is anywhere related to any human malfunction in sexual reproduction.

I was addressing your very crude thread title. "Impotence" is a human malfunction in sexual reproduction. God is not in the least, or could be in any way related, to this. No one that I have seen so far has even came close to saying this. If I am wrong then please show me. What I am trying to say is it would be wise if you sat back and thought about what you were writing for all the world to see. I just found it very crude is all.

But yet again. You push aside my statements, and questions, and try to put some sort of spotlight on things I have said that are not true. If that is the way it is then so be it. I would love to discuss this idea of free will in a civil manner, letting you know exactly what I believe so you do not have to post lies about me, but I am not going to do it in a way that makes it look like I am fighting. If you choose to malign me with your posts then it is your freedom to do so. Do not expect me to do the same to you.

 

[Drew]

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.

I suggest that is manifestly clear that someone who simply accepts a gift deserves only a miniscule amount of "credit" - the overwhelming majority of the credit goes to the surgeon, the nurses, and the medical technology.

 

[Drew]

Exactly true. But the logic still follows that all that God did is pointless unless Fred does that one thing needful.

I agree, of course.

Therefore that one thing needful is the most important thing.

This is simply not true. It is not correct logic to argue thus (as you are doing):

1. Unless Fred does X, result Y will not be actualized.
2. Therefore Fred's doing of X is the most important thing in respect to actualizing result Y.

Remember the Chicago Cubs fan who reached out and caught a foul ball that a Cubs player could otherwise have caught? Suppose that if the fan had not interfered, the Cubs would have gone on to win the World Series. But instead, since the fan did interfere, the other team (lets say it was the Dodgers) went on to win the Series.

Does this make the fan's action "the most important" thing in the Dodger's winning the world series?

Of course not. The most important thing was the fact that the Dodgers won a lot of baseball games and were skilled baseball players.

 

[Drew]

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.

I never said Fred's salvation does not "depend" on him. But its an entirely different matter to say that Fred's acceptance is "the most important thing".

 

[mondar]

I was addressing your very crude thread title. "Impotence" is a human malfunction in sexual reproduction. God is not in the least, or could be in any way related, to this. No one that I have seen so far has even came close to saying this. If I am wrong then please show me. What I am trying to say is it would be wise if you sat back and thought about what you were writing for all the world to see. I just found it very crude is all.

But yet again. You push aside my statements, and questions, and try to put some sort of spotlight on things I have said that are not true. If that is the way it is then so be it. I would love to discuss this idea of free will in a civil manner, letting you know exactly what I believe so you do not have to post lies about me, but I am not going to do it in a way that makes it look like I am fighting. If you choose to malign me with your posts then it is your freedom to do so. Do not expect me to do the same to you.

NH, the way I used the word "impotence" has nothing to do with sexual impotence. As I used it the word "impotence" is simply talking about Gods lack of power in deciding who will be saved.

Concerning the "Sovereignty of man" ... while you did not invent the phrase, or say those words, you have the same libertarian free will position as Alabaster. Where Alabaster is light years ahead of you is in that he recognizes that whoever had the "free will" is the one how is sovereign. That is very consistent of Alabaster. Of course I differ from Alabaster in that I think God has the real "Free will." I have been in these threads for over a year proclaiming the free will of God in salvation. I also proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation. They go together. You are far more inconsistent then Alabaster. You want to proclaim the "free will" of man and the sovereignty of God.

I agree with Alabasters assessment that whoever has the free will, that being is sovereign in salvation. I recognize the consistency of his statement. I not that you have the same libertarian free will position, you you begin all these moral accusations against me. NH, I think this is all a cover up for the fact that you cannot do theology or exegesis. You might be good at some other things, I don't know you.... but your not good at apologetics, theology, or exegesis. Go ahead and make your last accusations against me, say whatever you want. I do not intent to reply to any more of the nonsense your posting in this thread, its getting old and it does not do anything for anybody.

 

[mondar]

I suggest that is manifestly clear that someone who simply accepts a gift deserves only a miniscule amount of "credit" - the overwhelming majority of the credit goes to the surgeon, the nurses, and the medical technology.

