What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

What according to you is 'freewill'? What is the difference between 'freewill' and just 'will', if at all any?

Maybe 'will' can be defined as the capacity to want something.
'Freewill' would be the unhindered fulfillment of what you want.

Today I can will to be in India all I want (I live in the US). But it's clear that will to be in India is not 'free' because I can't even afford to leave the county, lol.

And does our being "in the flesh" or "in the spirit" affect our 'freewill' in any way?

No question about it. You may will and want a lot of things, but depending on whether you are in the flesh or not, determines if that will is free and can actually fulfill what 'will' wants to do.

If 'election' simply means 'choosing' - how have you come to the conclusion that God only 'chooses' the means of salvation to be through faith in Christ(as the Church) - AND NOT also 'choose' whom to save into that Church at an individual level? What is the basis for you believing it cannot be Both?

Thanks.

I see the burden of choice on the individual in the Bible...at the times when God gives man 'free' will. And I see man being responsible for the choice he makes at these great crossroads of 'free' will he brings us to. God then confines personal choice to certain boundaries depending on how we handle those moments in time when he enables our will to become 'free'.

Let me point out that I think it's important to not automatically think 'predetermined' when you think of 'election'. Election means being chosen, but we're so indoctrinated to instantly think 'predetermined' when we hear that word. That, IMO, is the place where the church goes wrong in this matter.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If God knew who wouldn't respond to the Gospel before He even created them - to what purpose did He still go ahead and create them?

Paul answers this in Romans 9...

"22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (Romans 9:22-23 NIV)

IOW, he went ahead and patiently let people be born into the world he knew ahead of time would not choose righteousness when given the unhindered will to do so in order to make the glory of his salvation all the more glorious to those who would.

That speaks of an assuring promise, exuding power from only a God in control. But how could God make such a powerful promise if He anyway is not in control of who will believe into the Kingdom and who won't - what if none believed into the kingdom, out of their own 'freewill'?

Because he knew ahead of time their would be people who would choose to dwell in a kingdom of righteousness.

Then this above statement is not actually an active promised declaration of what God will do,preserve and fulfill - rather it is a passive sharing of His foreknowledge of what men would do?

It's not as passive as you're suggesting. Think about it like the very real potential of a fertile flowerbed, but a potential that can only be realized by the purposeful intervention of the gardener.

The statement could easily have been "The Kingdom will be a total failure, for I've foreseen that no single man shall believe of his own 'freewill'", where God couldn't have altered that outcome - or could He have?

If this is the case for whatever plans and purposes that God could have done but which could not possibly succeed because of man, God would simply not even pursue the course of those plans. But as it is, he knows the outcome of a plan to raise up a nation of obedient followers...so he did it. That's why the grand plan of God is not to raise up a nation of people who can and will live for God in their own strength. He knows already that will have zero results, so he didn't put that plan forth as a promise for man.

 

[ivdavid]

You may will and want a lot of things, but depending on whether you are in the flesh or not, determines if that will is free and can actually fulfill what 'will' wants to do.

Are you saying here that "man has no 'freewill' as long as he's in the flesh"? Because that's something I'd say myself. As a corollary, I'd also say, "man's 'free' to fulfill all his godly desires only when he's not in the flesh ie when he's in the spirit" - would you agree with that too?

I see the burden of choice on the individual in the Bible...at the times when God gives man 'free' will. And I see man being responsible for the choice he makes at these great crossroads of 'free' will he brings us to.

Is this restriction because of you already holding a premise that "man cannot be held responsible for what he is not 'free' to fulfill"? I see the Bible teaching otherwise. Laws impose responsibility and yet are based on ideals and not the abilities of those under the law - as long as the Law Giver Himself isn't the cause of any inability. Hence God could demand adherence to His Law of Works and hold people responsible to it even though none had the ability to fulfill it, thereby holding them all under the curse of the law where each one now required redemption in Christ alone. This scenario establishes human responsibility without 'freewill', doesn't it?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are you saying here that "man has no 'freewill' as long as he's in the flesh"? Because that's something I'd say myself.

I am saying that. The Bible is clear that we become slaves to whatever we obey.

