Understanding the Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

It seems we agree here.

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.

Owes? I don't think so. I simply think God has said that he does.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."
Hebrews 2:9, "But we see Jesus...that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "For the love of Christ constraineth us...And that he died for all..."
John 1:29, "...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Matthew 18:14 "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish."
Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
Now, I'm not a universalist - the Bible says that salvation is conditional on our belief and repentance:
1 Timothy 4:10, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
Galatians 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
Luke 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
John 3:15 "so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Does man DESERVE to be saved? Is that what you call "godly justice"?

No, and no.

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

I disagree strongly with the characterization, but, consider every promise of God that takes the format of "if you will, then I will".
Exodus 23:22 "If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you."

There are of course, many many more promises of God. We see throughout the Bible that God makes promises, and we praise Him for these. Do these make man sovereign over God? I think not. God chooses to make promises, and He always keeps His promises. I think to call this "God yielding sovereignty" is a misconstruing of the nature of a convenant-making God.

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

What you must do, yes, but there is no merit. It is not a work. You must accept the free gift which you have not earned - you must not resist the grace. If you earn it, it is not a gift. Accepting a gift is clearly different from earning a gift. A gift cannot be earned, a gift can only be accepted, or rejected.

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?

Fair questions, that hinge on the question of irresistable grace. And, perhaps the wink link in my theology, for the verses that address a non-effecacious regeneration are scarce. It does seems strongly inferred, for I do not deny that regeneration precedes faith, but yet I cannot deny that the Word presents belief as a choice.

Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! "

Now, for some of your verses.

John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him"

Clearly speaks to regeneration preceding faith... but, it saying all A are B, but it does not say all B are A. All of the set of people who come are in the set of people who are drawn. It is silent on the question of whether all who are in the set that are drawn are in the set that come.

John 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"

All in the set "given" are in the set "not lost". In this case, clear proof of the perservance of the saints. Unless someone can show the Father's will can be thwarted, or that it might imply a Self-imposed limit on God.

Jhn 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

This one is less clear to me. It seems a little redundant, so perhaps I should read it more carefully. It could refer effectual calling, or it could refer to "given" on earth will "come" to Him in heaven, or it could refer to refer to sanctification...

Jhn 6:29This is the work of God, that ye believe on him

God did all the work. He made a way, Jesus died and rose, and the HS draws. God offers the gift. You do nothing but accept.

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

With the parable of the sower. Those on the rocky soil... the seed springs up - signs of life - but it withers and dies. The word was ineffectual.

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void,

Doesn't mean that every hearer will respond.

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?

That God allows man's free will to play a role in whether they choose the gift of grace. How do you reconcile it?

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

Yes, many. It is a theme throughout the whole Bible.

Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants"
Joshua 24:15 "...choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

And, throughout the New Testament, repentance of sin and belief in Christ (as opposed to belief in anything or anyone else, ie, a choice) are the prerequisites for salvation. Which, once again, brings us back to square one.

Wow, this took a long time. I'll try and get to another post tomorrow.

God bless you.

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

Please elaborate, I'm not familiar with this disctinction.

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

To me, one of the clearer verses supporting the doctrine of election. Still, if predestination is based on foreknowledge, and the good pleasure of His will is to save us, it doesn't *necessarily* mean what you think it means. Of course, any good refutation of Calvinism would have to spend a considerable amount of time on this verse.

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

I think I see what you are getting at, but... if God grants the repentance, does the man really repent, or is it just God that repents for him? If the latter, how is that really repentance? If the former, how is that not wordly repentance? Your verses about granting repentance could be interpreted as meaning that God granted an effecacious repentance - that repentance leads to salvation is what is granted.

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

Don't you mean they are granted repentance? And granted belief? Brought implies a guiding, which would imply some following - which would be a work. God just elects them, and *bang* they are new creatures, which naturally and invariably repent and believe, because that is the type of thing they are programmed for.

You have an awful lot of options

I only saw two - choose this day whom you will serve...

Man chooses and then god rewards the correct choice . Where is Mercy in that ?

