Open Questions for John MacArthur

Let me say to begin that I honour John Piper highly. I believe him to be a man of God with a warm heart and desire to serve God in truth. I regard him as the 'acceptable face of contemporary Calvinism' and a very gifted communicator. However, I disagree with some of his fundamental statements.

I doubt that John Piper will ever see this post but I have just listened to his podcast Q&A on the topic of 'election'... and I have some questions.

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

As the Q&As progress we are introduced to the idea that by 'election' the speakers are referring to 'election to salvation'. We are informed that the idea is apostolic and earlier... the quote being given... [color=0000ff]“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” (Is 45:4 KJVS)[/color] ... but what can this mean in this context? Does this mean that all the physical descendants of Jacob/Israel are 'elected to salvation'? If so what are we to say about the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and what exactly constitutes 'Israel'. Do we want to say that Achan and Ahab were 'elected to salvation'?

Actually the conversation refers also to 'elected for a purpose' but it is presumed that the purpose is 'salvation'. Reference is made to the way that we use the word 'election' in the choosing of someone to fulfill a purpose, but do those we 'elect' always fulfill the purpose of their 'election'?

Where does it say that 'Israel' was elected to 'salvation'?

John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true? What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God? And what does 'choose life' mean if my only power of choice is the choice of choosing the cause of my death?

I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?

Brother Ron wrote:

What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God?

Man without revelation is doomed by his carnal mind, his fallen nature. Yet, it is God who reveals Himself to man. Man then has a choice according to the Scripture you have pointed to.

The revelation of God through His word is the means by which man is brought to know His salvation.

Psa. 119:41 VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

Psa. 119:81 CAPH. My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in thy word.

Psa. 119:123 Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness.

Those who hear and obey are the seed of Abraham...

Psa. 96:2 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.

These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."

In Christ
Jeff

These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."

a) Israel is mine elect
b) Mine elect is Israel.

the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words)

I would never tell an unsaved person that.

Why proclaim such bad news when God has offered Good News to the world? God is not willing that any should perish.

I believe that the devil tempts countless to feel that there is nothing they can do about their condition, and so they are left in the prison of futility and hopelessness. (That thinking is the root cause of sins, I'd say.)

THAT deception, I feel, is the poison.

Why should we be feeding the the devil's poison to the lost? We just keep them lost.

Diane

John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true?

This brings my mind to two related topics; the so-called Total Depravity of man (the first point in F.P.C) and [i]the bondage of the will[/i]. To simplify for many readers I might say that the belief is that if man's will is [u]not[/u] bound then he is free to obey God. If He is free to obey God then he is capable of obeying the law perfectly (in theory). Some would call this Pelagianism. If man's will is in 'bondage' to the effects of Original Sin then man is incapable of obeying God. Some take this to the extreme as to say that man cannot even respond to God's word in faith.

The danger is viewing God as a lawgiver who gives laws that He knows man cannot obey and then judges the man for not keeping them. By analogy, it would be like placing an 100 pound bag of feed on the back of my 50 lb boy and spanking him for not carrying it. Conscience revolts at such a thought. However, this is generally explained by saying that because we are Totally Depraved we are struck through with Sin in such a way that our reasoning faculties are not reliable in determining right from wrong. This is circular reasoning that begins with the premise that we are [i]totally depraved[/i] to prove we are totally depraved. This is philosophy and not bible. We have the revelation of God that runs counter to this. Never did God command man to do something in such a way that it was [i]impossible[/i] for him to do it. He told Cain if you do well you will be accepted, but if not then Sin lieth at the door. To say that our faculties are so messed up that we can't distinguish right from wrong is to plead insanity in the courts of justice. Man is simply not accountable for his actions if he could [i]not have chosen other than he chose[/i].

We know that Sin entered, but what is the extent of depravity or the power the 'spirit of disobedience' exerts over us. Are we literally automatons of Sin itself? Are we 'possessed' of Sin as was the demoniac the devil? Does it take hold of us in such a way as to throw us into vileness and iniquity apart from our [i]choice[/i]? I would argue that the Sin nature makes one 'bent' towards sins and rebellion. I would argue that this 'bent' is an opression and not a 'possession'. The key word here is 'yield'. We are servants to whom we 'yield' our members. The unregenerate are bent towards 'rebellion' but they are not forced into rebellion.

We are told early on in Genesis that God's Spirit would not always 'strive' with man for he is also mortal. The Holy Spirit obviously sought to press upon sinners that they ought to choose rightly and walk in the revelation they knew. To me, this 'striving' more than compensates for any 'depravity' man may have suffered and leveled the field in terms of obedience. But what? Men do always resist the Holy Ghost (God's prevenient grace). This is why God is utterly just in damning souls to the flames. They could have and were even 'pressed upon' to do rightly and they resisted God.

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'. We can discover whom God has elected (regenerated) by going around with the four spiritual laws and seeing who will repeat the little prayer after me. Those who do repeat the prayer must have been regenerated by God and are the elect and are eternally saved. Nothing can pluck them from the hand of God. God regenerated them and God sovereignly saw fit to send me around with the message to discover them. No need to focus too much on the details because God is sovereignly at work in the persons life and He is the author of their salvation, etc..

This is why Finney took on the topic of Total Depravity and was labeled a Pelagian. Being from a law court background he knew that justice required that God do justly. If sinners cannot help themselves they are not culpable. I don't know anyone who really believes that man is totally depraved. Proof being, if they are violently violated they usually want justice. If they want mercy then they have to admit some 'wrong' on the part of the offender or there is nothing to forgive.

What a hopeless statement!!!!!

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'.

In my practice I am more Calvinist that many would guess. I believe that many of the efforts we make to get folks to 'respond' are really what Oswald Chambers would have called 'amateur providences'; man's interference in God's workings. I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.

However in my thinking I am not very Calvinist at all. At the last census I was hovering around 20% Calvinist.

Perhaps when others have joined us we could move on to examining the nature of 'election' and asking just what does the Bible mean by that language.

I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.

I think GW. North's 'Shipwreck' is most helpful in this regard. I am reminded of the many times I have been witnessing to folk and got to the point and asked them.. and yet they said "I'm just not ready yet." Some are not that honest and will go along to get us off their back. This concerns me. Sometime we ought to have a discussion on I Chronicles 21 when David numbered Israel and the hand of judgment was stayed at the threshing floor. I think there is a great truth there to be discovered. It was on that threshing floor that an altar and then the Temple was built.

God initiates regeneration in my view. This 'initiation' includes revivals also, I think. When we look for 'numbers' and base our evangelism on 'numbers' I think we really miss God. But thats another subject. ;-)

philologos,

I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?

Thank your for this statement. Quite honestly when I see your posts I am amazed at the knowledge and grasp of scripture that you posess. Thank you for your devotion to God and the 'spirit of gentle enquiry' in which you bring forth these questions. I hope to engage in this spirit as I have said before 'in all the wisdom the God can give me.

I do not know of any verse in scripture that says that the entire nation of physical Israel is elected to salvation.

On the contrary, Paul is Romans tells us that not all Israel is Israel. Just beacuse a person was a physical descendant of Abraham does not mean they are elected. Jesus also confronted the Pharisees and called them the 'sons of the Devil.'

Election is the acts of God choosing someone out of his own pleasure (Grace) and it has nothing to do with anything the person has done to earn the the Grace (not of works so that no man may boast.)

So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?

I don't want to jump the gun here, but I wish to show what the 'will and purpose of God is [u]not[/u].

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.(II Peter 3)

It is not God's [i]boulomai[/i] (will, purpose or desire) that any should perish. when we deal with God's purpose we know here what that purpose is [u]not[/u]. When we speak of the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1) we know what that will is [u]not[/u]. I think this passage has to be tha anchor that keeps us from error.

I don't want to jump the gun here...

The 'purpose' that some of the reformed persuasion would give is 'for the glory of God'. That is they do believe that God has elected some to eternal life and not others but that such must be explained by reference to the fact that God's glory is best served by His choices. For many of us, like Krispy, these things make our 'head ache'. In fairness to John Piper he admits that these these issues have their areas of struggle for him too. We must not think that Reformed Christians are 'comfortable' with what they believe the Bible reveals, but they believe it does reveal such things and so in honesty try to give an answer for their convictions.

Some of our older readers here will recall my struggles with the concept of 'the will' which obviously affects the way I synthesise my understanding of scripture. I must admit that I don't recall anyone expressing 'Total Depravity' quite so 'totally' as John Piper in his 'only free to choose our poison' quote. But I believe this is an honest and godly man so I would love to talk to him or others who share his views.

So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?

Is. 45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.[/color]

I like to trace things back to their beginnings. The Hebrew word for 'elect' as a noun is [color=0000ff]Strongs 972. בָּחִיר bachiyr[/color], and is used in these scriptures: 2Sam 21:6; 1Chr 16:13; Psa 89:3; 105:6,43; 106:5,23; Is 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9,15,22

If folk have Bible programmes, I suggest you highlight and copy the above references and put them into your Bible software. (I could do it for you if you don't have the facilities.) The point I would want to make is that if these are the 'beginnings' of the Bible idea it is surprising that none of these references seems to have anything to do with salvation/eternal life. They all seem to have to do with 'role' or 'calling'.

If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' [color=0000ff]“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and [u]the elect angels[/u], that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS)[/color] In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? :-? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)

My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation. I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us. That is, to be saved is to be restored to the will of God and to begin to live the life of the 'called ones'. Personal salvation comes with a calling to be God's chosen ones and to live so. There are 'good works' that God has foreordained that we should walk in, but for us to do the will of God the answer to 'how' lies in the gospel record [color=0000ff]“Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”” (John 6:28-29 NKJV)[/color] Our destiny must begin with the first step of abandonment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation.

You are saying that Election comes with the Salvation rather than the Salvation resulting in Election. You understand election having to do with 'role' and/or 'calling' rather than personal salvation.

Scripture tells us that election happens not at the point of salvation but is done before someone is even born. For example (can't have a discussion on election without bringing up Romans 9)
Romans 9:10-12, "Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

So, we must understand that election preceeds any works and even preceeds any person. It is 'not by works but by him who calls'.

You are making the case for election to begin when someone becomes a Christian. But this goes against the scriptural definition of election. Election has nothing to do with what a person does. But in your understanding (if I read it correctly...please correct me if I misunderstood) is that election is dependant on salvation, in that one must believe first, then election can occur.

The fact is, before Jacob was born God had a role for him. Jacob did not earn this role, Jacob did not have to believe first in order for this role to occur. Jacob simply received it because God had called him for it.

I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us.

I also submit to you that Paul did receive a commission during his encounter with Christ. But why did God open Paul's eyes to begin with? Is it not possible that God before the foundation of the world chose Paul for personal salvation?

If so, then God elected Paul to be saved before Paul was born but then did not choose to reveal that election until the Damascus encounter.

The election is not the 'role', it is the Salvation. Salvation must come before the role but election comes before the Salvation.

What I mean by that is that God did not give Paul the task of being the apostle to the Gentiles until after he was converted. Election is the fact that God chose Paul to become converted before Paul was born.

If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS) In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)

2 Peter 2:4, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;"
Jude 1:6, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

It does appear that some angels sinned. Is it not possible that there are elect and non-elect angels?

You seem to be saying that God gives 'roles' and 'callings' to people when they believe and that this is their 'election'. But what about God giving a non-believer a 'role' and a 'calling'? Is this referred to as election?

Would you go so far as to say that Pharaoh was of the elect? Was Judas of the elect? Judas clearly was used by God to betray Jesus. It was prophesied in Psalms that one would betray Jesus and Jesus made it known that he knew Judas was the one who would fulfill that role. Peter said in Acts 1:16, "...Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—"

So, in this logic if election has nothing to do with personal salvation and is simply a calling or role that one may fulfill--as in the case of Judas:
- Why then does Jesus say in Matthew 24:24 that, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.?

- Why does Jesus say in Mark 13:27 that the Son of Man '...will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."?

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:5-8, "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:25-29 conerning the Israel, "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Call to what? Salvation? or a role?

EDIT: [Removed copy of philologos post that was copied by accident.]

Philologos wrote:

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

So God takes the initiative because man who loves his sin does not seek for God - "There is none who seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). In so doing, God reveals the ugliness of sin and the beauty of His Son, our Savior. After revealing His glory and His worth, and sin's folly, God calls for a decision - turn from loving sin to loving the Savior. It is the hearing of God's Word that effects the ability to turn from sin to God. Man does not have the ability to turn from sin to God without being drawn by God through the Gospel. God even takes the initiative in the truth that He sends His preachers to preach the gospel - "How will they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:15).

RobertW wrote:

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God.

Grace and peace
Olan

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

What is the first thing that God must do to save a person?

2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Therefore God must reveal the truth of the gospel to the unbeliever by the Spirit using the Word. Once the unbeliever has the truth revealed to them, choosing salvation through Christ is a "no-brainer". This is where Calvinism and Arminianism come together. God does the revealing and man chooses to accept the truth. I call it Calvarmianism(TM). ;-)

“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”

These are vital verses, but just what is 'the purpose of God', referred to in these verses, with reference to 'election'? In other words what is 'election' referring to? Is there any indication in the story of Esau and Jacob that we are talking about 'salvation' or 'eternal life'? And while we are on the topic we can include the reference in Hebrews [color=0000ff]“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Heb 12:15-17 KJVS)[/color]

Did Esau lose 'salvation' or the 'birthright'? Did he lose 'eternal life' or 'the blessing'? Is 'the purpose of God' my personal salvation or is it something much larger than that of which my personal salvation is but a part? The 'purpose of God' must go on and if Esau rejected it, God must establish another 'carrier'. God, of course, knew this before the event and predicted that 'the elder would serve the younger'. Again, this would not seem to have reference to personal salvation but to the ongoing purpose of God.

[color=0000ff]“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom 9:12-13 KJVS)[/color] It is important to remember that this quotation from Malachi was a word spoken by God 1300 years after both Esau and Jacob were resting in their graves. The passage in Malachi seems to be clearly speaking of 'nations' rather than individuals.

On another level, of course, Jacob was Israel so we are back to needing a definition of 'Israel'.;-) Back later, just off to the prayer meeting...

Did Esau lose 'salvation' or the 'birthright'? Did he lose 'eternal life' or 'the blessing'? Is 'the purpose of God' my personal salvation or is it something much larger than that of which my personal salvation is but a part? The 'purpose of God' must go on and if Esau rejected it, God must establish another 'carrier'. God, of course, knew this before the event and predicted that 'the elder would serve the younger'. Again, this would not seem to have reference to personal salvation but to the ongoing purpose of God.

God's election of Jacob over Esau was that God chose Jacob for himself and did not choose Esau. God still had a 'purpose' and a 'role' for both of them. You seem to be saying that Esau lost his 'purpose of God' because he rejected it. In doing this you are missing the important part of Romans 9:11-12, "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls...".
We must understand that God did not make his announcement that 'the elder would serve the younger' based on what Esau did or did not do. The Bible makes it explicitly clear that God's purpose in election is not by works. Election had nothing to do with Esau's works. This actually means that Esau fulfilled God's plan by selling his birthright.

Election does not mean that God sees the future and plans accordingly. Election does mean that God determines the future before it will happen and He sees that it comes about.

God chose Jacob over Esau. God did this not based on anything Jacob or Esau had done, but simply because God wanted it to be done.

Now, you mention that you believe Election refers to 'our purpose of God in which salvation is part of but is not limited to'. You believe that Election refers to something much larger than salvation.

I wish you would explain this in more detail. I do not want to put words into your mouth so I will not comment on that more at this time.

“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom 9:12-13 KJVS) It is important to remember that this quotation from Malachi was a word spoken by God 1300 years after both Esau and Jacob were resting in their graves. The passage in Malachi seems to be clearly speaking of 'nations' rather than individuals.

Can God love the nation of Jacob without first loving Jacob? Can God hate the nation of Esau without first hating Esau?

I will defer to Charles Spurgeon on this issue. I took this from the sermon 'Jacob and Esau' at this website:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0239.htm

"Some of the Wesleyan brethren say, that there is a national election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn round and tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another. Now, we ask them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people? and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if—which we do not for a moment believe—that if there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his choosing one nation and not another. No! the difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God's Word. Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations, it says, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger,"—referring to the children, not to the nations. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. "Jacob,"—that is the man whose name was Jacob—" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

i find the verse in jeremiah 1:5 very interesting.

before I formed you in the womb i KNEW you.......

could this mean to say that God knew how jeremiah would be like and the choices he would make, before any works could be commited? just like esau and jacob? He knew what kind of persons they would be, so He would know who to use for His own purposes to get His way done? just like judas? God knew judas before he was formed. like maybe, He KNEW judas would have an evil heart to betray that He knew to use judas for His purposes? not that God made Him commit the sin of betrayal, but He saw before hand that judas would choose to do so.

I guess what has always perplexed me is that if God does will (choose)some to be saved and some not to be saved, it isn't really by faith but rather God's choice. In my mind it turns from "whosever will believe" to "whosoever God chose."

It seems to change the determining factor from faith to something else.

myrfirstlove

could this mean to say that God knew how jeremiah would be like and the choices he would make, before any works could be commited? just like esau and jacob? He knew what kind of persons they would be, so He would know who to use for His own purposes to get His way done? just like judas? God knew judas before he was formed. like maybe, He KNEW judas would have an evil heart to betray that He knew to use judas for His purposes? not that God made Him commit the sin of betrayal, but He saw before hand that judas would choose to do so.

would that not be like Go reacting to our actions? the word for forknowledge (if i remember right) can also be rendered fore-ordained putting God (in my view) where He ought to be, in charge. As far as i am concerned, i know God initiates salvation and indeed has already seen to it from before the setting of the foundations of the world. In JOhn 6 65 Christ says noone can come to Him unless the Father draws Him and without coming to Christ, noone can go to the Father. That speaks of the total hopelessness of our state. we are so lost that unless God moves and draws us to Christ, we have no hope of being reconciled to Him.