As a corollary, I'd also say, "man's 'free' to fulfill all his godly desires only when he's not in the flesh ie when he's in the spirit" - would you agree with that too?

I agree.

Is this restriction because of you already holding a premise that "man cannot be held responsible for what he is not 'free' to fulfill"? I see the Bible teaching otherwise.

Yes, but not because he is not free to fulfill it, but because at the proverbial crossroads of decision, when the choice was opened up for him to choose rightly, he did not. And as a result was turned back over to the bondage of spiritual darkness, and condemned for it.

Laws impose responsibility and yet are based on ideals and not the abilities of those under the law - as long as the Law Giver Himself isn't the cause of any inability.

But God is the cause of that inability when that person refuses the offer of righteousness when it is made to them. He turns them over to, and hardens them in, the choice they make for unrighteousness and they are condemned as a result. In fact, he turns them over so they can be condemned.

Hence God could demand adherence to His Law of Works and hold people responsible to it even though none had the ability to fulfill it, thereby holding them all under the curse of the law where each one now required redemption in Christ alone. This scenario establishes human responsibility without 'freewill', doesn't it?

But you're forgetting that it is sin itself that put man in the bondage of sin and not have the ability to fulfill the law.

Like Adam, each one of us chose to sin and become slaves to sin and earned the penalty for now not being able to fulfill the law.

 

[ivdavid]

It's not as passive as you're suggesting. Think about it like the very real potential of a fertile flowerbed, but a potential that can only be realized by the purposeful intervention of the gardener.

Good analogy to express your position. I know all analogies are limited when it comes to capturing God - so tell me when I cross the limits of applying this analogy.

Anyway, within what I think are the boundaries of this analogy, I feel you're missing my point. Granted, the gardener does a lot of intervening and caring of the "fertile" flowerbed and in that he is due credit and glory. But what did the gardener declare earlier - "this flowerbed will have many beautiful flowers". Now analyse all the direct and indirect causative factors that could influence the outcome of this declaration. The gardener's working on the flowerbed is one major causative factor - which we're assured the gardener shall fulfill - no doubts there.

Another key factor would be the actual growth of these plants - to construct in the language of our discussion, each plant has to 'freely choose' to grow or not in the first place after which it can be looked after carefully by the gardener. Now you're saying that this gardener foreknew that this flowerbed would have many plants that would 'choose' to grow - hence he took up the task of actually growing this flowerbed. But what of the scenario where none of the plants "chose" to grow - yes, as you say, the gardener would not 'plan' to grow such a flowerbed but what other alternative does he then have? He has foreseen that none of the plants would "choose" to grow - and he can't do anything about it, despite all his intervening around them(for he can't intervene in their 'free' choice to first grow) - so he's helplessly stuck without a flowerbed and without an opportunity to declare anything with authority. He just ended up lucky that that wasn't the scenario currently. Have I misstated anything here?

Contrast this with a gardener who says - "I not only plant and water, I also give growth to the plants. I first purpose in myself and decree that this flowerbed will have many beautiful flowers". And then he sets about fulfilling that, with no external dependencies or causative factors that could thwart his plan. Is not this gardener more in control and more worthy of our admiration?

That's why the grand plan of God is not to raise up a nation of people who can and will live for God in their own strength. He knows already that will have zero results, so he didn't put that plan forth as a promise for man.

You're here referring to how a nation of people will live for God after they have been "raised" - whether on their own strength or not. I've not gotten that far yet. At the first stages itself, God's raising such a nation of people is dependent on each one's individual "free choice" to be part of such a nation or not, right? What if there were none who chose to be part of this nation - what happens to God's grand plan then - and what alternative can He draw up if He decides to discard this plan? Doesn't He get stuck at this point? Isn't He then merely lucky to not have such a scenario crashing His plan? How do you reconcile this with the much more powerful and glorious God of the Bible?

 

[ivdavid]

Yes, but not because he is not free to fulfill it, but because at the proverbial crossroads of decision, when the choice was opened up for him to choose rightly, he did not. And as a result was turned back over to the bondage of spiritual darkness, and condemned for it.

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin - where each man now is born with sin in his flesh, hence with the inability to obey in the flesh - such inherited sin being the consequence of what this man himself would have inevitably chosen had he been in Adam's place, thereby being represented by Adam concerning this "free crossroad decision"?

