Understanding the Will

Does God just reach and and ZOT! he makes you change your heart? Where then is free will? That is the free will question most non-Calvinist struggle with

I do not struggle with it , I just accept what the Bible says on it. Unregenerate man can do not do a God pleasing act , so yes Zot He gives you a new heart. A heart you did not even know needed to be replaced . Our will flows from our heart, so we then freely desire God.

Not al that complicated and noting to struggle with at all.

Mat 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

I guess that's just 12. Looks like we're all out of luck.

Matt 12:33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good...

This is commented upon by the author of the article, "Christ teaches here that choices come from the heart. The will does not command the heart; rather, the heart commands the will."

The statement begs the question. The passage shows how man is able by free will, to remain faithful to God. By remaining faithful and continuing to be sanctified, and by keeping our thinking processes on track with His Word, our soul may process Scripture and doctrine and it is formed into the human spirit as good thinking.

The more we 'right think', the more we flush out the old corruption from the heart and replace it with that which He provides by the Holy Spirit.

The more our hearts abound with as a good tree, the more our words speak with good fruit and we will be judged by that fruit.

The volition and choices made on the battleground of the soul, determine the volatility of effect of the Word upon our hearts. Where we make bad choices and reject it, we not only do not grow in righteousness, but we begin to degenerate our hearts and scar our souls to future growth in Him.

We live by continuing to grow in Him, and with our free will fighting the good fight. The Church today is composed by those with free will who choose to remain faithful and obedient to His will.

There's plenty of freedom and things to do in life after remaining faithful in Him. Life isn't simply struggle against bad choices. It's a happiness and joy in living by His will.

BTW, good article and thanks for posting.

Hi, RnMomof7, long time no chat.

I do not struggle with it , I just accept what the Bible says on it. Unregenerate man can do not do a God pleasing act, so yes Zot He gives you a new heart. A heart you did not even know needed to be replaced . Our will flows from our heart, so we then freely desire God.

I am not so quickly accepting... but, we agree, that what the Bible says is paramount. I just don't so easily accept certain interpretations. Take, for instance, these verses:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Matthew 23:37)

God allows them to do something He does not wish them to do. If He truly wanted to, He would have changed their hearts. But, if He didn't want to, why would He say He did? The answer that works: we are given a real opportunity to believe. The Holy Spirit draws us, to the point that we can believe or not. Without the drawing, we would be unable, for our hearts are evil. But with the drawing, we can believe, we can accept the free gift of grace from God.

The passage in Mark 10:46-52. - blind Bartimaeus cried out for mercy. Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” According to this question, it was Jesus that would do the healing. Yet, after healing him, Jesus said, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” Clearly Bartimaeus' healing hinged on his faith.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " (John 3:18) "… concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me … "(John 16:9)
Those who do not believe are judged. On what basis is this judgement, if not the free will choice to believe or not believe?

So, I accept what the Bible says on it. That God is sovereign, and that He has given us free will. That, though totally depraved, He calls us by the Holy Spirit, (John 1:9, John 12:32, John 16:8-11) quickening us to a point where we have a free will choice to accept grace. If we reject His grace, He judges us.

Those who will accept grace are foreknown by God, and are called predestined, or the chosen. (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Matthew 23:37) .

I was about to observe that the man Jesus speaks here, He expresses his human affection for the city of God.

That no scripture stands alone , the scripture that speaks to this is the words of Christ where He tells that He did not come to do His will , but the will of the one that sent Him. That will is well taught in John 6

However I decided to see what the commentators have said of that verse.

Verse 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,.... The metropolis of Judea, the seat of the kings of Judah, yea, the city of the great king; the place of divine worship, once the holy and faithful city, the joy of the whole earth; wherefore it was strange that the following things should be said of it. The word is repeated to show our Lord's affection and concern for that city, as well as to upbraid it with its name, dignity, and privileges; and designs not the building of the city, but the inhabitants of it; and these not all, but the rulers and governors of it, civil and ecclesiastical; especially the great sanhedrim, which were held in it, to whom best belong the descriptive characters of killing the prophets, and stoning them that were sent by God unto them; since it belonged to them to take cognizance of such who called themselves prophets, and to examine, and judge them, and, if false, to condemn them {h}; hence that saying of Christ, Luke 13:33 which goes before the same words, as here, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem": and who are manifestly distinguished from their "children": it being usual to call such as were the heads of the people, either in a civil or ecclesiastic sense, "fathers," and their subjects and disciples, "children": besides, our Lord's discourse throughout the whole context is directed to the Scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastic guides of the people, and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard.