It looks saturated in Mercy to me. That there is a way abounds in Mercy, when we all deserve punishment. That the way is a free gift you merely accept, requiring no works, and no righteousness on the part of man.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." What is meant by "Way"? Well, elsewhere, he describes the narrow path and the broad road... The whole image is that of a fork in the road... a choice. One Way leads salvation. That Way is Jesus.

His correct choice made God mans debtor not a merciful saviour .

Mentioned in my previous post, but here's another example of what I'm saying:
1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. "

So, is God the debtor of man, if the man confesses his sins? Isn't God indebted to forgive them, since that is what He has promised? Of course not - but He is a keeper of His promises. He made this promise, and He will keep it.

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

IF? What you said there is exactly what I would have said. But, according to Calvin, he was already made righteous, or he would not have repented and believed.

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?

Hmm, now we're getting somewhere. I think I have been claiming all along that repentance and belief are require for salvation. Now you seem to think that too. Perhaps were are not so far apart as it seems. I thought I heard you saying that nothing was required on the part of the believer, that God goes *zap* and you're chosen, and redeemed, and that you will then, only then, and always then follow it with repentance and beleif. Did I miss what you were saying?

And of course I believe Hebrews 11 is true, its all true, cover to cover, Amen.

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

I have trouble reconciling the two halves of your sentence. Believed to salvation? That sounds right. Given to him to believe? How so? If it was given to him first, then he was saved before he believed. He was regenerated first - which is always followed by repentance and belief... but, imagine the unlucky man who died the instant he was regenerated - is he regenerated, or not? Yes. Thus, he is already saved, before he repents and believes, no? And that seems contrary to everything the Bible teaches. That is part of why I haven't yet embraced Calvinism.

Sorry I am so late getting here .

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

Please elaborate, I'm not familiar with this disctinction.

Some Calvinists are single predestaniarns and some are double. I suspect the single variety would be the most common.

Here is the distinction. Single predestination means that God sovereignly elected some to salvation and simply passed over the others.
A double predestinarian believes that God sovereignly elected some to be saved and other to be lost.

It is distinction without a difference to my mind, but I guess single "feels " more acceptable to some

To me, one of the clearer verses supporting the doctrine of election. Still, if predestination is based on foreknowledge, and the good pleasure of His will is to save us, it doesn't *necessarily* mean what you think it means. Of course, any good refutation of Calvinism would have to spend a considerable amount of time on this verse.

Here is what I see as the problem of election by foreknowledge.

By its very nature it is a salvation without grace. it must be 100% a salvation of works.

All mankind being on equal footing ( "totally depraved" ), some will manage to see and understand the gospel and will to repent and believe. Others will not even understand the gospel or seek after it .

God looks down the tube of time and sees who will select Him, He then elects them and sends them His grace. This is not according to His will , it is according to the will of the man that wills it.

It also means God becomes the debtor of man. God sees man choose correctly so he must give the man the reward for his choice. God owes it to him.

The definition for Mercy is not giving someone what they deserve . By the very method of election by foreknowledge the man does deserve it because he chose correctly .No grace or mercy in that scenario .

I think I see what you are getting at, but... if God grants the repentance, does the man really repent, or is it just God that repents for him? If the latter, how is that really repentance? If the former, how is that not wordly repentance? Your verses about granting repentance could be interpreted as meaning that God granted an effecacious repentance - that repentance leads to salvation is what is granted.

Here is what faces you. If repentance to salvation is not given to you ,then the Bible lies..that simple.

Yes, the repentance is efficacious. Worldly sorrow can not bring repentance to salvation. That is shown it two clear scriptural examples. Essau and Judas . Essau sought it with tears and Judas with returning the money, yet there was no repentance for them .

You ask a question: if God grants the repentance, does the man really repent, or is it just God that repents for him?

Funny thing is that God took the punishment for your sin for you and that seems ok right? (yes we can all be selective in out doctrinal application)

The real answer is God granting is not God doing , it is God giving .

