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

[mlqurgw]

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.



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.

If I can I will get to this tonight. But be assured that I am in no way attacking you personally though I would give you a little advice. If you are going to participate in such things as goes on here, some might call it debate, then you need to grow a thicker skin. I have hide about 10 inches thick by now. I honestly don't take personal offense at anything said anymore.

 

[Drew]

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.

All true, but this is not a valid argument in support of the notion that, under a "free will" model, man's accepting salvation is the most important thing.

You seem to be repeating the same error: believing that just because something is necessary, it therefore is the most important thing.

Suppose that the New Orleans Saints would not have won the Super Bowl if a certain Saints receiver dropped a pass in the fourth quarter. So lets' be clear - they would have lost the game if that pass had been dropped.

But this does not make the fact that the player actually caught the ball the most important factor in winning the Super Bowl. There are plenty of factors which are more important, and all necessary as well:

- The Saints needed to get into the playoffs by winning a lot of games;
- The Saints needed to win their first playoff game;
- The Saints needed to win their second playoff game;
and on and on.

There are many factors one can identify such that if even one of these factors is not "satisfied", the Saints don't win the Super Bowl. But that does not make them all equally "important".

 

[mlqurgw]

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.

Sure it is if Fred doing x is the one thing that actualizes it. Everything depends on Fred doing x. Fred doing x is the final stage and all that came before is pointless unless he does it. What if God provided a salvation but no one accepted it? That salvation would be a usesless and pointless act of God. Not because God didn't do His part perfectly but because man refused to accept it and make it worth something. Man's acceptance becomes the most important part because it actualizes all that God did. It has no real effect or usefulness otherwise. It was an excercise in futility. Man's acceptance makes all the difference. Man's acceptance gives meaning, purpose and reality to the work of God. Therefore it is the most important thing.

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.

Not if Fred doesn't consent to the surgery. The skill of the surgeon and the technology is pointless for Fred unless he consents to the surgery. So to Fred his decision is the most important thing. You simply can't argue around that fact.

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".

No I define the most important factor as being the one that brings together all that took place in order to complete anything. All the skill and all the knowledge and all the planning and all the effort depends on that one thing that makes it all come together as a whole and "actualizes" it.

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.

It may not have taken as much skill or be an accomplishment in the overall scheme but it neverthelessbecome the most important factor in that none of the skill or accomplishments of ths surgeons is useful until Fred makes the decision. Importance doesn't necessarilly come from skill or accomplishment but by need. A man's skill or accomplishments are not what makes him important but how much he is needed. The skill involved or the knowldge and work that goes into making a laser for medical use is not what makes it important but how much it it needed. In your scheme all the accomplishments and work of God on Fred's behalf are useless until Fred makes them so by his acceptance. Fred's acceptance is the needful thing.

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.

The "lion's share" isn't what makes it important as I have explained. Though none of it could take place without it Fred's little part is what is most needed to actually accomplish the end or object. Fred's little part is what makes it whole and completes the whole.

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

I have read your posts carefully and though you may deny it it is what you are arguing. Of course you haven't said it outrtight but it is the conclusion to what you have posited.

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".

Only by your definition. I challenge you to take it to a logicain and find out.

 

[mlqurgw]

All true, but this is not a valid argument in support of the notion that, under a "free will" model, man's accepting salvation is the most important thing.

You seem to be repeating the same error: believing that just because something is necessary, it therefore is the most important thing.

Suppose that the New Orleans Saints would not have won the Super Bowl if a certain Saints receiver dropped a pass in the fourth quarter. So lets' be clear - they would have lost the game if that pass had been dropped.

But this does not make the fact that the player actually caught the ball the most important factor in winning the Super Bowl. There are plenty of factors which are more important, and all necessary as well:

- The Saints needed to get into the playoffs by winning a lot of games;
- The Saints needed to win their first playoff game;
- The Saints needed to win their second playoff game;
and on and on.

There are many factors one can identify such that if even one of these factors is not "satisfied", the Saints don't win the Super Bowl. But that does not make them all equally "important".