Thou that killest the prophets; that is, with the sword, with which the prophets in Elijah's time were slain by the children of Israel, 1 Kings 19:10 and which was one of the capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish sanhedrim {i}; and also that which follows was another of them.

And stonest them which were sent unto thee; as particularly Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, before mentioned. The Jews themselves are obliged to own, that this character belongs to them: say {k} they, "when the word of God shall come, who is his messenger, we will honour him. Says R. Saul, did not the prophets come, Mwngrhw, "and we killed them," and shed their blood, and how shall we receive his word? or how shall we believe?" And a celebrated writer of their's, on those words {l}, "but now murderers," has this note; "they have killed Uriah, they have killed Zechariah."

How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Christ here speaks as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses an human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and an human wish, and will for their temporal good; which he very aptly signifies by the hen, which is a very affectionate creature to its young, and which it endeavours to screen from danger, by covering with its wings. So the "Shekinah" with the Jews is called, avydq arpu, "the holy bird" {m}; and that phrase, xnykvh ypnk txt twoxl, "to betake one's self, or to come to trust under the wings of the Shekinah," is often used {n} for to become a proselyte to the true religion, and worship of God, as Jethro, and Ruth the Moabitess did. An expression much like to this here is used by an apocryphal writer of 2 Esdras: "I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face." (2 Esdras 1:30) It seems to be a simile much in use with that people. Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself; for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people; but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent unto him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse.

Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in Mark 10:21 which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled: whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled: "who hath resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered, and made void; he does whatsoever he pleases: and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals; and therefore he says, "how often would I have gathered," &c. whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable; and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God, in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others. And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will.

So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of Matthew 23:13 and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God; but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word. In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text: and in order to establish the resistibility of the grace of God, by the perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect; it should be shown that Christ would have savingly converted persons, and they would not be converted; and that he bestowed the same grace upon them, he does bestow on others, who are converted: whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of the Jews, to whom, he was sent as the minister of the circumcision, would have gathered them together under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of himself, as the Messiah; which if they had only notionally received, would have secured them, as chickens under the hen, from impending judgments, which afterwards fell upon them; but their governors, and not they, would not; that is, would not suffer them to receive him, and embrace him as the Messiah. So that from the whole it appears, that this passage of Scripture, so much talked of by the Arminians, and so often cited by them, has nothing to do with the controversy about the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular redemption, efficacious grace in conversion, and the power of man's free will. This observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage, in favour of free will.
Gill

I would like your rendering of John

I will address the other scripter verses following

Hey Pastor , good to hear from you !

God allows them to do something He does not wish them to do. If He truly wanted to, He would have changed their hearts. But, if He didn't want to, why would He say He did?

Do you believe that if God Really truly desired all men to be saved they would be?

The answer that works: we are given a real opportunity to believe. The Holy Spirit draws us, to the point that we can believe or not. Without the drawing, we would be unable, for our hearts are evil. But with the drawing, we can believe, we can accept the free gift of grace from God.

Could you show me a scripture that say the Holy Spirit draws all men without exception and that when drawn they can refuse and be lost anyway?

Mar 10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, [thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.

Mar 10:48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, [Thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.

Mar 10:49 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.

Mar 10:50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.

Mar 10:51 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.

Mar 10:52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

This is a wonderful passage that demonstrates the Calvinist soteriology

What we see here is a man following the ordained means of salvation,.

He repented, He believed (faith) and Jesus became his Lord.

So the question is was the repentance self generated or was it a work of God. Can any man chose to repent (TURN AND CHANGE) without the Grace of God regenerating him.

Is Repentance a gift of God or is it a work of men ?

For that we look to scripture

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life

What we see is that repentance unto salvation is not self generated , it is a gift given by God

See here

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentanceto the acknowledging of the truth;

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2Cr 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 2Cr 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Hbr 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

The follow of men is they can repent in a godly way without God.

Repentance is a gift of God . it is not a casual "I am sorry , as the world gives. it is a deep mourning over our sin.

