Posted on 05/07/2004 6:21:35 AM PDT by ksen
Understanding the Will
Douglas Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free will. Who could be against it? But there is a better question than this to ask. Free will. What is it?
Many of the staunchest advocates of "free will" encounter immediate difficulties when they are asked to explain what they defend -- the embarrassment of Erasmus in his debate with Luther may be the archtypical example. Upon any close examination of proposed explanations it soon becomes apparent that "free will" (as commonly understood) is a philosophical chimera -- it will be a long time before there is a rigorous apologetic in defense of this, the evanescent god.
Fortunately, the Bible does not leave us without teaching on this important subject of human choices. Jesus explains, in very plain terms, the mechanics of the will -- and it is not what many suppose. In Matthew 12:33-37, Christ says:
Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
Christ teaches here that choices come from the heart. The will does not command the heart; rather, the heart commands the will. Consider these key points of Christ's doctrine:
* Choices and actions are the fruit of our human nature -- they are a revelation of that nature. A good nature will result in good choices, and an evil nature will result in evil choices. Good trees produce good fruit, and evil trees produce evil fruit. Our words and actions, therefore, are not determined by an autonomous will, but rather by the nature of the tree.
* Consequently, Jesus says, someone with an evil nature is incapable of speaking good things. But this inability, this bondage, is caused by the nature of his own heart. He is bound by what he wants; it is a self-limitation. It is not external compulsion. Evil men are therefore free to do what they want, but they are not free to do what they should.
* Moreover, the fact that our choices proceed from our hearts does not limit our responsibility before God in the slightest. Our words are determined by our hearts, and we will be judged on the basis of our words. Indeed, we are judged on the basis of our words because they proceed straight from our hearts.
Suppose I offered a man a bowl of cockroaches to eat, and he refused. Why did he refuse? Because he didn't want them. Suppose further that I therefore accused him of having an enslaved will. He wonders why I think this. I reply that I think he is enslaved because he didn't use his will to decide to eat the cockroaches. He replies, quite justly, that his will is working perfectly well. The will chose just what the man wanted, and he didn't want a cockroach.
Jesus used another example besides that of fruit-bearing trees. If a man were to reach into a chest, he could only bring out what was already inside the chest. Different chests contain different things, and consequently, different things are brought out. Different hearts contain different things, and consequently, different choices are made. The will is simply the arm God has given us to reach into our treasure chest (our heart), in order to bring out the contents. The will has no power to determine the contents of the chest; it only has the power to reveal the contents, and this it does very well.
So when God saves a man, He does not give him a new will. There is no need; the old will works just fine in doing what wills were meant by God to do -- which is to bring out the contents of the heart. What God does in salvation is this: He gives us new hearts. As a result, the new Christian begins making new choices.
No man is capable of making a choice contrary to the strongest desire of his heart. This is an inexorable law; there are no exceptions -- even God's choices proceed from His immutable and holy nature. A person may certainly has other desires, and they may be very strong desires (Romans 7:18-23). But what he finally does is what he wanted to do most, and he is therefore responsible for the choice.
If the choice were not his strongest desire, he would not have chosen it. Let us return to our example of the bowl of cockroaches for a moment. Suppose a man said, in order to refute this teaching, that he didn't want to eat a cockroach, but that he was going to do so anyway -- so there. Is this a refutation? Not at all. It simply means that his will acted on the basis of his strongest desire, which is now to win the debate.
If we take these factors together, we see that it is nonsense to talk of a free will, as though there were this autonomous thing inside of us, capable of acting in any direction, regardless of the motives of the heart. If there could be such a thing -- a creature who made choices not determined by the desires of its heart -- we would not applaud this creature as a paragon of free will, but would rather pity it as a collection of random, arbitrary, insane choices. Such a creature would not be, and could not be, a free and responsible agent. We would recoil in horror from an exhibition of such autonomous free will. Choices made apart from the desires of the heart? They would be an exhibition, not of freedom, but of insanity. "Why did you throw the vase against the wall?" "Because I wanted to go for a walk."
So a far more Biblical way of speaking is to speak of free men, and not of free will. And what is a free man? He is someone who is free from external compulsion and is consequently at liberty to do what his heart desires. This is a natural liberty, and all men are in possession of it. It is the only kind of liberty possible for us, and it is a gift to us from God. Under the superintendence of God, all men, Christian and non-Christian, have the freedom to turn left or right, to choose chocolate or vanilla, or to move to this city or that one -- depending entirely upon what they want to do. The foreordination of God does not violate this; it is the cause of this -- but more on this in a moment.
