Free Will verses Fate/Divine Intervention: Judas Iscariot "free will" verses Saul/Paul "fate"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
268
99
28
it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy
(Romans 9:16)
The earth revolving around the sun instead of Mars "depends not on human will" either. But that doesn't change the fact that man's will is free, enabled, functioning, and sovereign at all times regarding choices that are subjected to it.
man in Philippians 2:13 is passive.
God in Philippians 2:13 is active.

For it is God which worketh in you both [for you] to will and [for you] to do of his good pleasure.
There's no mention of the will of God in this verse. God works in the saints so that the saints will for God's good pleasure and so the saints do God's good pleasure. The only willing mentioned in this verse is the saints'. The saints willingly resist God's working in them when they sin.

we live in Him because we die in Him.

huh??


what kind of will does a dead man have?
The same kind of will that a living man has; free, enabled, functioning, and sovereign at all times regarding choices that are subjected to it.
Example: A spiritually dead man chose purple over not-purple, fine linen over not-fine linen, to fare sumptuously over not-sumptuously, and not to hear Moses & the prophets over hearing Moses & the prophets. When he died physically he chose to request a drop of water over not requesting a drop of water, and requested that Lazarus go talk to his brothers over not requesting for Lazarus to talk to his brothers.
You'll find the same to be true of all living men with no exceptions. Men are men and the will is the will.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
268
99
28
each one, according as he doth purpose in heart,
not out of sorrow or out of necessity
(2 Corinthians 9:7)
Thou art trying the heart, and uprightness dost desire;
I, in the uprightness of my heart, have willingly offered all these
(1 Corinthians 29:17)
speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering:
of every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering.
(Exodus 25:2)
whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it,
an offering of the LORD
(Exodus 35:5)
the assembly brought sacrifices and thank offerings,
and all who were of a willing heart brought burnt offerings.
(2 Chronicles 29:21)
If you think these verses prove that the heart isn't distinct from the will, you'll have to explain how it is you think that.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
268
99
28
Philippians 2:13 is strictly, and entirely, about nothing but the will of God ...
... this verse is describing nothing but the will of God.
... and there is just nothing described in this verse other than the will of God.
That is, quite simply, all the verse contains.
..
The will of God isn't mentioned in this verse.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
12,748
1,170
113
Judas Iscariot was unrepentant of his sin of stealing from the money box this "choice" he made allowed Satan the ability to possess him so that he betrayed Jesus. The apostle Paul on the other hand was unrepentant about sinning against Christians, but Jesus knowing Paul's heart, devinely intervened and personally requested Paul to follow him. Any thoughts on whether salvation is a choice or fate?

I think its a choice of God . Free will to a believer is to do the will of another and finish it. The kind of food the disciples knew not of at first.. .Just as we were deigned to in the beginning. We have the privilege of God working in us with us to both will and do his good pleasure . He promised us h if he has begun the good work of d salvation he will finish it till the end...he also informs us of the belter things that accompanies salvation. He will not forget the good works we offer towards the power of His name as a imputed righteousness
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
8,655
1,878
113
The will of God isn't mentioned in this verse.


God's will... is it really not in the verse?



God's will - what does that mean?

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

This discussion is becoming silly.

1. Here God is doing a work in us for no other reason than his OWN GOOD PLEASURE (his will).
2. Here God is doing a work PROACTIVELY, DIRECTLY, and with his own PERSONAL VOLITION (his will).

Now, if we want to play semantic games, then we have to deal with real semantics, and real language, and real logic... not just whatever subjective presuppositions happen to be in our heads.
To say "God's personal good pleasure", and "God's personal acts of volition" are both, in some weird parallel universe, somehow divorced from the concept of "will".... is to be either irrational or illiterate.

If you're writing forums posts, and you aren't illiterate... that leaves us with irrational.

This argument is irrational.

It doesn't even begin to work semantically.
It is a non-argument.

