Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issue is whether there remains any remnent of ability within a person to make an independent decision for God prior to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

Calvinism says no and calls their belief "Total Depravity."

Arminianism says yes, and calls their position "Partial Depravity."

The Bible says “no”, and it says so many places. Jesus was very clear that unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot even see the kingdom of God, much less choose it (John 3:3). Partial Depravity gives natural man ability to receive the things of God, which the Scriptures specifically deny (1 Corinthians 2:14). Human Ability is expressly denied in Scripture (John 1:12-13, John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 9:16). Armians will frequently refer to Scriptures that command men to choose. However, the permission to choose, and even the command to choose does not equal the ability to choose. (In fact, these commands are part of the indictment against the wicked, ex. Pharoah).

Canuckster1127 wrote:Nor do I practically need to know in terms of my own salvation and in terms of someone else's, my only responsibility is to proclaim the good news and allow the "mystery" an opportunity to take place in their lives.

I think this is part of many such mysteries where the Bible seems to present a good case for both positions but in the end, we lack the perception to completely grasp the whole picture.

I agree that one can be truly saved and hold either position (I used to be a saved Arminian). The reason that it is important is because it affects the way that the gospel is presented. Arminianism will naturally lead to a gospel that is pleasing to man, leading to the modern “seeker-sensitive” gospel (the one where words like “sin”, “repent”, and “judgment” are missing. (It also led to the Roman Catholic practice of Indulgences, which is the issue that fired the Reformation in the first place). It's no coincidence that there hasn't been a true “revival” since the Great Awakening in the mid-1700's, led by Calvinists (Whitefield, Edwards, Stoddard). The “Seeker Sensitive” gospel is great for church growth, but not for Revival. I'm a firm believer that, if we are going to see a real Revival in our lifetimes, we need to get back to preaching "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).

Another issue to consider is the inerrancy of Scripture. Did men exercise total “free will” in writing the Bible, or did a Sovereign God meticulously oversee every jot and tittle? If we believe the former, how can we trust the Bible at all? Certainly, men wrote accoding to their will (no one forced them to write). But all true Christians believe that the Bible is God's Sovereign Word.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I wonder how the Church managed to get along for 1500 or so years before this debate was framed in the manner it was by the two chief protagonists.

The debate didn't start with Calvin/Arminius. It goes as far back as Augustine/Pelagius (though Pelagius further from the truth than modern Arminians). Pelagius believed in total free will and denied original sin, believing that infants were born “tablarosa”, a blank slate. Luther and Erasmus had similar debates a generation before Calvin. (In fact, I'm not even sure why Calvinism is called such, other than the fact that Calvin agreed with Augustine and Luther).

FFC wrote:PL, you make a very good case. I praise God that He in his sovereignty called out to me and loved me and brought me into His kingdom. It is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. I know that it is His will alone. I just can't get by the idea that He in His love and mercy does not give everyone the opportunity to come to him. I don't mind being wrong...I just feel like something is not lining up.

You sound like what has become known as a “four-point” Calvinist. Usually the one point that the 4-pointers object to is “Limited Atonement”. This view is inconsistent. One cannot rationally accept "Unconditional Election" while at the same time reject "Limited Atonement".

The issue really comes down to this question. What did Jesus Christ actually accomplish at Calvary? Did He actually save anybody, or did He just “give everyone the opportunity to come to him”? Did He actually pay for anyone sins, or just give us all a “blank check” (an analogy often given in Arminian Churches)? The Scripture are pretty clear. Christ does not make salvation a mere possibility, but actually saves HIS people.

...He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
...Christ came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).
...Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
...We have actual redemption (Ephesians 1:7).
...Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
...He gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14).
...He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

Christ's work of redemption is finished. He said so Himself. Catch phrases such as "accepting Jesus" or "receiving His offer of salvation" are common among Arminians, but are foreign to the Bible. The scriptures are clear. Christ has paid the full price for sins, meaning that those whose sins he paid for CANNOT go to Hell. Biblical Salvation is not an “offer” that's just put on a table for us to accept or reject. As Calvinists, we believe that Our Saviour actually saves, and our Redeemer actually redeems. He has secured our eternal redemption (Heb 9:12).