Like Adam, each one of us chose to sin and become slaves to sin and earned the penalty for now not being able to fulfill the law.

Is that a coincidence or an inevitable result? Is it coincidence that every single created man on earth has chosen to sin or is this a lesson taught by God that the flesh is inevitably corruptible and profits nothing? Is there a theoretical possibility for a person to be born say 10 years from now who might choose not to sin? If so, God's declaration of Christ being the sole means of salvation would be refuted - hence we'd backtrack and say that God declared Christ as the sole means of salvation based on His getting lucky with the outcome of this plan? For if there was even a single man who would have chosen right, God's declaration would be refuted - and then what happens to that plan or any other alternate plan?

But God is the cause of that inability when that person refuses the offer of righteousness when it is made to them. He turns them over to, and hardens them in, the choice they make for unrighteousness and they are condemned as a result. In fact, he turns them over so they can be condemned.

But you're forgetting that it is sin itself that put man in the bondage of sin and not have the ability to fulfill the law.

In both your above statements, you've mentioned a different cause for man's inability. I'd go with the second statement, where "sin" is the cause. God turning man over isn't His intrinsic intervention into man's nature and choices, right? He simply withholds His restraining hand - which is not at all causative. It still is "sin in the flesh" that causes the inability to obey.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...within what I think are the boundaries of this analogy, I feel you're missing my point. Granted, the gardener does a lot of intervening and caring of the "fertile" flowerbed and in that he is due credit and glory. But what did the gardener declare earlier - "this flowerbed will have many beautiful flowers". Now analyse all the direct and indirect causative factors that could influence the outcome of this declaration. The gardener's working on the flowerbed is one major causative factor - which we're assured the gardener shall fulfill - no doubts there.

If the gardener knew ahead of time that "this flower bed will NOT have any beautiful flowers" he would not have pursued any plan or purpose regarding that flowerbed. But God knows ahead of time that's not true in regard to the plan of salvation he has declared to the world. That's why he did it.

You're arguing that because God can do anything he can make a bold declaration of something coming to pass simply because all he has to do is make it happen. I'm arguing that he can make a bold declaration about the church because he already knows what will happen. Remember, we're talking about human will here, not creating things, which your argument most certainly applies to.

Another key factor would be the actual growth of these plants - to construct in the language of our discussion, each plant has to 'freely choose' to grow or not in the first place after which it can be looked after carefully by the gardener. Now you're saying that this gardener foreknew that this flowerbed would have many plants that would 'choose' to grow - hence he took up the task of actually growing this flowerbed.

Yes.

Contrast that with the plan he did not do...to grow a flower bed where each flower is completely responsible for it's own growth. 'Taint gonna happen. Never will happen. So God didn't go there.

But what of the scenario where none of the plants "chose" to grow - yes, as you say, the gardener would not 'plan' to grow such a flowerbed but what other alternative does he then have? He has foreseen that none of the plants would "choose" to grow - and he can't do anything about it, despite all his intervening around them(for he can't intervene in their 'free' choice to first grow) - so he's helplessly stuck without a flowerbed and without an opportunity to declare anything with authority. He just ended up lucky that that wasn't the scenario currently. Have I misstated anything here?

Yes, you seem to missing the concept of him being able to know ahead of time if people he creates will respond favorably when free will is opened up to them and will choose in and of their own will to come under the control and confines of righteousness. He knows without a doubt that would happen--Jesus Christ being the very reason why he can do what he has done with confidence.

Contrast this with a gardener who says - "I not only plant and water, I also give growth to the plants. I first purpose in myself and decree that this flowerbed will have many beautiful flowers". And then he sets about fulfilling that, with no external dependencies or causative factors that could thwart his plan. Is not this gardener more in control and more worthy of our admiration?

NO! Big deal, so God creates people who will obey him against their will. Isn't the greater more honorable thing that he can influence man's will to submit to him of their own volition? That's a much more praise worthy thing.

This may well be the centerpiece of the whole argument (besides the fact that the Bible shows us man has free will to choose good or evil when given the free will to do so). If God simply created good and evil people by their very design as he chooses and we can't do anything about it then this life is a cruel and meaningless joke.

