Man's Will

Man’s Will is that by which man actively chooses. It is the innate ability through which, if unhindered, allows man to choose the most desirous option. It is my desire to prove that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

What do I mean by that definition of Will? Here are some practical examples:
Example 1:
Johnny is walking down the street when another man points a gun at him. The robber makes the following statement: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.” Johnny gives the wallet to the robber who runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny did not want to lose his wallet.” It is true that Johnny does not desire to lose his wallet at anytime, however when the robber pointed the gun at Johnny, Johnny was presented two options: 1) Give the wallet and live and 2) Keep the wallet and die. Johnny responded according to his Will and chose the most desirous option (Give the wallet and live). Johnny’s Will was never violated because Johnny freely chose the most desirous option.

Example 2:
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.

I hope that I have shown that a man’s Will is never violated in the course of human events. He is always free to choose what he most desires—as long as the ability to choose is present. With regard to man’s Will, man has the freedom to choose, but is always in bondage to his desires. Thus man’s Will is free, yet bound.

I now want to prove that God does not violate man’s Will when He sovereignty chooses men to become Christians—for this is a common objection to Reformed Theology in that many say it makes men to be nothing more than robots. When God calls a sinner to repentance, He does not violate that sinners Will. What God does is that He reveals truth to the sinner. It can be said that God “removes the spiritual blinders from the sinners eyes.” By God revealing himself to the sinner, the sinner sees God for who He truly is—Holy, sees himself who he truly is—sinful, and sees his sinfulness for what it truly is—deserving of punishment. It is at this moment that the sinner responds to the Call of God. This response is done according to his Will and not is violation of his Will. Even though the sinner is choosing something that he would not have before, the Will is not violated because the man’s desires have changed—desires being that which the Will is bound. The Will still chooses that which is most desirous, in this case it is the most desirous option to respond to God’s Call. Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”

I hope, in a spirit of love and respect, that I have proven that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

Is God's will ever violated???

I would say that it is not, but I want to focus on Man's Will.

Man’s Will is that by which man actively chooses.

I thought the Bible taught that "the will" was the desires? I can't think of any references that say it is a "decision making faculty."

1Cr 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [of the gospel] is committed unto me.

I'm not sure this verse would make sense if you replaced 'my will' with 'my decision making faculty.' I believe you can do things "against your will" as in "against your desire."

Interesting verse you brought up.

"For if I do this willingly..."

Willingly - Greek Hekon
Definition
1. unforced, voluntary, willing
2. of one's own will
3. of one's own accord

"...against my will" is in the Greek Akon which is just the negative of Hekon

How does this violate anything I wrote?

I believe you can do things "against your will" as in "against your desire."

Please explain in more detail.

I believe you can do things against your flesh, but that's because you want to.

What do you think about the below verse in Romans?

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

EDIT: I think I may agree with you. Maybe!

JaySaved wrote:
Interesting verse you brought up.

"For if I do this willingly..."

Willingly - Greek Hekon
Definition
1. unforced, voluntary, willing
2. of one's own will
3. of one's own accord

"...against my will" is in the Greek Akon which is just the negative of Hekon

How does this violate anything I wrote?

None, if your defining "the will" as your desires or what you want.

I believe you can do things "against your will" as in "against your desire."

Please explain in more detail.

I was thinking of someone under deep conviction that [intellectually] wants to do right, but can't find the power to do it. Or a Christian that may sin. What does it mean to deny yourself other than deny want you might "want" for what you know is right?

None, if your defining "the will" as your desires or what you want.

I thought about that but it seems that the Will is more than just desires. It is that acting upon desires and the decision between competing desires.

Some mornings I desire to shower as soon as I wake up and I desire to not shower as soon as I wake up. Both are desires, but I choose one of those desires because one is more desirable to me at that moment. It is that choice of desires that I am trying to get at here.

I was thinking of someone under deep conviction that wants to do right, but can't find the power to do it. Or a Christian that may sin.