So now comes the tough question. Whose sin did Jesus pay for? The Arminian and other free-willers will say everybody. The usually point to verses that mention "all men" or the "whole world". If this interpretation is correct, then we have some problems.

1.) If Christ made full payment for every person's sins, then no one could ever go to Hell. If so, then what kind of “payment” are we left with?

2.) If Christ work on the cross was intended to save every single person, then His work is a failure. His work did not accomplish what He intended.

3.) If Christ intended to save every single person, than He came to do His own will, not the will of the Father who elected those who would be saved.

Isaiah prophesied that Christ would "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied"; yet if Christ went to the cross with the intention of saving every individual, he certainly has been defeated and cannot be satisfied. But our Lord is not defeated; all power has been given to him in heaven and earth. His sufferings do accomplish what he intends, for the salvation he provides is not abstract and universal, it is particular and personal.

Another problem with viewing "the world" as every single individual is that it would teach universal salvation. For example, if the referent of "world" in 2 Cor. 5:19 ("God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself") were taken to be every single individual, then that verse teaches that Christ's work was to the effect of reconciling every man to God (i.e. universal salvation).

When you say, “I just can't get by the idea that He in His love and mercy does not give everyone the opportunity to come to him”, I'm reminded of the objections cited by Paul in Romans 9.

God tells us over and over again in His Word, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy." In response to this, Paul deals with a couple of questions in Romans 9.

Romans 9:14
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?"

Romans 9:19
"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?""

The question I have for my Arminian brothers to consider for now is, "Does your view of the Atonement prompt such questions?" If not, then it probably doesn't agree with Paul's view.

More tomorrow. God Bless,

PL

Byblos wrote:PL,

Couldn't the same argument be said of total depravity? If the will of God and our will are mutually exclusive, what would be the point of a saviour? To save us from what? For it was already determined whether or not we are saved. What is the lesson derived from Jesus' life, death and resurrection if our destiny was already mapped out for us? What would then be the meaning of being born again into Christ?

You are correct in saying we could potentially use our free will to never sin and therefore, have no need for a saviour. But the reality of the matter is that we do not. And we do not, specifically because of our sinful nature. A nature God recognizes full well and for that very reason, sent us a saviour, knowing we could not do it of our own free will. Wouldn't that be the point of freeing us from the constraints of the law? Because we could not keep the law to the letter on our own, no matter how hard we tried?

God Bless,

Byblos.

Byblos,

Define sinful nature. Isn't that the opposite of free will? Our wills are free only in the sense that we do not act by compulsion. In fact, our wills are slaves to our own nature. Let me use the analogy of a buffet to show how are wills are not free.

If I go to a buffet, you would agree that I have the "free will" to choose whatever I want to eat. In that, no one could argue.

However, does that mean that my will is totally free to choose equally among the foods offered? No. I'm naturally going to choose what I like, and not choose what I do not like. If a buffet has crab legs as well as liver and onions, I'll guarantee you that there is a 100% chance that I will choose the crab legs and a 0% chance that I will choose the liver and onions. Therefore, my will is not totally free. It is a slave to my own nature and my own lusts.

So it is with our will in Spiritual matters. Man will always choose according to his own sinful nature. Unregenerate man…

…is deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)
…drinks iniquity like water (Job 15:16)
…does not seek God (Romans 3:11)
…loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19-20)
…is dead in trespasses (Ephesians 2:1)
…cannot understand things that are Spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14)
…is a slave to sin (John 8:34)
…can no more choose good than a leopard can change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23)

This is what our "free will" profits us. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and the flesh profits nothing. We must be born of the Spirit.

Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones is another good example. Ezekiel could preach the gospel to those bones from now to eternity, but unless the Spirit gives them life, they will never choose anything. They are dead.

Christ had to die and rise again because of our depravity. In order for the elect to be saved, justice had to be served for their sins. However, even this event was predestined, as I showed earlier. It was the plan of God all along to pay "the ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28; Hebrews 9:28) from the foundation of the world. (Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8),

As far as Predestination goes, it is really not debatable in Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches it without apology over and over again. Most Arminians are aware of these Scriptures, but choose not to deal with them. I know. I used to be one.