I am repeating the same argument becaue you aren't getting it. You are repeating the same argument because you think I am not. In the whole course of the Saints winning the Super Bowl the player catching the ball was only one part of the whole but if he had dropped the ball it would then become the most important. It changed the whole outcome. That has been the point I have been trying to drive home to you. It isn't a matter of is it just a part of the whole but how it affects the whole.

 

[Nathan]

If I can I will get to this tonight. But be assured that I am in no way attacking you personally though I would give you a little advice. If you are going to participate in such things as goes on here, some might call it debate, then you need to grow a thicker skin. I have hide about 10 inches thick by now. I honestly don't take personal offense at anything said anymore.

I hear you. I do. And although its not a direct attack, like you are physically beating me over the head, it is a 'jab' none the less. And while I choose not to let it effect me in a 'personal' way, it does have a view of unchristian like behavior.

Christ never 'insulted' others in a derogatory manner, or sarcastically. That is precisely what has happened to me in this thread. And while I do not personally take offense, I do take offense for the sake of those reading the thread.

Honestly, what kind of image of Christianity does it send forth when people cannot engage in deep discussions without accusing one and the other of things that are not true or could be in anyway taken personal?

 

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by nathanielhooper
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.

Ok then. Please explain this.

Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,

Mat 13:25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.

Mat 13:26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.

Mat 13:27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'

Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'

Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"



Mat 13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."

Mat 13:37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.

Mat 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,

Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.

Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

And explain this one, please.

Mat 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And last but not least, please explain this. Tell me why He would give something to someone, and then take it back and cast out the one whom He had given the thing too.

Mat 25:14 "For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.

Mat 25:15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

Mat 25:16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more.

Mat 25:17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.

Mat 25:18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.

Mat 25:19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

Mat 25:20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.'

Mat 25:21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

Mat 25:22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.'

Mat 25:23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

Mat 25:24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,

Mat 25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'

Mat 25:26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?

Mat 25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.

Mat 25:28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.

Mat 25:29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Mat 25:30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

 

[Nathan]

See, there are many more accounts of people being "cast out". If they are cast out, then that means they were "in" whatever it is they are being cast out of.

 

[mlqurgw]

Ok then. Please explain this.

Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,

Mat 13:25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.

Mat 13:26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.

Mat 13:27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'

Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'

Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"



Mat 13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."

Mat 13:37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.

Mat 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,

Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.

Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

And explain this one, please.

Mat 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And last but not least, please explain this. Tell me why He would give something to someone, and then take it back and cast out the one whom He had given the thing too.

Mat 25:14 "For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.

Mat 25:15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

Mat 25:16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more.

Mat 25:17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.

Mat 25:18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.

Mat 25:19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

Mat 25:20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.'

Mat 25:21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

Mat 25:22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.'

Mat 25:23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

Mat 25:24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,

Mat 25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'

Mat 25:26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?

Mat 25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.

Mat 25:28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.

Mat 25:29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Mat 25:30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

And how was this not a trap? I suspected you were setting me up, remember you did this once before. I may answer but I may not. I am not in the habit of encourageing such behavior.

 

[Nathan]

And how was this not a trap? I suspected you were setting me up, remember you did this once before. I may answer but I may not. I am not in the habit of encourageing such behavior.

I am aware that you have previously thought you were being 'trapped'. This, however, was not such a case and neither was the other time. A trap would indicate that I was 'luring' you into a thought process and then changed my direction of what I was talking about. Thereby leaving you thinking one thing while doing another.

You know, or at least I have made it abundantly clear, of my possition on this subject. I simply asked you what you thought about this topic, how it relates to the 'free will' of man even after being given faith, which without no man can enter the kingdom. The questions I asked were not vague or misleading. They were direct.

Is your answers different now that you see these passages? Did I missquote the passages? Are they not available for you to study? Did I force you to answer before you had a chance to read the Bible?

Then this was not a trap. Again, just another false acusation against me personally and not a discussion about the topic on hand.

 

[Nathan]

What this does is give yet another bit of evidence to the fact that God has given the ability to man in choosing between Him and Satan. What I will always say, however, is that man is limited by those two choices. There are no other choices beyond these two. And the choices are still yet available even after the new birth. God never takes away mans free will that HE gives them. Which ultimately makes God sovereign over ALL things.