The Elect Hear The Voice Of The Shepherd.

[OzSpen]

I'd like to make one more point on the infancy narrative in St. Luke's Gospel (as well as St. Matthew's) that's worth considering. Given these accounts were written after the actual occurrence of the event, along with the fact that neither St. Luke nor St. Matthew were present when they occurred, the only possible source for these narratives was Mary herself, the great Mother of God.

"But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."

Walpole,

I'm not of that view with regard to Luke's Gospel. He tells us how he obtained his information:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).​

So Luke obtained his information from eyewitnesses who handed down the information. This generally meant by oral tradition.

It is interesting to observe the language of Luke:

• 'carefully investigated everything from the beginning'. He was an excellent researcher.
  
• 'to write an orderly account for you'.
• 'you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught'.

Then there is prophetic insight from the OT such as Isa 7:14 (NIV), 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel'.

I consider it is reading into the text to state:

'the only possible source for these narratives was Mary herself, the great Mother of God'.​

Oz

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

Do you think that is genuine free will or manipulated free will by God?

I consider there is another alternative and that surrounds our definition of free will.

Simply stated, the nature of human free will or of human free choice is, according to Norman Geisler, ‘the power of contrary choice’ (Geisler 2003:444). This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

This was demonstrated under the Old Covenant with examples such as:

• Adam & Eve had the genuine choice of eating or not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; 3:1-7).
• In the time of Joshua we see this 'power of contrary choice' as free will: '
• ‘Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshipped beyond the River Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord’ (Josh 24:14-15 NIV)
• We can go throughout the OT and find the same emphasis of genuine free will choices given to human beings. See my article: What is the nature of human free will?
• In the NT there are verses such as Matt 23:37 (NIV), '‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing'.
• Acts 16:31 (NIV), 'They replied, ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’

The view of human free will, the power of contrary choice, is not only evident when I choose Pepsi over Coke, It's at the core of Christian commitment. Paul and Silas answered the Philippian jailer's question, 'What must I do to be saved?' with a free will response, 'You believe'.

However, salvation is provided by the Lord (Eph 2:8-9) but that doesn't exclude saying 'yes' or 'no' to Jesus' offer.

Oz

Works consulted:
Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

The term the power of contrary choice isn't any different in meaning than free will. It isn't a different argument or a defining argument it is same thing, different words. So it doesn't change or clarify anything. Just makes it seem like he put a lot of profound thought into it. It is not an alternative take on free will.
I do not think we have a free will manipulated by God. And---I do not think we have a will that is absolutely free. Our will is SUBJECT to God. He may allow us to do what we will, until He doesn't. And whatever He allows us to do those things are working towards His purposes in the big picture I.e. things we can't see except sometimes in hindsight.

Here is an example from my own life. I lived the first 35 years of my life as a non Christian. I did a lot of things I shouldn't, made a lot of bad decision, made mistakes. In hindsight I can see that even in those things He was leading and preparing me towards/for salvation. He was teaching me wisdom, giving me strength to be who I needed to be. He even allowed me to search for the truth in all the wrong places so that I came to believe that if I found truth I wouldn't have anyway to verify it. So that when I did hear the truth, well I had heard it from my brother or seven years and didn't believe it. So it wasn't when I FIRST heard it. It was after God did something in me that I KNEW I HAD FOUND THE TRUTH. And yes, I thought I made a choice and I adhered to free will for next 21 years.
Or how about this one. God allowed the Pharisees and the chief priests and the Romans to do despicable things to Jesus because it fulfilled His purpose. God did not make them do it, they were following their own evil desire (will). Yet God also ordained it. So when you figure out that paradox----. But you can see all those things coexist. Our will being allowed by God but not free utterly, God ordaining, in this case the crucifixion by the very people involved, and the people freely FOLLOWING their own will.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, I accidentally cut myself off. There is no reason for these two sides to be constantly at war over these issues. I've said it before elsewhere and I'll say it again. If you make the choice for Jesus, you are saved. If the reason you made that choice is because God, because you are one of the elect, made you willing and able to make that choice, you are saved. Why fight about it?

Reformed05,

There are some people from Operation 513 who engage in evangelism every 2 weeks on Saturday at Redcliffe Qld, about 20 mins from where I live.

With the Calvinistic Reformed position, these people can't honestly say, after presenting the Gospel, 'Please believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved'. Why? They don't have God's cream colour of the sheep of the elect on them. In addition, Jesus may not have died for them because of limited atonement.

John 3:16 becomes redundant.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The term the power of contrary choice isn't any different in meaning than free will.

Reformed05,

That's exactly what I posted: 'This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

However, it seems to be contrary to your view of 'free will'. Or am I assuming too much. Do you believe that is a place for free will in salvation?

Oz

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

That's exactly what I posted: 'This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

However, it seems to be contrary to your view of 'free will'. Or am I assuming too much. Do you believe that is a place for free will in salvation?