The blind man was granted Repentance and the faith to believe to life. That is the Biblical means of salvation as taught in the word of God. Salvation is all of God.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

This scripture affirms the total depravity of men ,that is all men are born condemned and they hate the light of Christ that exposes their sin . They are born condemned .
So why do then some men choose to come to the light and others hide in the darkness of their sin? We say that The father draws them and the Holy Spirit quickens them to new life. Then they will desire to come to the ligh , and like the blind man run to Him

The basis of that judgement is that ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION deserve hells fire. There is not one worthy of salvation . THAT is how every one of us enter the world..That is why we call it Mercy

As a Calvinist, let me say that I believe in free will. All men are free to do anything they want to. However, the unregenerate sinner will never want to submit to God, thus he doesn't.

Ditto, with the exception: "However, the sinner untouched by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, will never want to submit to God, thus he doesn't."

We've been here before, haven't we? :>)

So, I accept what the Bible says on it.

I do not think you really know what the bible says on it, because as Arminians we "skimmed over " the tough passages and then forced others into our meaning .

That God is sovereign, and that He has given us free will.

All Calvinists believe in free will, we just do not think an man will freely choose God or choose to repent , or choose to believe all of that is a gift of God as taught in scripture

Arminians SAY they believe in the sovereignty of God, but they really have to twist the meaning of sovereignty to make it fit

The fact is that Armenians believe God is only sovereign over what MAN allows God to be sovereign over.

So who is REALLY sovereign then?

That, though totally depraved, He calls us by the Holy Spirit, (John 1:9, John 12:32, John 16:8-11) quickening us to a point where we have a free will choice to accept grace. If we reject His grace, He judges us.

How can a spiritually dead man hear a call, can a dead man answer with out Gods grace first opening his ears to hear?

We ask can a dead man floating reach for the life preserver , or does He need to be pulled into the boat and given CPR?

Those who will accept grace are foreknown by God, and are called predestined, or the chosen. (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

The problem with this theology is you have removed grace .

If you make foreknowledge the method of election that you make God the debtor of men that act correctly. God is them the debtor of man, not extending mercy , but paying an earned wage.

The other issue with that is it means that the Arminian insistence God does not truly want all men saved can not be true , because He made men knowing that they were never going to be saved and were bound for hell yet choose to do nothing to see to their salvation

Happy belated Mother's Day.

Whew, that was a windy commentator! While overwhelmed with verbiage, I was underwhelmed with his logic.

A few excepts:
but the inhabitants of it; and these not all, but the rulers and governors of it,

I don't see that. Why does your author make this claim? Why doesn't he attempt to substantiate it?

Christ here speaks as a man,

The crux, if I'm not mistaken, of his argument. Yet, he fails to substantiate his claim. Yes, it works out better for his position, but that isn't enough reason to make the claim. It appears to me that he's gotten his doctrine ahead of his hermeneutic.

And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered

I fail to see where he has establish this, either. Or is he claiming that only leaders are able to thwart God's sovereign will?

In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling,

The doctrine of grace is not "overthrown" by the doctrine of limited free-will. As for the others - those are off-topic. The commentator is claiming that all Calvinist positions stand or fall together, but that is not necessarily true, either, and is a common dodge for a weak argument in any field. Each tenet should stand or fall individually, based on sola scriptura.

it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text

Another debating dodge - "prove me wrong." If his arguments "for" were stronger, he would not have to resort to a "prove me wrong" summary. Such proofs exist, whether they are more or less compelling is a different question. But, "not the least intimation"? Please, if "gather you to me" doesn't carry at least some intimation of a spiritual, saving gathering, then we have to throw out 3000 years of scriptural studies.

As for my rendering of John... I'm sorry, a lot of time has past since I was here, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Thank you for your responses. I will try to respond to them all soon.

"thy faith hath made thee whole"

I think what I need to do is lay out a timeline of what I think you believe, and a timeline of what I believe.

Calvinism (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. God pre-ordains
2. The sinner is totally depraved.
3. God grants irresistable grace to the sinner
4. The sinner believes.
5. The now-believing sinner, now having a new heart, is able to, and always does, repent. (Belief must come before repentance, or none would repent).
6. The repentant sinner now has faith in God and follows God, and will always do so (albeit imperfectly).
7. The the faithful, repentant sinner is sanctified, by which process he becomes more Christlike, and does good works.
8. The somewhat sanctified Christian dies, and is judged blameless because he is covered by the blood of Jesus, and lives eternally in heaven.

