Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
PREDESTINATION seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.
To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between predestination and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.
On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.
Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God’s providence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determining whether the act was good or evil. God’s involvement in Joseph’s dilemma was good; the brothers’ involvement was evil. There was a reason why Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They had an evil motivation. Their decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. They were jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was prompted by their evil desires.
The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? It is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”
Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.
Another famous illustration of the same problem is found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.
We must reject the neutral-will theory not only because it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is radically unbiblical.
Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the Freedom of the Will.
Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” Before we ever can make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.
A second definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.
Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined.
I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.
Think for a minute about your own choices. How and why are they made? At this very instant you are reading the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book because you have an interest in the subject of predestination, a desire to learn more about this complex subject? Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, “I have no desire to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly wading through it to fulfill somebody else’s desire that I read it. All things being equal I would never choose to read this book.”
But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement, you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the requirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or you would not be reading it right now.
Every decision you make is made for a reason. The next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand. Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the moment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the seat closest to you is free and that you don’t like to walk long distances to find a place to sit down.
Decision-making is a complex matter because the options we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We have different, often even conflicting, motivations.
Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me, “A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips.” And, “Those who indulge bulge.” Because of ice cream I have to buy my shirts with a bump in them.
Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim, trim body. I don’t like squeezing into my suits and having little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds. I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until someone invites me to Swenson’s. Swenson’s makes the greatest “Super Sundaes” in the world. I know I shouldn’t go to Swenson’s. But I like to go to Swenson’s. When the moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of decision is the desire I will choose. It’s that simple.
Now consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly the same weight as she was the day we were married. Her wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great problem with ice cream. Most eating establishments only carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Any of those make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. They have pralines and cream ice cream. When we go to the mall and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange transformation. Her pace decelerates, her hands get clammy, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation. (That’s salivation, not salvation.) Now she experiences the conflict of desires that assaults me daily.
We always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot totally take away our freedom. Coercion involves acting with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I certainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them, but the consequences are less desirable than paying them. By threatening me with jail the government is able to impose its will upon me to pay taxes.
Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps up to me and says, “Your money or your life.” He has just restricted my options to two. All things being equal I have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He is using force to provoke certain desires within me. Now I must choose between my desire to live and my desire to give him my money. I might as well give him the money because if he kills me he will take my money anyway. Some people might choose to refuse, saying, “I would rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money. He’ll have to take it from my dead body.”
In either case, a choice is made. And it is made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not according to the strongest inclination you had at the moment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin, we would never sin.
Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his desires? He says in Romans, “The good that I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:19, KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.
It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us a revelation about the technical operation of the will. Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The “all things being equal” syndrome is in view here. All things being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes. Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I would not want to do.
Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ accompanied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.
To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external forces. External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already.
The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.
Sproul, R. (. C. 1986. Chosen by God. Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL
hmmm...It seems I didn't quite say what I wanted to say. Jean, I guess I thought that was understood, but I see that I didn't make it clear. My objective was to refute the idea that God waits to see what man will do, and then acts based on that, which is what most Arminians seem to believe. I most definitely agree that God actively pre-determines the actions of man (based as they are on simple cause and effect), and therefore knows with certainty the end from the beginning. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
No, it's demonic and a deception. Just what an unregenerate man would run to, although most don't.
No sin is given to us by God it is the result of the misuse of the gift of sexual desire..a perversion of a blessing
It is the "fruit" of mens total depravity. God gives men the over to their depraved minds to do exactly what their free will wants..
The only thing that keeps every one of us from that level of depravity is the resrtraint of Gods general grace..this world is no where near as "bad" as it could be..
Works based salvation..Man makes God His debtor
Different issue: powerful reason to pray for next week. Go to freepmail.
God HAS ALWAYS known everything. There is no waiting for Him. Likewise, His counsel determines everything. Simultaneously, He has both known and decreed.
Is that God's will?
You're talking in circles Rn. Countless times I've brought up 9-11, the Holocaust and Andrea Yates you've come back with "could He have changed it if He wanted to?" Implying of course that "God used those things for good."
Well, how 'bout it then? Is homosexuality an abomination to God? Or is it something he wants?
God did not authorize it?
That is too Arminian for me! LOL!
Why then do I see so little of the word of God in your posts?
It is you who want to characterize what I say as Calvinist Rhetoric because it gives you an easy way to dismiss what I have said without addressing it.
It has been addressed time and time again!
