Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird

by **[email protected]** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:59 pm

I have written a defense of the victorious gospel at http://www.dgjc.org/optimism.
I have answered objections here http://www.dgjc.org/optimism/appendix.
Here is a reprint of one of my answers for further feedback, http://www.dgjc.org/universalism-free-w ... range-bird

The feedback I have received for my Optimism Out of Control thesis, even from objectors, has been extremely valuable. The hard questions of others have driven me to prayer for God's leading and to God's word for confirmation of the good news that truly, Jesus Christ is your savior, my savior, and the savior of all mankind.

THE MOST CURIOUS OBJECTION>> However, of all the objections received the most curious is from those who also claim that all mankind is finally saved, yet who hold to man's free will, while objecting that God willed the salvation of all mankind by his gracious sovereign choice.

ME>> Wow! I just do not get that. The great confidence that we believers have that Christ will be finally victorious in the salvation of all mankind is ROOTED in the fact that the Godhead willed it to be, in spite of our rebellion! We can have great confidence that Jesus Christ is your savior, my savior, and the savior of all mankind because GOD HAS WILLED IT TO BE! GOD'S WILL IS THE GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN!

I am happy to receive this good news as well as happy to part ways with traditions that place the security of salvation in the hands of human decision. There is no security in taking anything from God and putting it in the hand of man. This is the difference between mere pew sitting religion and true relationship with Christ.

Unfortunately, however, brokenness has followed us even into the fellowship of those concluding that Christ does in fact love all. As already mentioned, parting ways with tradition will likely land you in a miscellaneous bucket with some very unBiblical ideas. For example, I've encountered some holding to reincarnation as an alternative to Hades. How is this different that Hinduism which also believes Jesus is God and all will be saved? Yet Hebrews 9:27 says otherwise. I've encountered others who place more weight on human presupposition and tradition than the exegesis of Scripture. How is this different than any man-made religion? Jesus spoke directly about this in Mark 7:13. However, the most curious combination of all is to claim that all mankind will be finally saved... because of the free will of man! Universalism plus the free will of man has got to be the strangest bird of all time.

Imagine a father with ten unruly children. Not one of the children wants to go to bed, yet the father has determined that it is bed time. So the father begins his work to round up the rowdy bunch. One is turned with a simple plea while another with persuasion. A third heads upstairs with a warning and yet another with a threat. Several more hold out and receive spankings and discipline of various sorts. One refuses to sleep even when forcibly placed in bed. The point is that without the father's intervention, no one wanted to go to bed. However, with degrees of intervention each eventually found themselves in bed.

Alternatively, you could imagine a dad who sounded the bed time bell and all ten children neatly put themselves to bed while dad watched TV.... in your dreams!

The cross shows us in no uncertain terms that the unregenerate heart of mankind has no love for God. We are unruly children with no desire to rest in bed or obey our Father. No one who is unchanged WILL love God because we CANNOT love God without a changed heart. A change is needed in our hearts that ONLY GOD can affect that enables us to begin to love the Lord. Furthermore, God has intended this by design so that he alone is praised as the savior of each individual and all mankind.

Perhaps Acts 4:27-28 (WEB) will help us, "27) For truly, in this city against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28) to do whatever your hand and your council foreordained to happen."

So yes we make decisions. You or I may decide to go left or to go right. However, just because we make decisions does not mean that our will is free! Instead our will is limited to decisions that result from our nature. A bear is a bear by nature and so behaves like a bear. Likewise an unregenerate sinner is a God hater by nature and so even though filled with worlds of religion still hates God. So in the case of Acts 4:27-28, all mankind, including ourselves by association, crucified the Lord Jesus Christ because we hate God by our nature. Our will was not free to Love God, but instead our unregenerate nature was exposed as hating God... to the death.

Furthermore, we also see that behind our will and decision to kill Christ was another more foundational will. God himself foreordained the crucifixion of Christ. God himself willed these terrible events! Why would the good God do so a thing? God purposed to expose our heart of sin for what it actually is, emnity toward God. He needed to do this so he could then conqueror our hatred of him and heal us with his overwhelming love and grace.