Notice that this natural liberty is not the same thing as the freedom from sin, i.e. moral liberty. In Romans 6:20,22, Paul makes the distinction between natural liberty and moral liberty. He says:
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness... But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. Slavery to sin is true slavery, but even sin does not negate natural liberty -- the slave to sin is free from righteousness, but is still not free from his own desires. This slave to sin is one who loves sin, and consequently obeys it. As a creature, he is free to do what he wants, which is to continue in sin. But he is not free to desire righteousness. Why is he not free to do right? Because his sinful heart does not love what is right. Like all men, he is not free to choose what is repulsive to him, and true godliness is repulsive to him. So in the realm of morality, he is therefore free in a limited sense -- free from the control of righteousness. When God, by grace, liberates him from the bondage of his own sin-loving heart, he is then a slave to God. As a slave to righteousness, the Christian freely, out of a new heart, follows Christ.
The True Ground of Freedom
Some people almost automatically yet mistakenly conclude that any assertion of foreordination along with any clarification of "free will" implies that human beings have no true freedom at all. This is quite false, and can easily be shown to be false. For example, when the Westminster divines affirmed the sovereignty of God's eternal decree, they went on, in the same breath, to say this: "...nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Now the writers of the Confession were not merely saying that creaturely liberty was consistent with the Bible's teaching regarding God's sovereignty (although it certainly is), but rather that the Biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty was the foundation for human liberty. Consequently, according to this view, those Christians who dispute the doctrine of divine sovereignty are attacking more than God's sovereignty; they are attacking the only ground and foundation of true human liberty. So the debate is not between those Christians who want to affirm the liberty and responsibility of creatures, and those who do not. It is between those who consistently ground the liberty of creatures in the strength and power of God, and those who inconsistently ground it in the strength and power of man.
I have been in discussions where this affirmation of creaturely liberty was dismissed as something "tacked on" to the Biblical position -- as sort of a sop to common sense. It is important to note the word "dismissed," and remember that it is not a synonym for "argued." The reason it is dismissed is because it is easy to assume that divine sovereignty is inconsistent with true human responsibility -- but to argue for it is ultimately impossible.
For example, I have been told that to assert divine sovereignty and true human freedom is "illogical." There is a very simple answer to this: If this is illogical, then what is the name of the fallacy? There is a vast difference between logical contradictions and those high mysteries which must necessarily be contained in the infinite wisdom of God.
It is true that this sort of objection is quite a natural mistake to make, and people have been making it since the time of Paul at least (Rom. 9:19). When we consider the relationship of the infinite Creator to the finite creature, we do have a problem understanding how true natural liberty can co-exist with a sovereign God superintending all events in the universe. But the reconciliation of these two Biblical truths is ultimately to be found in the mind of God; it is not a problem that is keeping Him up nights, and we must recognize that our finite minds are not capable of penetrating the glories of the infinite. The sovereign prerogatives of the Creator, and the natural liberty and true responsibility of creatures are not inconsistent. How could they be? The Bible teaches them both, sometimes in the same verse.
We can, however, approach the subject obliquely. Instead of demonstrating that human liberty and divine sovereignty are consistent, it would be far more fruitful to show that all denials of divine sovereignty destory true human liberty. In other words, it can be shown that the only hope for any kind of true human liberty is in the exhaustive sovereignty of the living God.
In the previous section, I argued that choices proceed from our hearts. It is impossible for a true choice to be autonomous in the sense of being independent of our heart desires. If there were a choice for which no reason at all could be given, we could no longer call it a choice. We would have to say it was a random event -- Henry random-evented chocolate instead of vanilla. To say "autonomous choice" is as contradictory as to say "round square."
Now because all the influence is from the heart to the will, and not the other way around, the question is now this: since the will does not determine the direction of the heart, what does? The Bible teaches that God superintends the choices made by men. He may do so immediately through providential intervention or mediately through the use of secondary agents. What is the alternative to God's sovereignty over all events?
We have already shown that a man cannot autonomously choose to push his heart in a certain direction. And if we remove, for the sake of argument, God's personal and loving sovereignty from the one choosing, what is left? Only a blind, rigorous, inexorable, deterministic fatalism. Picture cupped hands around a guttering candle in a strong wind. This candle flame is the human will. The wind is the typhoon of the world around us. The cupped hands are the Lord's. Within Christianity, advocates of "free will" want the Lord to remove His hands so that the candle may burn more brightly. The history of modern philosophy should teach us better than this. Those who begin these optimistic crusades in the name of free will always end up in the fever swamps of blind behaviorism and deter-minism.The candle is out.
The conclusion then is that man, as creature, is free to do as he pleases. He has this freedom only because God grants and sustains it -- and perfectly controls it.
Douglas Wilson is a Contributing Editor of Antithesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1991
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.
I guess that's just 12. Looks like we're all out of luck.
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
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 10:48 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.
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
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? :>)
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
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?
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
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
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.