What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, it is quite absurd. But are you merely stating this here or did you get it from something written on this thread?

No.

Why is man born in a fallen state?

God turned mankind over to rebellion.

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?

Besides Adam, no. It changed because Adam sinned and people are born in the image of their father.

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?

No argument here. It's not our fault that we are born in a fallen state. It's what we do when the day comes that God gives us back our will to choose right (calls us) that counts.

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?

No, they are different because they had fellowship with God...to whatever extent that really was.

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 -

Yes, but it's much darker than that. It's being born into a world without any knowledge of God. Unlike Adam and Eve who did have knowledge of, and fellowship with, God.

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.

Reread what you wrote here. It doesn't make sense.

If you are born without the power to not sin then it implies you WILL sin sooner or later.

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'.

The Bible says God turned us over to sin so he can have mercy on us.

He gives us the power to choose rightly long enough to either accept or reject that offer. That is when man has free will to choose life...or death. Most choose death. Which is truly amazing to me, but that's the stuff of another thread.

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?

You're over thinking it. Legalistic doctrines come out of this kind of over thinking. God has made provision to test those who can not be, or were not tested in this life because of a disability (IOW, did not have the capacity to choose of their own free will), or died before they had the fair and just mental development to choose right over wrong of their own free will.

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.

...and the piece you can not leave out is the time in everyone's life where God grants them enough time and space outside of the hinderenaces of the fallen state to choose life or death of their (now) free will. Faith is the power and capacity to know and understand the truth about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. Some reject that faith and choose death. A few choose life and their wills are captured by God to serve in righteousness, just as they used to serve unrighteousness before.

Brain surgeries are stacking up....I'll chime in as I can.

 

[ivdavid]

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.

Reread what you wrote here. It doesn't make sense.
If you are born without the power to not sin then it implies you WILL sin sooner or later.

I was saying the same thing. I should have conveyed it in a simpler way instead of using the double negative 'cannot not'. But what you've quoted here is precisely why we began discussing 'original sin'. If man WILL inevitably sin because of being born in a fallen state, it means man WILL inevitably be found transgressor of the Law of works and WILL inevitably come under the curse of the Law - from which he is then redeemed by the blood of Christ through faith. While man has "freewill" given to him with respect to faith - he has no "freewill" with respect to the law, which he will inevitably fail by default of being born in a fallen state. Here's my question - why did God give the Law of works for man to uphold when he anyway cannot, by default of his being born in a fallen state, which as per you is no fault of his? Is it Just to hold man responsible to something he cannot do by default? Why give Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:19 to fallen man who cannot but will to sin and come under the curse of this Law?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I was saying the same thing. I should have conveyed it in a simpler way instead of using the double negative 'cannot not'. But what you've quoted here is precisely why we began discussing 'original sin'. If man WILL inevitably sin because of being born in a fallen state, it means man WILL inevitably be found transgressor of the Law of works and WILL inevitably come under the curse of the Law - from which he is then redeemed by the blood of Christ through faith. While man has "freewill" given to him with respect to faith - he has no "freewill" with respect to the law, which he will inevitably fail by default of being born in a fallen state. Here's my question - why did God give the Law of works for man to uphold when he anyway cannot, by default of his being born in a fallen state, which as per you is no fault of his? Is it Just to hold man responsible to something he cannot do by default? Why give Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:19 to fallen man who cannot but will to sin and come under the curse of this Law?

Why? To make the undeniable accusation against mankind just and for all to see. And to lead them to the free will choice to place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and be saved from that just and right penalty of their sinfulness.

But as we know, most will reject the offer and be turned back into the bondage of their sin and into the realm of choice for unrighteousness. They lose their chance to choose freely.

I know what argument you are trying to make. And that argument is, if we had no choice in regard to being condemned as sinners, why can't we also have no choice in regard to being justified? The simple answer is because God brings everybody to the place in between those two arguments where they must choose for themselves whom they will follow.