You're here referring to how a nation of people will live for God after they have been "raised" - whether on their own strength or not. I've not gotten that far yet. At the first stages itself, God's raising such a nation of people is dependent on each one's individual "free choice" to be part of such a nation or not, right?

Yes...when offered that choice. IOW, when their will does is in fact enabled to be 'free' will (unhindered) and they can choose righteousness. If they choose not to, they are turned back into the bondage of a will controlled by wickedness. If they choose to, they are brought into the slavery and bondage of righteousness, their wills then operating in those confines of the rat's maze.

What if there were none who chose to be part of this nation - what happens to God's grand plan then - and what alternative can He draw up if He decides to discard this plan?

It's purely theoretical. He simply would not put a plan in motion that he knew has no outcome according to what he's trying to do. Salvation being completely and utterly on the merit of man's goodness being a perfect example. That's a plan doomed right from the get-go. So God didn't go there.

Doesn't He get stuck at this point? Isn't He then merely lucky to not have such a scenario crashing His plan?

But luck supposes that God did not know ahead of time what the outcome would be. But we know that it is impossible for God to not know everything. How do you roll the dice when you know everything there is to know about absolutely everything?

How do you reconcile this with the much more powerful and glorious God of the Bible?

Like I say, it's waaaaay more to his glory that he can influence man's will in a just and righteous and loving manner, not pre-program man's will ahead of time so he looks good. Think about it.

The real glory of God is his love, not that he can make things out of nothing. God is glorified by what he does through his attribute of love, not so much by how many mountains he can make.

 

[Chopper]

This thread of allenwynne's certainly has drawn a lot of opinions, Scriptural quotations, Truth and error. When allenwynne made his title of the thread, I think he had in mind that we look at a forest called election and describe it. Example: This forest is made up of willow trees, oak trees, maple trees, palm trees, etc. What I see happening here is not identifying the forest, but identifying the oak tree. I have not read a post that describes the function of the forest. I have examined all of the posts and quite frankly have not seen any theology on the subject that would entice me into believing anything other than my original posting which can be summed up with the title 4 point Calvinism. I will, for information sake, Discuss the forest called election and present the trees as they fit into this forest.

To start with, I have to consider what happened in the beginning of the human race. Adam set in motion sin on all humans. God, in His mercy and grace, made an eternal decree called "election" by which He determines within the Godhead whatever He wishes to happen with regard to every man. Remember, God is faced with fallen man, there is no one righteous! I do have to mention that God says that His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. In Romans 11:33 Scripture says, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out". It seems to me that the whole realm of election is a mystery known only by God Himself. All we can do is make an attempt to unlock some of the mystery, but in the end, we will only scratch the surface.

 

[mondar]

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/what-is-election.50948/page-16#post-868429
Hello, ivdavid, the link above was a good post. Jethro, are you interested in answering the questions ivdavid posted?

Do you believe that the doctrine of "original sin" is biblical? Is original sin just a mere tendency to make mistakes? Does it involve a collective human sin in Adam? Does it result in total depravity (not absolute depravity----but rather simply that all parts of human nature are affected by the fall). Do you believe in sin nature?

Are you interested in going to the link provided and answering all ivdavids questions?

 

[ivdavid]

What if there were none who chose to be part of this nation - what happens to God's grand plan then - and what alternative can He draw up if He decides to discard this plan?

It's purely theoretical. He simply would not put a plan in motion that he knew has no outcome according to what he's trying to do.

Let's take this one step at a time - let's get back on the same page given that you've been responding to questions I've never asked. I have fully acknowledged your concepts so far - that of God's complete foreknowledge of how each man would respond, whenever his will is opened up to a 'free unhindered crossroad decision' - that of God 'planning' out a scenario to implement/fulfill based on such foreknowledge - that of God rejecting all other unfavorable scenarios - that of God declaring boldly what He has foreseen to happen, incorporated into His grand plan - what else? Have I misstated any of your beliefs here? If not, then I've understood your position quite clearly all along. Where did you perceive that I've not been considering your concepts - did you get that from my questions? But you've misunderstood what I'm asking.