We have some measure of free will but even that is in the confines of God's own sovereign will and we must realize that. God's plan for bringing us to salvation is not simply for our salvation but the ultimate purpose for all creation to to bring Him glory. The issue of our will being subject to God's own to me speaks of God's own grace and mercy. the 2 in our minds seem mutually exclusive i bet, even contradictory but there is no such contradiction in the mind of God. Both serve the common purpose of glorifying Him who made all things. We can't ignore the fact that the word tells us that we ought to choose, but then again we can't ignore the principle of election which we see not just in Romans chapt 9 but spread out in most of Paul's letters as he speaks about "you who were called/chosen" Election to me speaks of God's grace and mercy on me and also assures Him of ALL the glory for saving a wretch as myself.

for those of us who are vessels of mercy, let us seek God and act as He would have us act to His glory. AMEN.

Quote:
God chose Jacob over Esau. God did this not based on anything Jacob or Esau had done, but simply because God wanted it to be done.

[color=0033CC]This is correct they were born of the same mother and father, yes. They were twins.[/color]

PreachParsly wrote:
I guess what has always perplexed me is that if God does will (choose)some to be saved and some not to be saved, it isn't really by faith but rather God's choice. In my mind it turns from "whosever will believe" to "whosoever God chose."

It seems to change the determining factor from faith to something else.

but isn't the Faith which is required to believe God a gift from above also? at the end of the day it all rests on God because the purpose of all this is to glorify God. as maker of all things He does have the ability to do as He chooses even if it doesn't quite make sense on this end...but oh when we get There...

Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
Does this have to be interpreted that "every man" means those in the church?

John 15:16
[b]Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,[/b] and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you

John 15:19
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, [b]but I have chosen you out of the world, [/b]therefore the world hateth you.

Romans 9:11

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God [b]according to election[/b] might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Romans 9: 14-16

What then shall we say?[b] Is God unjust? [/b]Not at all! For he says to Moses,"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
[b]It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. [/b]For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: [b]"Then why does God still blame us?[/b] For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Ephesians 1:4
According as [b]He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, [/b]that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because [b]God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:[/b] ( Praise God for this gift )

1 Peter 1:2
[b]Elect according to the foreknowledge of God [/b]the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to [b]make your calling and election sure: [/b]for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

[color=0000CC]"Whosoever will?" :

Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.[/color]

could this mean to say that God knew how jeremiah would be like and the choices he would make, before any works could be commited?

No disrespect but that doesn't make much sense. That would be saying that God chose me because of my decisions and actions and then stating that my salvation is not based on any works that I have done.

just like esau and jacob? He knew what kind of persons they would be, so He would know who to use for His own purposes to get His way done? just like judas? God knew judas before he was formed. like maybe, He KNEW judas would have an evil heart to betray that He knew to use judas for His purposes? not that God made Him commit the sin of betrayal, but He saw before hand that judas would choose to do so.

Ironman is on to the right answer.

Romans 8:28-30 says, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”

We see the following things:
1.\tGod works all things for the good of those who love him.
2.\tThose who love him have been called according to God’s purpose.
3.\tThose who have been called were previously foreknown.
4.\tGod foreknew people, not just their actions.
5.\tThe people whom God foreknew, those are the ones that he also predestined.
6.\tThese whom God foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.
7.\tGod predestined the foreknown so that Jesus would be the firstborn among many brothers.
8.\tThose whom God foreknown and predestined, those are the ones that he also called.
9.\tThose whom God had foreknown and predestined and called, those are the ones he justified.
10.\tThose whom God had foreknown and predestined and called and justified, those are the ones whom he also glorified.
11.\tA person cannot be glorified unless he is justified.
12.\tA person cannot be justified unless he is called.
13.\tA person cannot be called unless he is predestined.
14.\tA person cannot be predestined unless he is foreknown.

Place this in the context that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works so that no man may boast and you see that those who are foreknown were foreknown and chosen through the mercy and grace of God alone, not based on their future actions.

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that salvation is not by works but it is by grace. Why do we then try to say that God chooses people based on their actions?

Does this have to be interpreted that "every man" means those in the church?

Romans 12 (KJV)

1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

Seems to be talking about every person at the church. What was your interpretation?

" If God chooses you because He knew you were going to choose Him, that's not Him choosing you.." S.Lewis Johnson.

It has to be either you choose Him or He chooses you, according to Scripture,(please see prior post) HE chooses the elect.

Not knowing exactly where to place this statement I'll just place it here. Would it be right to say that God as our creator placed within all (human beings) certain dynamics, like eternity, faith, desire, etc.?

I appreciate this thread, and the thoughts expressed.

God chose Jacob over Esau. God did this not based on anything Jacob or Esau had done, but simply because God wanted it to be done.

And yet, Esau gave away his inheritance volitionally. Isaac (including Rebecca) did not take it away from him. Neither did Jacob. Jacob didn’t even threatened Esau. Later Isaac was deceived into giving Jacob the blessing. But Isaac wasn’t forced. Also consider the work God did in Jacob’s life to break down his own self-will. God gave Jacob the limp. God sent the dream; but Jacob himself committed his trust to God. “…then the Lord will be my God… and I will give you a tenth” Gen. 28:21 .

It seems that for all of these people, their will remained intact throughout. Therefore, I believe that in the final judgment, each will be held accountable for his choices. I cannot believe that the wills of these people were in “bondage” to God’s predestination, even though God had predestined the bigger picture. If that was the case then how could they be held accountable?

unless God moves and draws us to Christ, we have no hope of being reconciled to Him.

I have to admit, that’s the way God worked in my life – over a period of years. The change was not merely an instant “thing” that happened to me, all though a lot of things did happen to me. That ultimately included God giving me his Spirit at a point determined by him, not me. I wasn’t saved because I asked him to come into my heart. I as saved because, by God’s mercy, he gave me his Life in response to my plea and my surrender (which all developed over a period of time).

I recently heard this explanation: “God has predestined a plan for ALL who come to him.” In other words, the plan (eternal life, gifts, good works, etc) has been predestined since the beginning; but only those who choose Christ will receive it.

Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

At the last census I was hovering around 20% Calvinist.

Diane

God as our creator placed within all (human beings) certain dynamics, like eternity, faith, desire, etc.

How about life itself?

"unless he is born of water.... "
You must be born AGAIN.." Jn. 3:5

We could never receive the New Life without having a functioning body and mind. How could we exist for even one second without the breath of the Spirit in us, including the creation.

Diane

If God foreknew, before birth, IN THE WOMB, who was to be called TO Messiah, and those who are not, then in essence, are you (all?) saying that God breathes life into a soul, births it forth into an earthly vessel, and then once this earthly vessel is depleted, to cast this soul that was NOT called, or NOT elected into a fiery eternal hell?

Bartle, you want me to say that I do not know. I admit that there is a lot in scripture that I don't know. However, I do see that when Paul describes Election in Romans 9:10-13, he then asks the following questions:

1. IS GOD UNJUST?

Romans 9:14-18,
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Answer: No. God is not unjust because he has the authority have have mercy on whomever he desires to have mercy on and he has the authority to harden whomever he wants harden.

2. THEN WHY DOES GOD STILL BLAME THOSE WHO ARE NOT CHOSEN?

Romans 9:19-24,
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? "
Answer: God has the right to still blame those whom are not chosen because he is God. He sets the rules and he is in control.

What I have presented is straight from scripture. If you do not like what is presented then your argument is with God, not with me. Nobody likes to think about a person spending eternity in hell. What I have to do is present scripture and not what I think should happen.

Are we saying that God is a God who not only hates us, abhors us, but creates some of us to soak and burn in eternal hellfire, should He have not "chosen" us, because in a blink of eye, we said, "Jesus, remember us when You come into
Your Kingdom".

I am saying what Scripture is saying in that there are 'objects of wrath' (Romans 9:22 and Ephesians 2:3) and there are 'objects of mercy' (Romans 9:23). This is not my opinion.

But I'll tell you what, you can twist Scripture any which way but loose, and come up with a God who hates you, but as the Wind of the Spirit blew thru the Scripture I don't see a God Who hates His children.......but here's the $64,000 question....who are His children?

You accuse me of twisting scripture and then you accuse me of saying something I never said. I have not made the statement that 'God hates His children' Romans 8:14 says, "...those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." God does not hate His children. Scripture does however state that God hated Esau.

You can accuse me of twisting scripture but my conscience is clear before God. I have sought to present the truth as it appears in the Bible.

you know, i was about to post again on this topic, but i heard a quiet voice moving quite heavily in my heart to "be quiet and go". so i deleted my long post and will take heed and shut my mouth and go. God knows my weakness and what easily distracts ME from knowing Him.

God bless you all and i did enjoy reading the posts on this topic, though truthfully i was a bit grieved on some. it is good to get into the word with one another and sharpen each other with non essential topics, though some may view this as very essential topic and that you may not be a christians if your not a cal. or arm.(weep)

if such topics take you away from bearing your cross and being one with The Lord then i would encourage you to let go that you may not loose your relationship with your first Love.

God bless and much love

JaySaved said:

God chose Jacob over Esau. God did this not based on anything Jacob or Esau had done, but simply because God wanted it to be done.

Roadsign said:
And yet, Esau gave away his inheritance volitionally.

Esau made a choice to give away his birthright for a bowl of soup. Esau in doing so fulfilled God's foreordained plan. God made it clear before Esau was born that Esau would not receive the birthright. Are you saying that Esau had the right to choose NOT to give away his birthright? If he had that choice he would have made God a liar.

Quote:

""Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.""

"Does this have to be interpreted that "every man" means those in the church?"

Every man has a measure of faith to believe or when the Faith came to him to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he would not.

This must mean the Jesus knows a person's faith.
Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Luk 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Luk 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

He saw their faith. He also knows when there is little faith. Mat 16:8 [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Jesus knew they had little faith.

Knowing no man has faith unto salvation, God made a decision that that faith must come by Jesus Christ and Gave it to Him to bring it to mankind. He knowing all the time who could and would receive this Faith, it came by the Grace of God to those that will choose God because of His Faith given to those that would believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 2:20 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.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Phl 3:9 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:

How long did God do all that He chose, that man has every chance in all that God said, to save himself? Thousands of years. The answer is God is justified by the death of His Son to give those the Faith of Jesus Christ that would save them. Phl 3:9 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:

Then we always say God is not Just or Fair because it does not matter who sins or who does not sin. We were all under the Law and all sinners. Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

When faith came by Jesus Christ no man would choose without the Holy Spirit. Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

He will never suffer again, once is all that is needed for God to make Jesus Christ the only means to salvation. God will not let that sacrifice suffer for not. He is justified in Choosing whom He pleases to bring into the Kingdom of His dear Son. Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Most especially who are you that judgest God?

Romans 9:18-26 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

In Christ by His Plan, not mine: Phillip

If God foreknew, before birth, IN THE WOMB, who was to be called TO Messiah, and those who are not, then in essence,

I want to go back to the earlier statement that we only have the 'freedom to choose our poison'. I am often challenged by that most familiar of all the parables; the Prodigal Son. [color=0000ff]“And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.” (Luke 15:12-13 KJVS)[/color]

I know that we have to cautious about making every aspect of a parable into a theology but these two verses seem to link two vital truths. The first is the surprising revelation that the Father empowered the son to get to the far country. "not many days after" provides the link between the parts. The father must have known the character of his son and yet he gave him the wherewithall to turn his back on Father and home and head for the city lights. I hope this appeals to 'Calvinists'. The Father might be 'accused' of taking the initiative in putting the means of rebellion into the hands of his younger son. This is what I mean my personal responsibility; it is genuinely the choice of the son. To say, as does John Piper, that we are only free to choose our poison seems to strike at the heart of personal responsibility. Is it the case that this son only had the freedom to choose which city he was headed for? Surely not. It reminds me of the phrase used in Jeremiah...[color=0000ff]“For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer 2:13 KJVS)[/color] There are two stages to this, first the rebellion and second the 'choice of poison'. And the first 'evil' that the people committed was to 'forsake me'. Are we saying then that having forsaken God the only choices left to us is which false fountain I can drink from? What is the point of this prophecy if they do not have the power to choose 'life'?

No, as things stand in my understanding at the moment, I cannot agree that the only choice we have is to 'choose my poison'. I don't think this view gives sufficient weight to personal responsibilty. However, just to be even-handed ;-), I am not comfortable with the Finney view either; it seems to me that Finney does not give sufficient weight to the damage caused to our race by Adam's transgression.

So I believe in 'original sin' (back to that topic again!) but not in the manner of John Piper. I believe that God can speak to a man or woman before the crisis of regeneration and that such a person will be enabled to hear and can therefore be held accountable. Perhaps another illustration...[color=0000ff]“And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”(Luke 6:10 KJVS)[/color] This man was [u]dis[/u]abled until the word of God reached him. That word did not regenerate him but it did [u]en[/u]able him to do what he had not been able to do. He did not say 'but that's my problem, I can't stretch out my hand, I'm disabled'. He 'began' to obey and God's power met his choice. God's power will always meet our choice when we choose to do what God has told us to do. [color=0000ff]“For no word from God shall be void of power.” (Luke 1:37 ASV)[/color]

On more that one occasion Jesus used the phrase 'go and sin no more'. (John 5:14; 8:11) What can that mean if we only have the power to 'choose our poison'?

Rom. 8:29-30 (NKJV)
"For whom He [b]foreknew[/b], He also [b]predestined[/b] to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He [b]predestined[/b], these He also [b]called[/b]; whom He called, these He also [b]justified[/b]; and whom He justified, these He also [b]glorified[/b]." (emphasis added)

The foundation of God's predestination, calling, justification & glorification is His FOREKNOWLEDGE.

His "FOREKNOWLEDGE" comes first before everything. Knowing the beginning & end of the matter, surely He can decide as to what to make of His creation:

1) be it an expensive pot of clay
2) be it a simple pot of clay
3) be it a vessel to display His judgement/wrath (like Pharaoh)
4) be it to display His grace, mercy, love, & glory.

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:65
And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

John 10:15
As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Revelation 17:8
...whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

2 Timothy 1:9
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

1 Peter 1:2
elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

1 Thessalonians 1:4
knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.

1 John 3:6
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

Ron's:

And while we are on the topic we can include the reference in Hebrews [i]“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”[/i] (Heb 12:15-17 KJVS)

I want to look at Ron's point in Hebrews again as I think it important to notice how the writer implicates Esau in the loss of his birthright. The writer makes it plain that the responsibility was Esau's for having 'sold' the birthright so that.. [i]For ye know how that [u]afterward[/u], when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected...[/i]

When was the 'afterward'? The afterward, seems to me to be the point in which it came time to pass on the blessing. Esau may have well not taken seriously the incident with the bowl of lentels, but it seems that justice prevailed. There was some deception that brought it about on the part of Jacob towards Isaac; but the 'birthright' had already been forfeited.

However, just to be even-handed , I am not comfortable with the Finney view either; it seems to me that Finney does not give sufficient weight to the damage caused to our race by Adam's transgression.

True. Finney did not appreciate what we would term Original Sin and Sin having 'entered'. However, as with so many of his writings, he has an insight into how things play out that is worth noting:

[i]The Bible ascribes conversion, or a new heart, [u]to four different agencies.[/u] Oftentimes it is ascribed to the Spirit of God. And if you consult the Scriptures, you will find it still more frequently ascribed to the truth; as, "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth" -- "The truth shall make you free" -- "Sanctify them through thy truth" -- "The law of God is perfect, converting the soul." It is sometimes ascribed to the preacher, or to him who presents the truth; "He that winneth souls is wise: " Paul says, "I have begotten you through the Gospel" -- "He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways, shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins." Sometimes it is spoken of as the work of the sinner himself: thus the apostle says, "Ye have purified yourselves by obeying the truth;" "I thought on my ways," says the Psalmist, "and turned unto the Lord." Again he says, "When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart replied, Thy face, Lord, will I seek."

4. Now the question is, Are all these declarations of Scripture consistent with each other? They are all true; they all mean just as they say; nor is there any real disagreement between them. There is a sense in which conversion is the work of God. There is a sense in which it is the effect of truth. There is a sense in which the preacher does it. And it is also the appropriate work of the sinner himself. [/i]

So I believe in 'original sin' (back to that topic again!) but not in the manner of John Piper. I believe that God can speak to a man or woman before the crisis of regeneration and that such a person will be enabled to hear and can therefore be held accountable.

Are saying that a person cannot be held accountable until God speaks to them? What about Jesus' words in John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."? The truth is that a person who has never heard the Gospel message is in a state of unbelief. But you seem to be saying (forgive me, I don't want to put words into your mouth) that there is a period of innocence after birth that extends until the period when a person first rejects the Gospel. Is this your position?

Philologos,

Here is John Piper's own words on Original Sin/Total Depravity.

[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html]Original Sin/Total Depravity by John Piper[/url]

Bartle,

Please review your comments in the last three posts you have made.

You say that you are not talking about me and that you are 'musing out loud' and then you state:

and you know what argument I find ......trying to find the right word.....ok....mystifying, when a believer says, "thats not my opinion, thats Scripture".

The Pharisees used portions of Deuteronomy 13 as their justification to crucity Jesus..."its not my opinion, its Scripture".

In these sentences you are specifically referencing me. You call my statement 'mystifying' and compare me to the Pharisees. This is on top of the 'posters' you refer to as 'vainglorious' and 'arrogant'.

Please watch your words. It is a sad day when a Christian calls another Christian 'arrogant' and 'vainglorious' because they seek to read their bible and understand its meaning.

It may be all well for you to say 'I don't know', but it is another thing to ignore what Scripture says.

Bartle, this phrase blows my mind:

The Pharisees used portions of Deuteronomy 13 as their justification to crucity Jesus..."its not my opinion, its Scripture".

Yes, the Pharisees used scripture to justify their actions. The Devil himself quoted scripture when tempting Jesus. Does this mean that I am not allowed to quote scripture? I stand by my statement, 'its not my opinion, its Scripture'.

My conscience is clear before God.

I call upon all the brothers and sisters here at Sermonindex as well as the moderators to publicly rebuke anyone on this board...including myself...who has attacked another person and has not acted in the Spirit of Christ. Please review all posts on this thread and judge us on our words.