It's a place no man can bring himself to. And without God's utterly gracious help to choose correctly when we do have the chance, salvation becomes that which no man can boast in but which still preserves the just right of choice of those being saved. When thinking of faith and being elected to the kingdom I think in terms of 'loving influence', not 'mechanical predetermination'. God's love is how God wins people over and establishes his kingdom, not by forced premeditation. Love means nothing where there is no choice.

 

[Chopper]

"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?

As I look at your's and Jethro's posts I see that you are forgetting that everyone who God elects to be saved, before they were born, has to make a choice about the Salvation being presented to him. He can accept Salvation, which is irresistible to him or he can refuse. Somehow you guys don't understand that all men have a choice. The grace that God is supplying to them is, wonderful, why would they not accept. You have to realize that God has to have a remnant of believers in every generation. Before time, He chose who they would be. Now, God extends an irresistible call to that one He chooses and that one receives Salvation, he has a choice. We don't know, some of the chosen may have refused, we just don't know that. Perhaps Judas was one of them. Romans 9 explains election better than I can. A very close study of that chapter discloses a lot of information on this subject. That is what I believe.

Shortly, I will document my position with Scripture to back it all up. For now, I believe as you do that man must have a choice in his Salvation. And He does.

 

[ivdavid]

I know what argument you are trying to make. And that argument is, if we had no choice in regard to being condemned as sinners, why can't we also have no choice in regard to being justified?

No - I speak the truth, that wasn't what I was pointing at. I know how this fits into your system of beliefs - and I have no intentions of imposing what I believe into your belief system. I have not beat around the bush - I have been determining the critical root beliefs that we disagree over and am raising questions on how you reconcile them with any conflicts as per your belief system.

Trace this line of argument - I've re-ordered the quotes for continuity.

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"?

Yes, but not because he is not free to fulfill it...

I see the Bible teaching otherwise...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?

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.

If man WILL inevitably sin because of being born in a fallen state, it means man WILL inevitably be found transgressor of the Law of works and WILL inevitably come under the curse of the Law - from which he is then redeemed by the blood of Christ through faith. While man has "freewill" given to him with respect to faith - he has no "freewill" with respect to the law, which he will inevitably fail by default of being born in a fallen state....Is it Just to hold man responsible to something he cannot do by default? Why give Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:19 to fallen man who cannot but will to sin and come under the curse of this Law?

Why? To make the undeniable accusation against mankind just and for all to see. And to lead them to the free will choice to place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and be saved from that just and right penalty of their sinfulness.

One of your reservations against my view of election was that according to you, man could not be held responsible for something he didn't have "free choice" to - but we see just that concerning the Law of works that God holds fallen man responsible to, even though he will fail by default - for the purposes that you've listed above, bringing all under the curse of the law from which Christ then redeems through faith [Gal 3:13].

Would you reconsider this particular premise then - and strike off at least this one of your reservations against the reformed view of election?

 

[Chopper]

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.



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?

Election and predestination is solely God's choice in Himself. That is clear from Scripture. Eph. 1:9 "according to His purpose" The expression that God "purposed in Himself, is the same as if it had been said, that in forming His decree He considered nothing external to Himself. Romans 9:11 "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls. God in Himself, makes the choice of whom He want as a child. If you were going to adopt a child, it would be your choice, not his.

 

[Chopper]

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.



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?

There are many who profess to believe in Jesus, but they are not. These are those who will fall by the wayside. Look at John 2:23 "Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs that He was doing. (24) But Jesus on His part did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for He Himself knew what was in man". Jethro, no one is Biblically saved that Jesus does not commit Himself too. Romans 11:22 Elect is not mentioned. The context is about pride. Israel, the natural branches were cut out, Gentiles were grafted in, Pride could do the same to them as it did to Israel.

