Posted on 02/07/2013 12:06:49 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe,
If you are saying election is first then election determines the rest, they are conditional upon election.
the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”
If grace is irresistible, there is no other choice possible, election then grace/faith/salvation; no election, no grace/faith/salvation.
If the middle two events cannot vary, must always occur, then they are irrelevant, we could substitute any other event in the causal stream.
You have election>salvation and supported the doctrine of salvation by election.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post, thoughtful for me anyway; it made me think.
And I think we must always be aware that we cannot know everything, especially about God. We can know some things: He is merciful, and perfect love and perfect goodness and perfect justice. He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
These I think we can and do know. So when we end up with a view or description of God that contradicts these, we can know we made a wrong turn somewhere.
We can know that God created man with free will. As you so clearly state, Holy Scripture makes no sense without this. If we end up with a contrary view of man, we have again made a wrong turn somewhere.
So what do we make of the passage you quoted? First, we acknowledge there are many more passages. Second, it helps me to keep in mind that foreknowledge does not mean “caused.” You state this as well although not as clearly I think. God is outside time and not limited to before/after, He does not have to wait to know the outcome of any event or choice; He knows all of it at once.
Thanks again for your post.
You are NOT being "nitpicky". You must have NO idea how many times I have parrot those very words. But no matter how many times you tell this to people and show it in the scriptures, they still believe it's true.
What many don't want to face up to is that spiritually dead people (Ephesians 2:1: "you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins..."; cf. Luke 9:60)...
Finally....someone who knows their scriptures....
I could cry....
It costs $5 bucks!!! Right now I have (literally) over 70 books in my library waiting to be read. If I buy another book my wife will toss me out the door.
Dr. Palmer was not one to be be loose in choosing his words.
Be that as it may, neither was Augustine. Yet Augustine ended up burning up a good portion of his life's work.
I don't know Dr. Palmer nor am I familiar with his works. So it's impossible for me to comment on what his beliefs were one way or the other, except by this one comment that you have attribute to him. I am of course assuming that it's not taken out of context or given at the heat of the moment. People take one snippet of a person's life and they're branded (if I hear Luther's quote about sinning boldly one more time...).
POTS is chapter 17 in the London Baptist Confession published in 1689 which essentially mirrors the POTS section of the Westminster Confession which came out few years later. I cannot trace when OSAS appear in any confession. This would lead me to believe the true doctrine of the Protestant faith was POTS. So why Dr. Palmer would say POTS (which is documented) was like a non-documented doctrine like OSAS is a mystery. All I can say, at the very least, is that he had this entirely backwards. How can one compare something that is fully documented to something that is suspect at the least? Discovering that there is no firm documental evidence of where this doctrine comes from should give one pause as to why they are using it. Not a criticism but Dr. Palmer should have known better.
Tell me, what would lead you to believe that a life long, die-hard Calvinist like Dr. Palmer could fully grasp what is essentially a synergistic, Baptist view of OSAS? I attended primarily synergistic Southern Baptist churches for over 30 years and, while I understand the concept, I never understood how scripture fit around it.
Better yet, are you familiar and a believer in OSAS? If so, it would be interesting for you to provide us with a little information on the history of this suspect doctrine.
Was God's intention to give them a choice or was it God's intention to show to Adam what he would choose if given a choice?
I think maybe I wasn’t clear on the point I was trying to make. My point was this, for faith or love to exist, a choice must be available. For instance, I deeply appreciate my wife because she makes choices daily to benefit me and not herself. This is love. If she were a robot instead, she might well do lots of things for me, and benefit me greatly, but she could not agape love me, ever, since she would have no option to do anything besides obey me.
So for God to create man in his image, and for us to be able to give and receive love, He needed to give us a choice. He was certainly aware that many people would make bad choices, and that many people would choose him. However he wanted to reveal himself as the God of love, and wanted us to be able to give and receive love, so he made a choice to create us with a free will. At the same time he knew we’d blow it, by and large, so he made a plan for that too.