Are you saying that Esau had the right to choose NOT to give away his birthright? If he had that choice he would have made God a liar.

Philologos observed in the Parable of the Prodigal son:

the Father empowered the son

.....but the Father empowered the son. (!?!) Yeh, empowered him to make choices he never could have made otherwise. To us that is a crazy idea! What if the rebel should get AIDS in the far-off country, or be murdered by robbers.

Ah, those “what if’s”…

Did God need to control Jacob’s and Esau’s will just in case – what if they might respond differently than he expected (foreknew), and thus mess up his game plan. Ah, the (“ What if’s”)

I suspect that the “what ifs” derail our perception of God’s sovereignty. Somehow I doubt if there where “what if’s” in God’s mind. I suggest that “what if’s” are a human way of thinking – a fear response more than a faith response. It is the result of diminished view of God, and is reflected in many of our life choices. Ex: I know God will care for our needs, but “what if” he falls through. Thankfully I’ve got insurance. Consider the nagging wife who tries to control her husband’s will because she is enslaved with the thinking what if he should blah, blah, blah (ie do what I don’t want him to.) We humans can be such control freaks – and perhaps it’s all because of the fear of the “what if’s”.

….. All that to say: I don’t think we can box God’s sovereignty into our own minds. He doesn’t need to control people’s wills in order to accomplish his purposes. It’s we human beings who think that way. God works through the choices of man, not by robbing man from his choices.

I’m becoming more and more impressed with this idea of God’s gift of empowerment to us – that is the gift and enablement to choose. To me, that reflects divine LOVE. Maybe God doesn’t give it to us until a certain point in our lives, or he gradually develops it, or gradually free us from bondaged wills. I don’t know. But I do know that without an empowered will, NO one can come to him WILLINGLY, or reject him WILLINGLY. God must innitiate the relationship.

One thing that I do know is that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Halleluiah!

Do you know what would make a great study: learning HOW God draws man to himself, HOW God empowers man to choose him.

Just wondering: Does this issue presently under discussion affect our every day Christian lives, or is it merely a sport for theologians to play generation after generation?

Diane

JaySaved said:
Are you saying that Esau had the right to choose NOT to give away his birthright? If he had that choice he would have made God a liar.

Roadsign said:
Why would giving Esau the choice make God a liar? Esau fit perfectly into God’s plan. Have we not all made numerous choices only to see later how they fit into God’s bigger picture? And we marvelled at the wisdom of God.

If Esau could have chose NOT to give away his birthright then he would be violating what God had said concerning him. Remember, God told Rebecca that the 'older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob). Romans 9:11 tells us that God said this 'before the twins (Esau and Jacob) were born or had done anything good or bad'. Romans 9:11 also tells us that God told Rebecca that Esau would lose his birthright 'in order that God's purpose in election might stand'. Romans 9:12 then tells us the reason why Esau lost his birthright was 'not by (Esau's) works but by him (God) who calls.'

Esau fit into God's plan because Esau did was God said would happen. My point is that if Esau could have kept his birthright then he would have made God a liar. He would have made God a liar because God said 'the elder would serve the younger'.

It seems to me that when one looks at man as God's creation, made in His own image, we all sometimes forget that God placed certain "things" in man, all men. A bent toward worship, a conscience, a will, and within every society there have been social norms which hold alot of Bad individuals at bay. To say that God choses one person over another would be to subtract from humanity the very things He has placed within all. The heavenly also shows a pattern of the earthly things, Angels who see God made choices to leave thier first habitations, in the same way mankind must chose, whether its based on conscience or by the hearing of faith. I haven't heard any arguement on either side that starts with that which was placed within all mankind. I do like what Ron does when he starts an arguement by going to the root, and Krispy >>>I'm with ya dude! These topics are way way above me! Like David, the man after God's heart, Psa 131:1 A Song of degrees of David. LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.

But I do enjoy reading most of what you folks have to say and comment on, so in that I say thank you for shareing.
:-)

"One poster just lists line after line of Scripture in a vainglorious attempt to buttress the "argument" of pre-destination, to which I counter with what did Jesus mean when he said "come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened...." ?

Bartle, if you were referring me, I'm sorry if I offended you by posting all Scriptures on the first post on this thread. Unlike the very well theologically superior Ron Bailey, I found my own words to be foolish and fruitless at times, so I thought to quote Scriptures because I was hoping that they can facilitate the readers of the topic matter. I'm learning and still trying to sort this topic out, sincerely and humbly.

Arguing over doctrinal things is just not something I do and often warn my children never involve in doing. On Forums like this one, my objectives are first to attempt to edify, then to share, and to learn. Since I have not much to offer anyone, I thought presenting scriptures would deem more suitable. Should you find this thread unacceptable, why didn't you approach Ron? Or, should I first attain Ron's level of knowledge before I make any posts?

Sigh.. if you cannot edify your brethren, the least you should do is not to openly assualt them with your harsh words, with smiling warm faces or not!!

very ..sad!!!

John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true?

I agree with this statement.

Total depravity is Scriptural. For Paul teaches...

Romans 8:

6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Man without the Spirit is condemned to the darkness of his carnal mind.

In Scripture there exists two wisdoms...

1Cor. 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

Also...

1Cor. 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
\t“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
\tAnd bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

The wisdom that comes from God is His treasure given to those who hear...

Isaiah 33:

5 \tThe LORD is exalted, for He dwells on high;
\tHe has filled Zion with justice and righteousness.
6 \tWisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
\tAnd the strength of salvation;
\tThe fear of the LORD is His treasure.

Wisdom and knowledge creates the "strength of salvation" which Scripture defines as "His treasure."

In Christ
Jeff

When Paul teaches about the source of wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:

19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

He is teaching from the book of Isaiah chapter 29...

Is. 29:11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, “Read this, please.”

And he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.”

Is. 29:12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, “Read this, please.”

And he says, “I am not literate.”

Is. 29:13 Therefore the Lord said:
\t“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
\tAnd honor Me with their lips,
\tBut have removed their hearts far from Me,
\tAnd their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
14 \tTherefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
\tAmong this people,
\tA marvelous work and a wonder;
\tFor the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
\tAnd the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

Look to the first verses here in this section of Scripture...

What precept is being taught in regards to a book that is open yet no one can understand?

In Christ
Jeff

Are saying that a person cannot be held accountable until God speaks to them? What about Jesus' words in John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."? The truth is that a person who has never heard the Gospel message is in a state of unbelief.

I know that the general view of evangelicals is that this implies that this reference is to those who have not believed, but the tenses of the verbs might suggest otherwise. This is from Young's Literal Translation; [color=0000ff]“he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18 YNG)[/color] At the risk of annoying some SI-ers these tenses are fascinating. The 'he who is believing' of Young's here is an attempt to show that John is using a definite article followed by a present participle. (yes, I know it's a turn off for some...) This gives the sense of 'characteristic behaviour'. John Baptist is, on occasion, referred to as the 'baptizing one'; using this same construction. John's characteristic was that he was the 'baptizing one' or as we usually say 'the baptizer'. The construction here in John would consequently justify the translation 'the believing one' of 'the Believer'. I have baptized numbers of people but no one would think to call be Ron the Baptist! John's behaviour identified him. Those referred to in John 3:18 are not those who 'have believed' at a point in time but who are 'the Believers'.

So we get the statement "the Believer (not the decision for Christ-er) is (present tense) not being judged". This is the consequence of genuine 'justification by faith'. The man or woman, in the believing state, is not currently being judged. Conversely, "the not-Believer in Christ has already been judged, because he has not believed. VIewing John 3:18 at the [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1161851566-9408.html#18]Blue Letter Bible[/url] may be helpful.

The key to understanding, I believe, is that one person here has 'done something' and the other has 'refused to do something'. This 'judgment' relates to the 'one' who has or has not done something. In other words, it is the result of 'faith' or 'unbelief'.

John then goes on to expand the truth...[color=0000ff]“‘And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;” (John 3:19 YNG)[/color] The basis for the 'judgment' seems to be that those who are thus being judged have 'loved' darkness rather than light. That is to say they have 'rejected' the witness of who Christ is. The light, in John 1:9, is the True Light coming into the world. This seems to be pointing not to an ancient rejection of truth in Adam but to a current rejection of truth presented to them in the person of Christ himself.

To those who reject The Witness a judgment has already taken place. BTW this is 'judgment' and NOT 'condemnation' as the KJV has it. 'judgment' is the declaring of the verdict; 'condemnation' is the passing of the sentence. We have a pattern in UK law where the 'sentence' may follow several days after the 'verdict'; I don't know if you have this in the USA? or elsewhere?

The point I am trying to make here is that the wider context of John's gospel is the rejection of the Witness. I did a piece on [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/download.php?file=118]Receiving Christ[/url] which has an appendix on 'The Witness; this would help you to see more clearly what I am trying to say here in shorter compass.

The Witness is Christ himself, but he witnesses to all men in one way or another. To reject the 'witness' is to be guilty of rejecting 'The Witness' and brings men under the 'judgment' of God. The whole section of John 3:18 follows the story of the Bronze Serpent which is given as a definition of the faith referred to in the later verses. John 3:16 is one of the best known verses in the Bible but it is impossible to understand John 3:16 without John 3:11-15. It is this kind of faith in an 'object' presented to our view by being lifted high on a wooden stake that establishes 'justifying faith'. They are 'bitten already' but if they die it will be because they would not look to the Provision.

bro Ron

I have baptized numbers of people but no one would think to call be Ron the Baptist!

Ron the Baptist, i like that! :-P

i find the verse in jeremiah 1:5 very interesting.

before I formed you in the womb i KNEW you.......

could this mean to say that God knew how jeremiah would be like and the choices he would make, before any works could be commited? just like esau and jacob? He knew what kind of persons they would be, so He would know who to use for His own purposes to get His way done? just like judas? God knew judas before he was formed. like maybe, He KNEW judas would have an evil heart to betray that He knew to use judas for His purposes? not that God made Him commit the sin of betrayal, but He saw before hand that judas would choose to do so.

Jeremiah provided the prophecy that I think we have to keep in view all the time with these issues...
[color=0000ff]“Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.”
(Jer 18:5-12 KJVS)[/color]

Does this mean that the fulfilling of God's will is always 'conditional'? No nation had received such promises as Israel "to build and to plant it;" and no nation so thorougly 'blew it'. On the other hand if we apply Jeremiah to the 'Jacob have I love, Esau have I hated' passage from Malachi we would be justified in saying that if 'Esau' (and Malachi is referring to the nation not the individual) repents then "I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."

To the 12 apostles Jesus said [color=0000ff]“Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, [u]ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[/u]” (Matt 19:27-28 KJVS)[/color] The truth that we must face is that one of these 12 was Judas of whom the scripture says...[color=0000ff]“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” (Acts 1:20 KJVS)[/color]

Now what has happened to [color=0000ff]“...the gifts and calling of God (that) are without repentance.”(Rom 11:29 KJVS)[/color]? :-? :-?

On the theme of 'only free to choose our poison' what would we say of Cornelius?

[color=0000ff]“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.” (Acts 10:1-2 KJVS)[/color]

This is the man who Peter says heard an angel say...[color=0000ff]“...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.”(Acts 11:13-14 KJVS)[/color]

Was Cornelius behaviour prior to his 'being saved' just a choosing of 'poisons'? The scripture seems to say something quite different...[color=0000ff]“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35 KJVS)[/color]

Was Cornelius behaviour prior to his 'being saved' just a choosing of 'poisons'?

"If you then, though you are evil,
know how to give good gifts to your children... " Lk. 11:13

Christ seems to acknowledge that good can be accomplished in the flesh. Frankly, I rejoice in that, because where would I be without the goodness of mankind - doctors, parents, teachers, food inspectors....

Surely there is a remnant of God-consciousness in man.

What about Nathaniel: "in whom there is nothing false." John 1:47

... yet... what about the "incurable wound"...

Diane

Ron's:

The truth that we must face is that one of these 12 was Judas of whom the scripture says...“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” (Acts 1:20 KJVS)

I don't know if this is the same direction here, but I was interested to read Adam Clarke's take on the death of Judas and that he actually holds out hope for his souls salvation in that he 'repented' of what he did. He has a pretty extensive argument for a commentary. I generally value his opinion highly because of his strict attention to pleasing God. In other words, if Adam Clarke holds out hope, maybe we ought to re-examine the subject. But that's another thread. ;-)

Total depravity is Scriptural.

"every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." Gen. 8:21

"The hearts of men are full of evil
and there is madness in their hearts while they live." Ecc. 9:3

Joshua to self-deluded Israel:

"'You are not able to serve the Lord.'
But the people said to Joshua,
'No! We WILL serve the Lord and obey him'
Then Joshua said,
'You are witnesses against yourselves
that you have chosen to serve the Lord." Joshua 24:19 -24.

Isaiah:
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart is afflicted.
From the soul of your foot to the top of your head,
there is no soundness -
only wounds and welts and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil. Is. 1:5,6

Jeremiah:
"Your wound is incurable,
your injury beyond healing.
There is no one to plead your cause,
no remedy for your sore, no healing for you." Jer. 30:12

Paul about humanity:
"There is no one righteous,
not even one.
All have turned away... (from Ps. 14)

There is no one who does good, not even one!" Romans 3:10

Paul - About the flesh:
I know I am rotten through and through
so far as my old sinful nature is concerned.
No matter which way I turn,
I cannot make myself do right." Rom. 7:18 NLB

Denial in the hearts of Israel’s spiritual leaders:

They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious. Jer. 6:15
"... [they are] not able to cure you,
not able to heal your sores." Hosea 5:13

Is there no balm in Gilead?

Roadsign's:

... yet... what about the "incurable wound"...

I think this question is a question of 'willing'. When the Sin nature is present the spirit of disobedience 'wills' in them to will and do evil (just reverse engineering another passage here). This does not mean they could not and do not at times choose good. The answer, I think, lies in the fact that as Christians we [i]can[/i] commit sins. Salvation does not remove my ability to sin it takes aware the [i]desire[/i] to sin. Some would argue that all deeds of a sinner are sinful even if they are righteous acts because they were motivated by selfishness or some other sinful motivation and not the glory of God or love for God, etc. But I am not sure this is not philosophy more than bible. I read some of the older writers speak of these types of things but I see no real parallel in scripture. They are building the altitude of the Moral High Ground (as it were) and requiring a level of perfection in our deeds that I am not sure I see biblically. Yet the framework in which this philosophy exists soteriologically is one of justification and assurance. It lends itself to the need for the 'free gift' of salvation. No one can measure up- so we must accept the gift, etc. The problem I see is that these concepts jump from the Calvinist camp to the Arminian camp and pretty soon folk are not able to live up to the standard and have no assurance of salvation. Untangling these things theologically we go a long ways to answer why folk (including myself) have such horribly disfunctional doctrinal conclusions at times. I think it happens when we have a cross pollenization of the two camps.

The problem I see is that these concepts jump from the Calvinist camp to the Arminian camp and pretty soon folk are not able to live up to the standard and have no assurance of salvation.

Total depravity is Scriptural.

It is easy enough to keep quoting our proof texts but what we need to do is to examine each others 'proof texts' and then try to get a balance.

Behind this understanding is the idea that God's regenerative act is a surprise initiative which effects regeneration in the heart of a man or woman without consultation or consent. From this monergism everything else springs... faith, repentance, choice. I remain unconvinced. My understanding is that God indeed must take the initiative and I preach it constantly, but to take the initiative and to complete the whole work while I remain asleep...?

"every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." Gen. 8:21

Philologos,

It seems that our disagreement is on when a person becomes condemned/judged.

You are saying that a person is not condemned/judged until they refuse to believe. You say that a person is not under condemnation until they actively reject the gospel. Does this mean that anyone who does not hear the gospel will not be judged and condemned to hell?

Roadsign said: "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." Gen. 8:21

Philologos said: "This is certainly a strong statement but what does “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”(Gen 6:9 KJVS)...imply? Coming as it does from the exact same era?"

You forget one very important verse that comes right before the verse you quoted:

Genesis 6:8, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

You see all of scripture must be true. Therefore it is true that every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood. It is true that as Genesis 6:5 says, "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." But it is also true that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. It is true that Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and he walked with God because of this grace.

I’m going to squeeze in for a moment with a comment for Bartle who said:

the whole "Calvinist vs. Arminianist" thread both futile and depressing.

I grew up in a Calvinist environment, but at that time wasn’t aware of any “ist” or “isms”. I did, however, know that joy and trust in the Lord’s salvation was lacking, but didn’t know why. Now I realize that we were living with a fractured God, and a fractured theology. We were robbed of the Good News. I know the sad outcome of that - first hand.

Then later in life I spent 15+ years in the other “camp”. It was refreshing for a long time. But then the fractured presentation of God paid its toll, especially during times of testings. We were living a life of trust in “self”. Really, we were robbed of the Good News, because we replaced it with something "manageable".

So here I am, trying to stand back and look at the whole mess - just trying to put God “back together again” without adopting any “ism”.

For me it all channels to one center: Simply trust in my beloved Lord, surrender to an awesome, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, sovereign God and follow him. Trying to understand the way of the Spirit with man is risky. It is like trying to put wind into a box.

To the extent that I diminish God and trust in myself or man, I am sure to slip into an “ism” of some kind.
(Edit: not to discredit the fact that there are treasures on both sides, and also some bones to spit out.)

And now... over and out... to the wise insights of our dear fellow saints.

Diane

Ron wrote:

To the 12 apostles Jesus said “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt 19:27-28 KJVS) The truth that we must face is that one of these 12 was Judas of whom the scripture says...“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” (Acts 1:20 KJVS)

Now what has happened to “...the gifts and calling of God (that) are without repentance.”(Rom 11:29 KJVS)?