 

[Chopper]

This morning, I was taking a fresh look at Chapter two inlight of our recent posts. First, look at Verse one; "Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, by the will of God". Here is an instance of God choosing Paul. It was the "will" of God. I see in that, no choice on Paul's part, it was the will of God. Your last post, Jethro, was about God's will doing away with Paul's consent and his will. Here we see a good display of God's will for Paul which was activated. My question to you is; why would Paul even want a choice since God Almighty, Who always does good, always loves His follower's, and always chooses or elects the best calling for him. What would he do, in your opinion, choose not to be used by God? There seems to me that God's choices are always the best for us, would we, if we had a choice, choose the worst?

In Romans 11:22 It tells us to "note the kindness and the severity of God" It seems that people always want to bask in the kindness of God, and never deal with the severity of God. If God always is kind to His children, you and me, Why on earth would I want a choice? God chooses, I respond to God, I accept that, that's the end! Look at Jonah, he said no! it didn't take him long to change his mind. God does not choose evil for us, so, in my mind, there is no choice. God's will is best.

 

[Tristan]

There's still something not being addressed here, so I feel the need to pipe up.

God has complete foreknowledge of what is going to happen in his universe. He's the creator, and he exists outside of the influence of time. Having this knowledge, God also has a desire, and will (those two are different things!) Knowing what people are going to do, he THEN raises people up to certain purposes that fulfill his will. We still have full choice in the matter...it's just that God knew in advance, and by making our choices, we are fulfilling his will (which cannot be thwarted). I'm looking at this starting at the beginning and looking toward the end (not the other way around!)

In the end, God still makes a final judgment. He may have already known what the end result would be, but that doesn't mean we were forced to comply. He just anticipated our choices and planned accordingly. So anticipation is the key word here. God chooses those he knows are going to respond to him. That doesn't mean others are disqualified, it means God knows that of their free will, LATER, they won't choose him.

What Calvinists attempt to do is remove our free will from the equation. I believe it's 100% necessary, and God accommodates it. We don't have foreknowledge but God does, that's really the key factor here. Foreknowledge does not equal fate or divine force.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One of your reservations against my view of election was that according to you, man could not be held responsible for something he didn't have "free choice" to

No, your painting the brush too broadly.

All people are held responsible according to whatever measure of faith they are expected to have, not by the simple fact that they sin.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Election and predestination is solely God's choice in Himself. That is clear from Scripture. Eph. 1:9 "according to His purpose" The expression that God "purposed in Himself, is the same as if it had been said, that in forming His decree He considered nothing external to Himself.

What he decreed was the existence of an entity called the church. That is the plan and purpose he has decreed. The confidence of which is based on the surety of the obedience of Jesus Christ, not us, but he surely knew ahead of time some would believe.

That's where God's confidence comes from, not from predetermining who will believe and who will not by purposely making them either an unbeliever, or an unbeliever of his own choice. You are reading way too much into the passage. And I can't help but to think it's because of how powerful the indoctrination of this subject is in the church today. That's not an insult. It's just that these teachings are so thoroughly entrenched in the church that's it's difficult to see this (and other subjects) any other way.

The predestination that Paul is talking about in verse 11 is the planned and predictable outcome of faith for those who have faith--according to the plan and purpose God himself proposed beforehand.

Romans 9:11 "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls. God in Himself, makes the choice of whom He want as a child. If you were going to adopt a child, it would be your choice, not his.

The context of this part of Romans is the difference between being justified by faith, and being justified by works. He's using Jacob and Esau to show that the promise is hardly dependent on what a person does, and showing that it depends on the calling of faith, apart from what you do. Exactly consistent with what he's been teaching in the letter up to that point.

God's purpose in election is that God saves people by the calling of faith, not by what they do. Election does not mean 'predetermined belief'. It means being chosen, and in context it means being chosen on the basis of faith, not on the basis of what you do. Jacob is a clear scriptural proof of this...especially to Jews who revere and honor the scriptures so highly.