I would submit that sometimes a Christian's desire to sin is greater than their desire to obey God. It is that internal struggle Paul referenced in Romans 7. Each is a desire but ultimately one desire is chosen because it is more desirable. None of this is done against the Man's Will

What does it mean to deny yourself other than deny want you might "want" for what you know is right?

Your desire to please God is greater than your desire to please self. The Will is still not violated.

Thoughts anyone?

JaySaved wrote:
I thought about that but it seems that the Will is more than just desires. It is that acting upon desires and the decision between competing desires.

What verses are you thinking of on that latter part? I haven't studied 'the will' intensively but the verses that come to mind make me think it is your desires.

Some mornings I desire to shower as soon as I wake up and I desire to not shower as soon as I wake up. Both are desires, but I choose one of those desires because one is more desirable to me at that moment. It is that choice of desires that I am trying to get at here.

So ultimately you are saying we can't ever choose anything that we do not inwardly want to do? By the way, it doesn't offend me if you shower or not. :-P As long as I can't smell you from here.

I would submit that sometimes a Christian's desire to sin is greater than their desire to obey God. It is that internal struggle Paul referenced in Romans 7. Each is a desire but ultimately one desire is chosen because it is more desirable. None of this is done against the Man's Will

We differ on the Romans 7 issue. I believe it was before Paul was delivered from the law of sin and chapter 8 was after. We can just ignore that point for now though. Unless you want to discuss it.

What verses are you thinking of on that latter part? I haven't studied 'the will' intensively but the verses that come to mind make me think it is your desires.

Let me get back to you on that when I have more time. Great question.

So ultimately you are saying we can't ever choose anything that we do not inwardly want to do?

Exactly

We differ on the Romans 7 issue. I believe it was before Paul was delivered from the law of sin and chapter 8 was after. We can just ignore that point for now though. Unless you want to discuss it.

We can save that for a later time.

Thank you Jeannette for those kind words.

I wrote:

I thought about that but it seems that the Will is more than just desires. It is that acting upon desires and the decision between competing desires.

PreachParsly wrote:

What verses are you thinking of on that latter part?

When I think of man's Will I ultimately think of choice. I affirm that man has a choice. A great scripture that I think goes well with this discussion is:
Psalm 25:11-12
"For your name's sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great. Who is the man who fears the LORD? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose."

We see that the Lord instructs people in how they should choose, but He does not choose for them.

What of Jesus deliberately giving up His own will, "nevertheless not my will but Thine"?

It is a fact that the word will refers to desires, but I do not believe that is the only way we can use the word. The Will (Captial W) is far deeper than just desires and preferences because man makes a choice between competing desires all the time.

For example:
Today as I was driving home I noticed a McDonald's. I desired to go into McDonald's and eat. I also remembered my wife told me she was making soup for supper. I had two desires at that moment: it was my desire to eat at McDonald's and it was my desire to please my wife and not have her mad at me.

I made a choice to keep driving past McDonald's because I desired a happy wife more than McDonald's food. My Will was the part of me that made the choice and I am responsible for that choice.

Jesus said, 'Not my will but thine' In these words Jesus said, 'I desire that I am never separated from the Father, but I more desire to please the Father and bring redemption.' Jesus' never violated His Will because He choose the most desirous option.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ultimately you are saying we can't ever choose anything that we do not inwardly want to do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly

What do you think of the verses in Romans 7 where they do what they hate, or inwardly delight in the law of God but don't outwardly obey it?

I apologize in advance for the length :-)

Good illustration! Although it would be better if you said that your decision would be made because of love for your wife, rather than that you "desired a happy wife". For all we know your reason might have been because you didn't want her mad at you, or that she's such a good cook that McDonalds wasn't much of a temptation!

Yes. It is truly because of my love for my wife. That is a better reason.

So you aren't a hyper-Calvinist?