Fair enough. So then, in heaven a "minuscule amount of credit" for a persons salvation goes to the person himself (lets say .00001%)... and the rest goes to God (in your theology)?

 

[Drew]

Fair enough. So then, in heaven a "minuscule amount of credit" for a persons salvation goes to the person himself (lets say .00001%)... and the rest goes to God (in your theology)?

Yes. And I eagerly await your next move (), I am confident you have some text up your sleeve that you see as incompatible with such a position. Well, let's see......

 

[mondar]

Yes. And I eagerly await your next move (), I am confident you have some text up your sleeve that you see as incompatible with such a position. Well, let's see......

LOL, Drew, your an interesting chap with a sense of humor. I must admit, I was guessing that you would simply affirm that salvation is not 100% grace and I was not going to reply and defend sola gratia.

On the other hand, I am game for an exegetical discussion on "sola gratia." Let me know if you want to go there. However, if I can ask a favor, I think the discussion would be outside the purpose of this thread. We should have a thread on grace to discuss the issue. I am guessing we could resurrect a pre-existant thread on "sola gratia" or grace alone. If there is none, I will create one.... if you desire to have that discussion.

 

[Drew]

LOL, Drew, your an interesting chap with a sense of humor. I must admit, I was guessing that you would simply affirm that salvation is not 100% grace and I was not going to reply and defend sola gratia.

On the other hand, I am game for an exegetical discussion on "sola gratia." Let me know if you want to go there. However, if I can ask a favor, I think the discussion would be outside the purpose of this thread. We should have a thread on grace to discuss the issue. I am guessing we could resurrect a pre-existant thread on "sola gratia" or grace alone. If there is none, I will create one.... if you desire to have that discussion.

Well, I suspect that in any discussion we would have, the issue would boil down to this:

You would argue that if salvation is "all grace", then, it really is all grace. This would leave no room - not even a smidgen - for a human "contribution", even the contribution of a simple "free will" acceptance.

I would argue that the concept "its all grace" needs to be appropriately nuanced and qualified and that proper interpretation is not as easy as claiming "all means all".

And I suspect we would not get anywhere from there precisely because:

1. It would be easy for me to cite examples where a writer of scripture says something that needs to be nuanced in the sense I would say "all grace" needs to be nuanced. I would probably cite your own arguments that statements about Jesus dying for all need to be appropriately qualified from the surrounding context.

2. For my part, it would be an enormous, complex task to make a case that writers of scripture often make statements that are "approximate truths" only, truths that are implicitly qualified.

So I think we would get stalled on very fundamental issues which would be "too big" to move beyond - since neither of us probably has the time or the knowledge to make the appropriate case on such fundamental issues.

But, I am always willing to at least go some distance down that road.

 

[mlqurgw]

I agree, of course.


This is simply not true. It is not correct logic to argue thus (as you are doing):

1. Unless Fred does X, result Y will not be actualized.
2. Therefore Fred's doing of X is the most important thing in respect to actualizing result Y.

Sure it is. If y being actualized depends on Fred doing x then Fred doing x makes all the difference and is therefore the most important thing. Once more, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is simple logic and correct logic. Without Fred doing his part all the work that God has done is a usesless and pointless farce. It causes us to pity poor God who can't have His way because Fred must have his.

Remember the Chicago Cubs fan who reached out and caught a foul ball that a Cubs player could otherwise have caught? Suppose that if the fan had not interfered, the Cubs would have gone on to win the World Series. But instead, since the fan did interfere, the other team (lets say it was the Dodgers) went on to win the Series.

Does this make the fan's action "the most important" thing in the Dodger's winning the world series?

Of course not. The most important thing was the fact that the Dodgers won a lot of baseball games and were skilled baseball players.

The simple fact is that the fan catching the ball changed the course of the game. The Cubs never recovered after and in fact were winning the game up to that point. So yes it is clear that that one act of the fan was the most important thing that happened in the game. If he had not caught the ball would you still remember it? If the fan had not caught the ball and the Cubs had won the game, as they were playing well up to that point, the Dodgers would not have won the series.