What I believe:
1. God foreknows, but only because he is omniscient. Foreknowledge does not preclude free will.
2. The sinner is totally depraved.
3. God is revealed to the sinner, either through the preaching of the Gospel, or through the observations of nature and his own conscience (Romans 1 and 2).
4. The Holy Spirit quickens the sinner, granting him enough temporary respite from his depravity that he can, for a limited time only, make a free will choice.
5. The sinner chooses to repent and believe, or not. He accepts the gift, or not.
OPTION A:
6. The repentant sinner, now has faith in God and follows God, and will always do so (albeit imperfectly).
7. The the faithful, repentant sinner is sanctified, by which process he becomes more Christlike, and does good works.
8. The somewhat sanctified Christian dies, and is judged blameless because he is covered by the blood of Jesus, and lives eternally in heaven.
OPTION B:
6: The sinner may or may not receive another call from God.
7. If he never choose option A, the sinner dies and goes to hell.

Now, in my rendition of the Calvinist salvation process, steps 3 through 6 happen virtually simultaneously. In the non-Calvinist process I laid out, steps 4 thru 6 are virtually simultaneously, although the quickening may last for an unspecified (but short) length of time.

So, the blind man clearly already believed, or would not have been asking Jesus for mercy. It seems to me he is repenting, since he is asking for mercy. Now, was he asking for mercy to be healed of his blindness or his sins? And of course, as I'm sure you know, he most likely thought his blindness was a punishment for his sins (or those of his father(s)), so the distinction is blurred.

So, when Jesus asked him what he wanted, the man said his sight. And Jesus said that the man's faith had healed him, and he instantly had sight. But notice, the sight occurred after Jesus spoke. To some degree, Jesus healed him, yet also, Jesus credits the man's faith.

Faith in Jesus has the power to heal seems to me to be the teaching.

But, salvation? I'm not sure where this passage give a lot of insight.

It seems the man already had (at least) some belief and repentance. He put his belief in action (i.e., his faith) by insisting on asking Jesus for mercy. He had faith before he asked for healing, no?

Anyway, I think you will see that most of the scriptures you cited in the post that this post is in repsonse to, fit into both of our processes.

John 3:18.

We agree on total depravity. Well, sort of. I wonder about the doctrine of the age of accountability, and whether infant baptism has any efficacy whatsoever, and if the infants of believers are spared, whether baptized or not. But that is a whole different discussion, for which very few verses are used by any viewpoint, because few verses address the topic, and even fewer (none?) clearly.

I do not think you really know what the bible says on it, because as Arminians we "skimmed over " the tough passages and then forced others into our meaning .

That may have been the case for you, but not for me. I find your assumptions offensive. I dwell longest over the tough passages, and try out lots of different possible interpretations, including Reformed.

All Calvinists believe in free will,

As laid out in this thread's parent, yes. But, in the matter of the absolutely most important decision in a person's life, whether to follow Jesus or not, no, Calvinists do not believe in free will. This, despite the fact that we are held accountable before a righteous and just God to judge us, - yet how could a righteous and just God punish us for something we had no control over whatsoever? Calvinists claim there is a higher mystery to God's justice that we can't fathom, but have to accept. Well, in the end, they may be right, but this is quite contrary to our God-given sense of justice, and most importantly, it may not be the best way to interpret the scriptures.

Arminians SAY...Armenians believe

Who is an Armenian? Someone whose theology is very close to that of Arminius, or anyone who disputes any of the teachings of Calvin?

God is only sovereign over what MAN allows God to be sovereign over.

God is only sovereign over what He chooses to be sovereign over. If He chooses to allow free will, that is His prerogative. If He does not allow free will, then He is the author of evil.

We ask can a dead man floating reach for the life preserver , or does He need to be pulled into the boat and given CPR?

I'd have to ask, how is that any more or less miraculous that God giving life to the dead man without involving the man's choice?

The problem with this theology is you have removed grace .

I see no less grace, and I certainly don't see that it has been removed. There is nothing I can do to merit salvation - salvation is offered as a free gift from God. If that wasn't enough, God also "revives" me to a point where I can accept the gift, when my total depravity disables me from accepting the gift.

If you make foreknowledge the method of election that you make God the debtor of men that act correctly. God is them the debtor of man, not extending mercy , but paying an earned wage.