Remember the day you were saved, and see if it lines up with my experience . (we will of course have different times and places)

I was praying and trying to understand the work of Jesus and how that related to me. I asked God to show me Jesus ( not physically but spiritually) In one second what I saw was all my sin , my memory fades as to exactly how ( 27 years ago) I do not remember if it was an impression or actually seeing .. but I do remember one second I was a woman that thought she was a pretty decent person , and the next I was driven to my knees in repentance. I knew how a holy God saw me.

I did not ask to repent it was given to me to repent . I suspect in one way or another , every saved man or woman had such a moment before they were saved. Suddenly they knew they were sinners in need of a Saviour...when 10 minutes before that was not what they thought at all.

Our salvation is an almost split second event , God regenerates you , gives you a new heart that changes all you priorities and there fore changes your will, God shows you His holiness and your sin to bring you to repentance , you repent and then as never before you desire to belong to the God of creation...

You have repented and you have believed. But it was the work of God that brought you to that place . His grace enabled you to do in that second, what you had now desire or been able to do before .

There are two scriptures I love that show this.

Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isa 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory.
Isa 6:4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
Isa 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, [which] he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
Isa 6:7 And he laid [it] upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?
Then said I, Here [am] I; send me.
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

The other is Pauls conversion (which we are all familiar with

Don't you mean they are granted repentance? And granted belief? Brought implies a guiding, which would imply some following - which would be a work. God just elects them, and *bang* they are new creatures, which naturally and invariably repent and believe, because that is the type of thing they are programmed for.

I do not see the great distinction. God grants us ( gives us some thing we do not deserve) and he brings us .
If you bring a cake to a church social did you guide it or did you carry it?

We see every step of salvation as totally of God.

I only saw two - choose this day whom you will serve...

That was a statement of Joshua's salvation . It was a call to the nation of Israel to return to God, it was not an individual altar call. His statement was clear, he had under the sovereignty of God led the nation into the promised land , now the nation had to decide if it would follow God or the idols of the heathens. ( that was one , what was the other ??)

Man chooses and then God rewards the correct choice . Where is Mercy in that ?

It looks saturated in Mercy to me. That there is a way abounds in Mercy, when we all deserve punishment. That the way is a free gift you merely accept, requiring no works, and no righteousness on the part of man.

You can not have it both ways..First you say that God looks down the tube of time and elects based on mans choices, making the man worthy of election (salvation ) ...thus removing the mercy

It looks saturated in the work and right choices of men to me choose right, and then God will save you. Mercy is giving man what he does not deserve, something he can not do or earn on his own. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." What is meant by "Way"? Well, elsewhere, he describes the narrow path and the broad road... The whole image is that of a fork in the road... a choice. One Way leads salvation. That Way is Jesus.

That was in response to the Jews that thought law keeping was "the way" . Today ,that remains a very Catholic reading of that text. I have heard Catholics say that Jesus came to show how to be saved (good works ) . Jesus is more than an example of how to live ..He is life. Jesus is the way . HE IS THE WAY not a way .No one can come to the Father any other way (it is not about our walk, or choices but His) . And it is a narrow way , look around you and see how few comer. But it begs the question who will come that way ? ...you may want to tack onto that scripture a question ..who comes by the way ?

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..

You may read it a fork in the road, but the only ones with a map are the ones the Father enabled . You seem to think that Calvinists do not believe that man must make a choice ..nothing is further from the truth ...but dead men can not choose what color socks to wear for the funeral . Spiritually dead men can not find the road unless they are regenerated first. We are not "sorta "dead " from the fall. Dead is dead, not sick or weak.

IF? What you said there is exactly what I would have said. But, according to Calvin, he was already made righteous, or he would not have repented and believed.

IF is looking at it from a human perspective not a divine one. Man can do nothing to make himself righteous, man is declared righteous because of the faith that God has given him. No one is "righteous " in himself, we wear the righteousness of Christ because we are in Him . If you have a quote of Calvin that says a man is righteous before he is saved I would like to see it.

Hmm, now we're getting somewhere. I think I have been claiming all along that repentance and belief are require for salvation. Now you seem to think that too. Perhaps were are not so far apart as it seems. I thought I heard you saying that nothing was required on the part of the believer, that God goes *zap* and you're chosen, and redeemed, and that you will then, only then, and always then follow it with repentance and beleif. Did I miss what you were saying?