Rejoice that God has willed and accomplished our salvation!

by **Paidion** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:57 pm

Hi Jeff,

You wrote:THE MOST CURIOUS OBJECTION>> However, of all the objections received the most curious is from those who also claim that all mankind is finally saved, yet who hold to man's free will, while objecting that God willed the salvation of all mankind by his gracious sovereign choice.

Well, I hold to that "most curious" view. If God sovereignly causes the salvation of all with no ability to choose on our part, then we are but a race of robots or a collection of marionettes that God manipulates by pulling the strings.

But if God does all that is possible to induce every person to willingly entrust himself to Him, then sooner or later every individual will do so. God never gives up on anyone until he becomes what God intended him to become. It seems improbable that everyone will do so, but given enough time and influence from God, everyone will.

It is also improbable that if you toss a hundred dice, everyone of them will turn up sixes. Improbable but not impossible. The probability is but one out of 6 exponent 100. But if the dice are tossed enough times the event of all turning up sixes is not only a possibility, but a certainty.

by **[email protected]** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:06 am

Or if that illustration does not compute consider God as quarterback throwing the football toward righteousness. However, Satan calls the next play, tempting Adam and Eve to intercept the football with the plan to run the ball toward the opposite goal... to be God themselves. Of course the whole game is all God's sovereign plan so that He can send the Holy Spirit to tackle the rebel runners and recruit us to his own team. The point is that until the Holy Spirit tackles our deceived and unchanged hearts we continue to run fullspeed away from God in the effort to be our own God.

by **steve7150** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:18 am

The point is that until the Holy Spirit tackles our deceived and unchanged hearts we continue to run fullspeed away from God in the effort to be our own God.

I think it's clear God encourages to make good choices throughout the bible so if this is how free will is defined then we do have free will. But really our free will is vastly overestimated as all one has to do is look at Paul on the road to Damascus. It took how long to change his entire paradigm? About 30 seconds?

by **[email protected]** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:41 pm

steve7150 maybe you highlight the reason for the confusion. Human beings are certainly not robots and freely make decisions and are accountable to God for our decisions. Martin Luther's treatise, Bondage of the Will, however, highlights that our 'free' decisions are limited to our first born nature. The unregenerate sinner cannot respond with love toward God because it is not within the capabilities of our nature to do so. Rather our first born nature only knows about love for self. Without God we are 6' ladder that cannot reach God nor do we have the desire to do so. Instead we use our 6' ladders to build our own kingdoms. Jesus speaks about being 'free indeed' and he is talking about the soul that He has freed from their first born nature to have a new nature that can and does reciprocate love for God. However, all this is simply talking about our ability to reciprocate love for God.

The most amazing thing about God's love for us is that our will was not even involved at all in predestinating or justifying grace. The guarantee of mankind's salvation happened at the cross completely apart from our will. Obviously our will is involved in receiving God's love, once we are freed to do so, however, the promise and guarantee of God's love for us happened BEFORE we were even willing, actually before we were even born!

God truly is a perfect Heavenly Father in the expression of his love for us, because his love for us is unconditional.

by **steve7150** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:03 pm

The unregenerate sinner cannot respond with love toward God because it is not within the capabilities of our nature to do

Then why did John the Baptist encourage all those unregenerate sinners to repent before Jesus or the Holy Spirit arrived?

by **[email protected]** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:42 pm

Excellent question. 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 has the answer to that, particularly verse 20, "We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us." John the Baptist preached his heart out, but it was God working through him. Hopefully the same is true for us. The Holy Spirit was still present and changed hearts in the Old Covenant, though indwelling since the New Covenant.

These reason this understanding is important is that that we must submit to working with God rather than thinking that all these things are simply happening in the natural dimension. Laboring in the natural dimension will only produce natural results, but laboring with the supernatural will produce supernatural results. If I think I can persuade another without prayerfully appealing to God for the heart change that only he can provide, then pity my victim. I am likely to badger them with reason instead of praying that God would give grace. Love will be lost. Also by submitting to working with God I am his partner in the work, versus thinking that I am personally trying to save others from God's wrath, a fool's errand. Finally this understanding is essential so that worship goes to God alone for his grace given to all, rather than praising human will and decision.

by **DaveB** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:52 pm

Good points. I read a book on how to 'witness' for Christ - I was a lot younger, but still it dawned on me that the book was all about technique. "Sit the sinner down across from you" "Make sure the sinner knows you are serious" etc etc - and I am not making up the use of 'the sinner' - that is the term the book used almost exclusively to name and classify the real, flesh and blood person in front of you.