You are still trying to argue that x cannot happen unless y takes place but x doesn't depend on y. It necessarily follows that if y must take place for x to be realized then x depends on y. If x depends on y then y is the most important ingredient. Take it to any logitian and he/she will tell you it is logically true.

 

[Drew]

Sure it is. If y being actualized depends on Fred doing x then Fred doing x makes all the difference and is therefore the most important thing.

This is simply not correct. It is true that if Fred does not do "X", then the result will not be actualized - no one is disputing this.

But it is simply not true that "Fred doing X" is the most important thing in relation to the result being actualized.

If Fred needs brain surgery -the most important factor is not Fred consenting to the surgery - it is the skill of the surgeon and / or the technology involved.

Maybe you define the "most important factor" to be any factor without which some result will not be achieved. Well that could lead to many "most important" things. I would say that the most important thing is the thing that "accomplishes the most in respect to overcoming obstacles and challenges in respect to getting the result you want".

So, it is not much of an accomplishment for Fred to consent to the surgery. On the other hand, it is very much an accomplishment - an addressing of significant challenges - to learn how to perform delicate surgery.

In the case of "salvation", I fully agree that if the person "rejects" the offer (on the free will view), then salvation is not achieved. But I suggest it is manifestly clear that what God does - dealing with sin on the cross - is much more of an accomplishment relevant to the end result of salvation. It "deals with more of the problem space" - it solves the lion's share of the problem.

You are still trying to argue that x cannot happen unless y takes place but x doesn't depend on y.

I have, of course, never said any such thing - please read my posts carefully.

It necessarily follows that if y must take place for x to be realized then x depends on y. If x depends on y then y is the most important ingredient. Take it to any logitian and he/she will tell you it is logically true.

I think you will be surprised if you talk to a "logician" - you are making the error of assuming that just because factor X is necessary to some outcome, it is the most important, among all other factors, relative to assuring that outcome. No expert will agree with this. It may be debatable as to how to measure importance, but, however "importance" ends up being measured, it is clear that just becuase a factor X is necessary for a result Y, this in and of itself does not automatically elevate it above other factors that might equally be necessary to achieve result Y, but in some "to be defined" sense, are, in fact, more "important".

 

[mlqurgw]

I was not applying the clear definition of what love is only to one sentence in your argument. I was applying it to your whole argument. I underlined and bold the last sentence of yours because it was the ending, and summation, of what you had put forth. Your last sentence clearly lets the reader know that you believe that God 'forces' His some people to love Him. It is argued by you throughout the whole of your post.

While it may be true that the last sentence could be considered a summation of my whole post it is still true that you ignored the actual points in it as concdentrated on just the last sentence because you felt you could deal with it. Deal with the points I made. If my premises are true then my conclusion is true. While it is possible to come to a wrong conclusion from true premises, which I didn't do, you must show how my conclusion is wrong from my premises. That is what true argument, as in debate not banter, is all about. My conclusions flow as logical necessities from my premises. My premises flow from a knowledge of the Scriptures gained through years of prayerful study. As I pointed out your application of 1Cor. 13 to the last sentence is a mis-application of the intent of 1Cor. 13 in its context. Love doesn't serve self interest or act selfishly. That is the intent of the verse and it cannot be denied. You ignored my example of a parent lovingly forcing its children and the rest of my post altogether.

The fact that Paul was defining love for one group of people does not make that definition any less applicable to anyone else. It is a definition. Plain and simple. It tells us that love does NOT insist on its own way. So, therefore, if God gives man a "will" to choose Him, then that means He does not "force" His love on us.

The question is when does God give that man a will to choose Him? Was it before or after He gave him life? More than that the Scriptures clearly tell us that God forces, with a compassionate loving force, in John 6:44. The word translated draw can be correctly translated force. You are building a fence around the word based on your own incorrect understanding of the word force. You want to confine it to a power that goes against the will but it doesn't fit your little box. God never forces against the will but makes the will desire to do as He pleases. What you have done is used a prooftext to support a pretext.

However, we see where there is no debate in the matter of His confinement of all under sin. He does indeed force us to that. But what do we know about this 'confinement'? Is it love?