I am far from being a hyper-Calvinist. I truly believe that "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (John 6:37) and that "...those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) I also affirm Acts 2:21, "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." and Romans 10:13, "For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

I consider myself to be a William Carey type Calvinist. He believed in particular atonement but also strongly believed in spreading the gospel to every single person. He strongly fought against hyper-Calvinism. It has been reported:
"At a ministers' meeting in 1786, Carey raised the question of whether it was the duty of all Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the world. J. R. Ryland, the father of John Ryland, is said to have retorted: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine." However, Ryland's son, John Ryland Jr., disputes that his father made this statement."
Carey opposed this view and I do as well.

Information taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey

The main problem I have with the concept that we are "predestined" to be saved or lost is that it can easily become a horrible kind of fatalism.

Predestination in scripture:
1. Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
2. Romans 8:30, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
3. Ephesians 1:5, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
4. Ephesians 1:11, "In 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:"

Predestination is always referred to in scripture in a positive sense. It is always used to describe the saint. It is the doctrine of election that ruffles feathers. God elects some but not others. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:4, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."

Election Ekloge
Definition:
1. the act of picking out, choosing
a. of the act of God's free will by which before the foundation of the world he decreed his blessings to certain persons
b. the decree made from choice by which he determined to bless certain persons through Christ by grace alone
2. a thing or person chosen
a. of persons: God's elect

Same word used in:
Acts 9:15, "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"
Romans 9:11, "(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;)"
Romans 11:5, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."
Romans 11:7, "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded"
Romans 11:28, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
2 Peter 1:10, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

It is undeniable that the Bible speaks of God choosing people to salvation. However, the Bible never tells us or gives us any indication that it is ok to be lazy in doing good and being holy. We are also commanded to go and be witnesses and tell others about the grace we have received.

For example, the teaching on the subject in Islam is very fatalistic, and suspiciously like the logical conclusion of extreme hyper-Calvinism.

Apparently even Muhammed was sometimes (with good reason, obviously, though he didn't know that) gripped by fears that he wouldn't make it to (his version of) heaven. I understand that he taught that everyone was predestined for heaven or hell, and that nothing they did would ever change that fact. They could follow all the tenets of their religion 200%, but if they were predestined to hell they would still be lost. Another person could live a very wicked life, careless of religion and still go to "heaven" if they were predestined to do so.

I hope you actually don't believe that, but that's where it leads, taken to extremes - religion robbed of hope.

I believe what the Bible teaches in that one must abide in Christ and have faith in order to go to heaven.
2 John 1:8-10 gives this warning to all those who profess a faith in Christ:
"Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,"

Romans 11:17-21 also has this warning:
"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you."

Faith is the key to salvation. I do not believe someone can "live a very wicked life, careless of religion and still go to "heaven". God says in Romans 14:23 "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." and in Hebrews 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

We can't even will to do right left to ourselves - even that is a gift of God - but He gives freely to all who ask, all who are, as it were, "willing to will His will"

Philippians 2:12f
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do His good pleasure.

I am glad that you used that verse. It is God who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure and at the same time we are held responsible for not willing and doing His good pleasure.

It really is a mystery isn't it!

For you could say that He also gives the desire to "will to will", and to "will to will to will" and so on ad infinitum.

Yet somewhere there also has to be free choice, because LOVE can't be compelled. Even God cannot compel us to love Him, against our will - it would be a sort of spiritual rape, which is characteristic of Satan not God.

The balance between these two is the key because both are taught.

That is why I consider myself a Calvinist in respect to doctrine. (I am a Christian first and foremost)

Hyper-Calvinists see only the Sovereignty of God and make the mistake of saying that man is not responsible for his actions. This view is off-balance.

Arminians see mostly the Freewill of man and make the mistake of saying that it is solely man's decision and that God is just an actor in salvation. God is powerless to save and only man holds the deciding vote. A popular quote they may say is 'The Devil wants me in hell, God wants me in Heaven and I must decide." This view is off-balance because it limits God.

