interesting

[pickles]

With all the disscusons on free will and destination teachings, when reading Luke last night I found this very interesting.
It told me that God has a plan but we can reject it.
Now personally what ever God Our Father's will is, I accept, but I felt these few words speak volumes.
What do you think?

Luke 7;30 The Pharisees and the lawyers, on the other hand, by failing to recieve his baptism
defeated God's plan in their regard.

I also found it interesting that lawyers are in the same group as pharisees.
I apoligise to all lawyers, I know many are good people.

God bless, pickles

 

[machew]

I think many are afraid of the idea of free-will because they don't perceive a God big enough to be sovereign despite free-will. A lot of people have a problem with free-will because it completely removes any explanation that seems logical to them. A lot of people for some reason need it to be completely comprehendable for them to believe it. I hold the view that God is so big that He is beyond the comprehension of human understanding. God has no limits and therefore cannot conceivably be limited in His plan by free-will. This makes no logical sense, but since when is God bound and limited by our logic and understanding of Him?

Blessings,

Machew

 

[Shwagga]

With all the disscusons on free will and destination teachings, when reading Luke last night I found this very interesting.
It told me that God has a plan but we can reject it.
Now personally what ever God Our Father's will is, I accept, but I felt these few words speak volumes.
What do you think?

Luke 7;30 The Pharisees and the lawyers, on the other hand, by failing to recieve his baptism
defeated God's plan in their regard.

I also found it interesting that lawyers are in the same group as pharisees.
I apoligise to all lawyers, I know many are good people.

God bless, pickles

It's amazing how when something is on your heart and God knows you are desiring to know about something and He shows you it.

It's an experience that no one can take away from you.

God bless you Pickles.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

With all the disscusons on free will and destination teachings, when reading Luke last night I found this very interesting.
It told me that God has a plan but we can reject it.
Now personally what ever God Our Father's will is, I accept, but I felt these few words speak volumes.
What do you think?

Luke 7;30 The Pharisees and the lawyers, on the other hand, by failing to recieve his baptism
defeated God's plan in their regard.

I also found it interesting that lawyers are in the same group as pharisees.
I apoligise to all lawyers, I know many are good people.

God bless, pickles

Good verse. I would consider this one of the best, prima facie and considered in itself, against a Calvinist understanding of Salvation. Let me collapse your remarks on “free will” into the issue of Calvinism, for a moment. As a Calvinist, this is how I would understand the verse:

I. Howard Marshall (who is no Calvinist!) notes that “βουλή [plan or purpose or counsel], especially when qualified by τοῦ θεοῦ [God], is Lucan (23:51; Acts, 7x; 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17**); it refers especially to God’s plan of salvation...” (New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke). Marshall’s observation is supported by Acts 2:23 and Acts 20:27, for instance. Thus, the verse states that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s plan of salvation with reference to themselves.

(For my reading of “with reference to themselves” cf. UBS Handbook series and Word Studies in the NT. UBS: “tēn boulēn tou theou ēthetēsan eis heautous ‘rejected the will of God with reference to themselves’.” Word Studies: “Against themselves (εἰς ἑαυτού&#962. More strictly, with reference to themselves.”)

If this is correct, and Marshall is no lightweight and certainly isn’t trying to soften the verse in order to prop up Calvinism, then I don’t see how it presents any difficulty for Calvinism. The meaning of this verse would be similar to Acts 13.46: “…’It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.’”

Calvinists obviously believe that men reject the plan of salvation (otherwise we would have to believe everyone is saved, wouldn’t we?), so I don’t see that either of these verses, which seem to be getting at the same thing, contribute to the discussion. Having said that, I don’t see how it adds anything to the issue of free will either.

I’ve already said that Calvinists don’t deny that men have free wills and they make choices. There is a definite disagreement between Arminianism and Calvinism in regards to the issue of free will. But it’s not exactly fair to cast the disagreement in terms of those who affirm that man’s will is free and those who deny that man’s will is free.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I think many are afraid of the idea of free-will because they don't perceive a God big enough to be sovereign despite free-will. A lot of people have a problem with free-will because it completely removes any explanation that seems logical to them. A lot of people for some reason need it to be completely comprehendable for them to believe it. I hold the view that God is so big that He is beyond the comprehension of human understanding. God has no limits and therefore cannot conceivably be limited in His plan by free-will. This makes no logical sense, but since when is God bound and limited by our logic and understanding of Him?

Blessings,

Machew

Which group of Christians, particularly, are afraid of free will or deny it? My point is that the discussion of "free will" is taking place at such a surface level that it's practically useless. Of course, I'm not naive enough to miss that most non-Calvinists think it is the Calvinists who deny free will. Here are some quotes from Calvinists and Calvinist documents to consider:

Robert Reymond: "Reformed theology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or that men exercise their wills countless times a day” (New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith 373).