What is predetermined, and which nobody can do anything about, is that it is only through the covenant of faith, not the covenant of law--a covenant of 'doing'--that a person is justified. He teaches this same truth using the similar analogy of Hagar and Sarah/ Ishmael and Isaac in Galatians 4. Again proving from the scriptures how salvation is, and always has been, by faith, not by works.

I challenge you to reread the Romans and Ephesians passages with this understanding in mind and doing what you said you want to do, laying aside the meanings and definitions of words and concepts and preconceived understandings you already have about this subject and looking at it afresh and unhindered.

 

[Deborah13]

What he decreed was the existence of an entity called the church. That is the plan and purpose he has decreed. The confidence of which is based on the surety of the obedience of Jesus Christ, not us, but he surely knew ahead of time some would believe.

That's where God's confidence comes from, not from predetermining who will believe and who will not by purposely making them either an unbeliever, or an unbeliever of his own choice. You are reading way too much into the passage. And I can't help but to think it's because of how powerful the indoctrination of this subject is in the church today. That's not an insult. It's just that these teachings are so thoroughly entrenched in the church that's it's difficult to see this (and other subjects) any other way.

The predestination that Paul is talking about in verse 11 is the planned and predictable outcome of faith for those who have faith--according to the plan and purpose God himself proposed beforehand.



The context of this part of Romans is the difference between being justified by faith, and being justified by works. He's using Jacob and Esau to show that the promise is hardly dependent on what a person does, and showing that it depends on the calling of faith, apart from what you do. Exactly consistent with what he's been teaching in the letter up to that point.

God's purpose in election is that God saves people by the calling of faith, not by what they do. Election does not mean 'predetermined belief'. It means being chosen, and in context it means being chosen on the basis of faith, not on the basis of what you do. Jacob is a clear scriptural proof of this...especially to Jews who revere and honor the scriptures so highly.

I agree with your understanding of Jacob and Esau. I believe someone else posted that it is the 'path' to salvation that was predestined. I believe, that Jacob and Esau are a picture of the two paths. One of works, one of faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree with your understanding of Jacob and Esau. I believe someone else posted that it is the 'path' to salvation that was predestined. I believe, that Jacob and Esau are a picture of the two paths. One of works, one of faith.

It was prolly me you're thinking of because I did bring this up before.

Glad you agree. I think once a person sees it, that point is very clear in what Paul is saying. The whole of scripture helps me see it. The Galatians 4 passage being very useful to that end. The study of the 'twins' of scripture is a study that I think you'd find very interesting.

The knowledge of God produces two kinds of 'kids' in the kingdom--the child of works, and the child of promise (that is, faith). The two are destined to be constantly jostling each other (Genesis 25:22), but God has predetermined that 'the older (the man of works) will serve the younger (the man of faith)'. That is, the way of faith will rule over the way of works and inherit the blessing of the Father against all natural expectation.

The 'twin' born later (figurative of people born of faith) is the one that has been predetermined to inherit the blessing, not the 'twin' born first, the man of works, who we automatically think by our natural expectation of how things work should inherit the blessing of the Father. Kind of deep, I know, but one of the most interesting teachings in scripture I know of. There are several sets of twins in scripture that illustrate this 'unnatural' birth order, and who actually gets the blessing of the Father (Adam-Jesus, Cain-Abel, Ishmael-Isaac, Esau-Jacob, Perez-Zerah...did I hit them all?)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This morning, I was taking a fresh look at Chapter two inlight of our recent posts. First, look at Verse one; "Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, by the will of God". Here is an instance of God choosing Paul. It was the "will" of God. I see in that, no choice on Paul's part, it was the will of God. Your last post, Jethro, was about God's will doing away with Paul's consent and his will. Here we see a good display of God's will for Paul which was activated. My question to you is; why would Paul even want a choice since God Almighty, Who always does good, always loves His follower's, and always chooses or elects the best calling for him. What would he do, in your opinion, choose not to be used by God? There seems to me that God's choices are always the best for us, would we, if we had a choice, choose the worst?