...God chooses his own heritage. (Psalm 33:12)
...God creates the wicked for destruction. (Proverbs 16:4)
...Many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
...As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
...He foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified His elect. (Romans 8:28-30)
...God chose Jacob over Esau “not of works” but “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”. (Romans 9:10-13)
...God creates “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” and “vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory”. (Romans 9:22-23)
...God did not appoint His elect to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
...The Pharisees were appointed to be disobedient to the Word (1 Peter 2:8-9) (and thank God they were).
...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)
...We were predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will. (Ephesian 1:11)
...He 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. (2 Timothy 1:9)
...God from the beginning chose us for salvation. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
…certain men … long ago were marked out for condemnation (Jude 1:4)
...Those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful. (Revelation 17:14)

I like David Chilton's explanation...

"The Biblical doctrine of predestination, when rightly understood, should not be a source of fear for the Christian; rather, it is a source of comfort and assurance.

The opposite of the doctrine of predestination is not freedom, but meaninglessness; if the smallest details of our lives are not part of the Plan of God, if they are not created facts with a divinely determined significance, then they can have no meaning at all. They cannot be "working together for good." But the Christian who understands the truth of God's sovereignty is assured thereby that nothing in his life is without meaning and purpose — that God has ordained all things for His glory and for our ultimate good. This means that even our sufferings are part of a consistent Plan; that when we are opposed, we need not fear that God has abandoned us. We can be secure in the knowledge that, since we have been "called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28), all things in our life are a necessary aspect of that purpose. Martin Luther said: "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. . . . For the Christian's chief and only comfort in adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded." - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957), pp. 80, 84.

puritan lad wrote:

Byblos wrote:PL,

Couldn't the same argument be said of total depravity? If the will of God and our will are mutually exclusive, what would be the point of a saviour? To save us from what? For it was already determined whether or not we are saved. What is the lesson derived from Jesus' life, death and resurrection if our destiny was already mapped out for us? What would then be the meaning of being born again into Christ?

You are correct in saying we could potentially use our free will to never sin and therefore, have no need for a saviour. But the reality of the matter is that we do not. And we do not, specifically because of our sinful nature. A nature God recognizes full well and for that very reason, sent us a saviour, knowing we could not do it of our own free will. Wouldn't that be the point of freeing us from the constraints of the law? Because we could not keep the law to the letter on our own, no matter how hard we tried?

God Bless,

Byblos.

Byblos,

Define sinful nature. Isn't that the opposite of free will?

Well, this is how I understand it (rather than giving you the formal definition, which I have no clue what it is): Man's sinful nature means we have the tendency to sin (against God that is) but we also have the capability to not sin as well. If we choose to sin against God (continuously) then the consequences of our actions is hell. If we choose to walk the path that Jesus laid out for us then again the consequences of our actions is heaven. That's how I understand it. As you can see, it is exactly free will, not the opposite of it.

puritan lad wrote: Our wills are free only in the sense that we do not act by compulsion. In fact, our wills are slaves to our own nature. Let me use the analogy of a buffet to show how are wills are not free.

If I go to a buffet, you would agree that I have the "free will" to choose whatever I want to eat. In that, no one could argue.

However, does that mean that my will is totally free to choose equally among the foods offered? No. I'm naturally going to choose what I like, and not choose what I do not like. If a buffet has crab legs as well as liver and onions, I'll guarantee you that there is a 100% chance that I will choose the crab legs and a 0% chance that I will choose the liver and onions. Therefore, my will is not totally free. It is a slave to my own nature and my own lusts.

Couldn't disagree more. Of course our free will is not absolute. No one would argue that. It certainly is discernable by and limited to our five senses. I'll even extend the limitation to the observable universe, which would still make it limited and not absolute. But within those confines, the choices are limitless. In the buffet example above, I could very well choose to eat both or neither. I could choose to go to Burger King and eat a whopper or fly to Paris and have an escargot dinner. That's why analogies are really meaningless.

puritan lad wrote:So it is with our will in Spiritual matters. Man will always choose according to his own sinful nature.