I almost quit reading the book, when a sentence caught my eye: "Most important of all is conviction"
I thought: Yes!! The convincing power of the Holy Spirit is the necessity.

BUT - to my chagrin, the book went on to say the it is the witness that must be convinced of the truth of what he is sharing - there was no mention of the HS convicting the 'sinner's' heart and bearing witness to the truth.
The Illusion of Technique -

which is also the title of a good philosophy book :http://www.amazon.com/The-Illusion-Technique-Technological-Civilization/dp/0385112025

by **Paidion** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:02 pm

Jeff wrote:The unregenerate sinner cannot respond with love toward God because it is not within the capabilities of our nature to do

Can the unregenerate sinner express love toward his fellow man? Many claim that he can't, but yet we often see such people expressing love and concern for others. Some "regenerate" persons claim that the unregenerate are doing it from self-serving motives, such as gaining recognition and admiration from others, etc. But how can this be the case with an unregenerate person who has sacrificed his own life in order to save that of another? In what way could that possibly benefit him? Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lays down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

So if it is within the capabilities of the nature of an unregenerate person to exercise a great love toward one of his fellows, indeed such love that there is none greater, then why wouldn't he be capable of responding with love toward God?

by **[email protected]** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:28 pm

Yes another good question.

You say that a non-Christian can love their fellowman and that this is proof that he can also love God by his first born nature. You also point out that others have said that this appearance of love is still rooted in selfishness. Yet, consider the millions of non-Christians that have died in battle to protect their countryman as an example of dying for another! Yet how can we determine exactly what is going on behind and below the appearances? What is the motivation for this sacrifice?

As for my own heart I can confess my own experience was that God's touch of grace was the beginning of transformation. However, the best measure of man's motive is not even our testimony but the Scriptures themselves. So what do the Scriptures say about man's heart?

Now you ask me, "why wouldn't he be capable of responding with love toward God?"

I never said that sinners aren't not capable of responding to God. I said unregenerate sinners cannot return love for God until God changes our hearts. Since we are the clay we do respond to every touch of the Savior. So Christ has proved his love at the cross for all. That love is already given completely apart from all of our willing. However, according to his own pleasure he touches each individual's heart at the time of his choosing, leading us, making us willing to trust and obey out of gratitude as sons and daughters.

by **LLC** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:56 am

I believe man does have free will. John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself."

Jeff, At some point children grow up, and we must give them authority over their own lives. We may have taught them, "Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.", but when they spread their own wings and fly, they go to bed whenever they choose.

by **[email protected]** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:46 am

Yes, for sure my 'going to bed' metaphor is weak for the point we are making. I easily admit that.

The Scriptures however have no weakness. John 5:16-47 is a most important passage and quite offensive to the religious Jews. The Jews thought they possessed spiritual life, but Jesus confronted their unbelief. They were simply religious, but did not possess the real deal. John 5:26 actually proves my point because this verse says that life is in God the Father and in God the Son. A few verses earlier in verse 21 Jesus explains that he is the one who gives life to anyone he chooses. The point is that unless Christ has given us life we are spiritually dead and unresponsive to the things of God (though still loved, for God has chosen to love even his enemies, the spiritually dead).

A dead person's will is not free to do anything.

If you claim to have life in Christ why not be thankful and praise God that he gave you spiritual life?

by **Paidion** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:21 pm

The early Christians believed that people have free will ("dead" or "not dead").