You don't want to address it because you can't. If anyone should move on, it should be you, because it is you who are out of step here, not me.
I tried to end the discussion on a friendly note, agreeing on what we agree on and agreeing to disagree on what we don't.
Your system makes God the author of Sin and then expects to have man glorify him, for saving some, when He could have saved all. My system?? MY SYSTEM??? What in blazes are you talking about? I do not make God the author of sin, and there is no theological system named after me, thank God!
You are defending Calvinism are you not?
That is the system I was alluding to.
Man sinned, in direct disobedience to the command of God. God did not authorize it, He did not cause it, and He did not sanction it. God knew that it would happen, because He is omniscient, and knowing what man would do, He made, before the foundation of the world, a Plan to redeem the man He knew would sin.
Well, if God did not authorize it, it would not have happened!
Now, the question is, did it happen because God wanted it to (despite the commands against it) or did it happen despite what God wanted and God allowed it to happen.
Now, Calvin states that God did indeed want Adam to fall as part of God's Plan to glorify Himself (Book 3, Chapter 23).
That means that mankind is in sin because it is God who Decreed it from a directive, not permissive will thus, it is God who is the author of sin.
That does not make God the author of sin in any way. That is your cop-out to avoid the clear truths of scripture regarding man's utter depravity and inability to seek God, and God's Sovereignty over His creation, to save some and not others, in order to magnify His Glory in His Righteousness and Holiness, showing all of creation that He is a Just God who punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. You don't understand it, so you think it's unfair.
And you do understand it?
God puts man into a sin state (see Calvin) and then picks some to be saved and lets the rest go to the Lake of Fire-for His glory!
And this is despite clear scripture that states that God wants all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9-see Calvin once again)
You construct a system wherein man is the center, and it is God who must cater to man's decisions, man's desires, and man's will.
No, I hold to what the Bible says and not what a philospher dreamed up (Augustine)
God desires the best for His creatures, not suffering.
The cause of suffering in this world is from sin, which is not God's doing, He allowed it as part of His Plan, but He wants only good for His creation (Psa.103:8, Lk.6:36)
This is all about God, it always has been, and it always will be. It's not about man. Man is the creature, not the Creator. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
Yes, it is about God, a good, merciful, kind, loving God!
Not a God who would create only to send some to hell for His 'glory', and this because He put them into the sin state in the first place (according to Calvin)
Scripture please? I read in the Bible, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom.10:17), not faith cometh by election
In your world, it's all about man, and his ability to respond. If man will respond, God will save him...so who's in control here? Sounds to me like man is, in your view. Well, that's WRONG!!! God is in control, He determines, He is the one who has already made the decision. Man, by birth, is unregenerate, and has by default rejected God already.
By default rejected God already, when he never had a chance to accept God because God did not elect him and thus, passed him over!
You say that as if it is suppose to make sense.
I made this point several times, and you don't want to apply its full implications: That God is totally justified in punishing sin, and that God is totally justified in saving some, and not saving others.
He is?
Well is God totally justified in putting Adam into sin in the first place, and then saving some of those who are born into that same sin, but sending the rest to hell?
Behind your assertions is the underlying faith that despite the appearance of being unfair, that God (being good) is still doing the right thing (secret will appeal)
However, because God is God, it is stated clearly wants all men saved, not just those whom he has elected (1Tim.4:10)
You can't handle the implications of that, and want to twist it around to make it somehow unfair of God to exercise His Sovereignty in choosing some and not all. That is your error, you are basically charging God with being arbitrary and unfair, and building a theory that puts man in the driver's seat, makes man the deciding factor in salvation, and by implication, saying that the heathen who never ever heard of Jesus are somehow treated differently than you and I, who have heard about Him since we were old enough to understand words.
What does hearing the words since childhood have to do with it?
If you are the elect, God will regenerate you with or without the words, and if are not, all the words in the world will not make a difference.
The charge to us is to preach the Gospel to every living creature. It is not for us to know who is Elect and who is not, except in retrospect. Those that hear and do not respond, the Gospel stands as a further witness against them, in addition to God's general revelation of Himself in nature.
If they don't respond?
And that damns them even more?
They can't respond since God did not choose them!
Those that hear and respond, are those whom God has chosen from among the heathen.
Yes, they were according to Calvinism, chosen as the elect, and respond because they were the chosen, they are not the chosen because they respond (Arminian view)
Those that have never heard the Gospel still have God's general revelation of Himself in nature as a witness against them, so they are without excuse, and rightly sentenced to death for their sin.