But does that mean that Judas "lost salvation" and that God's "gift" was [b]revoked[/b]? Perish the thought! "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me [b]draws[/b] him; and I will raise him up on the last day....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. [b]But there are some of you who do not believe[/b]. For Jesus knew [i]from the beginning[/i] [u]who they were who did not believe[/u], [b]and who it was that would betray Him[/b]. And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father'" (John 6:44, 63-65). Judas was a counterfeit; he was never saved - "For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, 'Not all of you are clean'" (John 13:11). Judas was chosen so that Psalm 41:9 would be fulfilled - "I do not speak of all of you, I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats My bread has lifted up His heal against Me'" (John 13:18) - see also John 17:12.

Robert wrote:

I don't know if this is the same direction here, but I was interested to read Adam Clarke's take on the death of Judas and that he actually holds out hope for his souls salvation in that he 'repented' of what he did. He has a pretty extensive argument for a commentary. I generally value his opinion highly because of his strict attention to pleasing God. In other words, if Adam Clarke holds out hope, maybe we ought to re-examine the subject. But that's another thread.

Grace and peace
Olan

You forget one very important verse that comes right before the verse you

You say that a person is not under condemnation until they actively reject the gospel. Does this mean that anyone who does not hear the gospel will not be judged and condemned to hell?

How do you understand...[color=0000ff]“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom 2:5-11 KJVS)[/color]?

Why would Adam Clarke hold out a hope that the Lord Jesus never held out?

Hi Olan,

I will refer you to his extensive arguments and if need be we can start a different thread. Adam Clarke on Judas:

Concluding Excerpt:

"I hope it will not displease the humane reader that I have entered so deeply into the consideration of this most deplorable case. I would not set up knowingly any plea against the claims of justice; and God forbid that a sinner should be found capable of pleading against the cries of mercy in behalf of a fellow culprit! Daily, innumerable cases occur of persons who are betraying the cause of God, and selling, in effect, Christ and their souls for money. Every covetous man, who is living for this world alone, is of this stamp. And yet, while they live, we do not despair of their salvation, though they are continually repeating the sin of Judas, with all its guilt and punishment before their eyes! Reader! learn from thy Lord this lesson, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The case is before the Judge, and the Judge of all the earth will do right."

The whole text can be found [url=http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=001]HERE[/url] and by scrolling to the bottom.

Jeremiah even spelled out the New Covenant in the Book of Consolation (chptrs 30-33) and they dumped him down a well for it,

Didn't they dump him down the well for predicting Judah's defeat?

Before I go any further I wanted to address this from Philologos:

Behind this understanding is the idea that God's regenerative act is a surprise initiative which effects regeneration in the heart of a man or woman without consultation or consent. From this monergism everything else springs... faith, repentance, choice. I remain unconvinced. My understanding is that God indeed must take the initiative and I preach it constantly, but to take the initiative and to complete the whole work while I remain asleep...?

I understand you being unconvinced. You do not agree with God doing all the work and man just sitting there not doing anything. Man is not a robot, we have thoughts, desires, feelings and we are created in God's image. We are God's workmanship.

Ephesians 2:5 says God, "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."

This is the key to understanding regeneration. It says that it was God who made us alive while we were dead. We did not make ourselves alive and I believe you agree on that point. The question now becomes, what is man's response after becoming alive spiritually? Can man become spiritually alive and then reject Christ?

This is the key to understanding regeneration.

I am not advocating 'water baptism' as a condition of receiving the Spirit but just that there is a spiritual dialogue recorded here. God speaks, men speak, God speaks, men do... and the next step would be God does... To say that the crowd were regenerated prior to their question does not seem to be the sense of this narrative.

In case I have not made it clear I believe in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace]prevenient grace.[/url]

:-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

WHAT A DUMMY I AM? but why did no-one challenge me on this? I have perpetrated a major mixup!! I have just relistened to the podcast and of course it isn't John Piper!!! It is John Macarthur!!!

My apologies to both John's and to anyone else that I may have confused.

In fact here is the [url=http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231193]transcript[/url] and again my apologies to all.

:-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

Now, we are getting to the heart of the matter, the Ordo Salutis (The Order of Salvation).

Am I correct in assuming that you see it as follows:
1) Outward call
2) Faith/Election,
3) Repentance,
4) Regeneration,
5) Justification,
6) Perseverance,
7) Glorification.

Whereas I see it as:
1) Election,
2) Predestination,
3) Gospel call
4) Inward call
5) Regeneration,
6) Conversion (faith & repentance),
7) Justification,
8) Sanctification,
9) Glorification.

My question to all who are reading these posts, which one of these closer fits Romans 8:29-30?

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Also, I have two questions for you based on these verses:

Q. In light of the above verses, how many who were called, were also justified?

Q. In light of the above verses, how many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?

WHAT A DUMMY I AM? but why did no-one challenge me on this? I have perpetrated a major mixup!! I have just relistened to the podcast and of course it isn't John Piper!!! It is John Macarthur!!!

Thanks for being honest. I never thought to challenge it.

Ron's:

My apologies to both John's and to anyone else that I may have confused.

No problem brother. That was the loudest post I ever seen of yours! :-D

Jaysaved quote;
[i][color=0000FF]My question to all who are reading these posts, which one of these closer fits Romans 8:29-30?[/color][/i]

hmmmm! after thinking none quite fit the bill for me.The weslyan stance seems to ring true,it allows for no in- justice to the sovreignty of God and at the same time giving room for the response of man.
John 1v12 'But as many as recieved him,to them gave he power to become the sons of God,even to them that believed on his name.'
I guess its back to the prodigal father and empowerment.
:-)
BTW poor old boy, anyone seen Ron's marbles? :-)

Brother Ron quoted Scripture...

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35 KJVS)

The carnal mind is enmity towards God...according to Scripture...

How then was Cornelius enabled to "worketh righteousness?"

This is similar to the example given to us in Scripture...

Matt. 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

By what means did the Father reveal this truth to Peter?

In Christ
Jeff

1Pet. 1:13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; 15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”

In this section of Scripture Peter exhorts the believer to "gird up the loins of your mind"..."as obedient children"..."not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance."

What choice does one have when he or she is ignorant?

In Christ
Jeff

Eph. 5:8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light

What does the word "darkness" speak of in terms of choice for those who do not know the Light?

In Christ
Jeff

I wish to examine the document a bit if we can. I have been reading over it and wonder how this contradiction is resolved:

PHIL: In a way, that pride you described is...is rooted in sin itself. I mean, Satan’s fall stems from his desire to usurp God. Eve fell when Satan promised her she would be like God. There’s a sense in which that pride is the very essence of sin.

JOHN: Exactly, exactly what it is, it is the essence of sin and as you put it, [u]Satan wanted to be sovereign and he wanted to replace God and he wanted to be sovereign. God said, “Don’t do that.” She said, “I will do that. I’ll usurp sovereignty over my own life and make my own choices.”[/u] And that’s the fabric of human fallenness. So when you come along and say God is [b]absolutely sovereign[/b], you know, that’s like putting your fingers down a blackboard, your fingernails down a blackboard to the sinner because he believes so strongly in his own right to choose.

PHIL: If that’s the case and resistance to the sovereignty of God is rooted in sin, that means as a theological issue goes, this is a very important one and if you resist the sovereignty of God, that’s about as serious a theological error as you can make.

This logic is impossible. If what is written in this section is true, then this whole conversation is about nothing.

If God has so exercised His sovereignty as to be 'absolute sovereign' then the whole of the happenings of human history are merely the playing out of a detailed Divine decree. And if that is true then Eve's act of Sin was God's will and she was simply doing what she was destined to do. If our desitiny is not in any sense in our own hands then God authored the fall of Satan and Adam. This would mean that it is impossible to do anything but what God decrees. In this model, God decreed our sins along with all our other deeds. We are less than pawns on a game board. This reminds me of the logic behind the matrix (ed. i.e. not really in control as you think). Everything that is happening is just part of your imagination- its all just a game. The implication is that obedience and sin are impossible because no one ever yet resisted His will.

Besides this the contradiction exists when on the one hand it is said that Eve rejected God's sovereignty. That is impossible if God is absolutely sovereign. She did what God wanted if that is so. How can anyone userp authority over an absolutely sovereign God exercising the fulness of that sovereignty? And this is why Unconditional Election must be rejected because it inevitably makes God the author of Sin and sins.

Now, we are getting to the heart of the matter, the Ordo Salutis (The Order of Salvation).

Am I correct in assuming that you see it as follows:
1) Outward call
2) Faith/Election,
3) Repentance,
4) Regeneration,
5) Justification,
6) Perseverance,
7) Glorification.

Not quite, more like
1. Gospel call/inward call
2. Faith (repentance, calling upon the name, justification... ie conversion)
3.Regeneration/Sanctification

Even at this stage, and I am not entirely comfortable with the linear nature of my list, it is easy enough to see the differences. The respective order of faith and regeneration is the key.

Before we try to answer your two questions, don't we need to look at 'foreknew'? This word and its cognates are used in...
[color=0000ff]Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and [u]foreknowledge[/u] of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 26:5 Which [u]knew[/u] me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Rom. 8:29 For whom he did [u]foreknow[/u], he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom. 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he [u]foreknew[/u]. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

1Pet. 1:2 Elect according to the [u]foreknowledge[/u] of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was [u]foreordained[/u] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

2Pet. 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing [u]ye know these things before[/u], beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. [/color]

I think this this collection of uses makes it pretty clear that the 1 Pet 1:20 takes a different, and hardly justifiable, route to the other uses of the word. Most modern versions correct the translation to [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Pe&chapter=1&verse=20&version=KJV#20]foreknowledge[/url] The simplest sense of this word is 'to know before the event'. It is, in fact, our English word 'prognosticate/prognosis' which has no sense of predetermination. Does not Rom 8:29 indicate that 'what God knew before the event' precedes the idea of 'predestination'? I can't see any warrant in these verses for equating 'foreknowledge' with predetermination.

[EDIT: Just re-read your previous post and now see that you wish to discuss foreknowledge first. I will keep my original post intact and start a new post.]

It is helpful to see it laid out like this but some of our terms are overlapping. I am not even sure that we can set out all the terms in quite such a strick linear fashion, and I notice that 'forenknowledge' seems to be missing from your list. Does this mean you regard it as a synonym for election or for predestination?

Election.

I don't know if you preparing an answer on the three questions I proposed, forgive me for jumping the gun if you are, but I would like to know your throughts on the two of the three questions I proposed earlier: (I can assume your answer to the first.)

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Q. In light of the above verses, how many who were called, were also justified?

Q. In light of the above verses, how many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?

Does not Rom 8:29 indicate that 'what God knew before the event' precedes the idea of 'predestination'? I can't see any warrant in these verses for equating 'foreknowledge' with predetermination.

The verse in Romans 8:29 says 'For whom he did foreknow…'. (emphasis added) We see that the thing that was foreknown was not simply the actions of the Man, but the Man himself. The subject of the foreknowledge is not the 'What/Actions' but the 'Whom/Man'.

I agree that God does know the future and knows what each person does and does not do. However, I disagree that the knowledge of the actions of man is the basis for God's predestination. To do so would be to violate what is said in Romans 9:11-12 concerning Election.

Election ties into God's foreknowledge in that the reason man is foreknown and predestined is 'not by works (doing anything good or bad) but by him who calls'.

I agree that God does know the future and knows what each person does and does not do. However, I disagree that the knowledge of the actions of man is the basis for God's predestination. To do so would be to violate what is said in Romans 9:11-12 concerning election (more on this below).

I have personally never read of a person who actually said they were comfortable with the implications of Unconditional Election. Even Macarthur states that he has wrestled with it. I read years ago That Calvin on his death bed looked exceedingly old. It is my understanding that he struggled with it also.

My question is, if we are regenerated and have the mind of Christ; if the Holy Spirit lives inside of me and I am renewed in the spirit of my mind; and have no longer the excuse that my foolish mind is darkened, ignorant, and unable to understand rightly God's righteousness due to sin; how is it possible that after we all have been regenerated and are new creatures that we still revolt against what seems to strike our conscience and reason unlike any other topic we could discuss? Why is it that with a renewed mind, that my mind (and all I have ever read on the subject) is not in harmony with the character and person of God in such a way that I can see the justice and love in unconditional damnation? it would seem to me that after so great a work has been done in us that we would be in touch with God in some real sense; how then can it be possible that we would REVOLT like we do against the concept of Unconditional Election? We had an excuse when we were sinners; but what's the excuse now?

I have personally never read of a person who actually said they were comfortable with the implications of Unconditional Election.

I agree.

I haven't read through all the posts, and anything I say is ignorant. I don't even know why I am posting really, for I have no credentials to speak on the topic at hand, let alone for the people whose theology is at debate. May you forgive me if what I say is foolishness.

Glancing over the posts, it seems many are struggling with this issue of election. And I think, in all our intellectual reasoning and debate we want to break it down into one finite equation to suite a topic that extends beyond all comprehension. What we are talking about here is love. And love, no matter how hard we try to understand it, is always incomprehensible to logic and reasoning. Love doesn't always make sense, especially considering the condition from which we have been saved, and the world we live in. We are learning to love daily as Christ molds us.

You must bear in mind that love is something shared. It speaks of a choice, indeed, but a choice that is deeper than any other choice we might explain or proclaim. And this choice is not singular or one way. Love is the coming together of two (or more) into one. I can love you, but unless your love is returned, we have not formed a union of love.

When we consider "election" in these discussions, we cannot deny the power of love and the signifance of love. God may choose us and elect us. Ultimately, though, our freedom to love is God-given, upheld, and honored. God loves us so much that He has given us the ability to choose.

For anyone that denies this, that God has given us the choice to choose Him as our Lord and God, has missed the entire gospel in full. The first and foremost commandment from the very beginning is that we love God with our heart, mind, body, and soul. This is nothing short of giving ourselves completely and entire over to Him. And this is a choice we make not merely once, but everyday for eternity. Indeed, Christians still sin, and by this, it is simply because they chose sin over Christ.

Anyone who has ever loved anyone, knows the risk and pain that comes with loving. As a parent, you will love your children with all your being seeking to care for them in every way. And yet, their love is only returned by their choice. It does not matter how much you know about them or what you do, your child chooses to love you. I am sure that any parent would say that they elected their child at birth, to be their own.

Friends, spouses, family, all these choose to love. And in this relationship we have with God, the choice is ours. How else could God command and it not be done? If we had no part or choice in the matter, God would command it would be done. However, God gives commands and we make choices. God gives us His son, and we choose Him.

Indeed, with this comes the discussion of foreknowledge and predestination. Unless you forget, these are only discussion because as humans we are limited in knowledge and in time. We live in the context of time. God is eternal and lives above these things. Such issues do not exist in the realm of God. Rather, these issues become problematic for us because we do live in the context of time.

There is no point in arguing or debating an issue whose context is greater than our own understanding. What we know that God has plans for us (predestination). We also know that God knows what we will do or say before we do it or say it (foreknowledge). We know that God is greater than all things, and that God has established a means for all this to be possible. We know that God is drawing all men unto Himself, and that God loves everyone. We know that God is greater than all things even us. We also know that God has given us the freedom to make choices. The question is: What will you choose??

Will you choose Christ or not? This is a moment by moment choice. When sin and temptation comes knocking at your door, what will you do? Will you turn to Christ? Or will you rely on your own power and seek your own way? Will we have faith that God will rescue us, will we trust in Him? Or will we seek our own way and trust in ourselves?

As far as salvation goes, Jesus made it quite clear that it is a work of God. It is God's work. Jesus saves. Jesus judges. How should we, in our limited earthly understanding and viewpoint, ever understand the ways of the Spirit? We know what we need to know when we need to know it.

Is not faith a beautiful gift? Do we not cherish this gift? We have the freedom to love God. Isn't that awesome?

In Christ,
Blake

I’m way back trying to understand the way of the “will”, and how it relates to the “incurable wound”, and the "darkness".

the sinner .... believes so strongly in his own right to choose.

God frowns on obligatory compliance; thus the caution: "Each should give what he has desired in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion." 2 Cor. 9:7

What is the meaning and implication of divine sovereignty? Surely God could easily have used his powers to fulfill his plan and whisk Israel into the Promised Land in a day, regardless of their obstinacy. Why did he bother with all those testings, trials, judgments, and laws? Was it not to transform their resistant will, so that they would enter by WILLING obedience and faith. Of course, they weren’t so obedient in the long run, but still, GOD was always in charge. Throughout scripture I see an interplay between divine sovereignty and man’s will. And it’s always clear who is boss.

Clearly God wants willing hearts, and does not force his will on man’s will. Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing ." Lk. 13:34 Christ was grieved, not because the sovereign Father was unwilling, but because the people were unwilling. They had chosen not to respond to the divine light, the divine grace, and the divine glory.

How can anybody blame God?

Yet - why were they unwilling? Was it not because their eyes were blinded, and their hearts darkened as a result of divine judgment?

“Be ever hearing but never understanding;
be ever seeing but never perceiving,
Make the heart of the people calloused;
Make their ears dull and close their eyes.
OTHERWISE they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And turn and be HEALED.” Is. 6:9-10 ,

These words did not refer to pagans in the dark jungle – but God’s enlightened chosen people. A time of incurableness seems to be divinely ordained and accomplanies ignorance of the truth.

I wonder how often God enables people to see, and yet they refuse to see – and then are blinded.
Jesus: “Whoever has will be given more… whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him…..

But blessed are your eyes because they see …” Matt. 13:11

Rookie said:

What does the word "darkness" speak of in terms of choice for those who do not know the Light?

Darkness is a terrible thing. You can’t see your way around, you can’t see your own bondage, you can’t see your wrong thinking, or the Better Way.
As soon as light shines on the darkness you can see. However, that can be even more horrible - because you see who you really are, and you aren’t going to like it. You see the futility of your ways. The only way to tolerate the Light is to die – to surrender to it – that is, repent and accept the New Life.

Sometimes I wonder if God withholds much of the light until an ideal time in a person’s life, lest the sinner be overcome by it’s power. After all, a flower can be scorched by too much sun. I do feel that there is a season of “soil" preparation prior to conversion – maybe tiny rays of light (mercy drops). Thus, McArthur’s statement may be overly unmerciful towards the unsaved, and too unaccommodating of God’s ways with man.

so.... what is the "incurable wound"?....