I'll try and restate my point here. What I've asked above IS indeed absolutely theoretical - What if no man ever chose rightly whenever he was opened up to such "free crossroad decisions"? You reply saying God would have complete foreknowledge of such a scenario, would deem it unfavorable and would Not implement such a plan - have i got your response right here? And you proceed further with the example of how God uses such foreknowledge to Reject the very different plan of making "salvation completely and utterly on the merit of man's goodness" since He foreknows it would be unfavorable to His purposes. But here is where you've misunderstood me - I am not contrasting between 2 different plans of God. I am operating under one single plan of God that is now currently operational in our world - and within that single plan, I'm contrasting between 2 different responses from mankind.

Could I say that the current soteriological plan of God includes the following -
1) "build up a nation of people in Christ to live for God"
2) "build this up on the basis of Grace and not their own meritorious strength"
3) "Allow each individual the initial independent 'free crossroad decision' to be included in this nation of people or not, aided and preserved further by the grace and work of God."

Now I'm not contrasting this above plan of God with some other plan with say a different point 2) which states "only on the basis of individual merit etc." I'm referring to the very same plan above - and asking what would have happened in case of the theoretical possibility of Point 3) failing. What if No individual 'freely chose' to be part of this nation in the first place itself, inspite of the promised preserving grace and aid by God? What then? Having foreseen this unfavorable outcome, what other plan would God be able to resort to - which of the above 3 points would He then alter to fulfill His desired purposes?

...so God creates people who will obey him against their will...

Where are you getting this from? I've never once implied that any act of obedience is against one's will. It'll serve our discussion better if you could ask and clarify my beliefs when in doubt. I've anyway stated all my beliefs relevant to this thread in this post.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This thread of allenwynne's certainly has drawn a lot of opinions, Scriptural quotations, Truth and error. When allenwynne made his title of the thread, I think he had in mind that we look at a forest called election and describe it. Example: This forest is made up of willow trees, oak trees, maple trees, palm trees, etc. What I see happening here is not identifying the forest, but identifying the oak tree. I have not read a post that describes the function of the forest. I have examined all of the posts and quite frankly have not seen any theology on the subject that would entice me into believing anything other than my original posting which can be summed up with the title 4 point Calvinism. I will, for information sake, Discuss the forest called election and present the trees as they fit into this forest.

To start with, I have to consider what happened in the beginning of the human race. Adam set in motion sin on all humans. God, in His mercy and grace, made an eternal decree called "election" by which He determines within the Godhead whatever He wishes to happen with regard to every man. Remember, God is faced with fallen man, there is no one righteous! I do have to mention that God says that His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. In Romans 11:33 Scripture says, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out". It seems to me that the whole realm of election is a mystery known only by God Himself. All we can do is make an attempt to unlock some of the mystery, but in the end, we will only scratch the surface.

Chopper, your reply here goes back to my disputing "irresistable grace".
That needs to be redifined I Believe before you can go forward.
I believe man has a choice. The word irresistable is used in Daniel 11:10 and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If "irresistable" anything is used, it has to have clear scriptural application.

 

[Chopper]

Chopper, your reply here goes back to my disputing "irresistable grace".
That needs to be redifined I Believe before you can go forward.
I believe man has a choice. The word irresistable is used in Daniel 11:10 and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If "irresistable" anything is used, it has to have clear scriptural application.

OK my Brother, I will attempt that.

 

[Chopper]

OK my Brother, I will attempt that.

There are two Scriptures that come to my mind. John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to me, and whoever come to Me I will never cast out". and John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day". So not only do we have irresistable grace bringing the elect of God to Salvation but perseverance of the elect to the end.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

"all that the Father gives me" and
and "except the Father who sent me draws him".
What are the guidelines for the Father doing this here?
To say it is "irresistable grace" is an opinion.


I would say the Holy Spirit is present when we witness to someone.
The Holy Spirit is drawing them towards salvation.
But not all accept the invitation.
The ones that do are the ones who the Father gives to the Son.
I'm sure there are other ways to express this, but what I'm saying is we can resist God's call in our lives.
I don't believe God forces this "grace by faith" onto anyone.
God's plan will work as he said, "I will make the stones cry out".
God used a donkey on Balaam.
If we resist, God will find another way to do whatever he wants.
He doesn't have to force any of us.