Most of the time, maybe, but not always. That again would render us mere marionettes, being played out by strings from up above.

Many of the quotes you used below (and elsewhere) to support your position, if plucked out of the bible as is, without looking further into the text, would probably support your position a great deal. But if we dig a little deeper, many of them simply don't show your position and some in fact show the exact opposite. I'm going to look at a few and show you what I mean. John 6:38 and 6:44, both of which you've used quite often, state the following:

John 6:38-39 wrote:38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And 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.

and

John 6:44 wrote: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.

By looking at the above verses alone, they do seem to support what you contend, that it is God's will at work and not our choice. But if you look at John 6:40 just in between those 2 verses, Jesus clearly tells us what God's will is and it is this:

John 6:40 wrote:40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

What does John 6:40 tell us God's will is? It is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. That is the Father's will according to Jesus, that whoever believes in Jesus is doing God's will, not that God already made the choice for us. His will is precisely that we are drawn to Jesus and must choose Him in order to have eternal life.

Let me see if I can look up a few others. 1 Cor 2:14 is not saying we have no free will because we cannot discern spiritual things. If you go back to 1 Cor 2:12-13 it is basically saying we need to be drawn spiritually, then we can recognize the choices we have to make. But it is still our choice to make it. Here're the verses (note the highlighted):

1 Cor 2:12-13 wrote:12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

puritan lad wrote: Unregenerate man…

…is deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)
…drinks iniquity like water (Job 15:16)
…does not seek God (Romans 3:11)
…loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19-20)
…is dead in trespasses (Ephesians 2:1)
…cannot understand things that are Spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14)
…is a slave to sin (John 8:34)
…can no more choose good than a leopard can change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23)

I'm very tired tonight and won't be able to comment on all of the above one by one but most of them show our sinful nature but do not deny our ability to choose. Look at John 8:34 it says:

34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

Taken out of context, it again supports what you contend but if you look a little further (and back), you will notice Jesus was talking to the Jews who had believed him. After 34 He goes on to explain what he meant by slave to sin as follows:

John 8:35-36 wrote:35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

. So He's telling them if they believe in Him they will not be slaves to sin and will be free indeed. Nothing here about not having the choice, it's the opposite.

puritan lad wrote:Christ had to die and rise again because of our depravity. In order for the elect to be saved, justice had to be served for their sins.

ok, but who are the elect? They are the believers in Jesus Christ like Jesus clearly explained what God's will is in John 6:44.

puritan lad wrote:As far as Predestination goes, it is really not debatable in Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches it without apology over and over again. Most Arminians are aware of these Scriptures, but choose not to deal with them. I know. I used to be one.

...God chooses his own heritage. (Psalm 33:12)
...God creates the wicked for destruction. (Proverbs 16:4)
...Many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
...As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
...He foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified His elect. (Romans 8:28-30)
...God chose Jacob over Esau “not of works” but “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”. (Romans 9:10-13)
...God creates “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” and “vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory”. (Romans 9:22-23)
...God did not appoint His elect to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
...The Pharisees were appointed to be disobedient to the Word (1 Peter 2:8-9) (and thank God they were).
...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)
...We were predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will. (Ephesian 1:11)
...He 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. (2 Timothy 1:9)
...God from the beginning chose us for salvation. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
…certain men … long ago were marked out for condemnation (Jude 1:4)
...Those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful. (Revelation 17:14)

All of the above tells us how God is a hands-on God. He really gets involved in his creation to show us, to teach us, to make us aware of our choices. Yes, He even uses some to accomplish his purpose, which is to show his people who he is, but not to take our choice away from us. God's will and our free will are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be one side or the other.

puritan lad wrote:I like David Chilton's explanation...

"The Biblical doctrine of predestination, when rightly understood, should not be a source of fear for the Christian; rather, it is a source of comfort and assurance.