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

So the wrath of God confined everything under sin. The LOVE of God gives faith to all and allows them to choose. The promise is then given to those who by faith choose to believe. Love does not 'force' us to believe in Christ for our sin payment.

Once more out of context. The wrath of God didn't confine everything under sin the righteousness of God did. The context of the passage makes it clear that the promise was even by the law not opposed to it. The context clearly shows us that the purpose of the law was to shut us up to Christ so that none could look to the law for righteousness.

Now show me in the Scriptures where God gives faith to us all. It just ain't in there. If God gives faith to all then all believe. The Scriptures are clear that faith is the gift of God and just as clear that not all have faith.

To say that man does not have a "choice" in salvation would then say that man does not have a choice in faith.

I am glad that you got that point.

We DO NOT have a choice in whether we will hear the word of faith, but our choice rests on our belief in that faith that is given.

So you would have folks have faith in their faith? That is what you describe and is what many do have. But faith in our faith is not saving faith. Faith in Christ is.

We either obey and come to Christ, or we disobey and deny Christ.

As fatr as hearing the Gospel this is true. How many have you known who have heard the Gospel all their lives and never gave it a thought until one day they heard it differently? Hearing with the ear is not the same as hearing with the heart. Faith in Christ comes by the revelation of God the Spirit. It doesn't come by a natursl hearing of the words of the Gospel. The Lord and Master made this point very clear in Matt. 16:16. What was Christ's answer to him. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Fahter which is in Heaven. And again in Matt. 11:27 whare Christ says that no man knows the Father but he to whom the Son reveals Him. I ask you to read the context of both passages and see for yourself that what I am saying is what they are teaching.

Either way, God stretches out His hand to us and give us the choice because of His love.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Rom 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

Rom 10:19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

Rom 10:21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

More out of contxt passages. First, the Israel that God is speaking to are a type of His chosen in all ages and He is speaking to His elect not all men without exeption. Context. Second, look up the passage that Paul is quoting. The Lord is speaking to a chosen people who are steeped in religious perversion. Just like all of His elect in this age. He is calling them out of their perverse religion. That is what Paul is saying in the context. Just because the passage uses the words held out my hands in no way means that God is holding out His hands to all men any more than it means that God has hands.



Now you may notice that I took the time to answer all of your post. Please be kind enough to reciprocate.

 

[Free]

Sure it is. If y being actualized depends on Fred doing x then Fred doing x makes all the difference and is therefore the most important thing. Once more, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is simple logic and correct logic. Without Fred doing his part all the work that God has done is a usesless and pointless farce. It causes us to pity poor God who can't have His way because Fred must have his.

You are still trying to argue that x cannot happen unless y takes place but x doesn't depend on y. It necessarily follows that if y must take place for x to be realized then x depends on y. If x depends on y then y is the most important ingredient. Take it to any logitian and he/she will tell you it is logically true.

If x depends on y and z or w,y and z, etc., then which is the most important?

 

[Nathan]

NH, the way I used the word "impotence" has nothing to do with sexual impotence. As I used it the word "impotence" is simply talking about Gods lack of power in deciding who will be saved.

Concerning the "Sovereignty of man" ... while you did not invent the phrase, or say those words, you have the same libertarian free will position as Alabaster. Where Alabaster is light years ahead of you is in that he recognizes that whoever had the "free will" is the one how is sovereign. That is very consistent of Alabaster. Of course I differ from Alabaster in that I think God has the real "Free will." I have been in these threads for over a year proclaiming the free will of God in salvation. I also proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation. They go together. You are far more inconsistent then Alabaster. You want to proclaim the "free will" of man and the sovereignty of God.

I agree with Alabasters assessment that whoever has the free will, that being is sovereign in salvation. I recognize the consistency of his statement. I not that you have the same libertarian free will position, you you begin all these moral accusations against me. NH, I think this is all a cover up for the fact that you cannot do theology or exegesis. You might be good at some other things, I don't know you.... but your not good at apologetics, theology, or exegesis. Go ahead and make your last accusations against me, say whatever you want. I do not intent to reply to any more of the nonsense your posting in this thread, its getting old and it does not do anything for anybody.

