Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes I do believe that God does what is proper and what is best for us in real time. We are not the nails He uses for his Plan, but His children.
You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the verses in 2 Kings 20 show that God adjusts His plan as He sees fit. And you are deliberately denying that the Bible is full of examples where God changes His mind as He sees fit:
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen 6:6)
"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Ex 32:14)
"Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD's wrath did not come upon them during the days of Hezekiah." (2 Chron 32:6)
"Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent? You must decide, not I; so tell me what you know." (Jon 32:33)
"In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it" (Isa 30:15)
"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the LORD" (Isa 59:20)
"and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned" (Jer 18:8)
The Bible full of references to repentance being associated with God changing the course of our destination.
God's plan will be accomplished according to His will. There is nothing to suggest that God cannot or does not change His mind in the course of our salvation or damnation. The Protestant notion of God being a captive of His own Plan is nonsense.
God foresees an infinite number of possibilities and He can pick any at any time relative to us. They all lead to the conclusion of His work, on His terms. But that doesn't mean that we are pre-destined to be saved or to perish so that His plan may come to pass, or that our free will somehow affects the outcome of His plan, as Protestant pre-destination suggests.
Unfortunately, we don't know if WE are the elect, only God knows that. By our practical experience, we know of people who had thought they were saved for eternal life, but then fell away. Paul says, "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12). We shouldn't be overconfident, like the Jews of 1 Cor 10:1-11, who DID die. Even Paul says he continues to run the race, lest he should be DISQUALIFIED. That doesn't mean "second place" or "consolation prize", but cast out of the company of those who persevered. We, too, must continue to run the race throughout our lives. That is what perseverence means. And since we do not know if God has already considered us one of the elect, we cannot become overconfident.
I would counter by saying that anyone who so defiantly sins against God was never saved in the first place. God would not let His elect fall into that level of sin after salvation.
I doubt that a "saved" person moves to that point immediately in their walk. From my experience, people will drift away, committing voluntary smaller sins, which eventually lead to committing more serious sins. It happens. AND, if a person "was not saved in the first place", then how can you say you or anyone is "once saved/always saved"? How do you know that you have "x" amount of faith at that initial sinner's prayer moment?
I WOULD say that God expects that His gifts are to be used by our display of love for our neighbor.
Most certainly. God doesn't give gifts to be rejected or not used. Consider the parable of the Talents. Not a word is spoken about faith. The Kingdom of heaven, in this parable, is dependent upon how we use the gifts that God has loaned us. The last man did no evil. He didn't use the gift given. And thus, he had no love. He was condemned.
However, that won't happen for the elect because God will not allow it. God keeps His own, and the love we have been discussing will be evident in the believer's life because of the nature of the gift and God's plan.
You are presuming that you WILL be one of the elect and that God will protect you infallibly from yourself. I am more of the thought that God gives us the necessary gifts to follow Him, but depends on us to make the correct choices. The Scripture speaks of a reward in heaven. Rewards imply that we did something of merit or value. Thus, God rewards those who use their gifts of faith and love to do His will here on earth. Of course, we don't do this alone. But God's grace do not overpower our own free will. They act together.
I now admit that this doctrine suffers greatly under scriptural scrutiny. That's why I have adopted "Perseverance of the Saints", which holds that perseverance is necessary and that man could fail. However, that won't happen for the elect because God will not allow it. God keeps His own, and the love we have been discussing will be evident in the believer's life because of the nature of the gift and God's plan.
I admit I am impressed by your candor. I don't hear it too often here. I agree that God will grant the grace of final perseverance to those whom He will. But there is no way to merit that grace, nor is there a way that we can know we will receive it. Thus, we humbly approach the Father, pleading for His final mercy. There is no overconfidence in this approach - it is one of humble submission to the Father, asking His mercy and looking upon us as nothing who needs His good graces to come to Him. The idea of "perseverance of the saints", as per Calvin, presumes that each Calvinist is one of the saints. It is man who has determined who is saved, not God. One PRESUMES that he is saved for eternal life and that God will infallibly protect him. Again, Paul speaks against such thoughts in 1 Cor 10. Jesus speaks over and over about persevering TO THE END. I see a difference in the two points of view - one of presumption, one of humble approachment to God.
Even after salvation we will still battle against remnants or memories of the old sin nature, even though it has been replaced with a new nature. Satan will continue to attack us in spiritual warfare. Even if I know I'm going to win at the end, I still don't want to get stabbed 50 times. :) So, we battle, and through this battle we are sanctified and become stronger for Christ on this earth. We are happier as strong Christians rather than weak ones. There is purpose.
Of course. We continue to fight to become more holy - for without becoming holy, we shall not see God. Thus, we are forged in the fire of temptation and suffering. REAL knowledge of the spiritual only is acquired through suffering and action. Self-gratification is inimical to true knowledge in God. Naturally, some will not pass the testing and will fall away.
