Pope: Everyone, Even Atheists, Want to See the Face of God

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[Dutchboy88]

"You may have missed the premise of the beginning of this conversation. It started with the question of whether or not people can “refuse” the calling of God. In other words, where does predestination fit in. The passages you quoted from Amos would indicate that the people had a choice to listen to the warnings of God and did not. Wouldn’t that clearly indicate that people do have a choice as to whether to listen and obey or not?"

Perhaps you are referring to the early comments made between you and me. The orginal premise of this conversation started with the "pope's" claim that all people, even athiests, seek the face of God. I disagreed and cited the passages wherein Paul & David claim no one actually seeks God, all like sheep have gone off the reservation. If God does not drag a person (literally alter their heart's inclinations), they do not seek Him. We are just not really wired that way.

The problem with your logic is that while the Scriptures report God asking, calling, begging the Hebrews to return to Him, we deduce from this that a return must be possible...all by themselves. Otherwise, why would God ask? Because it is intended to display man's inability, a quality we will not acknowledge without God's grace.

For example, if God has asked you not to sin, one would think that this request would not be made were it not for the companion ability to perform it...or not. But, our human sensibilities want that choice to be entirely on our part, or we claim that request makes no sense.

Okay, God asks you not to sin. Please do this for one hour. Simply do not sin in any fashion. That includes loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Your neighbor as yourself. Not ever having a slip. Ready, set, go... Let us know the results.

[HarleyD]

It started with the question of whether or not people can “refuse” the calling of God.

The ONLY person I know in scripture who even tried to refuse a calling of God was Jonah. We know that did not work out well for him. Moses gave some excuses but in the end also followed through.

The passages you quoted from Amos would indicate that the people had a choice to listen to the warnings of God and did not. Wouldn’t that clearly indicate that people do have a choice as to whether to listen and obey or not?

No. What it indicates is precisely how our loving Father constantly calls to us but no matter how bad things get, we still do not want to acknowledge Him. Paul's salvation on the Damascus Road was no different then our own. God has to knock us over the head to get our attention. Each believer has a Damascus experience to some degree. This is the election of God. And, like Paul, it's not because we're swell people. On the contrary, we're the foolish ones that God is going to use to confront the wise. Not a very flattering description-but then God is not one to flatter.

I think the most easiest example of our nature is Adam. Given the choice between staying with God in Paradise or a piece of fruit, Adam chose the fruit. This is us in a nutshell and the illustrated in Amos. Put anyone of us in Adam's situation and we'll choose the fruit every time. Guarantee. God keeps calling and calling and calling. He tries this and He tries that. He gives grace and bounty and we ignore Him because we have a cushy life. He gives pestilent and famine and we complain about it being God's fault that we're so miserable. Egad do I feel sorry for what God has to put up with us.

And, shocking as this might sound to many Christians, once we are saved given that same situation, we will still be tempted to take that fruit. But THIS TIME the Holy Spirit will jump in and lead us to take Paradise. Just like the angels grabbing Lot's hand and running him out of town.

There is God's will and there is man's will. Man will never do God's will which is what free will implies. We have to be LED to do His will.

Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

One cannot be "led" if they are trying to call the shots.

If there are doubts about any of this, then one should ask themselves that if they have "free will" why they aren't exercising their will to be like Christ-perfect in every way? One would hope that pondering this simple question lays out the pure folly of "free will". There is no such thing as free will.

[HarleyD]

God keeps calling and calling and calling. He tries this and He tries that.

I just want to say that in the height of passion I certainly overstated this. God knows very well what will work and what won't. He is, after all, all knowing. He exact His plan precisely on schedule doing exactly as He has ordained so that His elect are drawn to Him. He extends His grace for others but they will not come.

[CynicalBear]

Ok, first off let me say that I agree that it’s God who chooses us not we who choose God. I also agree that God “puts in us a new heart” that wasn’t there before. We are all born with the sin nature because of Adam and wouldn’t naturally seek the one true God.