Calvinists see both God as Sovereign in salvation and man responsible to have faith. It affirms both the 'whosoever' verses in scripture and the 'God chose you' verses in scripture. It sees both as true and God as good. This view takes into account all of scripture.

What do you think of the verses in Romans 7 where they do what they hate, or inwardly delight in the law of God but don't outwardly obey it?

(I know we disagree on whether not this is pre or post conversion so hopefully I can answer this without getting onto that topic on this thread.)

Paul is describing the battle that is waging within him. The problem is that Paul has two competing desires: The desire to please God and the desire to please himself.

Verses 22 and 23 summarize these competing desires:
"For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."

Paul delights in the law of God in his inner being but in verse 14 he remarks that he is 'of the flesh' (outer being). In other words he still struggles with the desire to sin.

When Paul says he does the things that he hates, he is saying that he chooses the desires of his outer being over the desires of his inner being. He says that this is what he hates because he knows it is sin and an offense to God. He sins because he is still weakened in his flesh.

Verse 18 is very interesting: "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." In other words, I desire to never sin again, but I cannot accomplish that because I am still in the flesh and have fleshly desires. Paul has not yet received a glorified body. This is not an excuse to keep sinning, but a frustrated cry from Paul because he does desire to stop sinning.

Nowhere in Romans 7 is Paul doing something against his Will. It is his Will that chooses either to follow the desires of his inner man or outer man--depending on which desire is greater at the given moment.

JaySaved wrote:

What do you think of the verses in Romans 7 where they do what they hate, or inwardly delight in the law of God but don't outwardly obey it?

(I know we disagree on whether not this is pre or post conversion so hopefully I can answer this without getting onto that topic on this thread.)

I'm not going to purposely bring it up. :-D

I still think it would be helpful if you can show from scripture "the will" is more than your desires. Maybe even if we forget about defining "the will" for now, do you believe you can do something against what you desire to do? I think scripture is plain that you can. This verse sticks out when I think about it.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

I still think it would be helpful if you can show from scripture "the will" is more than your desires.

Do you believe the Bible clearly states that man has the freedom to choose between competing desires? If so, then this is what I am labeling the Will. If it helps then we can use another word to describe "the freedom of a person to choose between desires" instead of Will. I trust that you and I both know many verses in scripture that describe man's choice...many verses that are used in an attempt to disprove Reformed Theology nonetheless.

Maybe even if we forget about defining "the will" for now, do you believe you can do something against what you desire to do? I think scripture is plain that you can. This verse sticks out when I think about it.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

I do not believe you can choose to do something that you do not desire to do. I emphasize the word choose because this is where the Will executes. Here is another example:
I hate brussel sprouts. I do not want to eat brussel sprouts. I do not desire them because I believe they are gross. However, I did eat brussel sprouts a few weeks ago. Did I eat them against my Will? No, I chose to eat them because my love for my wife who made them was a stronger desire than my desire not to eat them. My Will was never violated even though I do not like brussel sprouts.

Also, I have responded to Romans 7:18 in a previous post.

Moving past our defining of the Will what are your thoughts on my assertion of the Will (or whatever you wish to call it)?

Example 2:
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.

I hope that I have shown that a man’s Will is never violated in the course of human events. He is always free to choose what he most desires—as long as the ability to choose is present. With regard to man’s Will, man has the freedom to choose, but is always in bondage to his desires. Thus man’s Will is free, yet bound.

I now want to prove that God does not violate man’s Will when He sovereignty chooses men to become Christians—for this is a common objection to Reformed Theology in that many say it makes men to be nothing more than robots. When God calls a sinner to repentance, He does not violate that sinners Will.

The disagreement I have is that with your example you seem to imply a person is 'changed' before they have the ability to choose (confronted with the Gospel). Am I reading you wrong? Can you show an example in the NT that someone was converted before they heard the Gospel?