Diane

The verse in Romans 8:29 says 'For whom he did foreknow…'. (emphasis added) We see that the thing that was foreknown was not simply the actions of the Man, but the Man himself. The subject of the foreknowledge is not the 'What/Actions' but the 'Whom/Man'.

To do so would be to violate what is said in Romans 9:11-12 concerning Election.

Election ties into God's foreknowledge in that the reason man is foreknown and predestined is 'not by works (doing anything good or bad) but by him who calls'.

I’m way back trying to understand the way of the “will”, and how it relates to the “incurable wound”, and the "darkness".

Now what would that do to our theologies?

"I am not at all sure that there is such a thing as 'the will'".

Ron's:

"I am not at all sure that there is such a thing as 'the will'".

Now what would that do to our theologies?

Would you mean to say that you view 'will' as a verb and not a noun?

I'm still trying to play catch-up on earlier thoughts:

I believe in prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

Now I wonder: Does this grace only shower down in pockets here and there , or is it a constant universal reality – producing a crop wherever there is good soil. I prefer to believe that there is truth in the later without denying special grace during revivals.

RobertW said:

The problem I see is that these concepts jump from the Calvinist camp to the Arminian camp and pretty soon folk are not able to live up to the standard and have no assurance of salvation. Untangling these things theologically we go a long ways to answer why folk (including myself) have such horribly disfunctional doctrinal conclusions at times. I think it happens when we have a cross pollenization of the two camps.

RobertW said:

Some would argue that all deeds of a sinner are sinful even if they are righteous acts because they were motivated by selfishness …. But I am not sure this is not philosophy more than bible.

I would never want to say that ALL deeds of a sinner are selfishly motivated! Certainly, I could say that about some of my own actions.

Earlier I thought of the verse: “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin”. Rom. 14:23 But I don’t think it fits. The context seems to imply that doing certain neutral actions against one's own consciences, if not motivated byfaith, will produce guilt and condemnation. And THAT is what makes those actions sinful for THAT person.

Diane

beenblake,

I really appreciate your post. I must never forget that the driving force behind God is love.

Philologos,

I have no idea why God would choose me for salvation? I have asked God that many times in prayer. Why me Lord? What did I do to deserve this grace? What was it in me that you loved so much that you would choose me for yourself before the foundation of this world?

All I know is that I love God and it is my desire to serve him. He called me out of this world to bring glory to his name. I was dead in sin and he saved me and gave me an inheritance that never perishes, spoils, or fades.

I am confident that I am not speaking falsely about God. My conscience in what I write is clear, however I have been asking myself lately whether or not I am in this disscussion for the right motive. Please forgive me my fellow posters for missing the point at times. The point is that Jesus Christ came to save sinners...of who I am chief!

Philologos, I believe I am guilty of using the 'take no prisoners rhetoric' that you spoke of in your first post. Please forgive me brother.

I still believe that what I have said is correct. My pride is screaming at me not to say this. It is trying to tell me to keep going, but I must listen to where the Spirit is leading and say all this. I must take a step back and check my motives.

I want this to be known, despite the fact that some of you disagree on whether or not God chooses us or if we choose him, I would stand beside all of you to take this gospel to the world.

Please pray for me. From November 6th through the 18th I will be in Niger, Africa on a Mission trip. So many of the people in Niger have never heard the gospel. Please pray for wisdom and to be spirit moved. FYI, I doubt we will get into any Calvinist debates by the way! ;)

What is a man but the sum total of his desires and actions? Certainly it is the man that God 'foreknew' but what was it about him that God forknew that seems to be the starting point for predestination?

Your answer is found right here:

Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

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

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Philologos, I believe I am guilty of using the 'take no prisoners rhetoric' that you spoke of in your first post. Please forgive me brother.

Please pray for me. From November 6th through the 18th I will be in Niger, Africa on a Mission trip. So many of the people in Niger have never heard the gospel. Please pray for wisdom and to be spirit moved. FYI, I doubt we will get into any Calvinist debates by the way!

Perhaps I can sneak in a request for prayer too. On Thursday evening during a Bible study in the UK I had a mini-stroke ([url=http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068981/]TIA[/url]) and spent a couple of hours in hospital. I am well, though a little shaken but I am scheduled to be in a very remote part of the world within a very few days. I value the prayer of all who read this but request that no mention be made of the country. I would not want to draw attention to the trip. There's more [url=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bt.html]info here[/url] for any who want more... and even a [url=http://david.national-anthems.net/bt.htm]national anthem![/url]

Ah dear Ron!

Thank you for sharing this with us ... My earnest prayers in all respects... [i]Sovereign Lord[/i]

Praise the Lord that he is sending his followers all over the world to share the Gospel of Christ.

Glad to hear you are well!

Seems almost awkward considering I have in essence only begun to read all of this backwards (the latest towards the earliest) and in light of present realities... that the saints may pray for both Ron and Jay...

I have been reluctant to get onto this due to previous threads that disappeared into the sand on the topic. However, in concentrating on the implications of 'total depravity' perhaps I am brave again to say it again... "I am not at all sure that there is such a thing as 'the will'".

Now what would that do to our theologies?

"[i]All souls are Mine[/i]" Often comes to mind but wish not to opinionate here, Ron, would you once again elaborate or elucidate for everyone a better rendering of the 'will' or lack thereof from our human definitions? Had just came across this in another thread recently where an expression (not all encompassing by any stretch) was made that "No one forces me to do anything, including God" to paraphrase it. My counter was to mention a number of things along the lines of preventing ones own death, breathing on their own, going without food for a year ... pushing towards the ridiculous to draw out some more considering.

MIke's

Ron, would you once again elaborate or elucidate for everyone a better rendering of the 'will' or lack thereof from our human definitions?

The explanation for your thoughts?

Would you mean to say that you view 'will' as a verb and not a noun?

I do think this is central to this part of our discussion, so here goes... Robert is on the track when he refers to 'verb' rather than 'noun'. This is what I was implying in my question when I referred to 'the will'. For any who would like to trace the theme... Let's begin with the NT. The noun translated 'the will' is found in...Matt 6:10; 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; 21:31; 26:42; Mark 3:35; Luke 11:2; 12:47; 22:42; 23:25; John 1:13; 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40; 7:17; 9:31; Acts 13:22; 21:14; 22:14; Rom 1:10; 2:18; 12:2; 15:32; 1Cor 1:1; 7:37; 16:12; 2Cor 1:1; 8:5; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:1,5,9,11; 2:3; 5:17; 6:6; Col 1:1,9; 4:12; 1Th 4:3; 5:18; 2Tim 1:1; 2:26; Heb 10:7,9-10,36; 13:21; 1Pet 2:15; 3:17; 4:2-3,19; 2Pet 1:21; 1John 2:17; 5:14; Rev 4:11.

My feelings concerning this word are twofold;

1. these references are not referring to 'the will' as a function of the 'soul' but as the 'thing willed', as we use the word in 'last will'. It is not referring to the inner resolve or 'heart' but to the 'thing purposed'.
2. that the word is much closer to 'desire' than to we usually recognise. See [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1162053490-2394.html]Thayer's Lexicon[/url] at the BlueLetterBible site.

Calvinists and Arminian and everything in between have usually regarded 'the will' as a 'faculty of the soul'. Having made that presupposition they begin to describe the nature of that 'will' by saying it is 'bound' or it is 'free'. My deeper question is 'what is it'? Is there such a 'thing' as 'the will'. Now if this is a new idea to you it will probably make your head spin because the concept of 'the will as a faculty of the soul' is almost universal in evangelical Christianity. I seem to recall that Finney's first comments on 'the will' is that it is 'self evident'! To Finney perhaps but not to me. I am insatiably curious about Bible truths and I determine to begin with the Bible and not its commentators. So, do we have 'a will'? Do we each have our own, is it bound, is it free?

Other aspects of Biblical physiology might include soul, heart, mind, spirit, conscience. All these are spoken of as being 'faculties of a human being' but 'the will'? Where do we get that idea from?

It becomes increasingly interested when we study the OT and discover that the English phrase 'the will' is only used 4 times...
[color=0000ff]Ezra 7:18 And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will (the pleasure) of your God.

Psa. 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will (the spirit) of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.

Psa. 41:2 The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will (the spirit) of his enemies.

Ezek. 16:27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way. [/color]

In each of these examples 'the will' is really the 'thing willed' or 'decision/decree' rather than a personal faculty. It becomes even more interesting when we discover that in those 4 references the last 3 actually use the word 'nephesh' which means 'spirit'... while the first reference uses the word 'pleasure'. This link between 'the will' and the idea of desire or pleasure is key to the NT too. In the UK when a criminal is imprisoned indefinitely the imprisonment is described as being'subject to Her Majesty's pleasure'. This does not mean that the Queen is rubbing her hands in glee at the prospect of a long sentence but simply 'according to her desire or 'will'.

We see this same sense in the NT in the KJV eg [color=0000ff]“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy [u]pleasure[/u] they are and were created.” (Rev 4:11 KJVS)[/color] This is the ordinary word for 'the will' but not as a personal inward faculty but as a 'pronounced choice'.

There is a verb 'to will' but again it is very close to 'desire' in its meaning and even then it does not mean that 'to will' is only performed by 'a will'.

I will leave you a space for your heads to stop spinning and to receive your questions/protests.;-)

edit: you might also like to take a look at [url=http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=3343#A1]Vine's Dictionary.[/url]

It was in fact I who made the statement:
"No one forces me to do anything, including God"

I then responded to your questions as follows:

I cannot stop myself from dying.
I cannot breathe on my own
I cannot reverse my birth
I cannot forgo sleep, food or water for a year.

You make your point that I cannot do everything. However, I never contended that I can do everything. I have simply stated that my Will is free and that God has created my Will to be free. Think about this, You and I do what we desire to do. Yes, we might do something that we do not want to do, but ultimately even what we do not want to do is something we desire to do more than the alternative.

For example, Let's say that I am robbed at gunpoint. The robber tells me to give him my my wallet or he will shoot me. I give him my wallet. I could make the point that it was not my Free Will choice to give up my wallet. However, my only other alternative was to be shot. I made a decision that losing my wallet was more desirable than have a bullet enter my body.

My point is that I am not forced to do anything against my will. When God saved me, it was because I desired his salvation. Why did I desire his salvation? Because God changed my desires and understanding of who he was. God did not rob me of my Will. God did not make me do anything that I did not want to do.

This is the major misunderstanding of Salvation and why so many people misrepresent Calvinism.

Also, brother I understand that you do not like the labels that Christians place on one another. I agree with you. I am a Christian. However, you also must understand the context I used it. The title of this thread is 'A question for Calvinists'. As someone who knows the context of what that means...I answered the post with as much wisdom as the Spirit can give me.

I then offered this website for more details:
[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freewill_chantry.html]Man's will - Free yet bound[/url]

I would never want to say that ALL deeds of a sinner are selfishly motivated! Certainly, I could say that about some of my own actions.

Romans 7:

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

There are many who give their lives for others in this world. Many even acknowledge Christ's life as an example of how one should live. Yet, if we seek to replicate only what we see in the "narrative" of Christ life found in Scripture we are still in bondage to the carnal mind.

When one begins to hear and see what Scripture does to one's life, that is the means by which God speaks to the individual.

When you read all week and then find a word of encouragement or a word of exhortation for a believer who is suffering, there is the power of God though His word.

This is how the Spirit enables you to do what Paul declares is impossible....

"for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find."

How to perform what is good, according to the Spirit, brings two outcomes.

First, all praise is given to the glory of God, because one will recognize how God is working in a situation. This brings to mind this Scripture...

1Cor. 4:7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

In other words, the outcome is not brought about by self but one recognizes the outworking of the Spirit.

The second part of the outcome worked in the life of the believer is that one will grow more thirsty for the word of God. One will begin to see the truth found in Scripture life changing. One will find a treasure that the world knows nothing of. One will also recognize the difference of man's doctrines and God's precepts.

God Bless
In Christ
Jeff

'the will' is really the 'thing willed' or 'decision/decree' rather than a personal faculty.

Dealing with abstracts can be tedious. My first thought is, “So what? How does that change my theology? Shall I scrap all my posts? However, I will persevere and attempt to connect with RB’s wavelength. (I praise God over overseeing your health, Philologos!)

Here are my initial thoughts:
When someone needs to quit a bad habit, like smoking, we may hear: He first needs to have the “want-to”. I think Philologos would imply that if he does not quit, it is not because he lacks a certain feature of his brain (or soul) called a “will”, or “want-to”.

As I flip through various scriptures that I have cross-referenced to Rom 3 (“There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God”. 3:11), I realize that I can’t see it implied anywhere that a “bondaged will” is the reason sinners reject God. Reasons seem to be: a lack of understanding, deception, unbelief, delusion ….. My own conversations with the unconverted would seem to support that thought.

So then, spiritual darkness is a condition where a person is deprived of the inner recourses - understanding, insight, truths that would lead him to desire God. It is not because his “will” is held hostage.

When the Spirit works in a person, he doesn’t transform the “will” per se. He enlightens, transforms the mind (the thinking), teaches, convicts, reveals neediness, and thus creates a desire for God.

This should affect our evangelism: Facilitate enlightenment in order to develop desire, rather than try to convince or pressure someone to choose God. And when interceding for others we should ask for divine enlightenment, insight, wisdom, discernment, rather than MERELY praying: “Lord, give him the “will” to ……”

I think of other related terms: hunger, thirst, and prayer, hope ….

Am I tracking right?

Diane

we are still in bondage to the carnal mind.

Nevertheless, a kind gesture is a kind gesture. Sharing my toys with Suzy is never a cause for a spanking or a scolding about my evil heart, but rather, it aught to illicit positive reinforcement from Mom.

"If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts...."

Diane

Dealing with abstracts can be tedious. My first thought is, “So what? How does that change my theology? Shall I scrap all my posts? However, I will persevere and attempt to connect with RB’s wavelength.

Consequently we adopt a whole language of 'the will'. If we say 'the will is locked against God' we begin to try to work out what key God will use to unlock it. But while it is true that 'no man desires' God, the Bible does not say that a man or woman cannot choose differently. Is 'no man desires God' a historical statement or a theological one? By that I mean is he held accountable for 'not desiring God' or is he utterly without choice in the matter.

Is it true that a man or woman cannot hear God until they are regenerated? What of the likes of the wicked kings of Israel and Judah, and what of people like Balaam? Were they regenerate? If not, how did they 'hear' what God was saying to them?

It is the 'absolutes' of John Macarthur's position which makes me uncomfortable. I fear we are taking 'illustrations' of truth and building Fort Knoxes with them. :-(

Nevertheless, a kind gesture is a kind gesture.

Hi Jay, didn't intend to use you as a particular example, just that it came to mind... and actually still does, the content thereof;

My point is that I am not forced to do anything against my will. When God saved me, it was because I desired his salvation. Why did I desire his salvation? [u]Because God changed my desires and understanding of who he was[/u]. God did not rob me of my Will. God did not make me do anything that I did not want to do.

Brother wouldn't that still be against your 'will' if you had no say so in it? I know how difficult this is (perhaps not yourself) to get our minds wrapped around but it may be still why I find so much difficulty with the whole of 'both' the main constructs as they are presented (Calvin\\Armenian). By the whole I only mean that they both may very well be attempts to strip the mystery and wonder out of the whole matter.

Think Ron raised some excellent questions, one that struck me is;

Is 'no man desires God' a historical statement or a theological one? By that I mean is he held accountable for 'not desiring God' or is he utterly without choice in the matter.

My hunch is historical and that's what makes as was also pointed out the presuppositions something that have to be unraveled rather than from starting from the place of "what is it?" (The 'will'). Maybe one of the reasons for stalling on all this is going back again to very early childhood where I would muse on 'nothing', the corollary was that there must be God and I desired Him even then, even without any real grasp of what all that means, who He in fact is.

Maybe that's also why I have some affinity to the 'mystic's'. ;-)

Will give the link a read though brother.

JaySaved wrote:
My point is that I am not forced to do anything against my will. When God saved me, it was because I desired his salvation. Why did I desire his salvation? Because God changed my desires and understanding of who he was. God did not rob me of my Will. God did not make me do anything that I did not want to do.

Crsschk wrote:
Brother wouldn't that still be against your 'will' if you had no say so in it?

I will defer to what another poster wrote:

When the Spirit works in a person, he doesn’t transform the “will” per se. He enlightens, transforms the mind (the thinking), teaches, convicts, reveals neediness, and thus creates a desire for God.

None of this is done against a person's will.

I submit for your reading the following sermon by Charles Spurgeon.

[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm]Free Will - A Slave[/url]

What a powerful sermon, I never knew of it's existence. This really helps. Thanks Jaysaved

Hope this doesn't throw anybody. Went back to the beginning and noticed the inadvertent title should have been attributed to John Piper not John MacArthur ... unless I am mistaken. So I went ahead and made the correction in all fairness to them both.

Jay, I understand and

None of this is done against a person's will.

I am also way in over my head here on this matter. Jumping in may be more of a reaction towards some of the past heated discussions over all this. It is certainly worthy of discussion, but I really do not know ... still quite suspicious that predestination\\election is not what has been made of it, will defer to the more learned here, yourself included.

Sorry for jumping in on this discussion so abruptly here but the following intrigued me...

As I flip through various scriptures that I have cross-referenced to Rom 3 (“There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God”. 3:11), I realize that I can’t see it implied anywhere that a “bondaged will” is the reason sinners reject God. Reasons seem to be: a lack of understanding, deception, unbelief, delusion ….. My own conversations with the unconverted would seem to support that thought.

So then, spiritual darkness is a condition where a person is deprived of the inner recourses - understanding, insight, truths that would lead him to desire God. It is not because his “will” is held hostage.

How then do we explain that a theological fact may be held in the mind by someone for a lifetime without it having any positive effect upon the moral character?

What of the person who hears a sermon or reads a book and they are inspired for a moment and may give a mental confession to the truth but there is no real outworking of that truth in their life?

This leads to an interesting question, what is our biggest problem, is it [i]knowing[/i] or is it [i]doing[/i] the will of God?