Oz

Not in salvation or anywhere really. I must not be making my explanations clear. God may ALLOW us to exercise our will freely, but our will is ALWAYS SUBJECT to God. Therefore it is not ABSOLUTELY free. And again, that is only stating my belief.

 

[jerry63935]

for me personally i see free will all through scriptures .starting in the garden of eden GOD gave specific instructions. adam and eve both chose to listen to the serpent and both chose to eat. God had to make covering for them by animal skins. first shedding of blood for the remission of sin. in the n.t the thief on the cross remember me.. in romans i the whoso ever. even the jailer good sirs what must i do to be saved. to be clear free will is NOT picking the time or place on your own to be saved . the spirit has to draw if the Holy spirit is not in it. then there is a miscarriage at the altar . this is why i am against mass altar calls. come up here say this prayer repeat after me. i believe in Holy Ghost conviction .that is my belief

 

[OzSpen]

Not in salvation or anywhere really. I must not be making my explanations clear. God may ALLOW us to exercise our will freely, but our will is ALWAYS SUBJECT to God. Therefore it is not ABSOLUTELY free. And again, that is only stating my belief.

Reformed05,

• It was absolutely free for the Israelites to choose to worship idols or the Lord God (Josh 24:15).
• Free will was absolutely free for the people of Jerusalem to reject Jesus. They were not willing to come to him (Matt 23:37).
• For the Philippian jailer and his household, they chose to believe, on the instruction of Paul and Silas, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Ac 16:31).

You are stating your belief as the above Scriptures contradict your belief.

Oz

 

[jerry63935]

You are stating your belief as the above Scriptures contradict your belief.

i dont know about this i was listening to a program this afternoon. said you shall receive power after the Holyghost has come up on you. was speaking in tongues ..that is not so . is there a gift of tongues yes is that your spiritual power? no . i only use this as a example.. if she has studied her belief out . the same as all of us we all cant be right .i believe this is here paul wrote for us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling... we all have our beliefs. BTW i am by far calvinist

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

There are some people from Operation 513 who engage in evangelism every 2 weeks on Saturday at Redcliffe Qld, about 20 mins from where I live.

With the Calvinistic Reformed position, these people can't honestly say, after presenting the Gospel, 'Please believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved'. Why? They don't have God's cream colour of the sheep of the elect on them. In addition, Jesus may not have died for them because of limited atonement.

John 3:16 becomes redundant.

Oz

Oz

I don't know what you mean by God's cream color of the sheep on them. I assume you mean God has not visibly marked them so the pastor knows who the elect are. If I'm wrong, sorry.

The pastor doesn't need to know who they are. I sum up the purpose of preaching the Gospel by Romans 10:"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?"

If the good news that Jesus saves, that He is the Son God, son of man, that He lived a sinless life and died the death of a sinner as a propitiation for the sins of those who believe on Him. If our need for Him and why is made clear, then certainly they can say, believe on the Lord and you will be saved. Why couldn't they?
The Reformed position on evangelizing is this: the Gospel should be preached to all because Jesus says to do that. The elect will hear and respond at some point because they have been given "ears to hear." The Reformed preacher, in theory anyway, does not concern himself with the who or the how many. It is above his pay grade. That is God's field.
I'm sure some Reformed preachers or evangelists preach from the standpoint of predestination or the elect. I would never do that and I feel it is unwise. People have an instinctive and volatile reaction to it with zero understanding. Even non Reformed Christians.

I did myself but I kept investigating. To preach from that premise is not necessary. All we need to do in evangelizing is tell people about Jesus, preferably not in a superficial way or in regard to felt needs. We should tell about the real Jesus. Who He is, what He did, why we need Him, which is to be saved from the wrath of God. God will take care of the rest. Reformed view, not everyones.

Incidentally, the altar call has only been for a couple hundred years. Came into popularity after the second Great Awakening.

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

• It was absolutely free for the Israelites to choose to worship idols or the Lord God (Josh 24:15).
• Free will was absolutely free for the people of Jerusalem to reject Jesus. They were not willing to come to him (Matt 23:37).
• For the Philippian jailer and his household, they chose to believe, on the instruction of Paul and Silas, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Ac 16:31).

You are stating your belief as the above Scriptures contradict your belief.

Oz

No it doesn't contradict! The reference to the OT is dealing with a nation covenant, a land covenant, a bilateral covenant God made with Israel. It was not dealing with salvation. They could choose to disobey because God set that choice before them. He ALLOWED them to do what they desired to do, willed to do.

In Matt. 23 choice was not the subject but all the same can you at least wrap your head around the possibility that God ALLOWED them to make the choices they made. Remember the Bible from beginning to end is advancing God's plan of redemption and the way it played out was ALL according to His plan. Nobody made any choice that changed any of it. We are creatures, God is our Creator. We are His subjects and so are our WILLS.
Seriously. Are we going to do this again because I'm not.