Jeannette wrote:

A couple of interesting posts Jay! I'm beginning to be clearer on where you are coming from. At first I did wonder if you were a hyper-Calvinist, probably because you were defending Calvinism so strongly in one or two other threads.

Well, I am glad I showed that I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I wonder how many others think I am a hyper-Calvinist. For all those who are reading...I am not a hyper-Calvinist.

That possibility is no longer a personal one to greatly fear, but seems to be the most likely explanation for certain things, such as the fate of King Saul, (it actually says that when the Holy Spirit came upon him he was "turned into another man") or possibly Solomon who turned to idolatry in later life. Also, in these days, the apostacy of certain former Christian leaders, some of whom have turned to error and led many astray after them.

Are you referring to 1 Samuel 11:6? "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly."

PreachParsly wrote:

The disagreement I have is that with your example you seem to imply a person is 'changed' before they have the ability to choose (confronted with the Gospel). Am I reading you wrong? Can you show an example in the NT that someone was converted before they heard the Gospel?

I should have been clearer on this. In my 'net falling on Johnny' example I am not trying to show that God changes someone before they hear the gospel. I was trying to show that in situations where someone cannot choose, their Will is not violated.

For salvation, I am not saying that God changes a person before they hear the gospel. I am saying that God changes a person through the hearing of the gospel. The gospel must be preached...this is the external calling by which God employs man to spread his word. It is in the external calling of the gospel being spoken that God inwardly calls. When God inwardly calls a person he reveals himself to them and their desires change. They see him for who he truly is--Holy, see themselves for who they truly are--sinners, and they see their sins for what they truly are--abominations that deserve God's punishment. Because man chooses what he desires, he chooses to follow God.

UniqueWebRev wrote in the Hebrews thread:

If God must change our desires for us to choose Jesus, then where is our free-will?

Our Will is free from force and compulsion but is bound to our desires. We desire what we will. It is God who reveals Himself to us so that our desires change. Our desires change because we now see Him in truth. None of this happens against our Will.

I did not have a 'desire' to ask Christ into my life. I chose Jesus for my Lord and Savior, just in the same manner I would choose to jump off a cliff, (and frankly, it felt the same to me) because I had long believed that God was. I had long understood what God was offering me, and what I would have to give in return.

You are telling me that you did not desire to ask Christ in your life, yet you chose Him for your Lord and Savior? How can you surrender your life to Him without the desire to do so? Please give me more detail about this because I don't know anyone who believes this.

You called it 'works' in another post on this thread.

KJV Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Lucifer and his demons believe in Jesus. They don't choose to serve Him.

I agree. Lucifer and his demons believe in the existence of Jesus, but they never desired to serve Him.

Sorry, but if God does more than teach and persuade, cajol, and woo, it is not my free will choice at all, but His desire, His will, and I become nothing but a puppet.

At the moment of salvation, God reveals Himself to a sinner. This sinner doesn't care about God, never met God, and is only living to please his own selfish desires. Then God reveals Himself to the sinner. The sinner sees God in truth-that He is Holy, sees himself in truth-that he is a sinner, and sees his sins in truth-they are an abomination before God and will bring punishment. This is brings repentance and the assurance that through faith salvation will come. The person in this state desires to repent and makes this decision according to their own Will becaue they desire to do so.

There is no puppet in this scenario.

Our relationship with Jesus is a love affair. God already owns us. He can do what He likes with us.

AMEN!

But He cannot gain our willing trust and love by force, and He wants exactly that, and the works of obedience that prove it. He want's true intimacy with us, not mere acquiescence.

I agree. God never forces anyone to choose Him. However, He does choose to whom He will reveal Himself and no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Those whom are given to the Son by the Father will be raised up in the last day. God chooses some and passes over others. Is this fair? Take it up with Romans 9.

PreachParsly wrote:

JaySaved wrote:
Interesting verse you brought up.

"For if I do this willingly..."

Willingly - Greek Hekon
Definition
1. unforced, voluntary, willing
2. of one's own will
3. of one's own accord

"...against my will" is in the Greek Akon which is just the negative of Hekon

How does this violate anything I wrote?