In Christ,

Ron

This leads to an interesting question, what is our biggest problem, is it knowing or is it doing the will of God?

HI Ron
These two may not be so far away as we sometimes think. The word 'know' often has the sense of 'recognize' in the scripture. eg by their fruit you shall [u]know[/u] them. 'Recognize' does not only mean 'remembrance' but sometimes means giving 'due respect' to someone.

eg. [color=0000ff]“And God saw the children of Israel, and God took knowledge of them.” (Ex 2:25 ASV)

“And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God acknowledged them.” (Ex 2:25 NKJV)

“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him,...” (John 1:10-12 NKJV)[/color]

I have quoted this last reference more fully because I think it shows the link between 'knowing' and 'receiving'.

Perhaps an illustration... if one country agrees the legal status of another they may be said to 'recognize' that country and its ambassadors would be 'received'. If they reject the legality of the state they will 'refuse to recognize' and 'refuse to receive' its ambassadors.

Christ's rejection was not due to ignorance or slippage of memory but to a steady refusal to reject his authority ie his witness, but to those who did receive him...

So 'knowing' and 'doing' (acting on it) may not be quite so far apart scripurally. It brings us back to the original revelation of man's condition...
[color=0000ff]“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Rom 1:21 KJVS)[/color]

This is the true sense of the sentence... [color=0000ff]“And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;” (Rom 1:28 ASV)[/color]... where the image is of someone rejecting silver which had passed the test. The play on the words 'did not like' and 'reprobate' is lost in most translations but can be seen in Young's... [color=0000ff]“And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;” (Rom 1:28 YNG)[/color]

Ah .... oops.

A brother pointed out my mistake here, apparently hadn't gone far enough back through all this;

From Philologo's;

STOP: MAJOR REVIEW!!

WHAT A DUMMY I AM? but why did no-one challenge me on this? I have perpetrated a major mixup!! I have just relistened to the podcast and of course it isn't John Piper!!! It is John Macarthur!!!

My apologies to both John's and to anyone else that I may have confused.

In fact here is the transcript and again my apologies to all.

I am incredibly sorry everyone, Ron, with your permission I can change it back ... again.

[i]edit: Switched it back again ... sigh[/i]

So 'knowing' and 'doing' (acting on it) may not be quite so far apart scripurally.

I agree that they go together, sort of like two wings of a bird, both are necessary for any progress to be made. There needs to be constant cooperation between the mind and the will.

But this really doesn't answer which is our biggest problem.

In Christ,

Ron

“when they knew God, they glorified him not as God”

“they refused to have God in their knowledge..."

Just wondering: When did “they” (the sinners) know God…. and what would that knowledge entail?
When did they refuse God?
Was this conscious or unconscious?
Is the verse talking about individuals or about societies?

where the image is of someone rejecting silver which had passed the test.

I'm knowing less and less by the minute....

Diane

This leads to an interesting question, what is our biggest problem, is it knowing or is it doing the will of God?

It is neither, for both of these fail to address the heart of the matter. Truly, our biggest problem is that our will is not God's will and this is what needs to be changed.

God created us for work, and that is obvious for we are judged by our fruit. However, doing God's will is not really the problem because if our will was God's will then we would do God's will. And knowledge, in terms of the way we define knowledge in the English language, is not our problem either. For truly, possessing information does not change or shape our will.

The problem is unity with God. When we are united as one with God in love, forming a union of love, our will is then aligned with God's will. When we are born again, a new spirit enters into us and we are united as one with God.

When this happens, our desire and purpose is the same as God's desire and purpose. As such, we produce fruit from this vine. We produce good works that are of God for we are united as one with Him.

This is the short explanation, anyway.

In love,
Blake

The problem is unity with God. When we are united as one with God in love, forming a union of love, our will is then aligned with God's will. When we are born again, a new spirit enters into us and we are united as one with God.

Yes, seperation from God because of our sin is the problem. Unity through Christ is the answer. But, is there a requirement on our part for this reconciliation? When an ambassador for Christ says, "be ye reconciled to God" is he revealing the will of God and are the hearers expected to do so? Has God required repentance and faith as a condition of reconciliation? If so, which is our biggest problem, knowing that that is God's will for us or doing his will?

I believe there may be an answer to this question in Scripture when Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(Joh 7:17)

I think Jesus was always showing the leaders, who thought they had a head problem with Jesus (breaking laws and traditions) that they really had a heart problem,one of doing. Perhaps Ron B. might not be willing to grant that there is an actual faculty called "the will" but perhaps we can agree that there is a governing seat in man's nature that needs to be set right and the rest of his nature will come into line. There must be some kind of deliberate choice that yields obedience to God's will and then the mind will begin to lose its bias. It wasn't a matter of the Holy Spirit being unwilling to reveal truth to the Pharisees. They had a mental block because their consciences condemned them and they needed to repent first.

In Christ,

Ron

I'm knowing less and less by the minute....

Perhaps we ought to call it Agnostics-in-part Anonimous? :-)

Perhaps Ron B. might not be willing to grant that there is an actual faculty called "the will" but perhaps we can agree that there is a governing seat in man's nature that needs to be set right and the rest of his nature will come into line. There must be some kind of deliberate choice that yields obedience to God's will and then the mind will begin to lose its bias.

Yes, indeed, and this is why I think it is relevant to raise the issue here at the juncture of 'total depravity' and the statement that the 'only freedom we have is to choose our poison'.

That 'governing seat' is the Sin that entered our race in Adam (Rom 5:12) It begins to link with the statement of Paul...
[color=0000ff]Rom. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Rom. 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [/color]

I don't see these verses as absolving the individual from the responsibility but rather of explaining the mechanisms of evil. The thing called 'The Sin' has a biblical provenance but the idea called 'the will' has none... as far as I can see.

and the verse...

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(Joh 7:17)

The only reason I persist with this notion is that I think so much of 'will theology' has led us into a cul-de-sac and thus prevents us delving into what the mechanism of sin really is and how God has chosen to deal with it. ie I know what God's biblical solution to The Sin is, but I don't know what God's biblical solution to 'the will' is. :-o

"The only reason I persist with this notion is that I think so much of 'will theology' has led us into a cul-de-sac and thus prevents us delving into what the mechanism of sin really is and how God has chosen to deal with it. ie I know what God's biblical solution to The Sin is, but I don't know what God's biblical solution to 'the will' is.

Please explain this more when you have time. I am curious to see where this leads.

Please explain this more when you have time. I am curious to see where this leads.

The biblical remedy for the problem of the 'Old Man' is to have it replaced with a 'New Man'; this to me is the essence of regeneration. It's also the reason for my annoyance with modern translations which persist in switching to the psychological model by referring to 'our old self' rather than Paul's clear 'old man' of Rom 6:6.

To use the kind of language that Ron (the other one) used the 'seat of power' is Sin not some phantom called 'the will'. Mike B referred to a much older post of mine when he referred to my saying 'there is just you'. Perhaps this needs an explanation too. When Nathan exposed David's sin he said 'thou art the man'. I get uncomfortable too with ideas of 'weak wills' and 'strong wills'; there is just 'you' (or better 'thou' ;-) ) I don't understand what authority I may have over this thing called 'the will' but I do understand that God holds me responsible for who I am and what I do. Consequently he commands repentance and I am culpable if I don't repent.

In short, I can't see the model of 'the will' in the scripture but I can see other models which make my condition and responsibility crystal clear. Still curious? :-D

Philologos,

I am struggling to understand your position. You state that you do not believe that a person has a Will. However on 10/26/06 you said:

In case I have not made it clear I believe in prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

Please clarify the inconsistancy in this position you hold so that I can understand where you are coming from in this discussion.

Thank you.

Would you like to join my Agnostics Anonymous hour? (an agnostic, literally is someone 'without knowledge')

Anyway, I’m still wondering about the answers to my questions.

And about the other comments: I’m trying it all on for size. To pick a basic example: Today, I had 5 cookies more than I needed. No excuse. It was sin. I was letting the lower nature direct my choice, and following the crowd. I’m not sure how it helps to call it my “old man’. Somehow calling it my “old sinful self” fits better to me.

True, it does seem silly to explain my sinful choice by saying, ‘I had a problem with my will.” Frankly my will works quite well – or rather - my ability to choose. I could have said “no” if I really wanted, but I had no such intentions. Sin dwelleth in me. And the solution? More crucifixion. I still have a way to go in conforming to the nature of Christ.

If any one desire to practise his will

there is just 'you'

I do understand that God holds me responsible for who I am and what I do.

And what’s that got to do with the freedom to choose poison, Calvinism, etc…. I'd have to think about that. But, one thing I do know: here was a lady who sure bit a big chunk from Eve’s apple.

Diane

brethren
it seems a rash of threads have been started on this topic all of a sudden, i pray God ministers to us mightily through them all.

thanks bro Ron for starting this one

Brother Blake wrote:

When this happens, our desire and purpose is the same as God's desire and purpose.

How does God enable you to do His work? By what means do you know how to go about His daily work detail?

In Christ
Jeff

Quote:

""This would make a good study: What exactly does God hold me responsible for? For who I am??""

Who are we? I am in Christ, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

Paul says it is not him that lives but Christ who lives in him. How can this be? Paul also says, he is a new creature in Christ Jesus.

So, if we believe Paul, Christ in us is the life giving force that governs our life in regeneration and new birth.

Paul also said, " it is no longer he that sins, but sin that dwells in him." In other words, the Christ that is Paul's life is now who he is. How can we live like this?

Galatians 2:16-17 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

So the sin that Paul commits is not longer by who he is, but by the flesh he still lives in which is not him as being in Christ. Who he is in Christ is as Christ is in this world.

1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

So as Christ is in this world who are we as and where does the Law condemn us?

Galatians 2:18-20 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 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.

What things did he destroy? The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was condemning and killing him, by having Christ being born again in him and being free from the Law, and again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the law of God again, not Free in Christ.

So if it is no longer Paul that lives but Christ that lives in him, then if he says it is Paul that sin's, then Paul is a transgressor of the law and is re-instituting the law that Paul is preaching no longer exists in Christ.

So if it is no longer Paul that lives, and he is saying that he is: Galatians 3:2-3 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Don't be foolish. Colossians 3:1-4 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Where we are seated with Him.)

And for now we are in Christ and He in us.
Colossians 1:27-28 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Who am I? I am a born again creature who is a completely new person by the life and nature of Him that has been born again in me. The perfect Seed of God. 1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible (Seed), by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (Jesus)

Who is the Word of God? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. Truly, "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", The Perfect Seed of our Father.

What does God hold me responsible for? What I do with the Christ that is in me. "To know Him"
And making His life as my life. Not me being Christ, but me allowing Christ to come forth in me as me in this world.

In Christ: Phillip

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

My own definition for prevenient grace would need to have the word for "will" removed. My link to 'Prevenient Grace' was to introduce the concept for new readers rather than a complete endorsement of every word.

The use of 'prevenient' is the same kind of era as or 'prevent' as in the KJV: Job 3:12; Psa 59:10; 79:8; 88:13; 119:148; Amos 9:10; 1Th 4:15. It simply means to 'go before'. So prevenient grace is 'grace which goes before', in other words, grace prior to the grace of regeneration.

So the theology of 'prevenient grace' is not linked inseparably to the notion of a faculty of the heart known as 'the will'.

A.W.Tozer teaches in this sermon that God has given man the power of self determination. God, however, has not given us the right of self determination. In this sermon Tozer clearly teaches that man has a will...

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=2398

In Christ
Jeff

A.W.Tozer in this sermon teaches about the nature of the clay that is in the Father's hand. This clay remains malable and unfixed. It is only when we are resurrected that the clay has been fired and finished. The old man is with us until the day we die literally.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=2399

In Christ
Jeff

I like this rendering. The word “desire” seems to cut deeper than the word ‘will”. Is it just me, or does the word, “will” sound more spiritual than the word “desire”? Maybe it’s because “desire” is often associated with evil, and the “will” with the holy. I don’t know.

1. [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1162285864-5258.html]thelO[/url]
2. [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1162286240-9186.html]boulomai[/url]

If you read the Thayer Lexicon notes on these two words you will discover that they struggle to show the difference between the two words.

The feeling is that 'boulomai' emphasises deliberation and that 'thelo' emphasises 'desire or wish'. The reason I opted for Young's is because Young's translation is giving proper attention to the 'desire' element of 'thelo'.

You suggest that 'will' may sound more spiritual than 'desire' but the Bible is a much more primitive book than we sometimes realise eg how would you feel about this translation...[color=0000ff]“And he said unto them, With lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you before I suffer:” (Luke 22:15 RB Lit)[/color] The word I have translated 'lust' here in used almost 40 times in the NT and in only 3 (where it refers to 'good' lusts) is it translated 'desire'.

I would like to go even deeper and use the language of 'hunger'. We have natural hungers which continue into our regeneration but we have other 'hungers' which, I believe, are completely transformed in 'regeneration'.

And about the other comments: I’m trying it all on for size. To pick a basic example: Today, I had 5 cookies more than I needed. No excuse. It was sin. I was letting the lower nature direct my choice, and following the crowd. I’m not sure how it helps to call it my “old man’. Somehow calling it my “old sinful self” fits better to me.

Just what is your problem? (that sounds a bit rude, so please be patient) The answer to that question will determine the remedy I seek. Some people think 'the problem' is ignorance and that all we need to do is to educate folk and they will behave differently. Some people think 'poverty' is the problem and all we need is a revolution. Does it matter? I think you will see it does matter. If I believe that the problem is an 'indwelling spirit of disobedience' I may begin to work towards an appropriate answer. If I believe the problem is 'my enslaved will', I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with that.

Pause for breath...

If I believe that the problem is an 'indwelling spirit of disobedience' I may begin to work towards an appropriate answer. If I believe the problem is 'my enslaved will', I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with that.

And you hath he [u]quickened[/u], who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein [u]in time past[/u] ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, [u]the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience[/u]: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

In whom ye also are builded together for an [u]habitation of God through the Spirit.[/u] (2:22)

that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, [u]to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;[/u] That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, (3:16, 17)

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, [u]according to the power that worketh in us,[/u] (3:20)

There is one body, and [u]one Spirit[/u], even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, [u]one baptism,[/u] (4:4,5)

That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And [u]be renewed in the spirit of your mind;[/u] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (4:24, 25)

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (4:30)

(For the [u]fruit of the Spirit[/u] is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) (5:30)

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but [u]be filled with the Spirit;[/u] (5:18)

It seems evident here that the key to the Christian life is fulness of the Spirit. Paul ask Galatia, [i]having begun in the Spirit are you now may perfect by the flesh[/i]? It is impossible to improve upon the working of the Holy Spirit in us in being made holy. Adding the law or legalisms are of no assistance whatsoever. The key is the fulness of the Spirit. Struggles come when we cease to follow the commandment [u]first[/u] to be filled with the Spirit.

You will recall from the Old Testament that the fire of God was used in the Temple services. Not just any fire, but the fire that was kindled from heaven. Without this fire the Priests could not do their job. I personally believe that this fire went out in the times just after Eli died. I believe it was rekindled from heaven at the dedication of Solomon's Temple. When we get to Jeraboam and Abijah Judah is still 'keeping the charge' by performing the varius duties that required [u]T[/u]he fire. Tradition says that the sacred fire was hidden in a 'well' during the captivity and even later rekindled by striking some stones together during the Maccabean period.

I don't buy this one bit. The fire went out making it impossible for the priests to do their duties. They made up a lame story of rekindling the fire from some stones that were apparently in the vacinity of where the fire was last known to be. We can learn a lot from this tradition.

Fast forward to Acts 2. Jesus came to send fire on the earth. It came in Acts two to 'kindle' [u]T[/u]he fire in the hearts of the Kingdom of Priests that they would likewise need to do their duties as the Born Again. No man lights a candle and hides it under a bushel. The fire of the Holy Spirit in us is what makes us lights in the world.

Its hard to minister with a smoking flax. Its hard to keep the victory in a fallen world with a smoking flax. If the fire went out in the Temple the priests could not do their job. They could not offer 'strange' fire; having begun in the Spirit they could not be perfected in the flesh (if I might so say). Legalism is nothing more than striking stones together trying to recover a fire that once was- but is no more. When the conditions are right God will answer from heaven and kindle the fire.

Trouble is people don't want God. You can preach repentance or on sin and folk will shout you down (as we say here in Missouri); but when you start talking about getting close to God you loose many. Does not the fire draw the oxygen to it? Then it would reason that the wind is always being drawn towards the fire. The heat may cause other air disturbance, but still it would seem that as we raise the sails the ship is always being drawn closer to the fire. It's when we furl the sails that we get into trouble and then this sinful world becomes a problem. When you resist the Holy Ghost as He draws nearer to God you are resisting the only means of victory and the only means of doing your job as a believer. Can worship be offered without fire? Can a burnt offering be offfered without fire? Many want victory- but few want the fire. They don't want sin and they don't want God. We must have that fire burning ablaze in us. We must keep the charge and keep the fire.

Who are we? I am in Christ, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

It is important that even here we do not lose the sense of personal responsilbity for the life I am choosing to live.

This whole verse is deeply significant for our daily walk and the use of the emphatic pronoun is lost in most versions. Darby's translation shows the use of the emphatic pronoun and some online versions indicate its use by the use of asterisks. eg [color=0000ff] I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, *I*, but Christ lives in me; but in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me.[/color]

It may be too early in the discussion but this use of *I* may be a fruitful area for examination as we continue. A proper understanding of "I but not I" would, I believe, be a great help to many struggling Christians.

There is a tendency for Christians to polarize on this issue so that some say "Christ does it all", which sounds very spiritual but is not the whole story, and those who say "it is all down to me".

The following quotes seem to fit together like pieces in a puzzle.

If I believe that the problem is an 'indwelling spirit of disobedience' I may begin to work towards an appropriate answer. If I believe the problem is 'my enslaved will', I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with that.

Trouble is people don't want God.