I would like to see where I ever said that (perhaps you read what you wanted to). Our election occured before the foundation of the world. All of the saved were redeemed at the cross ( unless you want to dismiss scripture). But the method of man coming is taught in scripture, we must repent and believe. How could both things be true? Both were accomplished before the foundation of the earth . Jesus redeemed all those that the Father gave to Him. In Gods time He draws those that were redeemed with His grace and regenerates them . Just as God ordained a time and place for our human birth , He has ordained a time and place for our spiritual rebirth. What God has ordained will always come to pass, so the salvation of the elect is assured..but that is different than being born saved . we are all born as sinner in need of a savior. Calvinists and Arminians are not far apart. The gulf only looks huge until we stop to look at it . The order to a Calvinist is hearing the word/ regeneration (quickening , born again) / faith/repentance . (basically happing at the same time , but repentance 1st according to scripture) salvation Arminians

Hearing the word / belief/ repentance/ regeneration (born again)

We do share a belief that man must repent and believe to be saved. The difference is in the view of man ability. Can a spiritually dead man seek what will save Him?

I have trouble reconciling the two halves of your sentence. Believed to salvation? That sounds right. Given to him to believe? How so?

Phl 1:29For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him,

I think we agree that faith is listed as a spiritual gift right ? It is reinforced by scripture like this

One is not saved by a faith that clicks its heels together and says "I want to go home , I want to go home" Faith to salvation has a divine element to it , it is not just another expression of human faith . Something must precede a supernatural faith, and that thing is grace from God . As Calvinists we do not believe that Gods grace ever fails to accomplish what He wills .So when I say given , it is the same as given repentance . The grace of God works in the person to produce god's desired result.

Acts 16:14, “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul.”

John 6:65, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father.” (Matt. 16:17; Luke 10:21)

1 Cor. 1:23-24, “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

Gods grace is always efficacious

but also to suffer for his sake

If it was given to him first, then he was saved before he believed.

I hope this error is clarified. What is given is the faith that leads to repentance and belief .

He was regenerated first - which is always followed by repentance and belief... but, imagine the unlucky man who died the instant he was regenerated - is he regenerated, or not?

LOL Do you think God is helpless or clueless ? He is the God of creation. He has numbered our days. Just as he set the day of our birth , he has set the day of our salvation. Remember the Isaiah scripture? His word never returns void. It always accomplishes what it was sent for.. in this case it is sent to bring faith. The unregenerate man can not hear or understand the gospel , he is dead.. God sees to it that each of the elect will be regenerated ,hear the word, come to faith ,repent and believe.

Not one will be lost. The world travails now until the time when all the elect are home, then the Judge of the world will return .

Yes. Thus, he is already saved, before he repents and believes, no? And that seems contrary to everything the Bible teaches. That is part of why I haven't yet embraced Calvinism.

Well as you see , you have not really understood reform doctrine. To be saved one must repent and believe. All that repent and believe do by the work of God because they were elect. Not one that God has as His elect will fail to repent and believe.

Not one that God has as His elect will fail to repent and believe.
That is false doctrine.

I believe that you may have misread that . Gods elect will all be brought to repentance and faith (justification/salvation) . God does not fail.

If you did mean that all the elect will not come i would point this out to you . If looked at from a foreknowledge perspective then you would have to say God's foreknowledge failed. If you look at election as presented in the Bible then God would have chosen the elect and seen to it that what He ordained came to pass or the will and ordination of God are of no effect.

So under either belief it the statement is wrong, you eliminate the omniscience or the ordinances of God

If every one of his elect always (repents) turns away from temptation, then they would not sin.

Temptation is not a sin, even Christ was tempted , there is nothing to repent in temptation, it is not sin unless we have agreement with the temptation.

This fails to consider post salvation sin, which is one the more fundamental aspects of New Testament Scripture. We are not saved by repentence or confession, but by faith alone in Him alone

That is one of the heresies of this age. That one an be saved without repentance or the Lordship of God.