I don't mind taking it into account, the problem is my lack of recognition of authority. The only authority for me is God.
In the end, you are correct, but God delegates His authority to others. That is the way Scriptures have talked about such things from the beginning. Moses, for example. Consider reading Numbers 16. God speaks through other men, delegating to them His authority to speak for Him. Likewise for the Apostles "he who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and My Father who sent Me", said Jesus. God speaks through the Church, not to us individually (on doctrinal matters). Otherwise, we'd have no idea which was correct belief - How do I, as a Christian, know WHO is preaching correctly, IF God didn't leave a center of authority on earth?
Brother in Christ
"For I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
God has placed His "law" in our hearts, meaning that we naturally know (without knowledge of the Mosaic Law) that it is wrong to kill or steal someone's wife, or dishonor their parents. It is "implanted" within them. We just "know" it's wrong. Unfortunately, some people disobey this law written on their hearts.
Regards
Not "we" according to you, but only the "elect." In your religion, God does not love all people. He loves only some, just like humans do. Of course, since we can't imagine loving everyone as ourselves, you believe God can't either. If that is not humanizing God, I don't know what else is!
We certainly wouldn't put it like that. We would say that all of us deserve to spend eternity outside the presence of God
You are beating around the bush. Let's face it: biblical references that show that God wants to save all simply don't fit your idea of God, so you ignore them.
I said that God gave everyone a ticket and the instructions on which train will take them where -- salvation or damnation. If he died for all of us, He must have given all of us a ticket. But He doe snot decide on which train we will jump. WE do.
The Protestant belief is an error because it assumes that our decisions whether to cooperate with God's grace or not somehow threaten the accomplishment of God's plan, as well as the erroneous belief that God is unable to change His own Plan as He sees fit if he gives us free will. The free will is our ticket, a gift from God; it affects us, not God.
God is not subject to necessity. Please try not just to read but to comprehend the Scripture in its entirety.
What we do is willed by the Father in heaven - He desires that we have free will. Of course, this doesn't mean that all of our actions are pleasing to Him, but the existence of evil means that He places our free will as more important than every action of ours being unfree yet pleasing in His eyes. Being a gracious and loving ruler, He decrees that we have free will. His plan of salvation takes EVERYTHIG we do into account, since He sees everything we do, past, present and future, as one eteranl present. He is not surprised, then, by what we do - it all happens to Him right now.
If God is love, then He condescends to us, is humble, and allows us to freely choose Him or reject Him. Certainly, God knows who will choose Him, but it doesn't follow that HE overrides our free will to ensure it. The Scripture calls God a helper. I say that God helps us to make the right choices, but this help does not become irresistible.
Regards
You've read the parable of the Talents in Matthew's Gospel, I presume. I know a lot of people who have talents, such as intelligence, who choose not to use them to their fullest potential. It is too easy to be "safe" and not take chances. In the parable, the ruler is not happy with the man who rejected his gift. Note, nothing about faith - it is all about using the gifts that God gave us. We have that choice. We can bury it in the ground, or use it - as God meant it to be used.
Regards
Let me start off by identifying the three main categories that, for the most part, all Christians would have to place themselves in. The first is called Pelagianism. This belief system was has its roots in the fifth century where a British monk named Pelagius was engaged in a vicious debate with the Bishop of Hippo, Aurelius Augustine. The conflict began when Pelagius was reading a famous prayer penned by Augustine that said, "Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." This is a simple utterance of a confession on behalf of Augustine that merely portrayed his reliance on God for everything, including his righteous deeds. Nevertheless, Pelagius was not concerned with the second part of the prayer (for God has the sovereign authority to command whatever he desires); rather his disagreement came from first part. "He [Pelagius] could not conceive that the power to obey the commandment must come from the same source as the commandment itself." [5] This aroused Pelagius to contention against the notion that man was unable to obey the command of God in and of himself. Consequently, Pelagius then raised this question: Is it necessary to have the grace of God in order to obey His commands? Which led him to believe that if God commanded his creatures to fulfill certain commands, then it must follow that man is able to comply, even be holy and righteous. Could God actually command men to perform acts that they were unable to perform? Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will?[6]
The second and most widely accepted point of view in our day is called Semi-Pelagianism, also known as Arminianism. Though many would not consider themselves Arminian, they remain this way nonetheless. This is a less militant view of Pelagianism and adheres to a more biblical stance than that held by Pelagians. Unlike Pelagius, however, he affirmed that the Grace of God was necessary for the salvation of men, but man was able to reject the Gospel call. He says, "In the very commencement of his conversion, man conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital act, that is, by feeling [sensu], he has a perception of grace which calls him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it. But, when he feels grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so that he is able at the same time to with-hold his assent."[7] In other words, Arminius presumed that there one thing left up to man in his fallen state in order to achieve salvation, namely, to accept God's grace found in the sacrifice of Jesus. This we will see, in my opinion, is not what the Bible teaches.