If I were to rely my logical, rational mind, I’d say, “Of course, I want God!” But, when I filter down through the layers of entangled deceptions – like “bondaged will, weaknesses, failures, or whatever….. I see it all clearly: There is an aspect of me that really does NOT want God. As they say, I want to have my “cake” and eat it too.

Another piece of the puzzle: The Sin
Rom. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom. 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Put it together: Sin is an indwelling spirit of disobedience (might I suggest: rebellion) which boils down to this: not wanting God.

I realize that one can make light of a few edibles like cookies, but add to that other cravings: a good night sleep, climate control, warm fuzzies, job security, ….. and you see a bigger picture of the heart: we actually prefer something far inferior to himself, and all the while we think we want God above everything else in the world.

No wonder there are so few “Hudson Taylor’s”, “George Meuller’s” , etc. …

Diane

After excusing myself from this [i]personally[/i] with the sense of it being all a bit too much tinkering with complexity... Pardon the foolish interruption and forgive if this is previously covered territory ...

Paul's wretched man and ...

[i]I find then a [b]law[/b], that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.[/i] Rom 7:21

Taking this as something of a center piece and all the surrounding expression, the tall note seems to be one of "[b]I do[/b]"

For the good that I would [b]I do not[/b]: but the evil which I would not, [b]that I do[/b].

Caught on that Ron brought back up my past musing of his past expression of "There is just 'you'" and if memory serves it was from the conference series of messages on Justification, Redemption etc. "Aurora" I believe it was called?

What gripped me at the time as a consideration was the perspective of taking the 'blame' aspect out of the 'will'. In part, the "you" or better as Ron further clarified, "Thou" as perfectly expressed by Nathan to David '... [i]are (art) the man[/i]' became the translation, "Me".
I am the man, I am the responsible person that has done all these things, [i]I have sinned against Thee and done this evil in Thy sight[/i].

From that all the proscriptions of 'predestination', of 'who is choosing whom' and in what capacity of responsibility, God's foreknowledge and the seemingly contradictory aspects of...

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that [u]whosoever[/u] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life...

Met up with,

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

And, or ...

Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

[b]What shall we say then?[/b]

Indeed!

Something about the attempts to unravel great mysteries and put them into terms that human beings can understand makes me feel similar to Ron's expression; [i]Uncomfortable[/i].

Going back to Paul's earlier "[b]law[/b]" and unless I am entirely mistaken the denotation is of something [i]fixed[/i]... There is more "I do's" in there than a mass wedding ceremony. No wonder at the end of it all he cries both [i]wretched[/i] and ...

[i][b]who[/b][/i] shall deliver me out of the body of this death? and if at his wit's end the epitome of "[b]I do not know[/b]", the only thing left and with that rapturous perplexity mingled with joy...

Rom 7:25 [b]I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/b]!

Not to leave any loose ends on the whole matter this caveout...

[i]So then [b]I[/b] of [u]myself[/u] with the mind, indeed, serve the [u]law[/u] of God; but with the flesh the [u]law[/u] of sin.[/i]

Let me go on to more of this layman's foolishness.
The past week or so, this undergirding of things, held off somewhat from a great apprehension of the fact, but more 'behind the scenes', that 'knowing' that the saint's recognize of being guarded if you will, garrisoned about, 'kept' by the Holy Spirit's keeping. [i]Abiding[/i], "I am the Vine, ye are ...". It is 'both' (pardon all the quotation marks it's a bumbling expression here)... Both a clinging to the cross and a compelling to do so. Dependence, faith, trust, abiding ... [i][b]apart[/b][/i] from
[b]ME[/b] you can do ...

Nothing.

How the heart, the soul, the deep reservoirs of this created [i]being[/i], it's 'willer' and it's 'knower', it's perplexities and complexities, circumstances and exhaustions spiritually, physically, even emotionally somewhat. Chambers is exacting in that we are not simple beings after all but highly complex, created with great capacity for learning and growing and destroying and killing ...[i]mentally[/i] as our Lord came and exposed as the root of the whole matter which has it's footings entrenched in the ... heart (scripturally). [i]Wretched[/i]! "Depraved" what better words are there? That damnable "[u]Law[/u] of sin"...

And so it was for these days of being 'kept' that the abandoning was easy or 'easier', prayer becoming practically of a silent sort, a drawing sense of being still even if the breathing changes, this drawing out of things unknown and un-articulated, groanings in the Spirit. "What am I praying here?" Came to mind ... "Thou knowest"

There was the sweet carry over of being 'careless' that Chambers also has made great mention of, [i]carefully careless of everything save that of Jesus Christ[/i] (paraphrased).

Then after a bit, there is that settling in, the 'law of sin' that is always snapping at the heels whether it's recognized or not. Just a little drift away from [i]abiding[/i], a little thought here, a little temptation there, cast down when it's recognized for the lie that it is... But it's as if it leaves some residue behind, waiting for an opportune time. A distraction, a diversion ... Even the dreams tweaked with, awaken to thought's of all the so called 'injustice' that is being done to "me" and in that sleepy state of things, I agree! The thing is true, why look at thus and so and what about this thing and remember how so and so [i]said[/i] ... and then the dawning revelation that I am listening to the devil himself! (Or is it the 'devil inside'?) Poor wretched soul, where is thy sympathy? Where is my self importance, do they not know how much [b]I[/b] have done for their ungrateful, heathen hearts and all they can do is heap their little criticisms and pile on even more responsibility ....

And so it goes.

Saint's, there is just so much more than we know.
So many profound questions that seem locked up into God's thought that we are attempting to crack the code on. Why a 32 year long 'altar call' in this silly man's estimation? Why of all things a guitar player for the 'notorious' Ozzy Osbourne to be my ultimate undoing with the simplicity of, "Sweet Jesus, where did I go?" Why did God Himself hunt me down like a lion and yet rather than pouncing on me and shredding me to pieces, in effect wanted to lick my face? Why did He Himself encompass me for what seems to be a number of years in hindsight where everywhere I turned He was there? Drawing and persuading, changing circumstances, convicting and expressing in mysterious way's His great sovereignty, His great [i]love[/i] and I, like the demons themselves could only utter, [i]What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.[/i]...

Relentless! Chosen? "Predestined"? Responsible?
Ah, I do not know.

Thou knowest.

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

My own definition for prevenient grace would need to have the word for "will" removed. My link to 'Prevenient Grace' was to introduce the concept for new readers rather than a complete endorsement of every word.

The use of 'prevenient' is the same kind of era as or 'prevent' as in the KJV: Job 3:12; Psa 59:10; 79:8; 88:13; 119:148; Amos 9:10; 1Th 4:15. It simply means to 'go before'. So prevenient grace is 'grace which goes before', in other words, grace prior to the grace of regeneration.

So the theology of 'prevenient grace' is not linked inseparably to the notion of a faculty of the heart known as 'the will'.

How would you then reword this paragraph if I took out the words ‘free will’?

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given _________ to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

Also, I have three Questions:
1.\tHow does the ‘prevenient grace’ operate—i.e. what does this grace change in order for a person to be able to accept Christ?
2.\tIs the ‘prevenient grace’ irresistible?
3.\tCan you provide scripture that speaks of ‘grace prior to the grace of regeneration’ in regards to salvation?

Thanks.

Mike
Now if you thought I was pedantic, you ain't seen nothing yet... (as my namesake was quoted as saying)

Going back to Paul's earlier "law" and unless I am entirely mistaken the denotation is of something fixed... There is more "I do's" in there than a mass wedding ceremony. No wonder at the end of it all he cries both wretched and ...

Now this is actually more than pedantry (he says pedanticly). The UK civil and religious asks both parties the questions 'will you'. (In fact in the UK church service the only "I do" comes from the bride's father!) This is a powerful testimony to the understanding of those who first framed the service. The bridal couple are not being asked about their current state, ie "do you" but about their current choice "will you".

If God had asked me "do you love me" the answer would have had to be an honest "no". But the question was not "do you love him" but ...[color=0000ff]“And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.” (Gen 24:57-58 KJVS)[/color]

I love this passage! :-D To me it is the plainest gospel text in the Book. At the risk of being even more pedantic... she was not asked her current state, nor her current feelings but the nature of her choice.

And for those who are interested in prevenient grace you will see that there was quite a bit of that on the part of the 'servant' before he asked her decision.

Most interesting!

Unless your weddings over there are very different to ours there are no "I do's" in the wedding service but just a few "I will's".

Generally speaking it is "Do you take this man\\woman to be ..." And the remainder of the 'questions' are asked in like manner as far as I am aware in the states, and the appropriate response being "I do".

But this changes the dynamic a bit the way you pedanticaly put it ;-) and by the way, Ron, I love that you do this, it has taught me such a great deal, given me more of an appreciation and love for words, their meanings, their expressions.

I love this passage! To me it is the plainest gospel text in the Book. At the risk of being even more pedantic... she was not asked her current state, nor her current feelings but the nature of her choice.

My! I see it! Had never even thought of equating this in this fashion... Ron, you may have just resolved the whole of the 'just accept\\recieve Jesus into your heart' question with this...

Tremendous! [i]Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.”[/i] (Gen 24:57-58 KJVS)

OK, just another difference between our two countries it seems. This a quote from the old Anglican marriage service...

M. [u]WILT thou[/u] have this Woman to thy wedded Wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? [u]Wilt thou[/u] love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?

[i]The Man shall answer,[/i] [u]I will[/u].

Then shall the Priest say unto the Woman,

N. [u]WILT thou[/u] have this Man to thy wedded Husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? [u]Wilt thou[/u] obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?

[i]The Woman shall answer, [u]I will[/u].[/i]

(my underlinings - RB)

The civil ceremony follows the same pattern with each person declaring their willingness to be joined to the other. Many English people think that the response is "I do" but it's not.

(In fact in the UK church service the only "I do" comes from the bride's father!) This is a powerful testimony to the understanding of those who first framed the service. The bridal couple are not being asked about their current state, ie "do you" but about their current choice "will you".

I think we say, “I do” in our vows here in Canada. Yet according to the vows prescribed in my copy of “The Minister’s Marriage Handbook” © 1985 in the USA, the father says “I do”, but after that the questions are, “Will you…” with responses: ‘I will.”

Here’s something else interesting: In a recent Presby wedding which I played for, I noticed that the minister asked the bride (and I think the groom too) “Are you entering into this relationship willingly and FREELY?” I don’t recall hearing it put forth quite so directly.

That reminds me of the question asked to Rebekah. Clearly Rebekah was given the freedom to choose. Was that normal in her culture, or unusual? Certainly, in most cultures the woman has no choice in the matter. (I’m also thinking of Fiddler on the Roof – Jewish customs of matchmaking)

The proposal given to Rebekah reminds me of Christ’s proposal to us. We enter into covenant relationship with him freely, not against our will, and yet he prepares the way, and opens the invitation.

just accept\\receive Jesus into your heart'

Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.”.

“ Whosoever will (thelo: to determine) come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Mk. 8:34

[from Stongs: to desire, to delight in, intend, please, have rather…]

Our method of inviting people into a relationship with Christ certainly is in need of an overhaul.

EDIT: ...discussed this over dinner with my husband, and he couldn't see the fuss about the "will" vs the "do". These days the word "do" seems like the better choice, because the word "will" is used merely to indicate future tense - mainly.

Diane

Philologos said

If God had asked me "do you love me" the answer would have had to be an honest "no". But the question was not "do you love him" but ...“And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.” (Gen 24:57-58 KJVS)

I love this passage! To me it is the plainest gospel text in the Book. At the risk of being even more pedantic... she was not asked her current state, nor her current feelings but the nature of her choice.

I never thought of that passage as a gospel text, but I can see it now.

What is remarkable to me is that it clearly shows the sovereignty of God.

Roadsign said

That reminds me of the question asked to Rebecca. Clearly Rebekah was given the freedom to choose. Was that normal in her culture, or unusual? Certainly, in most cultures the woman has no choice in the matter. (I’m also thinking of Fiddler on the Roof – Jewish customs of matchmaking)

I am drawing attention to statement above, 'Clearly Rebekah was given the freedom to choose.' Or was she? Could she have said No?

Genesis 24:12-14 says,

"And he (Abraham's servant) said O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham.

13Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water:

14And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.

The servant begged God that he would clearly show him the woman that he has prepared for Isaac. The servant did not want to get just any girl for Isaac, he wanted to make sure he found the ONE that God wanted.

God did that very thing the servant asked:

Genesis 24:15 "And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.

16And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

17And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher.

18And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.

19And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.

20And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels.

21And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the LORD had made his journey prosperous or not.

22And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;

23And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father's house for us to lodge in?

24And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor.

25She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in.

26And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the LORD.

Clearly this was the woman that God wanted Isaac to marry! In fact,

Genesis 24:37, "And my master made me swear, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell:

38But thou shalt go unto my father's house, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son.

39And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me.

40And he said unto me, The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house:

I ask again, Could Rebekah have said no? We see that the LORD sent his angel to make sure that the servant succeeded. Rebekah was asked if she would go and she had to respond, but considering what Genesis 24 says I see no way that she could have refused.

I do not see this as 'Prevenient grace', I see this as 'Irresistible Grace'!

Jaysaved,
I fear that a key truth is at risk of drifting away in the crosscurrents.

Why was Rebekah asked the question in the first place? God could simply have told Abraham’s servant to go grab her up, or the father could have handed her over with no questions asked. That would have been quite normal. Of course "irresistible grace" would not work like that.

Really that would be the way that countless have become followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Constantine’s Christianity. Etc. Masses of people simply comply to what their parents/religious leaders/emperor/dictator request without even having a chance to consider if that is what THEY would have wanted. The question “Will you..?” is never asked, or if it is, it is merely a formality. One does what is expected.

Of course, Jesus’ way of building his kingdom was significantly different. The accounts of Isaac and Rebekah, and numerous others in Scripture reinforce that truth. When people fail to respect the need for the "I will..." , they end up creating (yet again) another religion under the umbrella of Christianity. Adherents are deprived of the opportunity to consciously choose their loyalty - be hot or cold.

Jesus himself gave people the freedom to turn away from him (consciously!): ex the rich young ruler, the crowds.

Trying to ascertain the possibility or impossibility of a refusal by Rebekah is probably beyond our finite minds. In fact, such attempts may merely create a listing theology. God’s grace, however one defines it, was at work in her life, and that is the marvel. And it is still a marvel today.

...that's the way I see it at this time...
Diane

The proposal given to Rebekah reminds me of Christ’s proposal to us.

Starting to see this develop ...

The civil ceremony follows the same pattern with each person declaring their willingness to be joined to the other. Many English people think that the response is "I do" but it's not.

"I will" sounds more like I ... [i]will[/i]! ;-)
Seriously, I will [i]believe[/i], I will [i]continue[/i], I am [i]commited[/i]...

[i]Till death do us part[/i] ... I will

Brother Jay wrote:

I ask again, Could Rebekah have said no? We see that the LORD sent his angel to make sure that the servant succeeded. Rebekah was asked if she would go and she had to respond, but considering what Genesis 24 says I see no way that she could have refused.

I do not see this as 'Prevenient grace', I see this as 'Irresistible Grace'!

How did Abraham know that the Lord was going to send His angel?

In Christ
Jeff

Mike's:

"I will" sounds more like I ... will!
Seriously, I will believe, I will continue, I am commited...

This is what I gathered also. I figured that if a person says "I do" (Present tense) then 5 minutes later they could say "I did" (Past tense). BUT, if a person says "I will" then the commitment is constantly in the present and future no matter how long ago you look back to the event; it is always "I will."

Roadsign said:

Jesus himself gave people the freedom to turn away from him (consciously!): ex the rich young ruler, the crowds.

I agree that Jesus gave people the freedom to turn away. But there is something deeper to this that I wish to bring out. All people had the freedom to turn away, some did, some did not. Jesus made the following statement in John 6:37-39, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

Jesus says the following:
- Many people will come to me
- Of this many, there will be those whom the Father gives me and those whom the Father has not given me.
- Those whom the Father gives me will never turn away from me and I will not cast them out.
- Those whom the Father does not give me will turn away and I will cast them out (i.e., rich young ruler).
- Jesus says that none of whom God gives him will be lost.

Brother Jay wrote:

I ask again, Could Rebekah have said no? We see that the LORD sent his angel to make sure that the servant succeeded. Rebekah was asked if she would go and she had to respond, but considering what Genesis 24 says I see no way that she could have refused.

I do not see this as 'Prevenient grace', I see this as 'Irresistible Grace'!

rookie wrote:

How did Abraham know that the Lord was going to send His angel?

Faith.

This is what I gathered also. I figured that if a person says "I do" (Present tense) then 5 minutes later they could say "I did" (Past tense). BUT, if a person says "I will" then the commitment is constantly in the present and future no matter how long ago you look back to the event; it is always "I will."

"Constantly in the present and future" ... Precisely, [i]continually[/i]. Know we have covered this a great deal in the past as it relates to [i]believing[/i] amongst other things... Really like that Robert. Also, if I am trailing here correctly noticing something that great teachers do, leading us to think and tie things together. Taking this back to the 'will' as something of a 'place' reminded me of Tozer asking the questions (greatly paraphrased from memory); "Where is the place of the soul? Of love? Of the emotions" Seem to recall it was on the order of a 'surgeon cutting open a man and attempting to find these organs'.

At the moment, the definition is hovering much more around, [i]decision, deciding[/i], "[i]I will[/i]". There is a [i]forcing[/i] here, something of [i]effort[/i].

This is the account of Wesley's experience on May 24th 1738...

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. [u]I felt I did trust in Christ[/u], Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart. But it was not long before the enemy suggested, “This cannot be faith; for where is thy joy?” Then was I taught that peace and victory over sin are essential to faith in the Captain of our salvation; but that, as to the transports of joy that usually attend the beginning of it, especially in those who have mourned deeply, God sometimes giveth, sometimes withholdeth, them according to the counsels of His own will.

I love this account. In Galatians Paul uses the phrase 'faith came' and I think this illustrates the concept wonderfully. The important thing to realise is that Wesley already believed in 'Justification by Faith' at this time and was preaching it. But something happened at this time, after many evidences of prevenient grace, that changed him completely.