None, if your defining "the will" as your desires or what you want.

I believe you can do things "against your will" as in "against your desire."

Please explain in more detail.

I was thinking of someone under deep conviction that [intellectually] wants to do right, but can't find the power to do it. Or a Christian that may sin. What does it mean to deny yourself other than deny want you might "want" for what you know is right?

Now that we are debating will as opposed to desire, it clarify's the discussion in regards whether one can make a decision against one's desire, one's preferences, to do what is right or good, or to do what one is forced to do by superior force.

This is exactly the situation that faced me as I asked Jesus into my life. We were already acquainted, in that He knew everything He wanted to know about me, and I had studied Him extensively. There was no reason for me not to ask Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour, except that I DID NOT WANT TO!

Consequently, to settle the matter, I tossed out what I felt, wanted, and desired, and treated it as a business decision. I studied all the pro's and con's. I knew what God's obligations were to me under the New Covenant, and what my duties to God were under that same Covenant.

At long last, and truly feeling as if I were jumping off a cliff (I take oaths and vows very seriously), I accepted the Covenant offered to me.

Fortunately, Jesus didn't mind my method of deliberation over the offer of Himself, for as soon as I did I sign on the dotted line, so to speak, I was overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, as if a marriage were being consummated. It was only then that my relationship with Jesus began, and blessedly, has progressed extensively since that time.

Many Blessings,

This is exactly the situation that faced me as I asked Jesus into my life. We were already acquainted, in that He knew everything He wanted to know about me, and I had studied Him extensively. There was no reason for me not to ask Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour, except that I DID NOT WANT TO!

Consequently, to settle the matter, I tossed out what I felt, wanted, and desired, and treated it as a business decision. I studied all the pro's and con's. I knew what God's obligations were to me under the New Covenant, and what my duties to God were under that same Covenant.

When you weighed the pros and the cons you came to a conclusion about Jesus. Did you desire make a choice concerning Jesus?

Our Will is free to choose but is bound to our desires. I propose to you that even though you say you didn't desire Christ, you must have desired something in order to choose to follow Him.

Hi Jay,

just noticed this question (haven't been around so much lately, for various reasons).

I was thinking especially of 1Samuel 10:verses 6 and 9 6 Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.
...So it was, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, that God gave him another heart.

It does sound as if he experienced what we call New Birth, that he was fundamentally changed at that moment.

The quote you mentioned doesn't necessarily mean Saul was "saved", only that the Spirit came upon him.

I expect you were going to say that, to refute what I had said!

In Him

Jeannette

I hope this is not an example of a new birth because Saul sinned and God refused to forgive him. 1 Samuel 15:24-26, "Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may worship the LORD." And Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel."

Saul confessed his sin and God did not receive it. If this is a symbol for new birth then when we commit a sin we are in danger of being rejected by God.

It is true that God gave Saul a new heart, but we must remember the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testament. There are numerous Old Testament passages that refer to the 'Spirit of God coming upon' someone, but in the New Testament we see that the Holy Spirit seals believers:
Ephesians 1:13-14, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

Ephesians 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

I say that the role of the Holy Spirit is different in the Old and New Testaments not the presence of the Holy Spirit. For we know that the Holy Spirit is present before creation, during creation and is Eternal. However, the role played is different. Look at Jesus' words in John 7:38-40, "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

A condition for the Spirit to be received by Christians in the New Testament is for Jesus to first be glorified. Since this had not happened yet, the Spirit was still acting in it's Old Testament function.

In John 16:4-15 Jesus tells us the New Testament function of the Holy Spirit and how it is different from the Old Testament function "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Notice that phrase, 'He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.' Add to this the verses in Ephesians that tell us we are sealed for the day of redemption and you can see that it is because of Jesus being glorified that the Holy Spirit takes on a new role in the New Covenant. I do not believe it is wise to look at Saul as an example of new birth.