The third point of view according to salvation is the Augustinian view. This perspective is taken from the legendary Aurelius Augustine of Hippo. With a deep and profound knowledge of the Scriptures, Augustine concluded that man in his fallen state is completely incapable of even making the choice to accept Gods grace, but God altogether makes the election of who to distribute His grace to. With respect to the condition of man after the fall of Adam, he often pointed to Romans 3:10-12 "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one". Hyperbole, I think not. Stated another way, man does not posses the ability, nor have the natural proclivity toward God in any respect whatsoever.
Except that which the Protestants deny -- free will. Then how can we have a mind? Why do we need a mind? If we have no free will, we cannot commit sin. If we cannot commit sin, what was man's fall all about? If we cannot commit sin, why are we being punished? If we did not commit sin, why do we need to be saved? If we are no different than animals (driven by necessity and not by reason), why did God suffer and die for our sins that we didn't commit to begin with?
You see the whole Protestant notion falls apart on its own nonsense.
If God is omnipotent why can't He change His mind? Is God not free to change His mind? Is God's plan holding God hostage? Whatever God's Plan is, He will accomplish it and indeed has already accomplished it! Getting there in real time is a matter of taking whichever route He sees fit for us.
Our free will was given to us for us, not so that God would accomplish His plan. We cannot change or cause God's plan to fail no matter what choice we make. We can, however, affect our own salvation by cooperating with God, or our damnation, by refusing Him.
Remember: God has an infinite number of options and they all lead to the accomplisment of His already accomplished plan. We only have two choices: God or no-God. He gave us the ticket. One train goes to heaven the other to hell. It's up to you which train you will pick. It does not change God's plan at all!
You just totally evaded the point I made about reception language in your very question. What you post here is has no relevance because it says nothing one way or the other about the holding/receiving of faith/belief. It simply says that these two words are synonyms.
But I never said they weren't. So posting a dictionary definition that they are synonyms is meaningless with regard to the preceding posts.
This is what I call a lateral move, Harley. Now, will you admit that you said in the question you asked that we receive faith when we believe? That's all we have ever argued: that we receive faith (freely) rather than have it shoved down our throats. For your position to hold you have to affirm that God shoves faith down our throats and we do not receive it. But you already said we receive it when you asked whether we receive it before or after we believe. So unless you use the word "receive" to mean "shoved down our throats" you agree with us that we have free will to receive.
And if you meant "shoved down our throats" by "received" then you are using the word "receive" in a manner contrary to its common use. You are free to employ words in unique or different ways but elementary rules of communication and persuasion make it your obligation to clarify whenever you use words in ways different from their common understanding.
Please stop the lateral weaving and bobbing, Harley, and either admit you gave away the store when you asked your question and taunted me for an answer or affirm that you did not mean by "receive" what people normally mean by receive.
Harley, Augustine did not teach what you say he did. You've had this pointed out to you dozens of times on other threads. Will you stop this falsification of Augustine's teaching once and for all? It's tiresome.
Just for good measure Romano'[s portrayal of Pelagius's teaching leaves out the most important and distinctive matters, as does his summary of Semi-Pelagianism.
You cherry pick some R.-C.-Sproul-clone hack-theologian and think you've made a compelling argument. And you've done this a hundred times on FR threads and you've had chapter and verse in Augustine's anti-pelagian writings presented to you showing that efforts to show Augustine denied free will are not supported by his writings. And it runs off you like water of a quack's back. Sheesh.
If you want tit for tat, Mary T. Clark's book on Augustine's doctrine on freedom refutes every point Romano makes. So does Gerald Bonner, both of them having read Augustine thoroughly and in the original language. Romano's footnotes show he cribbed his stuff from Hodge and Sproul. Ten-to-one he hasn't even read Augustine in English very thoroughly, to say nothing of readin him in Latin.
To put it very briefly, Harley, in letters written in 426 to accompany his treatise On Grace and Correction, Augustine explicitly rejected the interpretation of his writings against Pelagius that Romano gives here. We have from Augustine's own pen his response to those who wished even during his lifetime to interpret his writings as denying free will. He said explicitly, we dare not ever interpret grace in such a way as denying free will and we must never interpret free will in such a way as to deny grace. Period.
Posting hack writers for your side is not very convincing, old boy. Give it up.
Our free will was given to us for us, not so that God would accomplish His plan.
I would suggest reading the article in post #1150. This is an anthropocentric belief verse a theocentric belief.
If Augustine did not teach what I'm saying there are a great deal of people who are mistaken including Luther, Calvin, the Council of Orange, etc. Quite frankly I'm the least of your worries.