Both of those ideas, which are stated in the text, SHOW A PERSON'S WILL.
Clearly.

A. It is not possible to do a thing (ACT OF THE WILL) "for your own good pleasure" (DESIRE OF THE WILL) while that action remains, somehow, simultaneously, AGAINST your will.
B. It is just never possible, ever, to directly and intentional CAUSE A THING (act of the will) without it being an ACT OF THE WILL.
C. Summation: you cannot engage in an ACT OF THE WILL without it being an ACT OF THE WILL.

We're talking about logical contradictions here.
These are logical absurdities.


Univocal Meaning - Do we hate dictionaries?

If I say there is "snow" in my yard, and you say the yard is filled with "cold, frozen, crystallized bits of water, stacked a foot high in a big pile of powder, which all fell from the sky on a cold day"... we're obviously talking about the same thing.

It is a clear rule of language that we needn't use identical words to have univocal meaning.
We all know this.
We all use this principle daily.
We quite frequently use different words to mean the same thing.
That is how dictionaries work.
How Dictionaries Work: we take one word, then we explain it's meaning BY USING OTHER WORDS TO SAY THE SAME THING. Here, in English dictionaries, we have nearly 200,000 cases of this... cases of ONE WORD sharing UNIVOCAL MEANING as a completely separate grouping of words.

To say a "group of words" cannot convey the same conceptual meaning as some "particular word", is to deny the use and existence of dictionaries.

Do we hate dictionaries?



Becoming irrational when stumped in an argument:

Whenever someone is stumped in an argument around here, they jump up and say, "TODAY.... LANGUAGE DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT MEANS!"

This happens all the time, and it just gets old.
It's tiresome and irrational.

Whenever someone is stumped in an argument, they will say, "some specific word is NOT stated specifically in the text."
That is usually just an irrational plea to get out of some hole they are in.
That usually has nothing to do with the actual, clear meaning of the text.
It isn't necessary to use some specific word in order to have a clear and specific MEANING... it's a non-argument.
We all prove this, in our own words, on a daily basis.
On a daily basis we all use various collections of words to mean identical or similar things.
We use synonyms, we use metaphors, and sometimes we just state the same things in different ways.

JohnRH, I'm quite certain you do it too.
I am quite certain I could go back through your own posts and find cases of YOU saying the same things in different ways.
As soon as I find just ONE EXAMPLE of you saying similar things in different ways... you immediately lose this entire argument through your own words.
I don't think you want to die on this hill.
It's just not a sound argument.

As Christians, we should really strive to avoid bad arguments, and try to make good arguments.
And if we do make a bad argument, we should simply drop that bad one, and work on a better one.
That's all.
Let's argue our cases... but let's strive for sound arguments.


Conclusion:
1. I apologize if any of this sounded harsh.

2. I really don't mind when people disagree over theological issues.

3. I really don't. I really, really don't.

4. But for me, it's like hearing nails on a chalkboard... that's how I feel when people make a statement that contradicts what they themselves both EXPERIENCE and DO on a daily basis.

5. If we're going to debate, we need to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about what we're saying.

6. None of us are right all the time, but we should at least slow down, breathe deeply, and try to make good, rational arguments.

JohnRC,
The world is full of perfectly intelligent people, with perfectly good intentions, who occasionally, now and then, make a quick statement that isn't logically defensible... because they didn't really think it through. This happens all the time, and it happens to everyone. But a debate forum isn't normal everyday life, it's a place where every word will be parsed and analyzed. Good luck with all your debates.

..
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
268
99
28
God's will... is it really not in the verse?



God's will - what does that mean?

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

This discussion is becoming silly.

1. Here God is doing a work in us for no other reason than his OWN GOOD PLEASURE (his will).
2. Here God is doing a work PROACTIVELY, DIRECTLY, and with his own PERSONAL VOLITION (his will).