Well, that we agree on.
They do not hear the Gospel because God knows they have already rejected Him, not because God rejected them (But Ye would not)
If you're so worried about the heathen not getting a chance to hear the Gospel, get off your a@@ and take it to them, instead of whining about how it's not fair that they never heard! In a real sense, if they have not heard, it's your fault, not God's!
Are you daft? It was you who brought up the issue of the heathen's not me.
It is the Calvinist argument that if the God wants all men to be saved, how is it fair that the 'some have not heard'. As you have just noted above, everyone has an equal chance at salvation, first through natural revelation (Psa.19, Rom.1) and then, if postive at that point, the Gospel itself.
No, I believe that God will send the Gospel to whatever 'heathen' nations He knows will respond to it (Acts.16)
imarc.cchistory7.html
6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of sinning is laid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet denies God to be the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption of men was derived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts us "rather to contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the predestination of God." "For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was created to that misery to which he is subject, yet the ground of it he has derived from himself, not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to vicious and impure depravity." Thus, almost in the same breath, he affirms that men became reprobate from no other cause than "the will of God," and his "sovereign determination;" that men have no reason "to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death, without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will;"-and then, that the corrupt nature of mankind is the evident and nearer cause of condemnation; (which cause, however, was still a matter of "appointment," and "ordination," not "permission;") and that man is "ruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure state in which God created him."
These propositions manifestly fight with each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in man's corruption, it cannot be laid in the mere will and sovereign determination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of sin. It is this offensive doctrine only, which can reconcile them. For if God so wills, and appoints, and necessitates the depravity of man, as to be the author of it, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the ruin of the reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and from the corruption of their nature, which is but the result of that will. The one is then, as Calvin states, the "evident and nearer cause," the other the more remote and hidden one; yet they have the same source, and are substantially acts of the same will.
But if it be denied that God is, in any sense, the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, then is the "corruption of nature" the effect of an independent will; and if this corruption be the "real source," as he says, of men's condemnation, then the decree of reprobation rests not upon the sovereign will of God, as its sole cause, which he affirms; but upon a cause dependent on the will of the first man: but as this is denied, then the other must follow.
Calvin himself, indeed, contends for the perfect concurrence of these proximate and remote causes, although in point of fact, to have been perfectly consistent with himself, he ought rather to have called the mere will of God THE CAUSE of the decree of reprobation, and the corruption of man THE MEANS by which it is carried into effect:-language which he sanctions, and which many of his followers have not scrupled to adopt.
7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences, that in sin man is the instrument, and God the actor, that it cannot be maintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as two causes of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be either opposed to each other, or be consenting.
If they are opposed, the scheme is given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and human corruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and necessity.
It would be trifling to say that the decree does not influence; for if so, it is no decree in Calvin's sense, who understands the decree of God, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third book of his "Institutes" plainly show, as appointing what shall be, and by that appointment making it necessary. Otherwise, he could not reject the distinction between will and permission, and avow the sentiment of St. Augustine, "that the will of God is the necessity of things; and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass," volume 3, chap. 23, sec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin of Adam the result of an act of God: "You say Adam fell by his free will. I except against it. That he might not fall, he stood in need of that strength and constancy with which God armeth all the elect, as long as he will keep them blameless. Whom God has elected, he props up with an invincible power unto perseverance. Why did he not afford this to Adam, if he would have had him stand in his integrity?" And with this view of necessity, as resulting from the decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin coincided; the end and the means, as to the elect, and as to the reprobate, are equally fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to the appointing and ordaining will of God.
On such a scheme it is therefore worse than trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice in favor of this assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption and guilt of man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives up when he says, "That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of their hearts, provided it be at the same time stated, that they are abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a just but inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in their condemnation."
Let me know if the link does not work, I did not copy it directly off the site.
Try this one.
http://www.imarc.cc/history7.html
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
God gave men the free will to be as evil as they like..men will never choose to do good on his own..
Read this corin..this is the free will you say men chose with
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
God's hand keeps men from being as evil as they really want to be and as evil as they could be..