J. I. Packer: “Making known his will of precept, and governing the responses of human free agency to it, is one means whereby God accomplishes his will of events, even when the response is one of unbelief and disobedience” (Concise Theology: Wisdom).

“Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; John 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault” (ibid: Definite Redemption).

Henry Stob: “Calvinists are not ‘free willists.’ They assert indeed that man is free—that he is a moral agent not caught up in the wheel of things or determined by mere natural antecedents” (qtd. in Reymond, 374).

Theadore Beza and William Perkins: “Beza and Perkins assume, moreover, a category of divine permission and the existence, as well, of contingent events and free will in the world” (Muller. PRRD: Vol 1. 128).

Westminster Confession of Faith (the document all Calvinist Presbyterians in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of America subscribe to): “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, *nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away,* but rather established.

Westminster Shorter Catechism: “Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God” (Question 13).​

Now it's very easy and often very convenient to psychologize those who disagree with you. Let's take a look at some of your psychologizing:

Now what exactly does it mean to be "big enough to be sovereign despite free will"?? I've run up against this on several occasions. Each time it turns out to be something like a slight of hand: "My God is so sovereign that he isn't sovereign over our wills. Thus, my God's non-sovereignty over the will of man counts as more sovereignty than your sovereignty in which God's sovereignty extends to the will of man."

A lot of people have a problem with free-will because it completely removes any explanation that seems logical to them.

I might as well say, adopting the non-free willist stance for argument's sake, that a lot of peole have a problem denying free will because it completely removes what seems logical to them: man's responsibility in light of God's foreordination.

This makes no logical sense, but since when is God bound and limited by our logic and understanding of Him?

Well if your starting point is that your theology doesn't need to be logical then there probably isn't any hope of us having a fruitful discussion. For example, any arguments which you bring to those who deny free will (or to those who affirm free will, but disagree with you as to its nature, such as Calvinists) can dismiss your arguments on the grounds that you're simply trying to apply logic to God. And of course, judging from what you've said, you would employ the same tactic.

 

[pickles]

Good verse. I would consider this one of the best, prima facie and considered in itself, against a Calvinist understanding of Salvation. Let me collapse your remarks on “free will” into the issue of Calvinism, for a moment. As a Calvinist, this is how I would understand the verse:

I. Howard Marshall (who is no Calvinist!) notes that “βουλή [plan or purpose or counsel], especially when qualified by τοῦ θεοῦ [God], is Lucan (23:51; Acts, 7x; 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17**); it refers especially to God’s plan of salvation...” (New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke). Marshall’s observation is supported by Acts 2:23 and Acts 20:27, for instance. Thus, the verse states that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s plan of salvation with reference to themselves.

(For my reading of “with reference to themselves” cf. UBS Handbook series and Word Studies in the NT. UBS: “tēn boulēn tou theou ēthetēsan eis heautous ‘rejected the will of God with reference to themselves’.” Word Studies: “Against themselves (εἰς ἑαυτού&#962. More strictly, with reference to themselves.”)

If this is correct, and Marshall is no lightweight and certainly isn’t trying to soften the verse in order to prop up Calvinism, then I don’t see how it presents any difficulty for Calvinism. The meaning of this verse would be similar to Acts 13.46: “…’It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.’”

Calvinists obviously believe that men reject the plan of salvation (otherwise we would have to believe everyone is saved, wouldn’t we?), so I don’t see that either of these verses, which seem to be getting at the same thing, contribute to the discussion. Having said that, I don’t see how it adds anything to the issue of free will either.

I’ve already said that Calvinists don’t deny that men have free wills and they make choices. There is a definite disagreement between Arminianism and Calvinism in regards to the issue of free will. But it’s not exactly fair to cast the disagreement in terms of those who affirm that man’s will is free and those who deny that man’s will is free.