The opposite of the doctrine of predestination is not freedom, but meaninglessness; if the smallest details of our lives are not part of the Plan of God, if they are not created facts with a divinely determined significance, then they can have no meaning at all. They cannot be "working together for good." But the Christian who understands the truth of God's sovereignty is assured thereby that nothing in his life is without meaning and purpose — that God has ordained all things for His glory and for our ultimate good. This means that even our sufferings are part of a consistent Plan; that when we are opposed, we need not fear that God has abandoned us. We can be secure in the knowledge that, since we have been "called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28), all things in our life are a necessary aspect of that purpose. Martin Luther said: "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. . . . For the Christian's chief and only comfort in adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded." - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957), pp. 80, 84.

That's all well and good, for God-fearing people. But doesn't that also open the door for evil people to justify their actions as the will of God?

PL, all of this is in an effort to learn. I hope I didn't come across otherwise.

God Bless,

Byblos.

“we also have the capability to not sin as well.”

This is not true. Again, if it were, we would have no need for a Savior. While it may be true that an unregenerate man may have enough common grace to avoid committing a particular sinful act at a particular time, ultimately he is a slave to sin.

What does John 6:40 tell us God's will is? It is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. That is the Father's will according to Jesus, that whoever believes in Jesus is doing God's will, not that God already made the choice for us. His will is precisely that we are drawn to Jesus and must choose Him in order to have eternal life.

I don't disagree (except for the last part). However, let me ask you. How did you come to believe in the first place? Why is it that your unsaved friends are still unsaved? Was there something meritorious in you that caused you to believe? Was your faith self-created? Are you saved because you made a better decision than your unsaved neighbor? If so, then you should receive some of the glory for your salvation. However, such a view is repudiated in the Scriptures.

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The Bible makes it clear that the ability to believe is itself a gift of God. (Philippians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:20-22). This is very obvious in Jesus' Words to the Pharisees in John 10 contrasting them with His Sheep.

John 10:26-30
“But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.”

Why did the Pharisees not believe? Because they were not His sheep. In fact Jesus purposely hid the things of the Kingdom from the Pharisees.

John 12:37-40
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“ Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

“ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

This is why Jesus spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:10-11
“And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the Pharisees) it has not been given.”

This is a hard biblical truth. The Great Charles Spurgeon rightly observed:

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation — the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands — the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust. It is God upon his throne of whom we have been singing this morning; and it is God upon his throne of whom we shall speak in this discourse.”

ok, but who are the elect? They are the believers in Jesus Christ like Jesus clearly explained what God's will is in John 6:44.

The problem is that this view denies both God's Omniscience and His Omnipotence, If what you say is true, then God is a servant of man's will, and cannot elect them until He “learns” of their choice to believe. Thus you have a God who gets wiser over time. God's election of Jacob over Esau clarifies this.

Romans 9:11-13
“(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

I could go into an in depth discussion of Pharoah to illustrate this, but that's been beat to death in this forum. I'll just highlight the scriptural reasons why Arminians cannot deal with Pharoah.

1.) God hardened Pharoah's heart, so that he would not obey him, that He may judge Egypt with great judgments (Exodus 7:3-4).
2.) This was God's purpose for raising up Pharoah, that He might show his power and glory (Romans 9:17-18). God concludes with His clearest statement of His sovereignty in election, “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

So, could Pharoah have overcome God's hardening of His heart and repented? How?

Proverbs 21:1
“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

That's all well and good, for God-fearing people. But doesn't that also open the door for evil people to justify their actions as the will of God?

Good Question. How does God decree sinful acts without being the author of sin? The answer is that God does not force anyone to sin. He doesn't have to. Man has enough sin in himself to lead him astray. All God has to do is withhold grace from the individual, and in doing so he “turns them over to their reprobate mind” so that they are “led astray by their own lusts and desires”. Consider that God Himself sends the wicked “strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The evil spirit that vexed King Saul was said to be “from the Lord” (1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, man's sins not out of compulsion, but according to his own sinful nature. He will continue to do so unless God has mercy on him.

That said, no one deprived of saving grace has any claims upon God, nor can they blame Him for their condition. They have enough common grace to know of Him, “so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:10).

puritan lad wrote:

“we also have the capability to not sin as well.”

This is not true. Again, if it were, we would have no need for a Savior. While it may be true that an unregenerate man may have enough common grace to avoid committing a particular sinful act at a particular time, ultimately he is a slave to sin.