So you also think that good works are necessary for salvation, correct? That's what we were created for, correct?
Nothing is "necessary for our salvation" but the grace of God, decreed by Him from before the foundation of the world and dependent on no man nor will other than His own.
Please read the verse carefully again. The Scripture is saying God has ordained every good work we do because God created the elect to be in Christ and Christ in the elect. Thus all our good efforts are by the inward work of the Holy Spirit and are 100% the direct result of our being born again.
Natural man, fallen and dead in sin, cannot do anything God-pleasing. Natural man does what his nature prescribes -- trespass against God.
Only after God rebirths the natural man into a spiritual man by His regeneration and the washing of the Holy Spirit can fallen man act righteously.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 2:10-16"But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Rejoice, Jo kus, your good works are the result of God's choosing to save you from before the foundation of the world. Be confident in He who guides you. Read the Bible more and find Him there, speaking directly to your heart.
What's with you? You have your finger stuck on the Bible word search for "plan?"
God has a plan, and His plan IS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED! You don't think He is "traveling" with us in time, do you? How we get there only affects us, and God has infinite options how we get there.
The final destination of His plan is known: heaven or hell. God gave us a ticket. He did His part in our destination. Where we end up is up to us: we can cooperate with God and be saved or we can refuse His love and be damned. God CAN steer us in the right direction if we repent, that much is clear.
For us to repent we must make a choice; for such a choice to be meaningful, it must be free.
To your detriment, I don't think you will ever understand that freedom is the ultimate gift of love. God is a loving relationship of three Divine Persons of one Essence, a perfect harmony. God is one, but He is not alone! For us to be God-like, for us not to be burned by His love, but purified and sanctified, we must emulate that relationship, by loving God first and foremost and others as ourselves. Love cannot be of any kind; love can only be free. Open your heart and you will be free.
Your darn right Luther and Calvin misread and mispresented Augustine. And most intelligent scholars, including the Evangelical Protestant Alister McGrath, author of Iustitia Dei, agree that they misread and misrepresented him.
Regarding the Synod of Orange, it supports the claim that Augustine taught free will and it condemns your claim that he did not. Orange II said that anyone who interprets Augustine as denying free will is wrong. That includes you. You can't even read accurately the Synod of Orange if you cite it in defense of your position.
Over against these two, Luther and Calvin, who read Augustine as having denied free will, every single theologian after Orange II and until Thomas Bradwardine in the 1300s, read Augustine as having affirmed free will. Before Orange II, there were two rival schools of Augustinian interpreters, one denying, one affirming that he taught free will to the end of his life. The controversy began already while Augustine was alive and Augustine himself told one side they were wrong--your side. Orange II then further clarified that Augustine was to be understood as defending free will. Therefore all medieval theologians, including Aquinas, interpreted Augustine's plain and explicit words defending free will as meaning exactly what they said.
Along comes Bradwardine and after him Luther and Calvin and then Jansenius and others. They were repeatedly told that they were misrepresenting Augustine. If you are going to place your trust in their interpretation of Augustine you've bet on the wrong horse because they are the decided minority view and against their interpretation stand the explicit words of Augustine.
And you've had this pointed out to you in detail again and again and again and again. You are tedious, Harley.
The very knowledge that a loving God exists is hope, indeed an eternal Hope. That will not change. How we get to God is an infinite number of possibilities. And where we end up in the end is not pre-determined for otherwise His redemption would be meaningless.
If God is Hope than He is hope offered to ALL. That only some will end up there is not because God didn't offer His love to all.
Kosta: Our free will was given to us for us, not so that God would accomplish His plan
HD: This is an anthropocentric belief verse a theocentric belief.
Huh? Please don't trip on those big words! Belief that God gave us free will, because He chose to, is an anrhtopocentric belief???
Yet, in your school of logic, God not giving us free will is somehow a theocentric belief? So anything God denies us, or takes away from us is theocdentric, and anything that God may give us out of His kindness and love for humanity is anthropocentric? Masochism comes to mind. Hmmmm....I better stop.
And I believe you wanted to say versus rather than "verse."
Nonsense. I held the Arminian view for over 30 years. I understand perfectly well the “God loves us and wants the best for us” concept. Election, predestination, hell, and God’ wrath, jealousy, and anger are never talked about. God’s goodness, mercy, love are stress. God loves everyone. The trouble is the Bible doesn’t support it. It’s a manmade doctrine designed to fashion God into the image we would like. We might as well throw gold into the fire and say, “Here is your God who delivered you out of Egypt.”
It didn’t take me long to change when I discovered my error. I only had to reread the Bible and look at the history. I’ll stay on this side of the fence. Believe me, on this side of the fence I find more love from God than I ever found on the other side and I’m secure knowing God is in control-not me.
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.