Credo, I wish I was able to understand what you have posted here, with my learning disabuilities it simply is not disernible to me. I wish I had your gift in this.
I can say that I am not well verced enough to speak to ether calvinism or Arminianism.
I trust compleatly in what God Our Father reviels is the scriptures.
Ive tried to grasp what is often disscussed, but have found that faith in understanding is the true method to follow.
From what has been revieled to me so far is that simply God Our Father knows all that has, is and will be.
That we are his children in Jesus, that Jesus will keep us and will not let us be lost from his grasp.
I do believe we can compleatly refuse him, but is would be comparible to rejecting God in the same way satan did.
From what I have read in the scriptures though all is known By God Our Father , every oppertunity is provided to those that refuse him.
I believe that this is because God Our Father is a God of hope, just as he changed his mind in the OT he is willing to in Jesus for us.
I also think that if we say this cannot be that God Our Father will say it can!
I go forward each day trusting in Jesus that God Our Father is always with me by His Holy Spirit.
That all is to His glory, and in his perfect love for all of us.
Faith, hope Love.
I also believe that to anger him is not very productive.
I think that covers it.
God bless, pickles

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Credo, I wish I was able to understand what you have posted here, with my learning disabuilities it simply is not disernible to me. I wish I had your gift in this.
I can say that I am not well verced enough to speak to ether calvinism or Arminianism.
I trust compleatly in what God Our Father reviels is the scriptures.
Ive tried to grasp what is often disscussed, but have found that faith in understanding is the true method to follow.
From what has been revieled to me so far is that simply God Our Father knows all that has, is and will be.
That we are his children in Jesus, that Jesus will keep us and will not let us be lost from his grasp.
I do believe we can compleatly refuse him, but is would be comparible to rejecting God in the same way satan did.
From what I have read in the scriptures though all is known By God Our Father , every oppertunity is provided to those that refuse him.
I believe that this is because God Our Father is a God of hope, just as he changed his mind in the OT he is willing to in Jesus for us.
I also think that if we say this cannot be that God Our Father will say it can!
I go forward each day trusting in Jesus that God Our Father is always with me by His Holy Spirit.
That all is to His glory, and in his perfect love for all of us.
Faith, hope Love.
I also believe that to anger him is not very productive.
I think that covers it.
God bless, pickles

Maybe I did't state it clearly. Basically I think the verse means that the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected God's plan of salvation. If that's true, then I don't think the verse adds much to the discussion of free will or Calvinism since persons on all sides of the debate would acknowledge that persons can and do reject God's plan of salvation.

 

[pickles]

Maybe I did't state it clearly. Basically I think the verse means that the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected God's plan of salvation. If that's true, then I don't think the verse adds much to the discussion of free will or Calvinism since persons on all sides of the debate would acknowledge that persons can and do reject God's plan of salvation.

Thankyou Credo, this I can understand. Thanks for clarifying.
Im sorry I misunderstood your post.
The only thing I might speak to is that the scripture does not say what Gods plan was for them. Im sure it is safe to assume it was salvation, but one has to always wonder in God Our Father.
I do say that I cannot always keep up with the debate though,
If you can clarify? What is the debate?
As simply as you can, it would be a help to me.
Only if you want to though, dont want to put you on the spot.
Thankyou and God bless, pickles

 

[Glowing]

A couple of Conclusion's that I have drawn from studing is that really no one has made it out of here on anything more than a wing a prayer and by the seat of their diaper; All you Really need is the common sense of a 13 year old, and if you don't have that then your protected by being under the age of accountability; Children & Handicapped.
Becareful though when you have the gift of academics, as you could end up with an EGO and remember when Christ held up that little Child? I think in my opinion that, this has everything to do with EGO!
Love & Peace to ALL in CHRIST Forever!!!

 

[pickles]

A couple of Conclusion's that I have drawn from studing is that really no one has made it out of here on anything more than a wing a prayer and by the seat of their diaper; All you Really need is the common sense of a 13 year old, and if you don't have that then your protected by being under the age of accountability; Children & Handicapped.
Becareful though when you have the gift of academics, as you could end up with an EGO and remember when Christ held up that little Child? I think in my opinion that, this has everything to do with EGO!
Love & Peace to ALL in CHRIST Forever!!!

Thankyou glowing, actually I do consider my retention, comprehention and of course spelling issues to be a gift. I have to rely on Jesus always to hold and recieve understanding. It also makes it very easy to honor others above myself.
It keeps me always wondering and praising God, for even the (bad?)
God created all and said it is good.
God bless, pickles

 

[mpaper345]

The purpose of God is to have people dwell with Him for all eternity that made the choice to live for God for then it is true love.

God gave mankind a choice whether to believe or not for it is based on true love.

If mankind did not have a choice then it would not be based on true love but robotic love.

A person can program their computer to say I love you but it does not love you.

God does not want robotic love for then it is not true love and God forcing someone to love Him.

It is based on true love so God gave mankind a choice whether or not.

If people did not have a choice whether to believe or not then God would of saved all people but then it would not be true love,and common sense tells you that God does not robotic love,for people would only live for God because they do not have a choice.

People need to understand what the Bible is saying.