Paul talks about his choice in serving God in his gift, or not (1 Corinthians 9:16-17). But it is clear from the scriptures that God's gifts are predetermined for us, but that doesn't mean justification is. Ephesians 2:10 talks about the works set apart ahead of time for us to do. It's no different than a man who gets elected to office based on his qualifications, but who then is given the predetermined tasks that he will perform while in office. This illustrates an element of 'predestination' that has nothing to do with justification itself. That is what 'predestination' means to me--the predestined outcome of faith and what it looks like, not that some are pre-programmed to believe while others are not.

And even if you do want to insist in making the predetermination of our gifts and a predetermination of our justification the same thing, Paul talks about being compelled by the love of God to do what he does in his ministry, not some kind of removal of his choice to do that (2 Corinthians 5:14). And look at the element of 'persuasion' in his own evangelical effort, not some kind of uncovering of a pre programmed set of believers. I see choice there, not predetermined believing.

In Romans 11:22 It tells us to "note the kindness and the severity of God" It seems that people always want to bask in the kindness of God, and never deal with the severity of God. If God always is kind to His children, you and me, Why on earth would I want a choice? God chooses, I respond to God, I accept that, that's the end! Look at Jonah, he said no! it didn't take him long to change his mind. God does not choose evil for us, so, in my mind, there is no choice. God's will is best.

Romans 11 is written to people who are presently 'standing by faith' (IOW, saved) but who are warned not to become cutoff like Israel, because of unbelief.

I disagree with your logic about choice--that God chooses best for us. That hardly applies to the person who was chosen by God to be condemned to hell instead of salvation.

 

[reba]

did I hit them all?

Israel-church... :yes

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Israel-church... :yes

Bingo! Very good.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In the end, God still makes a final judgment. He may have already known what the end result would be, but that doesn't mean we were forced to comply. He just anticipated our choices and planned accordingly.

Not unlike a rat running around in a scientist's maze. That's probably the best analogy I personally can come up with that fits. Both, the scientist, and the rat, are exercising their legitimate will to do what they want. It's just that the scientist has the power to confine the will of the rat to certain boundaries. He doesn't remove the will of the rat. He simply confines it as he sees fit, and in some cases influences it with pieces of cheese strategically placed in the maze, all in accordance with his predetermined plan and purpose. God is no dummy who has to somehow submit to the will of the rat. And he's certainly not bound up or hindered by letting us rats have the will to do as we please. To me, the rat maze explains it very well how it can be that way.

So anticipation is the key word here. God chooses those he knows are going to respond to him. That doesn't mean others are disqualified, it means God knows that of their free will, LATER, they won't choose him.

The evidence of this being seen in the parable of the talents. I always found it interesting that the person who received only one talent is the one who did nothing with it. I think God has this general principle about not letting his Word go to the pigs to be trampled on. People who God knows ahead of time will reject the gospel (because he's omniscient) are only allowed to reject and trample on an amount of knowledge sufficient to save that person, generally speaking. The one's he knows ahead of time will not respond to the gospel of their own free will are not entrusted with the great secrets of the Word of God so as to trample on and waste them when they refuse to act on them.

What Calvinists attempt to do is remove our free will from the equation. I believe it's 100% necessary, and God accommodates it. We don't have foreknowledge but God does, that's really the key factor here. Foreknowledge does not equal fate or divine force.

God's omniscience seems to be the factor in election, and predestination, for me, too. Not that God can crank out pre-programmed believers who, ultimately, have no choice but to believe. That may be awesome and powerful thing to do, but I think it's a misguided way to assign God all the glory he alone is entitled to have in saving mankind.

 

[ivdavid]

No, your painting the brush too broadly.

Too broadly? I couldn't have been more specific when I zeroed in on a particular instance of God dealing with man - the law of works. Did God command man to keep the OT law of works - yes. Did God penalize man for not keeping the law of works - yes, He condemned man under the curse of the law. Could any created fallen man have kept the law of works - no, he will be a transgressor by default with no 'free choice' on this. Just observing this very specific case concerning God's ways - we can conclude that God holds man responsible to ideals irrespective of their abilities and 'free choices'. What have I painted broadly here?