I've already shown what 'slave to sin' means and in what context Jesus said it but I will let it go.

puritan lad wrote:

What does John 6:40 tell us God's will is? It is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. That is the Father's will according to Jesus, that whoever believes in Jesus is doing God's will, not that God already made the choice for us. His will is precisely that we are drawn to Jesus and must choose Him in order to have eternal life.

I don't disagree (except for the last part). However, let me ask you. How did you come to believe in the first place? Why is it that your unsaved friends are still unsaved? Was there something meritorious in you that caused you to believe? Was your faith self-created? Are you saved because you made a better decision than your unsaved neighbor? If so, then you should receive some of the glory for your salvation. However, such a view is repudiated in the Scriptures.

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The Bible makes it clear that the ability to believe is itself a gift of God. (Philippians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:20-22). This is very obvious in Jesus' Words to the Pharisees in John 10 contrasting them with His Sheep.

This is where we disagree totally. The way I understand Ephesians 2:8-9 is that 1) we have been saved by grace (grace is the free gift from God) and 2) through faith, and not of ourselves which sets faith apart from works, and 3) it is the gift of God (grace that is), not of works, lest anyone should boast. What does this mean to me? God gave me the gift of salvation (his grace) and told me how to obtain it (by faith in Jesus Christ) and that faith is set apart from works. I.e. all we have to do is put our faith in Jesus and not worry as faith is not considered works.

puritan lad wrote:John 10:26-30
“But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.”

Why did the Pharisees not believe? Because they were not His sheep. In fact Jesus purposely hid the things of the Kingdom from the Pharisees.

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe. They did not believe because they did not have faith. You have faith in him then you believe. You have faith in him you are saved.

puritan lad wrote:John 12:37-40
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“ Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

“ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

This is why Jesus spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:10-11
“And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the Pharisees) it has not been given.”

This is a hard biblical truth.

But again, you're taking bits and pieces out of context. In Matthew 13 and the parable of the sower, Jesus later explains to the disciples what he meant by what he said and it is this:

Matthew 13:18-23 wrote:18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

Jesus basically classified people in categories (not the disciples, and not just the Pharisees, but all others to whom he is preaching). The first category (in 19) is anyone who hears but does not understand, (in 20) the man who hears the word and received it with joy but loses it because his faith is shallow, (in 22) the man who hears the word but he's too troubled, and (in 23) the man who receives the word and understands it (some Pharisees believed, put their faith in Christ and were saved). So what Jesus is saying is not a sweeping generalization that all pharisees could not believe because they weren't his sheep. He's saying it is up to the individual to make himself be classified in one of the above categories. That's the way I see it.

puritan lad wrote:

ok, but who are the elect? They are the believers in Jesus Christ like Jesus clearly explained what God's will is in John 6:44.

The problem is that this view denies both God's Omniscience and His Omnipotence, If what you say is true, then God is a servant of man's will, and cannot elect them until He “learns” of their choice to believe. Thus you have a God who gets wiser over time. God's election of Jacob over Esau clarifies this.

Like I said before, my free will does not deny God anything. I see it as yet another gift he gave me. If God is love and love is fellowship and God desires my fellowship, then it cannot be other than a conscious choice, otherwise it is meaningless.

puritan lad wrote:Romans 9:11-13
“(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

I could go into an in depth discussion of Pharoah to illustrate this, but that's been beat to death in this forum. I'll just highlight the scriptural reasons why Arminians cannot deal with Pharoah.

1.) God hardened Pharoah's heart, so that he would not obey him, that He may judge Egypt with great judgments (Exodus 7:3-4).
2.) This was God's purpose for raising up Pharoah, that He might show his power and glory (Romans 9:17-18). God concludes with His clearest statement of His sovereignty in election, “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

So, could Pharoah have overcome God's hardening of His heart and repented? How?

God hardened Pharoah's heart because Pharaoh had already hardened it himself. Beside, I do fully acknowledge that God does use whoever he wishes in order to accomplish his will. But it doesn't mean he's using the entire humanity for that purpose. He interferes with his creation when absolutely necessary so he can reveal himself and people will know him. So that everyone is without excuse.

puritan lad wrote:

That's all well and good, for God-fearing people. But doesn't that also open the door for evil people to justify their actions as the will of God?