100-165 AD : Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43 )

130-200 AD : Irenaeus
“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII )
[About the year 180, Florinus had affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was immediately attacked by Irenaeus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]

150-190 AD : Athenagoras
“men...have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)...”(Embassy for Christians XXIV )

150-200 AD : Clement of Alexandria
“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.17)

154-222 AD : Bardaisan of Syria
“How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him...And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman...they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments )

155-225 AD : Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5 )

185-254 AD : Origen
“This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface )

185-254 AD : Origen
“There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1 )

250-300 AD : Archelaus
“There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32,33 )

260-315 AD : Methodius
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16 )

312-386 AD : Cyril of Jerusalem
“The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18 )

347-407 AD : John Chrysostom
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12 )

120-180 AD: Tatian
“We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” (Address to the Greeks, 11)

(died 180 AD):Melito
“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8, page 754)

163-182 AD:Theophilus
“If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 27)

130-200 AD:Irenaeus
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 37)

150-200 AD:Clement of Alexandria
“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” (The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

155-225: Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. (Against Marcion, Book 2, Chapter 5)

by **DaveB** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:07 pm

The question of free will is necessarily dependent on one's view of total depravity - that is, the extent of the Fall. Your view of the Fall decides everything that follows in your theology, if you are a systematic theologian.

Is the will depraved? Or did it survive the Fall intact? How you answer those decides to a great extent what your soteriology looks like.

Just sayin' - when we discuss free will, it is never in a vacuum, it is always part of a larger Story.

by **steve7150** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:27 pm

Is the will depraved? Or did it survive the Fall intact? How you answer those decides to a great extent what your soteriology looks like.

Just sayin' - when we discuss free will, it is never in a vacuum, it is always part of a larger Story.

If there was even an actual fall at all or was it that Adam and Eve were just like us. Not perfect, not depraved but like us with good and evil already in us. Adam and Eve found out how to identify good and evil by doing what God knew they would do.

by **DaveB** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:35 pm

You may be right, Steve. Certainly in the Eden story there was a disobedience that led to bad consequences, but I'm not sure if that teaching was meant to control the entire rest of salvation history.

by **Paidion** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:12 pm

Steve 7250 wrote:Adam and Eve found out how to identify good and evil by doing what God knew they would do.

If God knew that they were going to eat from the tree, then they could not have refrained from eating from the tree, and THAT implies that they did not have free will.

by **DaveB** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:29 pm

I'm not sure that the fact of God knowing our hearts completely has any effect on our freedom to choose. He did know A/E hearts, how they thought, felt, reasoned about things - there was/is nothing hidden to God (I think that's true)- so in a sense, A/E (like us) were subject to their own character; and understanding that character fully, God could know what choice they would make freely.
Opens a can of worms, again....

by **[email protected]** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:01 pm

Quoting men for or against free will has some value, but of greater value is quoting the Scripture. John 5 was quoted above in the effort to defend man's ability to freely choose God unassisted by grace, when actually John 5 teaches the opposite. I would gladly believe in the free will in man, in fact I would like to believe it, but could some one please even quote one simple Scripture? I have quoted other Scriptures that do teach the necessity of the Holy Spirit in conversion. But where is the Scripture that teaches that we even have a remote desire to turn to God without God first changing our heart? I have asked this question in this forum before but no Scripture has yet been quoted to defend the theory of man's free will.

by **Dandelion** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:42 pm

Paidion wrote:Hi Jeff,

You wrote:THE MOST CURIOUS OBJECTION>> However, of all the objections received the most curious is from those who also claim that all mankind is finally saved, yet who hold to man's free will, while objecting that God willed the salvation of all mankind by his gracious sovereign choice.

Well, I hold to that "most curious" view. If God sovereignly causes the salvation of all with no ability to choose on our part, then we are but a race of robots or a collection of marionettes that God manipulates by pulling the strings.

I believe we can make choices, and I agree, that if we can make no choices, then we are slaves/robots, and not God's children.

I do realize that our choices are limited by circumstances, the knowledge we possess, and so on. There are many things in our life that we don't choose, as well. And, I do believe we were made with a yearning for God, as He made us in His image and likeness, but we also have the ability to say no, as did Adam and Eve, and the yearning to take our life into our own hands and not include God in our plan, many times, as well.