Men that act correctly? None act correctly all the time. God the debtor or men? God is a God of covenants. God sets the rules. Was God the debtor to man, when the Israelites offered a sacrifice? God would forgive them of their sins if they offered the sacrifice properly. So, if you wish to say that God was indebted to the high priest, to pay them the wage for a proper sacrifice, said wage being forgiveness of sin, then I guess you can say that, but I think that is a mis-characterization. By the same token, God, by grace, has made the payment for our sins. God, by grace, grants us a temporary repreive from our depravity, during which time we can accept His gift, or not. If we accept the gift, He is not indebted to us - the gift is salvation, and that which you would call "indebtedness" has already been "paid". No debt remains.

The other issue with that is it means that the Arminian insistence God does not truly want all men saved can not be true , because He made men knowing that they were never going to be saved and were bound for hell yet choose to do nothing to see to their salvation

Chose to do nothing? He sent His Son to die for them all, and all have at least one opportunity. (I'm not sure I qualify for Arminian-hood - I believe that God would like for all to believe). It was their choices. Anything more, and He would have to remove free will in the matter. Which brings us back to square one, I believe.

As laid out in this thread's parent, yes. But, in the matter of the absolutely most important decision in a person's life, whether to follow Jesus or not, no, Calvinists do not believe in free will. This, despite the fact that we are held accountable before a righteous and just God to judge us, - yet how could a righteous and just God punish us for something we had no control over whatsoever? Calvinists claim there is a higher mystery to God's justice that we can't fathom, but have to accept. Well, in the end, they may be right, but this is quite contrary to our God-given sense of justice, and most importantly, it may not be the best way to interpret the scriptures.

No, we do believe that every man MUST CHOOSE to repent and Believe. The question is can a dead man make that choice or does he need to be quickened first?

Your problem is you assume that God OWES an opportunity for salvation to men. That somehow God owes us that shot. I do not think you know what Justice is.

Justice was the killing of men , women and children in the flood , It was reigning down fire on Sodom . Justice was sending the nation of Israel into captivity .

Justice is giving a man what he deserves. Does man DESERVE to be saved? Is that what you call "godly justice"?

God is only sovereign over what He chooses to be sovereign over. If He chooses to allow free will, that is His prerogative. If He does not allow free will, then He is the author of evil.

Could I have a scripture that says that God has made man sovereign over Him or that he has yielded his sovereignty to men ?

1)I see no less grace, and I certainly don't see that it has been removed.
2)There is nothing I can do to merit salvation - salvation is offered as a free gift from God.
3)If that wasn't enough, God also "revives" me to a point where I can accept the gift, when my total depravity disables me from accepting the gift.

Lets go through this. 1) What is your definition of Grace? The standard Protestant one is "Gods UNMERITED Favor". The minute you add anything to your salvation that man MUST preform , it is no longer UNMERITED as you have preformed an act that God reward .God has become your debtor. It is no longer grace

2) You have just told us what you MUST do to merit your salvation. You must CHOOSE CORRECTLY . Your correct choice is then rewarded with salvation

3) Could you show me the partial revival scripture? Is everyone partially revived? What makes one partially revived person make the correct choice and another not?

How do you deal with the following scripture with you belief that God has given may some of His sovereignty and that his partial revival sometimes fails?

Jhn 6:29This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father..

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

God never changes , not His word or His promises

We are told in Romans that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

How do you reconcile men being "partially" revived and then hearing the word and deciding to refuse it with this scripture?

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

I believe that God would like for all to believe). It was their choices. Anything more, and He would have to remove free will in the matter. Which brings us back to square one, I believe.

Read the above scripture again , it says His word does exactly what HE wants it to do , how do you reconcile that with the fact that God wants every man saved?

God is in the business of the restoration of free will, not the removal of it.

Is there a scripture that says than a man must "choose" Christ?

"thy faith hath made thee whole"
I think what I need to do is lay out a timeline of what I think you believe, and a timeline of what I believe.

Calvinism (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. God pre-ordains
2. The sinner is totally depraved.
3. God grants irresistable grace to the sinner
4. The sinner believes.
5. The now-believing sinner, now having a new heart, is able to, and always does, repent. (Belief must come before repentance, or none would repent).
6. The repentant sinner now has faith in God and follows God, and will always do so (albeit imperfectly).
7. The the faithful, repentant sinner is sanctified, by which process he becomes more Christlike, and does good works.
8. The somewhat sanctified Christian dies, and is judged blameless because he is covered by the blood of Jesus, and lives eternally in heaven.