With that said, lets look at the words used in countering the “free will” debate. And here is where we may be misunderstanding each other on what we mean by “free will”. I’ll use one of your statements as an example.

You said “Given the choice between staying with God in Paradise or a piece of fruit, Adam chose the fruit.” Notice the word “choice” and “chose” in that sentence. Those words indicate that Adam had “free will” to choose didn’t it? In fact that is exactly what you said. Adam chose the fruit.

I doubt that anyone would disagree that God is rather insistent when calling as your examples of Job, Jonah, and Saul illustrate and certainly I can attest to that in my own life. Now, while I would hesitate to ever give credit to any mortal for attaining salvation through any personal effort there are words that must be dealt with not only in our language when discussing this but also in scripture. There are phrases such as “choose this day who you will serve” (Joshua 24:15), or “refuse to listen to my words” (Jeremiah 13:10). Those, by definition constitute choice of in another word “free will”.

>>There is God's will and there is man's will. Man will never do God's will which is what free will implies.<<

No one disputes that I would think. Unless of course that God “puts in him a new heart”. Free will only implies that man has a choice just as you indicated for Adam. Your own statements indicate that Adam had “free will” in choosing. If there were no “free will” Adam wouldn’t even have been tempted.

>>We have to be LED to do His will.<<

No, we have to be given “a new heart” to do His will. Without that new heart no amount of leading will change us because we were born with a corrupt heart. It’s God who gives us that new heart in the first place.

Now that leads to a new question about those who do not follow Christ. Were they not given that “new heart”? God says that it is He who decides.

Romans 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.

There in a nut shell is your “free will” debate settled. All the discussion on free will is futile unless we understand that we can’t “choose” without God’s mercy and Him having “chosen” us first. Just the fact that we follow God’s word rather than follow the fallible and carnal words of man indicates that God has chosen to have mercy on us and “put in us a new heart” which takes away any tendency to glory in our own choosing. We can’t even “choose” unless God has first “chosen” us. Can we refuse if God has chosen us? For the answer to that one needs to study the concept of “irresistible grace”.

John 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. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 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.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Those who believe the gospel and are saved do so because they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

So let’s be careful with the words we use when trying to discuss “free will” understanding that it is the Holy Spirit who “puts in us a new heart” and from that point on we can only be thankful for the mercy that God has shown.

[CynicalBear]

>>He extends His grace for others but they will not come.<<

But not His mercy.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Lots of infallible interpretations of Scripture here, which is a bit ironic.

Thanks for #29.

[wmfights]

I love it when serious Christians get into a good discussion!

So let’s be careful with the words we use when trying to discuss “free will” understanding that it is the Holy Spirit who “puts in us a new heart” and from that point on we can only be thankful for the mercy that God has shown.

Let me thrown something into the discussion. I think we do ourselves a disservice by trying to understand something such as free will as a constant throughout all time. IOW, I believe we can identify variations in different eras. We see God the Father drawing believers to Him through God the Holy Spirit in the Church Age. However, in a different era, at the end of the Millennial Reign we see the descendents of the Tribulation survivors rebel. In looking at these two different eras we see different degrees of free will.

[Dutchboy88]

Perhaps there is still some confusion in our conversation regarding the definition I am using of "free will". These remarks you made to HarleyD seem to indicate a broader definition than is ordinarily understood.

"Those words indicate that Adam had “free will” to choose didn’t it? In fact that is exactly what you said. Adam chose the fruit."

"There are phrases such as “choose this day who you will serve” (Joshua 24:15), or “refuse to listen to my words” (Jeremiah 13:10). Those, by definition constitute choice of (sic) in another word “free will”."

"Your own statements indicate that Adam had “free will” in choosing. If there were no “free will” Adam wouldn’t even have been tempted.

Certainly, "choice" is a capacity of man. The strongest (most severe) definition of "free will", however, is, "...the capacity to select/choose between options WITHOUT any influence from outside of the man's own mind/heart/brain/thoughts." This is where the rubber meets the road and the real problem to solve.