Now, if we want to play semantic games, then we have to deal with real semantics, and real language, and real logic... not just whatever subjective presuppositions happen to be in our heads.
To say "God's personal good pleasure", and "God's personal acts of volition" are both, in some weird parallel universe, somehow divorced from the concept of "will".... is to be either irrational or illiterate.

If you're writing forums posts, and you aren't illiterate... that leaves us with irrational.

This argument is irrational.

It doesn't even begin to work semantically.
It is a non-argument.

Both of those ideas, which are stated in the text, SHOW A PERSON'S WILL.
Clearly.

A. It is not possible to do a thing (ACT OF THE WILL) "for your own good pleasure" (DESIRE OF THE WILL) while that action remains, somehow, simultaneously, AGAINST your will.
B. It is just never possible, ever, to directly and intentional CAUSE A THING (act of the will) without it being an ACT OF THE WILL.
C. Summation: you cannot engage in an ACT OF THE WILL without it being an ACT OF THE WILL.

We're talking about logical contradictions here.
These are logical absurdities.


Univocal Meaning - Do we hate dictionaries?

If I say there is "snow" in my yard, and you say the yard is filled with "cold, frozen, crystallized bits of water, stacked a foot high in a big pile of powder, which all fell from the sky on a cold day"... we're obviously talking about the same thing.

It is a clear rule of language that we needn't use identical words to have univocal meaning.
We all know this.
We all use this principle daily.
We quite frequently use different words to mean the same thing.
That is how dictionaries work.
How Dictionaries Work: we take one word, then we explain it's meaning BY USING OTHER WORDS TO SAY THE SAME THING. Here, in English dictionaries, we have nearly 200,000 cases of this... cases of ONE WORD sharing UNIVOCAL MEANING as a completely separate grouping of words.

To say a "group of words" cannot convey the same conceptual meaning as some "particular word", is to deny the use and existence of dictionaries.

Do we hate dictionaries?



Becoming irrational when stumped in an argument:

Whenever someone is stumped in an argument around here, they jump up and say, "TODAY.... LANGUAGE DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT MEANS!"

This happens all the time, and it just gets old.
It's tiresome and irrational.

Whenever someone is stumped in an argument, they will say, "some specific word is NOT stated specifically in the text."
That is usually just an irrational plea to get out of some hole they are in.
That usually has nothing to do with the actual, clear meaning of the text.
It isn't necessary to use some specific word in order to have a clear and specific MEANING... it's a non-argument.
We all prove this, in our own words, on a daily basis.
On a daily basis we all use various collections of words to mean identical or similar things.
We use synonyms, we use metaphors, and sometimes we just state the same things in different ways.

JohnRH, I'm quite certain you do it too.
I am quite certain I could go back through your own posts and find cases of YOU saying the same things in different ways.
As soon as I find just ONE EXAMPLE of you saying similar things in different ways... you immediately lose this entire argument through your own words.
I don't think you want to die on this hill.
It's just not a sound argument.

As Christians, we should really strive to avoid bad arguments, and try to make good arguments.
And if we do make a bad argument, we should simply drop that bad one, and work on a better one.
That's all.
Let's argue our cases... but let's strive for sound arguments.


Conclusion:
1. I apologize if any of this sounded harsh.

2. I really don't mind when people disagree over theological issues.

3. I really don't. I really, really don't.

4. But for me, it's like hearing nails on a chalkboard... that's how I feel when people make a statement that contradicts what they themselves both EXPERIENCE and DO on a daily basis.

5. If we're going to debate, we need to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about what we're saying.

6. None of us are right all the time, but we should at least slow down, breathe deeply, and try to make good, rational arguments.

JohnRC,
The world is full of perfectly intelligent people, with perfectly good intentions, who occasionally, now and then, make a quick statement that isn't logically defensible... because they didn't really think it through. This happens all the time, and it happens to everyone. But a debate forum isn't normal everyday life, it's a place where every word will be parsed and analyzed. Good luck with all your debates.

..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The will of God still isn't mentioned in the verse.