Let me then make my question too more specific - do you concede that it is not unjust for God to hold man responsible to things he has no "free choice" over - given that it has occurred at least in this above one instance?

All people are held responsible according to whatever measure of faith they are expected to have, not by the simple fact that they sin.

Simple fact of sinning? You are bordering on a theological blunder here - so kindly reconsider what you've stated. God gave the Law specifically to hold man guilty for his sins[Rom 3:19]. You said so yourself here - "To make the undeniable accusation against mankind just and for all to see....that just and right penalty of their sinfulness."

What of Romans 5:13? Even John 3:18-19 states this - an unbeliever is condemned, but the condemnation is not charged against their act of unbelieving as the root cause - but for their love and deeds of evil. How else can God's judgement be Just[Rom 3:5-6] ? There is a difference between saying - "an unbeliever is condemned for his choosing not to seek atonement for his sins" - and saying "an unbeliever is condemned for his sins, which were not atoned". The object of the former statement can only be used in an evidential sense - while it is in the latter statement that it can be the actual causative grounds of condemnation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Too broadly? I couldn't have been more specific when I zeroed in on a particular instance of God dealing with man - the law of works. Did God command man to keep the OT law of works - yes. Did God penalize man for not keeping the law of works - yes, He condemned man under the curse of the law. Could any created fallen man have kept the law of works - no, he will be a transgressor by default with no 'free choice' on this. Just observing this very specific case concerning God's ways - we can conclude that God holds man responsible to ideals irrespective of their abilities and 'free choices'. What have I painted broadly here?

It's clear you missed what I was saying, and truthfully, an in depth explanation is not really needed for this subject. The point is, just because all are condemned (because all have sinned), that does not amount to equal punishment or consequence for all. God's judgement is mitigated by other factors besides just the fact that we have sinned.

Let me then make my question too more specific - do you concede that it is not unjust for God to hold man responsible to things he has no "free choice" over - given that it has occurred at least in this above one instance?

Okay, good, let's keep it in this context, though I'm sure you said this is not the point you were trying to make out of this. It's not unjust because of what God does after man falls into his predictable pattern, and bondage to, sin. If he left us there and condemned us without consideration of mitigating factors, then yeah, maybe then it wold be unjust.

I tried to point this out before. Just because all men have been bound over to disobedience against their will (so he can have mercy on all--Romans 11:32, 8:20-21) that doesn't automatically mean God binds certain men over to obedience against their will. The factor that argument does not take into consideration is the middle ground between the condemnation of our sins and the offer of justification. It is there that God grants man the truly unhindered 'free' will to choose life or death. It is neither a pre-programmed will to choose life, nor is it a pre-programmed will to stay in and choose death. It is simply man's choice, unhindered by the life of sin he was destined to end up in that's he's been living in up to that point, and unhindered by the born-again nature that lies on the other side if he chooses the gospel. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Simple fact of sinning? You are bordering on a theological blunder here - so kindly reconsider what you've stated. God gave the Law specifically to hold man guilty for his sins[Rom 3:19]. You said so yourself here - "To make the undeniable accusation against mankind just and for all to see....that just and right penalty of their sinfulness."

What's the blunder? Man sins and, though certainly guilty of having sinned, becomes accountable to God for his sin within the mitigating factor of how responsible he actually is for that sin.

What of Romans 5:13? Even John 3:18-19 states this - an unbeliever is condemned, but the condemnation is not charged against their act of unbelieving as the root cause - but for their love and deeds of evil. How else can God's judgement be Just[Rom 3:5-6] ? There is a difference between saying - "an unbeliever is condemned for his choosing not to seek atonement for his sins" - and saying "an unbeliever is condemned for his sins, which were not atoned". The object of the former statement can only be used in an evidential sense - while it is in the latter statement that it can be the actual causative grounds of condemnation.