I am not looking for a direct response from you, but because you have once again brought me into the discussion with false accusations I will respond myself.

"Impotence" has everything to do with sexual things. If you want to make it out as a frivolous word that you used, then so be it. But the very definition of the word imply's a human sexual condition, and one that God is in no way capable of. If you feel fine with your use of it I am not going to try and make you view things only from my point of view. I just wanted to know if you saw it in the least bit as a crude remark against the one who died for you. Thats all.

Once again you have proceeded to tell a lie about me. It is one thing to make an derogatory statement toward someone with a supposition preceding the statement, but you take the liberty of directly placing me into a position that I have never once aligned myself with. You lie when you say;

you have the same libertarian free will position as Alabaster

It would be one thing if you preceded the statement with "you seem to", or "it looks like", but you still yet make an accusation that I have never stated. Again, if it is not a lie, then please provide proof that I have aligned myself with Alabaster. These are not accusations, they are direct statements of the truth of the matter.

I too believe in God's free will in salvation. I also believe that God is sovereign in salvation. My position is, however, to make it clear to all, and so that you can quote me for the truth of where I stand and not take me out of context;

"I believe that God has so chosen to make a plan for mankind in salvation. I believe that His free will has dictated that He gives man 'free will' in the choice of whether he(mankind) will choose to believe and live, or choose to not believe and die. I also, furthermore, believe that God and God alone is sovereign over salvation because I believe that He is Salvation. God has given man free will within the confines of two choices; belief or unbelief."

The fact that God allows man to choose or not choose to believe does not make Him any less sovereign. If He(God) purposed to give man the ability to choose, then as long as man chooses (which he does, regardless of whether he wants to or not) God remains sovereign in His plan of salvation. The simple fact alone that mankind either chooses or does not choose to believe in Jesus as the Christ, dictates that God is sovereign in His plan. Every man, woman, and child that has ever walked upon the face of the earth or ever will, has the responsibility and the "confinement" to choose one way or the other. Man's free will ends there. Man does NOT have the "free will" to walk in and out of salvation. He only has the choice between the two. And mankind HAS to choose between the two. I believe in 'free will' as it relates to man's choice as given to him by God's sovereign free will.

 

[Nathan]

While it may be true that the last sentence could be considered a summation of my whole post it is still true that you ignored the actual points in it as concdentrated on just the last sentence because you felt you could deal with it. Deal with the points I made. If my premises are true then my conclusion is true. While it is possible to come to a wrong conclusion from true premises, which I didn't do, you must show how my conclusion is wrong from my premises. That is what true argument, as in debate not banter, is all about. My conclusions flow as logical necessities from my premises. My premises flow from a knowledge of the Scriptures gained through years of prayerful study. As I pointed out your application of 1Cor. 13 to the last sentence is a mis-application of the intent of 1Cor. 13 in its context. Love doesn't serve self interest or act selfishly. That is the intent of the verse and it cannot be denied. You ignored my example of a parent lovingly forcing its children and the rest of my post altogether.

The question is when does God give that man a will to choose Him? Was it before or after He gave him life? More than that the Scriptures clearly tell us that God forces, with a compassionate loving force, in John 6:44. The word translated draw can be correctly translated force. You are building a fence around the word based on your own incorrect understanding of the word force. You want to confine it to a power that goes against the will but it doesn't fit your little box. God never forces against the will but makes the will desire to do as He pleases. What you have done is used a prooftext to support a pretext.

Once more out of context. The wrath of God didn't confine everything under sin the righteousness of God did. The context of the passage makes it clear that the promise was even by the law not opposed to it. The context clearly shows us that the purpose of the law was to shut us up to Christ so that none could look to the law for righteousness.

Now show me in the Scriptures where God gives faith to us all. It just ain't in there. If God gives faith to all then all believe. The Scriptures are clear that faith is the gift of God and just as clear that not all have faith.