And, I do believe that we can make the choice to turn from God on our own, but to chose God, the Holy Spirit needs to guide us.

Also, God is continually seeking out, calling each of us, just like the lost sheep, and loves us, with an unquenchable love.

I believe God knew the choices we would make, through eternity, and that the fact that He knew what we would do, did not effect our ability to choose.

Perhaps this is an answer to your question, [email protected]:

…19'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.…
Revelation 3

What is that moment, when unbelief transforms into faith? What is the formula? I don't know, and I don't think it has been given to us to know. One day, we will understand that.

I always believed that God wanted all to be saved. I used to believe that we chose not to be saved, and not that God sent us to hell, but allowed us to choose hell. The difference as a Christian UR is that now I not only believe God wanted us to all go to heaven, but that we will all go to heaven. His love will find us, and we will each, in our own time, be saved.

Until then, I thank Jesus for being my Salvation. We are mightily blessed, for that gift, as well as the gift of faith and trust, and I am in awe of our Almighty God.

by **Paidion** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:28 pm

Hi Dave,

I'm not sure that the fact of God knowing our hearts completely has any effect on our freedom to choose.

I totally agree. Nothing that God knows has any effect on our freedom to choose. But IF God (or anyone else) knows that you are going to eat a pear tomorrow, then you are going to eat a pear tomorrow. Therefore it is now true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. If it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow, you cannot refrain from eating a pear tomorrow. For if you DO refrain from eating a pear tomorrow, then this contradicts the statement that it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. Thus no one could NOW know that you will eat a pear tomorrow.

The same argument holds if it is assumed that someone knows that you WON'T eat a pear tomorrow. Thus the statement that you will eat a pear tomorrow is neither true nor false NOW. Thus no one can know whether or not you will eat a pear tomorrow. If the truth value of a statement is known NOW, then the statement must be either true or false NOW. If the statement is neither true nor false now, then there is nothing to know.

by **DaveB** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:41 pm

Well this subject makes my head hurt just thinking about it; but I'm slowly coming around to agreeing with you Don.

by **[email protected]** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:01 pm

Revelation 3:20 does not teach that man can hear or open the door without God's help. Just because God gives a command does not mean we have the ability to do it without his help. The Old Covenant is an illustration of that. God gave many commands and we royally failed the test. Revelation 3:20 needs to considered with other Scriptures that explain further about the condition of man's heart. There are numerous Scriptures that are easily understood to teach that grace is needed to help a person to repent, Romans 2:4 for example. I am asking if anyone knows a Scripture with the didactic message that we can repent without the help of the Holy Spirit? That would then help show how Romans 2:4 might allow for free will. Otherwise Romans 2:4 does not allow for free will.

by **DaveB** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:05 pm

I'm not convinced Jeff, but I'm also not the guy to go scripture by scripture with you on this.

by **LLC** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:32 am

Jeff, My interpretation of John 5:26 differs from yours because I believe that Jesus was the One and Only True God in person. We are the sons, and when we choose to walk with God, we are sons of God. So in this verse, God is giving us authority over our own lives.

by **[email protected]** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:26 am

Sure I likewise believe Jesus is the God / Man and we are sons of God with him. Though we are not THE Son of God who has life within himself on his own. God is self-existent. We cannot even exist initially without God, nor can we become Christians without the Holy Spirit. We become Christians, we become sons and daughters at the moment THE Son puts his life within us. Isn't John 5:21 talking about how we become Christians?

by **Paidion** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:01 pm

Just because God gives a command does not mean we have the ability to do it without his help.

Jesus gave commands, too, in "the sermon on the mount," Matthew 5, 6, and 7. Some of them are harder to obey than the 10 commandments.
However, some people HAVE fulfilled by their own choice, any moral imperative that you can name. The apostle Paul called these instructions "The law of Christ." The enabling grace of God, made available by the supreme sacrifice of Christ, makes it easier to do the will of God, and results in a greater consistency.

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)

How do we appropriate this enabling grace? We appropriate it through faith. Jesus died to provide this enabling grace, and by trusting Him to do so, it becomes a reality in our lives.