Good Question. How does God decree sinful acts without being the author of sin? The answer is that God does not force anyone to sin. He doesn't have to. Man has enough sin in himself to lead him astray. All God has to do is withhold grace from the individual, and in doing so he “turns them over to their reprobate mind” so that they are “led astray by their own lusts and desires”. Consider that God Himself sends the wicked “strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The evil spirit that vexed King Saul was said to be “from the Lord” (1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, man's sins not out of compulsion, but according to his own sinful nature. He will continue to do so unless God has mercy on him.

That said, no one deprived of saving grace has any claims upon God, nor can they blame Him for their condition. They have enough common grace to know of Him, “so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:10).

When evil people commit their evil acts and justify it as God's will, no one will care that it was their sinful nature and not God, as God is the creator of all. God will be the cause of all evil in the eyes of his people. I see total depravity as one side of the coin, the other side being antinomianism. IMHO, that's the inescapable conclusion of either side of that coin.

God Bless,

Byblos.

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe.

Sorry Byblos. Jesus said just the opposite. They did not believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around…

I've also shown conclusive proof that God decrees evil men's deeds, and predestines them to Hell.

The end point being that “free will” salvation is a myth, not to be found anywhere in scripture. Belief is not a choice. It is a condition of the heart which God alone controls...

puritan lad wrote:

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe.

Sorry Byblos. Jesus said just the opposite. They did not believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around…

I've also shown conclusive proof that God decrees evil men's deeds, and predestines them to Hell.

The end point being that “free will” salvation is a myth, not to be found anywhere in scripture. Belief is not a choice. It is a condition of the heart which God alone controls...

Then Judgment would be a meaningless concept and God's Love is compromised as I understand it.

If in John 3:16 God is not willing that any should perish; by your explanation God is impotent in this regard.

The opposite extreme gives rise to equally disturbing contradictions as well.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes and part of the mystery of God's nature.

When an absolute interpretation and hermeneutic gives rise to such contradictory absurdities then I am left wondering if the manner in which the question is framed itself is not part of the problem. Such is the case in this instance in my still growing, and still learning opinion.

puritan lad wrote:

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe.

Sorry Byblos. Jesus said just the opposite. They did not believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around…

PL, you are still missing the point I'm trying to make. If you were to only look at John 10:26, then you would be correct. But if we continue to the next couple of verses, Jesus clearly tells us what it means to be his sheep and that being:

John 10:27-28 wrote:27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

His sheep listen to his voice (they recognize him) and follow him (put their faith in him), then he gives them eternal life. Not all of them do. Some hear but don't understand, some understand but forget, some understand but are too troubled, and some understand, comprehend, follow, and are saved (parable of the sower).

puritan lad wrote:I've also shown conclusive proof that God decrees evil men's deeds, and predestines them to Hell.
The end point being that “free will” salvation is a myth, not to be found anywhere in scripture. Belief is not a choice. It is a condition of the heart which God alone controls...

Attempted to show as per your own interpretation, yes. Conclusive proof, I'm not so sure about. That's why I always say there simply is no such thing as objective or literal interpretation.

One thing I am certain of is that, no matter if we disagree and by how much, I hope my conviction in what I believe is as strong as yours is in what you believe.

God bless you PL,

Byblos.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Then Judgment would be a meaningless concept and God's Love is compromised as I understand it.

To the contrary, the Judgment brings God glory, and makes "known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:23). God created man for one purpose, and that is to be glorified. He will be glorified in the salvation of His people, and He will be glorified in the destruction of the wicked.

Canuckster1127 wrote:If in John 3:16 God is not willing that any should perish; by your explanation God is impotent in this regard.

If you are referring to 2 Peter 3:9, let's take a closer look.

2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"

The Promise is "toward us". Who is "us"? Peter is writing to the elect, "those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). This verse is true. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish, but that all of them should come to a repentance (and they will - John 6:37).