1) God foreordains all things
2)All of mankind is totally depraved because of the fall ( having no natural ability or desire to know or please God, )

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

3)God ordains some for Salvation and some for reprobation ( either by passing over or decree depending on the doctrinal stand of the Calvinist)

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved

4) God regenerates the elect man, gives Him a new heart that will desire God . (Mans will chooses what his heart most desires)

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

5)God grants repentance to the man, it is godly repentance , not worldly repentance)

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2Cr 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

6)Through the ministry of the word men are brought to repentance and believe.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

7) The saved preform "good" works that were foreordained for them to do before the foundation of the world.

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The believer is saved because of His position in Christ having no righteousness of his own

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

What I believe:
1. God foreknows, but only because he is omniscient. Foreknowledge does not preclude free will. 2. The sinner is totally depraved. 3. God is revealed to the sinner, either through the preaching of the Gospel, or through the observations of nature and his own conscience (Romans 1 and 2). 4. The Holy Spirit quickens the sinner, granting him enough temporary respite from his depravity that he can, for a limited time only, make a free will choice. 5. The sinner chooses to repent and believe, or not. He accepts the gift, or not. OPTION A: 6. The repentant sinner, now has faith in God and follows God, and will always do so (albeit imperfectly). 7. The the faithful, repentant sinner is sanctified, by which process he becomes more Christlike, and does good works. 8. The somewhat sanctified Christian dies, and is judged blameless because he is covered by the blood of Jesus, and lives eternally in heaven. OPTION B: 6: The sinner may or may not receive another call from God. 7. If he never choose option A, the sinner dies and goes to hell.

Now, in my rendition of the Calvinist salvation process, steps 3 through 6 happen virtually simultaneously. In the non-Calvinist process I laid out, steps 4 thru 6 are virtually simultaneously, although the quickening may last for an unspecified (but short) length of time.

You have an awful lot of options , how about picking one set and giving me your scripture

I do have one question, if man is elect because of Gods foreknowledge of mans correct choice , then there is no grace in that. It is all of men . Man chooses and then god rewards the correct choice . Where is Mercy in that ? (Mercy is giving man what he DOES NOT DESERVE) His correct choice made God mans debtor not a merciful saviour .

So, the blind man clearly already believed, or would not have been asking Jesus for mercy.

YES

It seems to me he is repenting, since he is asking for mercy.

YES

Now, was he asking for mercy to be healed of his blindness or his sins?

If the man repented and believed his faith was counted to him as righteousness

Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Mat 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

And of course, as I'm sure you know, he most likely thought his blindness was a punishment for his sins (or those of his father(s)), so the distinction is blurred.

That has no impact on the event. He had to believe that jesus had the power to forgive sins as well as heal right?

So, when Jesus asked him what he wanted, the man said his sight. And Jesus said that the man's faith had healed him, and he instantly had sight. But notice, the sight occurred after Jesus spoke. To some degree, Jesus healed him, yet also, Jesus credits the man's faith.

It was not his faith to be healed , it was his faith in Christ .

Faith in Jesus has the power to heal seems to me to be the teaching.

I think the message is that Christ gives sight to the blind and the spiritually blind

But, salvation? I'm not sure where this passage give a lot of insight.

Jesus did not have to tell the man he had his sight did he? The man KNEW he could see. What did Jesus say to him? "I have made thee WHOLE" ..not "sighted".
If you do not believe that repentance and belief save , I guess I can see your problem. Do you believe Chapter 11 in Hebrews is true?

It seems the man already had (at least) some belief and repentance. He put his belief in action (i.e., his faith) by insisting on asking Jesus for mercy. He had faith before he asked for healing, no?
Anyway, I think you will see that most of the scriptures you cited in the post that this post is in repsonse to, fit into both of our processes.

If you doubt that man believed to salvation and that it was given to him to believe , then we do not agree

We agree on total depravity. Well, sort of. I wonder about the doctrine of the age of accountability, and whether infant baptism has any efficacy whatsoever, and if the infants of believers are spared, whether baptized or not. But that is a whole different discussion, for which very few verses are used by any viewpoint, because few verses address the topic, and even fewer (none?) clearly.

That is a topic for another time . Start a thread on it sometime and others will weigh in too.

I happen to believe that all salvation , from the womb to old age is of God mercy, never due to man because of any worth of his....and that includes age