Don't take the argument where I haven't taken the argument. Sin is sin, period. But to stop the story right there is just plain wrong to do. You can't decide for the sake of an argument for predestination to just ignore how God assigns sin guilt to each of us sinners individually. Technically, we are all guilty for the sin we have committed and are condemned in that sense. But realistically and in actual practice not all of us are condemned for the sin we have all surely committed. See the point?

My 19 year old Down Syndrome son is most definitely guilty of committing sin. But you would be mistaken to say he is condemned for that sin. That's why I say you're painting the picture of man's condemnation too broadly. It is only technically speaking that your argument is true. Realistically, there's more to it than that.

But anyway, it's important that you keep this line of thought relevant to man's free will. So far I see you using the example of all men being bound over to the inevitability of sinning against their will (and, therefore, being potentially condemned) as a rationale for also believing that God also binds men over to justification against their will. I disagree because at the 'Y' in the road of condemnation and justification, man is given the free unhindered will to choose which way he wants to go. Unhindered because it is neither dictated by the life he's now coming out of, nor the life he potentially can enter into. Because in both, the life of unrighteousness, and the life of unrighteousness, before and/or on either side of the moment of choice, the individual's will is captured by the one they choose. But in that moment of decision granted to us by God, it is not.

 

[ivdavid]

God has complete foreknowledge of what is going to happen in his universe....Knowing what people are going to do, he THEN raises people up to certain purposes that fulfill his will...which cannot be thwarted

This is quite similar to the texas sharpshooter scenario, isn't it?
"a marksman shoots randomly at the side of his barn and then paints bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship."

Having foreknown how people would choose, God then designing His will around that and claiming His will cannot be thwarted - which obviously it cannot be, since He has anyway factored His will around all our choices in the first place - does seem quite silly. If you hold that God's will was purposed in Himself irrespective of man's will [Eph 1:9] - then you'll have to attribute God's success to chance/luck where man's will happened to coincide with His - again not worthy of the Biblical God.

There's still something not being addressed here, so I feel the need to pipe up.

Though this post was addressed to Jethro Bodine, please feel free to respond to it. We've dealt with the same concept of foreknowledge there and how we are to rightly attribute glory.

What Calvinists attempt to do is remove our free will from the equation. I believe it's 100% necessary, and God accommodates it.

Actually, I'm not overly concerned about man having freewill or not - my concern stems from attributing ALL the glory of salvation to God Alone - no sharing any part of the glory to any part causative contribution from any other source. That's all. So if you define "freewill" to be man's active choosing to believe in Christ while he is regenerated in the spirit ( I believe this) - I have no issues with that. But alas, it is defined as man's active choosing before he is regenerated in the spirit which implies credit to the flesh - which I cannot accept. Of course, our discussions would go on just on the semantic differences - even before we get to actual theology.

And why do you believe freewill, as you mean it, is 100% necessary. Note, I'm not asking why man must be allowed to choose - for I too believe man chooses to believe in and worship God. It's just the sequence of events that we disagree upon. Specifically, I believe man in the flesh never can choose to obey or please God, ie he always actively chooses otherwise - because of the sin-nature/flesh that we're born into. Agree/Disagree? Hence, for man to choose to obey or please God, the influences of this sin-nature/flesh must be overcome by something stronger. Agree/Disagree? This overcoming of the sin-nature/flesh is done by God regenerating us in the God-nature/spirit. Now, we are able to see God without blinded minds and hardened hearts and hence choose to love and worship Him. The act of choosing is still maintained here - it's just preceded by God's regenerative work. And "election of grace" (different from various other events/means elected by God) is the doctrine that explains why such regenerative work is not worked out in all sinners - explaining it with the doctrine of God's Sovereignty.

So, is it that you have reservations against this doctrine of God's sovereignty? If so, specifically what about it? List other reasons too why you feel "freewill" is 100% necessary.