Cvenger can the Holy Spirit indwell a dirty vessel? Or must the wineskin be new?

There is no salvation without repentance. A regenerated man has the indwelling Holy Spirit to convict him of sin and lead him to the truth. It is the function of the Holy Spirit to convict us and lead us to repentance.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

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.

Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

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

Faith saves no one, Jesus Christ saves.

We are not saved because we are sinless or worthy , we are saved because Jesus was the propitiation for our sins before they were ever committed. The saved are IN Christ, we have HIS righteousness not our own . We are saved not because of our righteousness but because of His.

D. M. Lloyd-Jones wisely wrote: “Faith is nothing but the instrument of our salvation. Nowhere in Scripture will you find that you are justified because of your faith; nowhere in Scripture will you find that we are justified on account of our faith. The Scripture says that we are justified by faith or through faith. Faith is nothing but the instrument or the channel by which this righteousness of God in Christ becomes ours. It is not faith that saves us. What saves us is the Lord Jesus Christ and His perfect work. It is the death of Christ upon Calvary’s Cross that saves us. It is His perfect life that saves us. It is His appearing on our behalf in the presence of God that saves us. It is God putting Christ’s righteousness to our account that saves us. This is the righteousness that saves; faith is but the channel and the instrument by which His righteousness becomes mine. The righteousness is entirely Christ’s. My faith is not my righteousness and I must never define or think of faith as righteousness. Faith is nothing but that which links us to the Lord Jesus Christ and His righteousness” (Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20-4:25, p. 120).

Hi again, sorry for the delays.

A double predestinarian believes that God sovereignly elected some to be saved and other to be lost.
It is distinction without a difference to my mind,

Thanks. I would tend to agree with you, I detect very little distinction. If He doesn't choose you for Heaven, He has effectively chosen you for Hell. But my $0.02 don't count for much here, since I don't really have a horse in that race.

the problem of election by foreknowledge.

By its very nature it is a salvation without grace. it must be 100% a salvation of works.

I disagree. I understand the position, I just think it is wrong. What is a work? In this context, it is something good a sinner does, to earn salvation. Examples: giving to the poor, obeying the 10 commandments, making sacrifices at the temple, tithing, helping other people. Of course, we both agree, and can list numerous verses, that this method fails.

But, is the acceptance of a gift a work? Is trust in God a work? Is belief a work?

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.
3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Now, this is subtle. In this passage, the clear distinction is made - belief is not a work, and by it Abraham was credited with righteousness. And again in verse 5, the one doesn't work but does trust - his faith is credited as righteousness. So, clearly, trust also is not a work. It is not sacrifices, or good living, or any other works that save, it is belief, and faith, and trust. Now, you may argue that God chose him first, and that is why he believed, because he had been regenerated first - but I don't see where it says that. To me, the text reads more along the lines of - its not what you do - you can't earn salvation, its just Who you believe in. Belief (faith) is evidenced by obedience, but the acts of obedience are not what saves. Belief (faith) is a conscious choice made by a man. God called Abraham, and Abraham chose to follow God. Now, what was involved in the calling? Did God, when He called Abraham, at that point regenerate Abraham, so that his new-creature free will would choose to follow God? Or, as the scripute above seems to imply, it was his choice to follow God? If it was the regeneration that saved Abraham, then wouldn't that scripture say something more like "for God called Abraham, and by that call he was credited with righteousness..." ??

Moving on...

God looks down the tube of time and sees who will select Him, He then elects them and sends them His grace. This is not according to His will , it is according to the will of the man that wills it.

God, being omniscient, and eternal, can know in advance (to our knowing) who will believe, without it having any impact whatsoever on our decision. We can be predestined, and that can mean that our decision, to believe or not, is foreknown by God.

So, we come back again to, is believe a work? Is faith itself a work? If so, then why does Paul write "by faith are you saved, and not by works" ?? If faith were to be considered a work, then this verse would never be written. Same with the following:
Romans 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law;

So, over and over (there are more than these), faith, and belief, are clearly not a work. So, the whole argument that "choosing to believe is a work" is contradicted by Scripure.