I think the problem is that most people do not have a full appreciation of just how evil the will of unregenerate man is
When God chooses to intervene He does so..when he chooses to allow men to work their eveil he does so . But it will always be to HIS Glory
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make to ftD, which he will not accept. He harbors this secret resentment against God, because he can't accept that God does not choose to save some. I call it that because that's what it is. He can't see how allowing some to perish brings Glory to God, and sees that as sick and twisted, when it is scriptural and right. He secretly holds out a hope for universalism, based on misunderstanding of his pet verses about God wanting all men to be saved. He does not understand that the translation is not accurate regarding the greek word translated as "all" into English. That greek word does not mean "all" like our English word "all" means. I cited that before to him, but he ignored it, because it didn't fit into his already decided construct. The word "all" in these verses means "all sorts", or "all kinds" of men.
He sees God as reactionary, where we see God as already having finished His work. He sees God looking through the ages to see who would believe and electing them, where we see that God decreed who would believe, and thereby making their election sure. He says we appeal to a "secret will", implying that we believe God has withheld knowledge for wrong reasons, not understanding that none of us have all knowledge, which by definition means that some things of God are still unknown to us. "We will know, even as we are fully known". God fully knows us, we do not fully know Him.
Romans 1:28-32 is a perfect and complete detailing of the "free will" that Arminians prattle on so much about. They, however, want to imbue unregenerate man with an ability he doesn't and can't have, that of being able, by his own will to choose God BEFORE God has chosen him. Arminians want to make man able to, in effect, pull himself up by his own bootstraps. They want man to be able to cry out to God, "Save me!" apart from God first saying "I have chosen you, come to me, that you may live". They look at verses that say "whosoever will may come", and say "See? that proves that man can choose!", and forget that the Word also says "There is none righteous, no, not one. None seeketh after God". The correct understanding is that, while God freely offers, and indeed whosoever will may come, none will choose to of their own volition. They can't, unless God first grants them the ability to make that choice, by His Grace and Mercy.
Maybe you should go back and read that whole chapter in context. You will see, if you're perceptive, that Paul is showing believers, and also speaking to Israel, about the fact that it is God who controls the affairs of men, and that God sends His word via messengers to those whom He chooses to save. He even shows that God chooses Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy, because even though Israel had the Word of God in their midst, they would not choose Him. Once again, the case is made that God chooses men first, men never choose God first. Besides, your point about faith coming by hearing is true, TO THOSE WHOM GOD HAS CHOSEN. You want to disconnect God's choosing from His working in those whom He has chosen.
I said: Man, by birth, is unregenerate, and has by default rejected God already.
You said: By default rejected God already, when he never had a chance to accept God because God did not elect him and thus, passed him over! You say that as if it is suppose to make sense.
What kind of a reply is that?? Show me where that is not true. You deny that utter depravity of man, the utter sinfulness that we all inherited from Adam. You still think that man is not totally sinful. That is inherent in your statement.
I said: That God is totally justified in punishing sin, and that God is totally justified in saving some, and not saving others.
You said: He is? Well is God totally justified in putting Adam into sin in the first place, and then saving some of those who are born into that same sin, but sending the rest to hell? Behind your assertions is the underlying faith that despite the appearance of being unfair, that God (being good) is still doing the right thing (secret will appeal)
There you go again, attrubuting things to me that I did not say. It is you who say that God made Adam sin in the first place. You think that is what I believe, but it is not. Quit putting up straw men to knock down. It is you who perceives God as being unfair, not me. You believe that because you don't understand His Methods or His Plan.
I said: The charge to us is to preach the Gospel to every living creature. It is not for us to know who is Elect and who is not, except in retrospect. Those that hear and do not respond, the Gospel stands as a further witness against them, in addition to God's general revelation of Himself in nature.
You said: If they don't respond? And that damns them even more? They can't respond since God did not choose them!
You're really good at ignoring the context in which I said that. Go back and read it again. I am speaking from OUR perspective in preaching the Word. We don't know who will and won't respond. We can only see the result. Those who do not respond ultimately are not chosen, because those who are chosen will respond. Maybe not to yours or my preaching, but to someone's preaching, as Paul said, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase". And yes, the preaching of the Gospel stands as a further witness against those who do not respond. How could it not? Oh, I forgot! If man couldn't make the choice, how could he be held responsible for the choice he couldn't make? That's what you are going to say, thinking that your question trumps my statement. You are forgetting that man has ALREADY rejected God. We all sinned in Adam, we all are descendents of Adam, and we all were born in sin, as sinful beings. You are so hung up on man being able to choose, and that from a morally neutral position, either for or against God, as though man were neither for or against initially, but must actively choose one or the other. That's not the way things are.