I am glad that you got that point. So you would have folks have faith in their faith? That is what you describe and is what many do have. But faith in our faith is not saving faith. Faith in Christ is. As fatr as hearing the Gospel this is true. How many have you known who have heard the Gospel all their lives and never gave it a thought until one day they heard it differently? Hearing with the ear is not the same as hearing with the heart. Faith in Christ comes by the revelation of God the Spirit. It doesn't come by a natursl hearing of the words of the Gospel. The Lord and Master made this point very clear in Matt. 16:16. What was Christ's answer to him. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Fahter which is in Heaven. And again in Matt. 11:27 whare Christ says that no man knows the Father but he to whom the Son reveals Him. I ask you to read the context of both passages and see for yourself that what I am saying is what they are teaching. More out of contxt passages. First, the Israel that God is speaking to are a type of His chosen in all ages and He is speaking to His elect not all men without exeption. Context. Second, look up the passage that Paul is quoting. The Lord is speaking to a chosen people who are steeped in religious perversion. Just like all of His elect in this age. He is calling them out of their perverse religion. That is what Paul is saying in the context. Just because the passage uses the words held out my hands in no way means that God is holding out His hands to all men any more than it means that God has hands.



Now you may notice that I took the time to answer all of your post. Please be kind enough to reciprocate.

Am I the only one that see's others directly slapping me and my thoughts around in a personal manner? The purpose of a debate is to hear what the other one has to say, and then respond to it in a civil manner. No one will actually debate with you when you make yourself out to have the utmost knowledge of the subject and everyone else's thoughts are inferior. I will respond to your questions, but if all it is going to turn into is a 'verbal slapping contest' then I will quit this thread.

The question is when does God give that man a will to choose Him? Was it before or after He gave him life?

God gives man a will to choose Him or not, after giving him new life, but before eternal life. Jesus said;
Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

What do we know about the kingdom of God?

Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

Mat 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.

Mat 21:44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."

The builders were 'given' a stone. They rejected it. They had it, yet they 'decided' to not use it. Therefore it was 'taken away from them'. If man does not have a free will, then man cannot reject that which is given to him. That is, after all, what it seems like you guys are putting forth. It seems to me that you are making the statement that if God gives you something, then you have it and cannot either choose to accept it or deny it. It is yours. But yet we see that God gave them the 'cornerstone', yet they did not want it. So God took it away from them, and gave it to another.

Indeed, God does have to draw, or "drag off", the one whom He is calling to. There is no doubt about that. It is precisely what makes God sovereign in salvation. But what He does is then gives man a choice, after dragging him away from his udder darkness to light, to either live in that light or return to darkness.

Mat 4:13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,

Mat 4:14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

Mat 4:15 "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles--

Mat 4:16 the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

See, these people were presented with a choice. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. They had been brought into a great light. It was not of their own doing, it was all God's doing. They then had the choice to either repent or not too.


I seriously would be glad to address the rest of your questions and thoughts if you would please put them in an manner which I can understand them. I am unable to understand what you are exactly saying beyond this one thing. I cannot discern what your other questions are and what other ideas you are wishing to discuss. This is no offense to you, but a lack of understanding on my part.

 

[Nathan]

Let me pose a question for you.

Can mankind be called, chosen, and receive "life" without being given the kingdom of heaven?

Can those who have entered into the kingdom of heaven ever leave, or be thrown out?

 

[mlqurgw]

If x depends on y and z or w,y and z, etc., then which is the most important?

The one that completes the process. Let me give you an example: if I told you that I was going to build you a bicycle and put together the frame and the seat and the handlebars, sprocket and chain, gears and pedals but left it to you to put the wheels on the most important part would be you putting the wheels on. The other parts of the process are necessary but it isn't a bicycle until you put the wheels on. The whole process depends on you finishing the job by putting the wheels on. Until you put the wheels on it isn't really a bicycle but just a bunch of metal waiting for the finishing touch. If you don't finish it it is just a bunch of junk. It might be bright and shiny and pretty to look at but is of no value without the wheels.

 

[mlqurgw]

Let me pose a question for you.

Can mankind be called, chosen, and receive "life" without being given the kingdom of heaven?

No.

Can those who have entered into the kingdom of heaven ever leave, or be thrown out?

No.