It makes me think of the Hebrew calendar, the year 5774.
How can we really know the year?
How can we really know how God works things out?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

To start with, I have to consider what happened in the beginning of the human race. Adam set in motion sin on all humans. God, in His mercy and grace, made an eternal decree called "election" by which He determines within the Godhead whatever He wishes to happen with regard to every man.

See the mistake your making?

You're automatically assuming that 'election' already includes in it's definition that it's done by God's will apart from the consent and will of the individual being elected.

But if you want to look at election as you say you do you can't immediately assume it means 'predetermined by God alone'. For that is what we are trying to determine. This is part of that circular reasoning I was talking about before.

Remember, God is faced with fallen man, there is no one righteous! I do have to mention that God says that His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. In Romans 11:33 Scripture says, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out". It seems to me that the whole realm of election is a mystery known only by God Himself. All we can do is make an attempt to unlock some of the mystery, but in the end, we will only scratch the surface.

I say just go by what the scriptures show us. Right there in Romans 11 we see Paul telling people who have faith, the elect, that if they do not continue in that faith they will become like the Israelites--cut off. But if election means being elected (chosen) completely and utterly apart from the will of man, why can man then not have faith and be cut off from the root?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/what-is-election.50948/page-16#post-868429
Hello, ivdavid, the link above was a good post. Jethro, are you interested in answering the questions ivdavid posted?

Do you believe that the doctrine of "original sin" is biblical?

I just read the Bible, so only you can tell me if the belief I have formed from reading the scriptures lines up with someone's official doctrine of 'original sin'.

I believe man is at the moment of birth born sinless.

Man is not born guilty of the sin his father or mother committed. That's absurd.

Man is born in a fallen state, meaning he is removed from the power of God to not eventually sin.

Man sooner or later becomes accountable for his decisions about right and wrong and it is then that a man becomes responsible, and therefore officially condemned, for the sin he has committed.

Because man sins, choosing it by default, because he is not born with the power of God to not sin, he becomes a slave to sin and his will from that point on is confined to only be able to operate in the realm of unrighteousness.

When God calls a person to salvation he graciously grants that person the 'free' will (as opposed to a 'hindered' will) to now choose righteousness. This capacity is not his by nature. It is graciously given to the sinner so they can choose to be forgiven and commit the rest of their lives to righteousness.

If the person uses that supernatural ability to choose correctly to do that--choose correctly--their will is now oriented to righteousness, just as when he chose to sin his will was oriented to unrighteousness.

Man can take no credit for the life he receives for choosing right. Because it is just as Paul says, if it were not for God's grace and mercy in the first place there would be no choosing, and living, for righteousness--the capacity for doing that being so utterly of God that just choosing to accept it does not warrant any right to boast on our part about it.

Are you interested in going to the link provided and answering all ivdavids questions?

I'm pretty sure I did answer all his questions.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I would say the Holy Spirit is present when we witness to someone.
The Holy Spirit is drawing them towards salvation.
But not all accept the invitation.
The ones that do are the ones who the Father gives to the Son.

Yeah, I just don't see why John 6:37 & 44 automatically means man's choice has no bearing whatsoever on who is given to the Son. It's being read in there. And I suspect because the church has been indoctrinated to automatically think of this with the presupposition that being elected means 'having no choice in the matter'.

I don't see God being glorified by cranking out pre-made believers as much as he is by being wise and powerful enough to raise up believers and still preserve the right to their own personal choice. But that is how great God's love is. It can secure a kingdom of obedient people eager to do good despite the bondage of sin and man's free will (when he receives it) to choose darkness instead of light. Now that's a powerful, and mighty God worthy to be praised.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Amen!

 

[ivdavid]

Man is not born guilty of the sin his father or mother committed. That's absurd.

Yes, it is quite absurd. But are you merely stating this here or did you get it from something written on this thread? Because "original sin" does not imply 'inherited guilt' at all. It does imply "inherited sin" - where 'sin' here is not referring to individual acts of sinning but to the 'sin nature' itself as used in Rom 7. You too have grasped at this 'sin nature' here when you say -

Man is born in a fallen state, meaning he is removed from the power of God to not eventually sin.