 

[Boaz]

for me personally i see free will all through scriptures .starting in the garden of eden GOD gave specific instructions. adam and eve both chose to listen to the serpent and both chose to eat. God had to make covering for them by animal skins. first shedding of blood for the remission of sin. in the n.t the thief on the cross remember me.. in romans i the whoso ever. even the jailer good sirs what must i do to be saved. to be clear free will is NOT picking the time or place on your own to be saved . the spirit has to draw if the Holy spirit is not in it. then there is a miscarriage at the altar . this is why i am against mass altar calls. come up here say this prayer repeat after me. i believe in Holy Ghost conviction .that is my belief

Adam and Eve actually had free will. They are the reason we don't.

 

[jerry63935]

Adam and Eve actually had free will. They are the reason we don't.

not sure i can agree with you on that

 

[Walpole]

Walpole,

I'm not of that view with regard to Luke's Gospel. He tells us how he obtained his information:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).​

So Luke obtained his information from eyewitnesses who handed down the information. This generally meant by oral tradition.

It is interesting to observe the language of Luke:

• 'carefully investigated everything from the beginning'. He was an excellent researcher.
  
• 'to write an orderly account for you'.
• 'you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught'.

Then there is prophetic insight from the OT such as Isa 7:14 (NIV), 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel'.

I consider it is reading into the text to state:

'the only possible source for these narratives was Mary herself, the great Mother of God'.​

Oz

What eyewitness do you think observed Gabriel's visit to Mary and that extraordinary encounter at Nazareth?

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

• It was absolutely free for the Israelites to choose to worship idols or the Lord God (Josh 24:15).
• Free will was absolutely free for the people of Jerusalem to reject Jesus. They were not willing to come to him (Matt 23:37).
• For the Philippian jailer and his household, they chose to believe, on the instruction of Paul and Silas, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Ac 16:31).

You are stating your belief as the above Scriptures contradict your belief.

Oz

YOU are USING those scripture a contradict me.

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

• It was absolutely free for the Israelites to choose to worship idols or the Lord God (Josh 24:15).
• Free will was absolutely free for the people of Jerusalem to reject Jesus. They were not willing to come to him (Matt 23:37).
• For the Philippian jailer and his household, they chose to believe, on the instruction of Paul and Silas, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Ac 16:31).

You are stating your belief as the above Scriptures contradict your belief.

Oz

Oz
I understand that you hate Reformed Theology and that is your right and I have no problem with it. It actually appears that you pay no attention to anything I say even when I answer a question you have asked. You always respond with a contradiction of my BELIEFS. You use the Bible to do it. That won't work with me because I INTERPRET those scriptures differently. You are not the final supreme judge on correct interpretation. It seems you have a vendetta against people who believe differently than you. I have never attracted your BELIEFS. That is all you have ever done to me. I have merely explained mine to you (which you ignore). Maybe you should try having a conversation without trying to PROVE your way is the right way. Needed to get that off my chest. Peace and blessing be with you.
Reformed

 

[Christ_empowered]

im not deep into theology, but i lean towards a TULIP-style understanding of salvation.

look outside, at the world around us...when Billy Graham, for instance, went on crusades and such and so many people in the moment declared their love for Jesus and said "Yes!" to Our Lord...

how many of those individuals ended up genuinely converted and changed? A low %, no doubt. Was it...Billy Graham's fault? The believe-for-a-moment person's fault, for failing to cling to faith? Or, maybe...

The Parable of the Sower comes to mind. Seeds take hold, grow strong and well-rooted in --good soil-- . Who has such good soil? My view...

the seeds of Truth bear fruit in God's Elect. maybe not immediately, maybe not evenly...but over time...

Christ's atonement is sufficient to save and redeem all who are called by God.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz
I understand that you hate Reformed Theology and that is your right and I have no problem with it. It actually appears that you pay no attention to anything I say even when I answer a question you have asked. You always respond with a contradiction of my BELIEFS. You use the Bible to do it. That won't work with me because I INTERPRET those scriptures differently. You are not the final supreme judge on correct interpretation. It seems you have a vendetta against people who believe differently than you. I have never attracted your BELIEFS. That is all you have ever done to me. I have merely explained mine to you (which you ignore). Maybe you should try having a conversation without trying to PROVE your way is the right way. Needed to get that off my chest. Peace and blessing be with you.
Reformed

That is false. I don't 'hate Reformed Theology'. I reject the Scripture twisting it engages in.

 

[OzSpen]

What eyewitness do you think observed Gabriel's visit to Mary and that extraordinary encounter at Nazareth?

You missed my points. Luke didn't only use eyewitnesses. He used researched evidence handed down to him.

 

[OzSpen]

YOU are USING those scripture a contradict me.

Of course I am because they contradict Reformed theology.

 

[Walpole]

It takes a lot of ridicule to compare Reformed and Islamic in that / fashion as though they are the same or related. Where in Reformed Theology, or Calvinism as you call it, do they say or imply that God forced Himself on Mary against her will? You must just be ASSUMING they DO think that because of your misunderstanding and bias. I'm pretty sure we don't

Lest you think I am ridiculing you, here's an easy test:

---> Was Mary free to say no to Gabriel?