Canuckster1127 wrote:When an absolute interpretation and hermeneutic gives rise to such contradictory absurdities then I am left wondering if the manner in which the question is framed itself is not part of the problem. Such is the case in this instance in my still growing, and still learning opinion.

So are we all...

Canuckster1127 wrote:If in John 3:16 God is not willing that any should perish; by your explanation God is impotent in this regard.

If you are referring to 2 Peter 3:9, let's take a closer look.

I refered to John 3:16 and referenced it. Directing me to another verse where you have an answer doesn't answer the verse I referenced.

While you're at it .... go onto verse 17 and tell me how you handle that too, if you would please.

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe.

Sorry Byblos. Jesus said just the opposite. They did not believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around…

PL, you are still missing the point I'm trying to make. If you were to only look at John 10:26, then you would be correct. But if we continue to the next couple of verses, Jesus clearly tells us what it means to be his sheep and that being:

John 10:27-28 wrote:27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

His sheep listen to his voice (they recognize him) and follow him (put their faith in him), then he gives them eternal life. Not all of them do. Some hear but don't understand, some understand but forget, some understand but are too troubled, and some understand, comprehend, follow, and are saved (parable of the sower).

I got the point, but take it a step further. His sheep hear His voice and recognize Him. All True. And that was the problem with the Pharisees. They did not believe because they were not His sheep. They did not recognize Him because it was not given them to do so. All His sheep will come to Him, but none of the goats.

God Bless,

PL

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:If in John 3:16 God is not willing that any should perish; by your explanation God is impotent in this regard.

If you are referring to 2 Peter 3:9, let's take a closer look.

I refered to John 3:16 and referenced it. Directing me to another verse where you have an answer doesn't answer the verse I referenced.

Sorry. Didn't recognize it or draw any resemblance to what you quoted. John 3:16 does not say "God is not willing that any should perish". It says...

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Point #1: Nothing is said here about "free will".
Point #2: Nothing is addressed here about how a person comes to believe in the first place (but verse 3 does).
Point #3: The "world" does not mean every single individual, as such an interpretation would cause huge problem (such as in 2 Cor 5:19, which would teach universal salvation).

No one is denying the importance of belief. However, the question still remains. How does a person come to believe in the first place? The Bible says that it is granted to us. Without Him, we can do nothing. Faith is a gift from God, and "not all have faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2).

As far as how a person is "born again", John 1:12-13 is about as clear as it can get.

John 1:12-13
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

puritan lad wrote:

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:

They were not his sheep (not saved) because they did not believe.

Sorry Byblos. Jesus said just the opposite. They did not believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around…

PL, you are still missing the point I'm trying to make. If you were to only look at John 10:26, then you would be correct. But if we continue to the next couple of verses, Jesus clearly tells us what it means to be his sheep and that being:

John 10:27-28 wrote:27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

His sheep listen to his voice (they recognize him) and follow him (put their faith in him), then he gives them eternal life. Not all of them do. Some hear but don't understand, some understand but forget, some understand but are too troubled, and some understand, comprehend, follow, and are saved (parable of the sower).

I got the point, but take it a step further. His sheep hear His voice and recognize Him. All True. And that was the problem with the Pharisees. They did not believe because they were not His sheep. They did not recognize Him because it was not given them to do so. All His sheep will come to Him, but none of the goats.

God Bless,

PL

Why did Jesus get angry at the Pharisees then? If God created them predestined to hell, what is the point in Jesus, as God, getting angry with someone because they are acting in a manner consistent with how they were created in the first place?

For that manner, why should Jesus say of the disciple who would betray Him:

Mark 14:18-21
Matt 26:21-25
Luke 22:21-23

"But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing."

Free will is obviously bound within the natural and spiritual constraints God placed upon it, but for whatever reason you wish to offer by means of explanation, God clearly created Man in His image and bound within that image is the potential to make decisions to influence the world around us, of which we are proclaimed stewards. Stewardship, by definition includes accountibility back to the one from whom this power was granted. I see within this analogy a possible clue to that which God is doing although, like all analogies, it ultimately falls short.

It is entirely possible that God's infinite foreknowledge alone no more determines the future choices of man than our knowledge of the past determines the our past choices.