Why is man born in a fallen state? Was there any created man who started off in an "unfallen state" - if so, why did that scenario change for people today who are not yet born into the world? If there was indeed such a change of unfallen-to-fallen state because of some mistakes back then - would it be absurd for current generations to inherit such a state for no fault of theirs?

Also, how have you defined "fallen state" to be "removed from the power of God to not eventually sin"? By that definition, even Adam and Eve were always in a fallen state - for they did 'eventually sin', right? I think you meant "fallen state" to be one in which man will "inevitably sin". That is the meaning I got from this following quote of yours -

Because man sins, choosing it by default, because he is not born with the power of God to not sin, he becomes a slave to sin and his will from that point on is confined to only be able to operate in the realm of unrighteousness.

But what actually causes this "inevitable choice to sin" that each of us are born with? I know you're saying things would be different if we were "born with the power of God to not sin" - but the absence of something in itself doesn't cause effects - so what is the cause of this "default choosing" - I would say it is the "sin nature in the flesh"[Rom 7]? Whatever you call it, why again are we born with it? If I am born without the power of God to not sin -> it implies that I cannot not sin -> which implies that I will inevitably be condemned. Why is it then suddenly okay for me to be born into condemnation without having a "free choice" over it - with the "free choice" to accept His mercy being given only after this 'inevitable condemnation'.

Your 'age of accountability' concept too throws up more questions than it answers. For theoretical understanding, let me assume some values to see how it works. Say for a particular person the age of accountability is 12 years - which means none of what he's done prior to that gets counted as right or wrong against his name - hence, he's not in the state of condemnation at all. If he dies before the age of 12, he then has eternal life by default - but how then can he be counted as "one saved by the blood of Christ"? Now let's consider him living 2 days into his 'age of accountability' in which he has not yet made his 'default choice to sin' but has happened to have chosen a couple of righteous things to do - and he dies then - now he enters eternal life by his own righteousness - where is the necessity for the atoning blood of Christ?

The above conflicts are solved by the doctrine of original sin where we cry that "all flesh" is under condemnation "by default" because of the inherited sin nature in the flesh - which is atoned for by the blood of Christ alone.

I simply worked your statements to their logical end - if I've missed out on some other premise or have inferred wrongly, kindly point them out.

 

[ivdavid]

But that is how great God's love is. It can secure a kingdom of obedient people eager to do good despite the bondage of sin and man's free will (when he receives it) to choose darkness instead of light.

What's the connection? How did God's love effectively influence this group of obedient people's "freewill" - and given that it's the same love, why didn't it have the same effect on the ones who chose darkness by their freewill(when they received it)? If the answer to this is on the lines of how the former group were receptive to God's love while the latter group weren't - then the differentiating factor between those secured and those not is not God's love(it being the same) - rather it is the inherent nature of the people of these groups, isn't it? So why say God's love did this or that, despite the unresponsive man's freewill - when it anyway cannot influence it in any manner?

And concerning the glory of love, this was posted a while back -

Case 1: A good man has an enemy (enemy is defined as one who hates you, not in any way implying the other way round) . The enemy is drowning in a river. The good man sees him from an overhead bridge and immediately throws him a rope and asks him to take hold and climb up himself. The enemy, on seeing this man, refuses his help and struggles to make it ashore on his own. He fails and drowns.

Case 2: Same case as above - the enemy is drowning, the good man rushes out, throws a rope and asks him to take hold and climb up himself. The enemy refuses. Now the good man pleads with the enemy to simply take hold of the rope and that he would pull him up all the way without the enemy having to climb up on his own - he simply has to take hold of the rope and the good man would pull him up. The enemy refuses, struggles in vain on his own and drowns.

Case 3: Same case as above - the enemy is drowning, the good man asks him to simply take hold of the rope while he will pull him out, the enemy refuses and struggles on his own. The good man then throws aside the rope and dives into the water after his enemy, overpowers the enemy's initial resistance to being saved and finally drags him ashore, safe and alive.

In which of these cases is the good man's love for this enemy 'most' manifested ?