You and I were born already having rejected God. It was God's Grace that allowed us to make the choice for God, and only God's Grace. We did not do anything to earn it, we did not have anything within us to compel Him to choose either you or I over some other two people. It had nothing to do with whether or not God saw that we would believe if he chose us. That is an argument for virtue residing in man which he does not have. That idea puts man in control, at least in part, because it makes God compelled to react to something within us, when there was nothing within us of any value or worth. We were unregenerate, sinful, depraved, lustful, selfish, self-serving, idolatrous, totally unworthy beings before God got hold of us. Anything of value, worth or goodness we have now is totally and completely by the Grace of God, and the working of His Holy Spirit. So, yes, God is totally justified in allowing some to perish, because they deserve to!
I said: Those that hear and respond, are those whom God has chosen from among the heathen.
You said: Yes, they were according to Calvinism, chosen as the elect, and respond because they were the chosen, they are not the chosen because they respond (Arminian view)
Don't you see the fallacy in the Arminian view? That God chose them because they responded? That puts man in control of God's salvation. Don't you see that? You make God obligated to save man BECAUSE he responds! That is backwards!
I said: Those that have never heard the Gospel still have God's general revelation of Himself in nature as a witness against them, so they are without excuse, and rightly sentenced to death for their sin.
You said: Well, that we agree on. They do not hear the Gospel because God knows they have already rejected Him, not because God rejected them (But Ye would not)
You agree with me, then make a statement that you know is in disagreement with all that I have been saying! Those that do not hear and are condemned are condemned because they rejected God a long time ago, and God did not choose them. You are again trying to slip in the idea that God looks to see who will choose Him, and then elects them, rather than seeing that God Sovereignly choose those whom He Will, and does not choose others, based on His own Counsel, and not on any potential reaction or propensity of man. You just cannot accept that God can do as He pleases, and does not have to answer to man for His actions. Whatever God pleases to do is Just, Righteous, Holy, and Good, because it is God that does it. If man doesn't understand it, that is man's fault, not God's.
I said: If you're so worried about the heathen not getting a chance to hear the Gospel, get off your a@@ and take it to them, instead of whining about how it's not fair that they never heard! In a real sense, if they have not heard, it's your fault, not God's!
You said: Are you daft? It was you who brought up the issue of the heathen's not me.
Nope, I did not bring up the heathen first, it was you who did, many posts ago. I can't help it if your memory is a little faulty where your theology is concerned, seeing that it doesn't even hold up logically, let alone scripturally.
It is the Calvinist argument that if the God wants all men to be saved, how is it fair that the 'some have not heard'. As you have just noted above, everyone has an equal chance at salvation, first through natural revelation (Psa.19, Rom.1) and then, if postive at that point, the Gospel itself.
Digging out the labels again? And once again, you say I said something I did not say. Read this very carefully: God's general revelation stands as a witness AGAINST man, and is not the Gospel, or sufficient to bring man to a saving knowledge of God. However, it is sufficient to condemn unregenerate man in his sins, because the evidence for God is all around him, in everything he sees, hears, touches, tastes, and smells. Unregenerate man is deserving of death, condemned to death, and only draws breath by the Grace of God Almighty, which is a witness against man's sinfulness, because he does not acknowledge God's Righteousness and Grace, or his own sinfulness in contrast.
Your statement that everyone has an equal chance at salvation is a human concept, not a biblical one. It is born of the deeply held belief that man has some good, some redeeming quality in him, inherent to him that is not touched by sin, and it is this which God responds to and draws upon. It's the Gnostic idea that everyone has a "spark" of the Divine in him. It is Gnosticism, and one of the root concepts underlying the Arminian position, one that Arminians will vehemently deny, but is there nonetheless. It is an insidious and destructive belief, and opposed to God's revealed Word.
How does he know what Nation will respond dec? And if God wills that all men will be saved is it "fair" not to send it everywhere?
God gave men the free will to be as evil as they like..men will never choose to do good on his own..
I don't know why you think I have a problem with that. You are not being consistent.
Your statement "God gave men the free will to be as evil as they like" flies in the face of what you have preached as your concept of the "Sovereignty of God."
Agreed, that God gave men over, but the way you folks preach Calvinism, He also decided what sins depraved man would commit.
This has nothing to do with my understanding of how depraved man is.
It has to do with your concept of God making man depraved.
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.