Many think “δικαιοσυνη,” The Greek word translated as “justification” to mean “being counted as righteous,” whether we are righteous or not. But the word often means “being made righteous.”

Working together [with Him], we entreat you not to accept the grace of God to no purpose. (2 Cor 6:1)

If we try to accept God's grace in our lives without allowing it to purify us, to render us righteous, then we are accepting it to no purpose.

We must coöperate with God's enabling grace. We alone cannot achieve consistent righteousness. And God alone will not cause us to be righteous. He respects our ablity to choose too much for that. We must coöperate with God's enabling grace.

This coöperation with God is known as “synergy.” This English word comes from the Greek word “working together.” (συνεργουντες)

A particular group of denominations push “monergy.” This is the idea God did all the work concerning our righteousness, that we have no part in it at all. No wonder so many fall away, thinking that what they choose to do has no bearing on their standing with God.

However, I think the apostle Paul had it right. Concerning deliverance from wrongdoing, we need to work together with God, and so not accept the grace of God to no purpose.

by **DaveB** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:05 pm

Very well said, imo.

by **steve7150** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:40 pm

But IF God (or anyone else) knows that you are going to eat a pear tomorrow, then you are going to eat a pear tomorrow. Therefore it is now true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. If it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow, you cannot refrain from eating a pear tomorrow.

But i don't think it's a matter of refraining. If i will choose to eat a pear tomorrow and God only knows but in no way influences the choice then the passive knowledge of an event is not the cause of the event.
I'm not sure about nature of time , whether the future can be known or not by God but if he is only an observer, why would that impact free will.

I was forced to watch the Bachlorette the other night because my wife loves it. Kaitlyn had to choose between Shawn and Nick and i knew she chose Shawn. (bad choice). Did the fact i knew who she picked impact her free will? If God knows the future it's like us watching a television show that already occurred, the players didn't know i as the viewer knew the outcome and from their perspective, they had free will. I knew they couldn't make another choice but they didn't know that at the time of decision and they freely choose.

by **DaveB** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:54 pm

I still can't quite grasp the logic of saying that, because X knows that I will do Z tomorrow, that my choice will not be a free choice. To me at the time of my choosing Z, it certainly will be free. My choice is not influenced by someone else's knowledge.

by **Paidion** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:27 pm

I still can't quite grasp the logic of saying that, because X knows that I will do Z tomorrow, that my choice will not be a free choice. To me at the time of my choosing Z, it certainly will be free. My choice is not influenced by someone else's knowledge.

You already said in a previous post something similar to "My choice is not influenced by someone else's knowledge" and I fully agreed with you. I still fully agree. My argument in no way indicates that someone's knowledge influences choice. The point of my argument was to show that the choice of a free-will agent CANNOT BE KNOWN in advance. I did this by showing that if the choice IS known in advance, then it is not really a choice, and the agent does not have free will.

I claim that the statement "Dave will raise his hand at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015." has no truth value. That is, the sentence in NOW neither true nor false. It will become true or false at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015 when Dave makes his decision. Only statements which are either true or false, can be known to be true (or false). If it is neither true nor false, then there is nothing to know.

Indeed, in the study of logic, a "logical statement" is either true of false. I claim that sentences about the future are not "logical statements" though they may be written in statement form. Here are two examples:

1. "Jack will go to Winnipeg tomorrow." This sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is "Jack intends to go to Winnipeg tomorrow," and of course THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.

2. "The Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game." Again this sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is "I predict that the Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game." And THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.

by **DaveB** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:03 pm

You're right, I agree, you have convinced me. What the ramification of that are, remain for me to investigate.
Thanks

by **[email protected]** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:31 pm

Then what of these statements, are they logical? Were they true in the moment they were said?

Matthew 26:34, "Jesus said to him, 'Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.' "

I would contend that Peter's fall was not only foreknown, but predetermined by the influences of our sovereign God. Or how about this statement...

Philippians 2:10, "So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,' "

The reason I am 100% confident that all mankind will be brought to obedient submission and worship of Christ is because God wills it to be. The reason I am a universalist is because God's promise, will, and purpose cannot be thwarted.