From this time he regarded himself as a 'son' and distinguished between this faith and his earlier faith by saying 'even then I had faith, but it was the faith of a servant, not a son.

There is a chorus to a hymn which has the lines

"I do believe, I will believe"

I have often mused on the order of the words. Faith 'comes' but we are then responsible for our 'use of it'. I do, is the language of suprized discovery. I will, is the language of resolve.

Pardon, must jump over this for the moment as it occurred that something was still inadequate with [i]decision[/i], that only being the birthing, the beginning. 'Deciding' being continual ... A rush of words came in...

Allowing.
Following ...

[i]Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.[/i]

Interesting! [i]If [b]I[/b] will[/i] ...

Mat 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off ...

Perhaps the area of "I do" as expressed by Robert meets the challenge of "I will" more succinctly here;

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [i]this[/i], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that [b]believe not.[/b] For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (Or ceased [i]following[/i])

Jumping around here a bit but so many scriptural words, make that truths come up from underneath all this.

Denying
Suffering
Enduring
Abiding

It is an effort to give up.
An effort to continue.
An effort to believe, to lay hold of...
And that great paradox...

Phi 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to [i]will[/i] and to do of his good pleasure.

Not [i]I[/i], but Christ.

Need to absorb Ron's installment yet still, pardon the exhuberance...

here is something more for you to 'exube' over...

[url=http://www.myutmost.org/07/0708.html]The Will to Loyalty[/url] by Oswald Chambers. (MUFHH July 8th.)

This is what I gathered also. I figured that if a person says "I do" (Present tense) then 5 minutes later they could say "I did" (Past tense). BUT, if a person says "I will" then the commitment is constantly in the present and future no matter how long ago you look back to the event; it is always "I will."

I kinda have to agree with Diane's husband on this, I don't see what the fuss is about over the two words. When I uttered the words "I do" at my wedding it was with a clear understanding that the vow includes words like "for better or worse", "in sickness and health", and "so long as you both shall live". There is both a present and future sense built into the vow that is affirmed by the "I do".

In Christ,

Ron

I kinda have to agree with Diane's husband on this, I don't see what the fuss is about over the two words.

It is true that modern English (or even American) usage has blurred the distinction between the two ideas and many a person might use either expression to convey the same intention. "will you serve me?" and "are you serving me?" are very different questions. The first would be expressed by 'I will' the second by 'I do'.

The issue has more importance when it comes to the way in which we interpret, not our current usage, but biblical usage. If contemporary usage obscures key differences between a current state of being and a declaration of choice, it does us a real disservice.

Users of the KJV in particular need to be mindful of the way that our language has changed in the last 400 years.

I asked brother Jay:

How did Abraham know that the Lord was going to send His angel?

Brother Jay responded:

Faith

There is much more than you see happening here, and this is the key to the discussion of this work of God in the lives of Isacc and Rebekka...

First the servant declares that Abraham told him this...

Genesis 24:

40 But he said to me, “The LORD, before whom I walk, will send His angel with you and prosper your way; and you shall take a wife for my son from my family and from my father’s house.

First question, how did Abrahan know that the Lord was going to send His angel with Abraham servant to prosper his way?

And now this is the testimony of Abraham servant after he had obediently followed whom?

48 And I bowed my head and worshiped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, who had led me in the way of truth to take the daughter of my master’s brother for his son.

Do you see how God brought this about? The answer is not faith but first comes the "hearing of God's word."

In Christ
Jeff

In Tozer's mind, it is God who has given man the "power of self determination."

Is the "power of self determination" a definition of will?

In Christ
Jeff

rookie,

Forgive me for being mentally slow this morning, but where do we disagree on the issue of Abraham's servant and Rebekah?

It seems that we are saying the same thing, but you phrased your last post in a way that you disagreed with me.

If contemporary usage obscures key differences between a current state of being and a declaration of choice, it does us a real disservice.

Or cultural word usage: When my husband and I lived in the Caribbean, we fellow missionaries used to snicker over a frequently used Spanish word: “mañana." It means “tomorrow”, and was often used in the phrase: “Tomorrow I will… fulfil your request.” You’d often hear these words when you went into a local store and asked when they were going to restock their cement, or stoves, or whatever thing you wanted (right away!).

We got to know what “mañana” really meant: “Well… maybe we will get it tomorrow, and then, again, maybe we won’t.... get it at all.” After a while we learned to interpret the phrase: “I will do it mañana” to mean: “Don’t hold your breath.” (A good lesson for task-driven westerners)

“I will ..” sure can get lame. For example, one's wedding vows may very well have a hidden condition: “I will …… IF he/she meets my expectations.”

Just how seriously does God take our “I will’s”?

From the Parable of the Two Sons Matt. 21:28
Son 1: “I will not….. but later he changed his mind and went.”
Son 2: “I will… but he did not go."

How about our modern worship "songs of good intention":

"I will worship, with all of my heart.
I will give you all.... "

I'm afraid they don't mean much in themselves, generally speaking.

EDIT: It's interesting comparing man's "I will" with God's "I will" - his covenant promises as declared through the ritual seen by Abraham - walking between the cut pieces of flesh.

Diane

It's interesting comparing man's "I will" with God's "I will" - his covenant promises as declared through the ritual seen by Abraham - walking between the cut pieces of flesh.

What can this 'if... then' covenant mean if 'the will' is locked?

Brother Jay wrote:

It seems that we are saying the same thing, but you phrased your last post in a way that you disagreed with me.

This particular thread began with man's depravity, election, etc. Then the example of marriage between Isaac and Rebecca came up. I seek to establish that in this example, Scripture points to the way God worked to bring about the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca.

First, Abraham was told by God to do what he did. So how does this pretain to this particular thread? Abraham would not have known how to go about selecting a wife for his son unless God spoke to him. Without the command, Abraham is helpless...

Secondly, we know from Scripture that God sent an angel to guide Abraham's servant to Rebecca. According to Scripture, how does God utilize angels?

Again we see that without guidance, Abraham's servant is hopelessly lost...according to his carnal mind he is not able to satisfy God.

How does this example then speak to the idea of election or foreknowledge? How does this example speak to the will, the power of self determination?

In Christ
Jeff

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (Ex 19:5-6 KJVS)

1. Ye will.... (deliberately determine?)
2. Ye shall... (refers to the future)

This seems to be opposite of what I learned at school:

first person: I/we shall
second and third: you will, she/he/they will

This is reversed to communicate determination.

I/We WILL!
You/They SHALL!

Also the above scripture has a "Thou shalt". I think that NIV makes the meaning of that word, "shalt", clearer: "You ARE TO speak....

Perhaps this is of little value here, other than to observe the challenge of changing word usage. By the way, I'm not convinced that our every day speech has preserved the strengh that "I will" once had.

Diane

Within the wedding story, we find that God initiates action by speaking to Abraham.

Abraham's servant asks Abraham, "39 And I said to my master, “Perhaps the woman will not follow me.’

Abraham then replies, "40 But he said to me, “The LORD, before whom I walk, will send His angel with you and prosper your way; and you shall take a wife for my son from my family and from my father’s house."

First we hear the testimony from Abraham that he walks with the Lord. Then he tells his servant that the Lord is sending "His angel" to "prosper" the servants way.

What do we learn from this section? The Lord speaks to Abraham. Once the Lord speaks, it is then Abraham's choice to obey or not.

What is his testimony? Abraham follows the Lord's instructions. This is how one continues in walking with the Lord. This is an example of living by faith.

Without the Lord's directions Abraham would not have known how to please His Lord. This precept is taught by Paul in Romans 7:

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Do you see how God enables men who do not know how to perform what is good in the Lord's plan?

In Christ
Jeff

Following on from my last post...

I am genuinely curious as to how my brethren in the 'macarthur' camp expound the conditional nature of the Sinai covenant. The presence of that word 'if' on the lips of God must, to my simple mind, imply condition, and a condition which must be fulfilled by the other covenant party.

I still struggle to understand either 'sin' or 'virtue' if God does not require something of me. I know He will give what He requires but it still seems to me that I must respond to what He has given.

This is why I return again and again to David's prayer...
[color=0000ff]“Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding. O Lord our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own. [u]I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart[/u], and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.” (1Chr 29:11-17 KJVS)[/color]

In this passage David gladly acknowledges that all enabling comes from God but his insight that even when God has given all things He awaits my response is exactly how I see things. It is not a question of demeaning God. God only needs what He has chosen to need. [color=0000ff]“And they said, The Lord hath need of him.” (Luke 19:34 KJVS)[/color] But when He has chosen to do something in a way that includes human response it seems to me that He will not do it without that human response. This right human response to the revelation God's enabling I call 'faith'.

I am genuinely curious as to how my brethren in the 'macarthur' camp expound the conditional nature of the Sinai covenant. The presence of that word 'if' on the lips of God must, to my simple mind, imply condition, and a condition which must be fulfilled by the other covenant party.

The Sinai convenant was conditional. God was faithful but the Jews were not. God came upon them in wrath and sent them into exile. God then established a new covenant. Just because the old covenant was conditional doesn't mean that the new covenant must be conditional as well.

Hebrews 8

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

How can our sin remove us from the new covenant if God says he will be merciful toward our iniquities and remember our sins no more?

I wasn't comparing the Old Covenant with the New but just thinking about the nature of God's dealings with men and women. If the necessary first step is regeneration where does this leave any conditions that God establishes?

Brother Ron quoted this Scripture...

But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.

I find this group throughtout the generations...can you identify who David is praying for?

In Christ
Jeff

Hebrews 8

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

As I read this again I thought.... does this mean that God makes mistakes. Does God make a poorly thought out plan?

Then I started thinking about Noah and the flood...where God repented from making mankind;
and I thought about Exodus when Moses was on Sinai and he talked God out of destroying all of Israel for worshiping the golden calf.

I think, is God capable of making bad decisions concerning man's welfare?

Then I thought of Jesus' words where he said I didn't lose one that you gave me. And how the word says that no one can pluck out of God's hand His own people.

It seems that there is a contradiction here.

However, I believe that this shows how mankind, because of their tendency towards things that are evil can upset the plans that God has for their own welfare. This is evident throught the entire Bible. That is why Jesus had to die the death that NO MAN man should have to taste (which is obvious he speaks not the mortal death).

If we look at the first chapter of Romans Paul describes two types of people, those who follow the light of their own consciences and those who trade the truth of God for a lie.

Yes, man, because of Adam's decision, inclines himself to sin. And left without God would of course be a completely wicked being. But this is not the makeup of man. God breathed into mankind his Spirit, this makes us different from animals. We can decide for ourselves to follow after the light that God deposited in us or deny it.

Those who follow after it are those like,
Abel, Job, Abraham (these men existed before the law of Moses, yet after Adam so they were sinners) and were counted as righteous because they lived by faith and let the Spirit or the light of their consciences guide them.

Nothing has changed today. Except of course that now we have overcome our battle by FAITH in the blood of Jesus to maintain righteousness because of our sinful nature. He did it once and for all. Think of those words...He died only ONE time for all....for EVERYONE.

I believe that those who agree that man is completely wicked and incapable of making a desicion to surrender to God on their own free will are belittling God as a creator. If we are a creation (mankind) who is NOT capable of making a desicion to surrender our wills to God then you would be saying that we are like cows, or cockroaches WITHOUT CONSCIENCES! This is a lie, we know right from wrong, Why?, because the God has imparted into every human being a part of who He is. This guides us, this tells us what is wrong or right. This confirms to us that the Gospel is Truth!! Those who deny this light are telling God in essence, "No thanks God, I don't need Your rules for my welfare, I think I can control my life and make my own rules." So a hardening of the heart takes place.

Just as sin entered the ENTIRE WORLD through one man (Adam) and cause God to damn all mankind to hell. Now, grace sufficient enough to cover all of that sin that damned the entire world to hell has been defeated and has entered into the ENTIRE WORLD!! through one man (Jesus). Praise the Lord! This is the Good News!! And just typing it out makes me want to shout Hallelujah and Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lamb.

My brothers be free! This is why Christ died! Go out and proclaim this Good News. Christ died for the wicked, and the Light that God has deposited into every man we pray will bear witness to the truth of the Gospel and lead them to repentance, salvation and right standing with God through faith in the Holy One of Heaven.

God Bless You,
Let others see the reason for your joy,
Desi, Jr.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

As I read this again I thought.... does this mean that God makes mistakes. Does God make a poorly thought out plan?

[color=0000ff]“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For {u]finding fault with them[/u], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:” (Heb 8:7-8 KJVS)[/color]

You will notice that it says, very clearly, 'finding fault with them'; the people... NOT 'finding fault with it'; the covenant.

Paul is always very careful to avoid bringing the law into discredit. Notice also...

[color=0000ff]“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Rom 3:31 KJVS)

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” (Rom 8:3 KJVS)[/color]

Again in the last verse see how carefully blames the failure, not on the law, but upon the 'weakness of the flesh'.

Brother Ron wrote:

Again in the last verse see how carefully blames the failure, not on the law, but upon the 'weakness of the flesh'.

We know that God called Israel to obey the covenant made on Mount Sinai. Yet as you have correctly pointed out, that covenant could not enable the nation of Israel because of the "weakness of the flesh." So by what means did God enable those who lived in the generations covered by the Mount Sinai covenant?

What provision was given, because it is God who must be the initiator...
In Christ
Jeff

So by what means did God enable those who lived in the generations covered by the Mount Sinai covenant?

[color=0000ff]“For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? [u]But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.[/u] See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” (Deut 30:11-16 KJVS)

“...it is of faith, that it might be by grace;” (Rom 4:16 KJVS)

“But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? [u]The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach[/u];” (Rom 10:6-8 KJVS)[/color]

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

“...it is of faith, that it might be by grace;”

Can one say that these two precepts have always been in existence since Adam?

James 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

In Christ
Jeff

Can one say that these two precepts have always been in existence since Adam?

And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets...

Heb 11.[/color]

So faith is the common denominator by which men are saved in every generation.

James 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

Does not the above verse encompass the sum total of this thread?

In Christ
Jeff

James 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

Do you think James is referring to a crisis or a process?

You will need to define 'salvation' before I can comment on this question. I distinguish, but do not necessarily separate, justification and regeneration.

May I just interject, without stemming the flow,
So can we assume correctly, that we heare God speak we then choose to act that is therefore simple faith?

this comes to mind
[color=0000FF]Rom 10.17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/color]
is this related to your thoughts above?
just my pennies worth :-)

is this related to your thoughts above?

Philogos,

I believed you answered that question prematurely...if you would have kept on reading the entire statement you would have seen the answer to that question.

Here you go Philogos.... because I think you missed it....

This may lead one to ask, is God capable of making bad decisions concerning man's welfare?

Then I thought of Jesus' words where he said I didn't lose one that you gave me. And how the word says that no one can pluck out of God's hand His own people.

It seems that there is a contradiction here.

However, I believe that this shows how mankind, because of their tendency towards things that are evil can upset the plans that God has for their own welfare. This is evident throught the entire Bible. That is why Jesus had to die the death that NO MAN man should have to taste (which is obvious he speaks not the mortal death).

If we look at the first chapter of Romans Paul describes two types of people, those who follow the light of their own consciences and those who trade the truth of God for a lie.

Yes, man, because of Adam's decision, inclines himself to sin. And left without God would of course be a completely wicked being. But this is not the makeup of man. God breathed into mankind his Spirit, this makes us different from animals. We can decide for ourselves to follow after the light that God deposited in us or deny it.

Those who follow after it are those like,
Abel, Job, Abraham (these men existed before the law of Moses, yet after Adam so they were sinners) and were counted as righteous because they lived by faith and let the Spirit or the light of their consciences guide them.

Nothing has changed today. Except of course that now we have overcome our battle by FAITH in the blood of Jesus to maintain righteousness because of our sinful nature. He did it once and for all. Think of those words...He died only ONE time for all....for EVERYONE.

I believe that those who agree that man is completely wicked and incapable of making a desicion to surrender to God on their own free will are belittling God as a creator. If we are a creation (mankind) who is NOT capable of making a desicion to surrender our wills to God then you would be saying that we are like cows, or cockroaches WITHOUT CONSCIENCES! This is a lie, we know right from wrong, Why?, because the God has imparted into every human being a part of who He is. This guides us, this tells us what is wrong or right. This confirms to us that the Gospel is Truth!! Those who deny this light are telling God in essence, "No thanks God, I don't need Your rules for my welfare, I think I can control my life and make my own rules." So a hardening of the heart takes place.

Just as sin entered the ENTIRE WORLD through one man (Adam) and cause God to damn all mankind to hell. Now, grace sufficient enough to cover all of that sin that damned the entire world to hell has been defeated and has entered into the ENTIRE WORLD!! through one man (Jesus). Praise the Lord! This is the Good News!! And just typing it out makes me want to shout Hallelujah and Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lamb.

My brothers be free! This is why Christ died! Go out and proclaim this Good News. Christ died for the wicked, and the Light that God has deposited into every man we pray will bear witness to the truth of the Gospel and lead them to repentance, salvation and right standing with God through faith in the Holy One of Heaven.

God Bless You,
Let others see the reason for your joy,
Desi, Jr.

Brother Ron asked:

Do you think James is referring to a crisis or a process?

I am not quite sure what you mean by crisis or process, but looking at the content of Scripture in James, he is encouraging the beloved brethren to go beyond what they have experienced in the Lord thus far. J. Vernon Mcgee often refered to the book of James as the college education for the believer.

You will need to define 'salvation' before I can comment on this question. I distinguish, but do not necessarily separate, justification and regeneration.

When I was about 3 years old in the Lord, I was struggling with what the preachers were teaching at church and what I was beginning to see in Scripture. These issues focused on what is faith? I prayed during that crisis, "Lord teach me how you save me."

Since then He has been teaching me precept upon precept, line upon line, here alittle there alittle.

I do not have a definition of salvation, only the path of where I have been, and the seach for where He is leading me. He is removing that which I once hoped in and replacing with His "life" a new found and unending growth in treasure.

God Bless
Jeff

When I read this post, it reminded me of this thread.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13612&forum=36

In Christ
Jeff