So basically your question seems to miss the point. I believe God gave us a choice because he wanted things like love and faith to be possible. So definitely he wanted to give them a choice. If you want to challenge the point, tell me how faith and love can exist without the ability to choose. If you agree that faith and love require choice, then I think it is clear why we have a choice, because God wanted a world where he could demonstrate love, and we could experience it too. So rather than debate God’s intention for the tree, let’s debate if love can exist without choice. If you come to the conclusion it can’t, as I have, then I expect you won’t be asking the question you did anymore.
These are different conditions than the Old Covenant.
And here we come to the crux of our disagreement.
Scripturally, that statement is incorrect. Logically, it's meaningless.
I believe that both predestination and free will exist. I believe that a few people may be predestined, but the vast majority of people come through their own free will.
Both concepts exist in Scripture. To ignore one is to ignore vast amounts of Scripture that is useful for teaching. To emphasize no free will among the general population drives people away from God--not toward Him. It also paints an incomplete, and distorted, view of God. One that isn't very nice to contemplate, or consider.
If you are saying the intention wasn't to give him an honest choice, then you are saying that God created an imperfect man. It wouldn't have been good.
That idea is very non-scriptural.
Thank you for your response. I believe your point was very clear; however, this isn't the teaching of traditional Protestantism. This is Catholicism. Please note this from Our Catholic Faith. Of course, perhaps you are Catholic in which case then the issue isn't an issue at all. :O)
If you want to challenge the point, tell me how faith and love can exist without the ability to choose.
Please note my rhetorical question: Was it God's intention to show to Adam what he would choose if given a choice? I am not saying Adam (and Eve) didn't have a choice. What I am saying is that Eve decision was based upon a deception-so she made the wrong choice. Adam's decision, apart from the influence of God, was motivated by Eve. And so it goes; always motivated by something other than God.
So rather than debate God’s intention for the tree, let’s debate if love can exist without choice.
Rather interesting question and quite frankly I'm tired of talking about horticulture. I would say that since God doesn't make "choices" (He shows no partiality) and God is love, then I would say yes love can exist without choice. And as noted in 1 John:
The only reason we love is because of God, which means that God must put love into our hearts to love Him back and to love others. So then that begs the question on how we can make a choice if we have no love for the Father? We must have love in order to make a choice.
Eve was deceived. Was that an honest choice?
If you claim otherwise, you are claiming the Fall happened before that incident, or that God created imperfect beings while claiming it was all good.
It isn't what Adam knew or didn't know. It's what Eve knew or thought she knew.
Christians shouldn't be naive that we can't be deceived. We're warned over and over in scripture to beware to it. And if I asked every Christian here if they had a choice whether or not they want to be deceived, what do you think the results would be?
While Eve was deceived, Adam was not.
...you are claiming the Fall happened before that incident, or that God created imperfect beings while claiming it was all good.
No, the fall did not happened before the "tree" incident. Nor did God create imperfect beings. Perhaps God wanted to show Adam what choice he would make if put into that situation. God knows a lot more about us then we know about ourselves.
'People elect' to RECEIVE The Gift or NOT. And it is by faith they do it as God has dealt to every man THE measure of faith.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man THE measure of faith.” (Romans 12:3)
WAIT for what? It Is Finished
When I make dinner - I'm done. Who ever comes to the table receives it, gets fed/LIFE - those who don't, starve/DEATH.
BTW, I made dinner for ALL.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you LIFE and DEATH, blessing and cursing: therefore choose LIFE, that both thou and thy seed may live" Deut 30:19
No. You have FAITH>salvation. It is by His Grace that He gives the GIFT - It is by FAITH you RECEIVE it.
You can only have what you RECEIVE. Another way to say it is, if you 'ELECT' to RECEIVE it.
If I understand your post correctly, you definitely do not agree with Calvinism.
It is what Adam HEARD BY GOD and DISOBEYED - The Word. Eve HEARD it BY 'MAN'; therefore, she was open to deception/his twisting of words.
And He answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which HEAR the Word of God, and OBEY it.
Eve listen to what 'man said' 'God said'. Now if Eve heard God's Word directly, then she could either confirm or dispute what 'man' told her and then either obey or disobey. Adam disobeyed, Eve was deceived.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.