I can hardly believe that you would trust your eternal destiny to your own ability to keep a promise or to reform yourself! Do we depend upon God or ourselves?

by **Paidion** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:36 pm

Jeff wrote:Then what of these statements, are they logical? Were they true in the moment they were said?

Matthew 26:34, "Jesus said to him, 'Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.' "

I would contend that Peter's fall was not only foreknown, but predetermined by the influences of our sovereign God.

If Peter's fall was predetermined, then Peter had no choice but to fall. Also the ideas that his fall was predetermined implies that God caused him to deny his Master. That makes God the author of sin. I have too high a regard for God's character to accept that. But to answer your question, no the sentence was not true the moment it was said. Jesus made a prediction. Jesus knew Peter's character; He knew Peter's impulsiveness; He knew Peter was likely to cave under pressure. But you ask, how could He predict that it would be three times? Matthew wrote his memoir of Christ many years after the event occurred. I suggest that Matthew knew Peter had denied Christ three times, and so he "remembered" that Jesus said he would deny Him three times. But Jesus may not have said "three times." Notice that Mark, who probably got his information from Peter, said, "And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” (Mark 14:30). So how many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied Him? Once? Or twice? Either Matthew or Mark had to be mistaken. So it may be that they thought they remembered that our Lord said "deny me three times" when He may not have said so. Then why did both of them say that Jesus said "three times"? Again, I think they thought they remembered Him saying "three times" because Peter actually did deny Him three times.

Or how about this statement...

Philippians 2:10, "So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,' "

The reason I am 100% confident that all mankind will be brought to obedient submission and worship of Christ is because God wills it to be. The reason I am a universalist is because God's promise, will, and purpose cannot be thwarted.

I regard the sentence as true because God intends that it will happen, and so He will continue to work on everyone to influence them to be reconciled to Him. He will do whatever it takes to see that that happens. However, God doesn't directly cause each person to submit to the authority of Christ and become His disciple. Rather He influences each person and will continue to do so until they submit. Each person will of his own free will choose to submit or continue to rebel. But God will never give up on the rebels. He will provide love, discomfort, or whatever influence has its effect. He will do His very best for each individual until all repent and bow the knee.

I can hardly believe that you would trust your eternal destiny to your own ability to keep a promise or to reform yourself!

Whatever gave you the idea that I do? I have consistently said that God will not do it unilaterally, and that we cannot do it unilaterally. Monergism won't work. Rather as Paul said, "Working together with Him (synergism), I entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain." (2 Cor 6:1) If we coöperate with the divine grace of God it won't be in vain. With God's grace, we will succeed!

by **[email protected]** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:41 pm

I hear you saying that you and God together accomplish your salvation. Sorry can't go there. For some reason you are avoiding the praise due Christ in Romans 11:36.

by **DaveB** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:57 pm

Jeff, when you use the term 'salvation' - are you referring to the initial act of saving faith, or are you also including sanctification and growth as a Christian?

by **Paidion** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:50 pm

Jeff wrote:I hear you saying that you and God together accomplish your salvation. Sorry can't go there. For some reason you are avoiding the praise due Christ in Romans 11:36.

Jeff, Paul is not talking about salvation in Rom 11:36; he is talking about material things:

Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:35,36)

Nobody can give a material gift to God. It's no use in trying to give Him a lamb (in sacrifice) or money or anything else, because absolutely every created thing had its origin in Him, even though they were created through His Son.

by **LLC** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:51 am

[email protected] wrote:Sure I likewise believe Jesus is the God / Man and we are sons of God with him. Though we are not THE Son of God who has life within himself on his own. God is self-existent. We cannot even exist initially without God, nor can we become Christians without the Holy Spirit. We become Christians, we become sons and daughters at the moment THE Son puts his life within us. Isn't John 5:21 talking about how we become Christians?

I agree that we cannot exist without God, but according to Genesis 2:7 God put life into man in the beginning when He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. I also believe that God gave us (His sons) life in ourselves for the following reasons.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to it's kind, whose seed is in itself on the earth.", and it was so.
Genesis 5:1 In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
If everything on the earth has the seed of it's kind in itself, then this includes man. We have the seed of God in us.
We are also capable of love, compassion, forgiveness etc.
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
The seed must be watered in order for it to grow. When we follow God's word, we produce the fruit of the Spirit.