We are predestined to salvation means that God already had the plan of salvation in His mind before He laid down the foundation of the world,so it was the same as mankind already had that salvation in the beginning,and the salvation is to mankind in general,whosoever will can be saved.

The Bible says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world although we know it did not happen until 4000 years later,for God calls things that have not yet happened as though they already happened.

The same as predestination,and that salvation is to mankind in general,whosoever wants that salvation.

Matt

 

[OreoSoleil]

This topic is debated alot -- key things to keep in mind -- Romans 5 and Romans 8.

The real fact is no matter what we choose -- God brings good from it -- the Good He brings from that is -- His Glory.

That part is never debate-able.

When we decide to turn out back on God -- He gives us over to our carnal ways. The main point is that -- He is there wanting us to come back. Of course only God can remove the veil from our eyes.

We can't comprehend it because - we aren't God and would never on our own choose something so opposite from us.

The main fact to remember is - God saved us when we never deserved it -- not whether we chose him or not.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You know, I couldn't help but notice that the people around this forum rely on and bring up the free will issue a lot.

A while ago I joking referred to free will as the "cause of and answer to all of life's problems." Maybe some people actually believe that, it sure does seem to be at the center of theology in some respects around here.

I'm only pointing this out because persons may get the impression that I'm starting a lot of free will discussions. I'm not, I'm only responding to people who have already brought up the free will issue.

The purpose of God is to have people dwell with Him for all eternity that made the choice to live for God for then it is true love.

Why did God create persons that he knew would not dwell with him for all eternity? Doesn't it seem a little irrational for God to know that if he creates Carl Sagan that Carl Sagan will not dwell with him for all eternity and then create Carl Sagan anyway?

God gave mankind a choice whether to believe or not for it is based on true love.

So true love must be based on a choice? Does that mean a mother's love isn't true love since it's not based on a choice? Does that mean a 1 year old's love isn't true love since it's not based on a choice?

If mankind did not have a choice then it would not be based on true love but robotic love.

Babies and mothers are robots?

A person can program their computer to say I love you but it does not love you.

A computer doesn't have consciousness, but a mother does. Yet the mother didn't choose to love her 7 month old baby, she does it naturally. Are you suggesting that all women are robots or simply that they become robots when they have a child?

God does not want robotic love for then it is not true love and God forcing someone to love Him.

"Forcing" is a very odd word to use. I usually don't describe myself as "forcing" my computer to send this post. When we speak of forcing personal agents to do things we usually mean that we made them do it against their will, but in that case it doesn't make sense to describe them as robots.

If people did not have a choice whether to believe or not then God would of saved all people but then it would not be true love,and common sense tells you that God does not robotic love,for people would only live for God because they do not have a choice.

Let me ask you, do you think that once we get to heaven we will have the choice (and that some people will actually make the choice) to go to hell instead? Or simply to sin (tell a lie or steal something)?

We are predestined to salvation means that God already had the plan of salvation in His mind before He laid down the foundation of the world

So when the Bible talks about people being predestined what it really means is that a plan was predestined. God predestined the plan of salvation.

Where exactly does the Bible say that, by the way?

so it was the same as mankind already had that salvation in the beginning,and the salvation is to mankind in general,whosoever will can be saved.

So if I say "whosoever can jump over the moon will win my respect" that means that all persons are capable of jumping over the moon?

 

[greatkraw]

With all the disscusons on free will and destination teachings, when reading Luke last night I found this very interesting.
It told me that God has a plan but we can reject it.
Now personally what ever God Our Father's will is, I accept, but I felt these few words speak volumes.
What do you think?

Luke 7;30 The Pharisees and the lawyers, on the other hand, by failing to recieve his baptism
defeated God's plan in their regard.

I also found it interesting that lawyers are in the same group as pharisees.
I apoligise to all lawyers, I know many are good people.

God bless, pickles

did you hear about the lawyer the architect and the builder having a quarrel?

they were arguing about which was the oldest profession

the builder said in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth out of chaos

that is clearly an exercise in building so building is the oldest profession



the architect said, NO

in the begiinning God created the heaven and the Earth out of chaos- this obviously implies a design so architecture is the oldes profession

the lawyer said

you are both wring; who do you think created the chaos????????????????????

 

[pickles]

did you hear about the lawyer the architect and the builder having a quarrel?

they were arguing about which was the oldest profession

the builder said in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth out of chaos

that is clearly an exercise in building so building is the oldest profession



the architect said, NO

in the begiinning God created the heaven and the Earth out of chaos- this obviously implies a design so architecture is the oldes profession

the lawyer said

you are both wring; who do you think created the chaos????????????????????

Nice,
I enjoyed the laugh, thankyou greatkraw!
God bless, pickles