Furthermore, the emphasis on being "chosen" can be seen in the light of refuting the deeply entrenched belief system of ancient (and modern) times, that being good - good works - will get you into heaven. And, as glorifying the providential will of God.

Let's look at another example - the Passover. Who was "saved"? Those who placed the blood on the doorposts. And who did that? Those who believed. Those who did not believe would not have placed the blood on the doorposts. So, they chose. And they were saved. While it is possible to read too much into a foreshadowing of Christ's redemption, I think this doesn't. Furthermore, by your same argument, those who put on the blood, thus made God their debtor - God thus owed them being passed over.

So, clearly, God as debtor is a strained construct - God makes conditional convenants and promises. If we fulfill our part, He is faithful, and always keeps His promises. Calling that "making God our debtor" is, well, obtuse.

Our salvation is an almost split second event

True. And, to some degree, it looks a little like splitting hairs. Faith, repentance, regeneration, quickening, belief... it all happens in an instant, they almost happen all at once. Does the specific order really matter? Well, yes and no. I think that both the Calvinist and Arminian are saved. I know some Calvinists who think many or most Arminians are not. I know some who think they are saved under either Calvinist or Arminian theology, give evidence that they are most likely not.

My conversion was long ago, and I remember a call - the heart of a young boy was burdened with his sin, and with his need for Jesus, and he decided to follow Jesus with his whole life. There was repentance, and belief, and I can't remember noticing an order. It certainly "felt" like a choice I made. Was I regenerated before of after the decision to repent and believe, who knows?

A summary:
Argument: Salvation dependant on the choice of man makes God the debtor of man.
Answer: God has made conditional promises, and will keep His promises. Furthermore, man is totally depraved, and would never chose God on his own. I agree that Pelagianism is heresy. But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners, and pierces their hearts, to bring them to the point of belief.

Argument:Only election keeps God from being debtor to man.
Answer:Same as above.

Argument:Belief is a work, and salvation is not of works.
Answer:Refuted with scripture, which clearly differentiates belief from works.

Argument: Since man is totally depraved, he could never make the choice for God, for there is no good in him.
Answer: When God calls men, he grants prevenient grace. The Holy Spirit works on him. And this grace is resistable. Galatians 2:21, Hebrews 10:29, John 5:40.

Argument: Repentance is the gift of God (Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25)
Answer: Repentance is also the duty and act of man (Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3, Acts 8:22 and 17:30.) How can it be both? Through the working of prevenient grace.

Argument: The doctrine of election mean that God chooses to send some people to hell. These people, who inherit their sinful nature, have no hope of salvation, for they cannot come to know God. Thus, God creates some people who are destined to hell, and there is nothing they can do about it. Thus, God is not Just.
Answer: ??? That this is just, we just don't know enough to understand why? That is unsatisfying. Or, it really is the fault of the sinner, they choose to sin, so its their fault? (but they have no other choice - a choice without a choice is not a choice).

Argument: Calvinism negates the existence of true free will. Without free will, then everything is God's doing. Thus, under Calvinism, God is the author of evil.
Answer: ???

Argument: Calvinism claims that regeneration comes before belief and repentance. But, regeneration - being made a new creature in Christ - is salvation. The Bible says that salvation comes after repentance and belief. Calvinism has the cart before the horse, and is contradicted by Scripture.
Answer: Regeneration isn't salvation? (But how so? Salvation is being made a new creation in Christ, right?)

Argument: If grace is irresistable, then God condemns unjustly, for God punishes those who had no ability to do anything but sin.
Answer: Free will is a humanistic concept and has no place in theology? (But, then we are back to the God being unjust argument, and God being the author of evil).

Argument: Without being regenerated first, a totally depraved man would never choose God.
Answer: He might if drawn by the Holy Spirit, and granted by God a real opportunity to choose.

Really, what this last answer shows me, is that there is really even less distance between our two positions - we both agree that God does something for the sinner before he believes and repents. In my case, I think God restores the man to a point to make a choice. And you think God makes the choice for him. Of course, you wouldn't word it that way, but if grace is given to only some, of God's choosing, and is always irresistable, then that is what it means.

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.