The Scriptures are full of examples of men choosing all sorts of things and claiming to make all kinds of decisions. The underlying question, however, is, "Are the decisions/choices made being influenced by an agency outside of the man?" The Scriptures claim, "Yes, God." Free will must argue, "No, the man is independent of God's influence unless he wants it, and even that 'wanting' may be resisted, refused, or countered."

So then, it is not whether Adam "chose" to eat the fruit. The heart of the matter is to continue on and ask, "But, was that choice being guided by God?" Those holding to "free will" would say, "Absolutely not. That is what made him 'guilty'." But, most reformed thinkers would say, "Well, if the Lamb provided by God was slain before the foundation of the world AND the Scriptures claim everything is controlled by God, then Adam's 'choice' had to come out badly. While Adam may have looked like he alone was the 'chooser', God managed Adam's failure to begin the human drama of failure/sin/brokenness and REDEMPTION." In other words, Adam was predestined to sin/fall and thus he had no other possible outcome. Just as Jesus had no other path to walk but to Calvary (Acts 2:22ff). Now, when you address the situation about salvation, alone, you certainly make a series of clear, truthful, statements about "free will". "Romans 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.

There in a nut shell is your “free will” debate settled. All the discussion on free will is futile unless we understand that we can’t “choose” without God’s mercy and Him having “chosen” us first. Just the fact that we follow God’s word rather than follow the fallible and carnal words of man indicates that God has chosen to have mercy on us and “put in us a new heart” which takes away any tendency to glory in our own choosing. We can’t even “choose” unless God has first “chosen” us. Can we refuse if God has chosen us? For the answer to that one needs to study the concept of “irresistible grace”."

With all of these points I agree. And, you rightly point out that the remaining questions arise over whether God's choosing was "irresistible". Most reformed thinkers will say the Scriptures tell us, "yes, the grace of God focused on a man's soul for salvation, the grace which saves him, is irresistable according to Rom. 9" But, actually the Rom. 9 argument is even broader than this. It tells us that the "lost" get no choice, either (one vessel for honor the other for dishonor). Taken with the other remarks of Scripture, one must conclude that reason He is controlling all of salvation is because He is actually controlling everything. Salvation is just a part of the whole. Here, even some reformed thinkers seem to back away. Personally, I see no reason to back away (even though this is wrongly called "hyper-Calvinism"). Check some of Vincent Cheung's articles.

[Dutchboy88]

My apologies for not insuring that this, too, was in italics. These are your words, not mine.

"There in a nut shell is your “free will” debate settled. All the discussion on free will is futile unless we understand that we can’t “choose” without God’s mercy and Him having “chosen” us first. Just the fact that we follow God’s word rather than follow the fallible and carnal words of man indicates that God has chosen to have mercy on us and “put in us a new heart” which takes away any tendency to glory in our own choosing. We can’t even “choose” unless God has first “chosen” us. Can we refuse if God has chosen us? For the answer to that one needs to study the concept of “irresistible grace”."

Bad editing...sorry. Please substitute this into my last post.

[metmom]

Lots of infallible interpretations of Scripture here, which is a bit ironic.

Why?

[metmom]

Free will must argue, "No, the man is independent of God's influence unless he wants it, and even that 'wanting' may be resisted, refused, or countered."

I disagree with that, but need to think through how to verbalize why.

Let me get back to you on that.

Pinging bb and ag as they always have some good input in deeper theological discussions.

[Dutchboy88]

"I disagree with that, but need to think through how to verbalize why."

The portion of the post you quote is based upon the definition of "free will" which appeared earier in that same post. I appreciate your frankness. Please do consider where this collides with Scripture and let me know what you come up with.

I'm not familiar with "bb and ag", but welcome their input.

[Dutchboy88]

"I disagree with that, but need to think through how to verbalize why."

The portion of the post you quote is based upon the definition of "free will" which appeared earier in that same post. I appreciate your frankness. Please do consider where this collides with Scripture and let me know what you come up with.

I'm not familiar with "bb and ag", but welcome their input.

[Dutchboy88]

Pardon the double post...fat fingers.

[CynicalBear]

No doubt it’s a complex subject and perhaps something we really need not concern ourselves too much with other than to show that man’s efforts are in vain as it pertains to one’s salvation.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Why?

Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?

Is the interpretation of Scripture by any Protestant infallible?

If yes, then each Protestant is, ironically, a pope.

If no, then why should I care about any individual Protestant's interpretation of Scripture?

[HarleyD]

Yes Adam did have two choices. His choices were to do God’s will (don’t take the fruit) or his will (take the fruit). The question then is whether Adam, on his own accord, had the personal fortitude or motivation to submit to God’s desire (don’t take the fruit)? This is what true “free willing” is all about; making the right decision on their own accord for God. (Can anyone see the heresy in this?)

If Adam had the ability to submit to God’s desire (even as perfect man), then there is another separate and deeper problem; what was the purpose of the garden? Why put the Tree of Good and Evil in the middle? Why allow the snake to deceive Eve? Where was God’s divine protection of His children? The only conclusion one can come to under this heretical scenario is that God purposely tested Adam to see if Adam would submit to Him. This view leads down a dark path that means:

1) Knowing that Adam would fall, God would have tested Adam beyond his strength.

2) The argument becomes circular. God would have to continuously test Adam to see if he would fall. If he didn’t fall God would have to keep testing Adam until he did. How many tests would God have had to give Adam in Paradise to prove Adam’s value?

3) Our loving God set up a scenario by which He knowingly condemned a whole lot of people to the depths of hell.

4) God wasn’t sure what Adam would do. (The position of the Open Theist)

None of this can be true. We know that our loving God will never ever test us beyond our strength (James 1). God does not condemn us, we condemn ourselves (Matt 12:37). We know that God is omniscient, including knowing what Adam would do. And to think that God would purposely allow Adam to fall is completely out of the character of God who watches over His flock (John 14). Thus God knew very well about Adam’s character, what would happen, and ordained it to happen.

The garden wasn’t a test. Rather it was a way for God to reveal to Adam his true character. Given the choice, no matter how small, Adam really wasn’t interested in submitting to God’s will. The commandment "You shall not eat the fruit." is no different than "You shall not covet."

It is only when God changes our hearts do we respond to His calling. And God MUST do this prior to us being saved. Otherwise we'll be like Adam-independent of God. God must make us to WANT to be dependent on Him. And if God changes our hearts, why would we reject His calling?

[HarleyD]

Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?

I would suggest this level of discussion is very healthy for Christians. It was similar to the early church and certainly far better than simply taking a vote as to whether Mary is Co-Redemptix.

[CynicalBear]

I believe there is no way that our carnal mind will ever understand God’s plan. It even goes back farther than Adam. Lucifer and the angels that followed Him were once some of the most glorious angels until they thought they could be like God. I do know this. That if anyone has any belief they think scripture supports that gives any credit to man whatsoever they need to pray extra hard for guidance from the Holy Spirit as to what that portion of scripture means.

[CynicalBear]

>> It is only when God changes our hearts do we respond to His calling.<<

Not only that but it’s not even “our” faith that sustains or moves us.

Look at the text below. Notice that it’s not “our” faith but Christ’s faith in us that we live.

Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith OF the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20 AV)

It is Jesus’ faith working in us who believe. So, we see that our righteousness is not IN Christ, but OF Him. And if so, we become part with Him, and He IN us.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:30-31 AV)

“Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” (Philippians 1:11 AV)

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Philippians 3:9 AV)

Now if each of us who truly have accepted Jesus as our savior possess the righteousness of Christ would you please tell me who has more righteousness then Christ?

So it’s just like when God made the covenant with Abraham. Remember when He put Abraham to sleep during the time the covenant was being made? God plays both sides. If that doesn’t cause one to be humble and thank God with all that is within them I don’t know what will.