Deuteronomy 30:14-15 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. See I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.
From this verse I believe we have a choice.

Deuteronomy 10: 12 And now Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep His commandments.
These people were obviously able to love God.

by **Eaglesway** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:39 pm

THE MOST CURIOUS OBJECTION>> However, of all the objections received the most curious is from those who also claim that all mankind is finally saved, yet who hold to man's free will, while objecting that God willed the salvation of all mankind by his gracious sovereign choice.

ME>> Wow! I just do not get that. The great confidence that we believers have that Christ will be finally victorious in the salvation of all mankind is ROOTED in the fact that the Godhead willed it to be, in spite of our rebellion! We can have great confidence that Jesus Christ is your savior, my savior, and the savior of all mankind because GOD HAS WILLED IT TO BE! GOD'S WILL IS THE GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN!

I am happy to receive this good news as well as happy to part ways with traditions that place the security of salvation in the hands of human decision. There is no security in taking anything from God and putting it in the hand of man. This is the difference between mere pew sitting religion and true relationship with Christ.

That is really a kind of simplistic, and perhaps erroneous presentation of an alternate viewpoint you do not understand.

The problem with polarized opposites is that they disregard nuances and possibilities with self enforced limitations of perspective.. The relationship of the salvation of all and the workings of God's sovereign will with man's will is not so complex. God certainly willed the salvation of all.....but there remains a question concerning HOW did he will its fulfillment?

it is not so curious to believe that God, who as you assert, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will to a creation destined to be taught the glory of freedom- the freedom of love for God and for one another- the "glorious liberty of the children of God". For freedom Christ has set you free.

The term "free", joined to "will" in theological terminology is an unfortunate one, because it implies for some a status of independence from God's action and intervention that does not exist- but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, because in order to "agree" and to "serve" and to "love" there must be a freedom to choose.

So I believe God is executing the salvation of all by the glory of the revelation of Christ crucified, a universal testimony of His love that is drawing all men unto Him, "If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me"....."The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". This not happening apart from God who is acting in time and in each life- nor is it occurring in a totally dictated machination. God doesnt work like tghat in my view, He is spirit, wind, water, fire.

The end is not, and never was in doubt, God knowing all along that the superiority of love so transcends the chaos of self that His one great act of love would inexoranly draw all men into it, out of the bondage of futility(choosing self) into the harmony of choosing the love of God in Christ. This one great act of love being the Logos of God from the beginning... the source from which all was created and the bosom unto which all creation must return as it learns, as it is revealed and unveiled, the glory of laying down ones life, yielding to God who is an infinte river of joy filled love- not by command, but because the lessons of futility and the answer of grace for the one who is instructed....."For this reason I am determined to know nothing else among you but Christ and Him crucified."

In my opinion, it is not necessary to hold either view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate to embrace the salvation of all. It makes perfect sense from either view, if thoroughly presented.

by **Eaglesway** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:53 pm

THE MOST CURIOUS OBJECTION>> However, of all the objections received the most curious is from those who also claim that all mankind is finally saved, yet who hold to man's free will, while objecting that God willed the salvation of all mankind by his gracious sovereign choice.

ME>> Wow! I just do not get that. The great confidence that we believers have that Christ will be finally victorious in the salvation of all mankind is ROOTED in the fact that the Godhead willed it to be, in spite of our rebellion! We can have great confidence that Jesus Christ is your savior, my savior, and the savior of all mankind because GOD HAS WILLED IT TO BE! GOD'S WILL IS THE GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN!

I am happy to receive this good news as well as happy to part ways with traditions that place the security of salvation in the hands of human decision. There is no security in taking anything from God and putting it in the hand of man. This is the difference between mere pew sitting religion and true relationship with Christ.

That may be a kind of simplistic, and perhaps erroneous presentation of an alternate viewpoint you may not understand.

The problem with polarized opposites is that they disregard nuances and possibilities with self enforced limitations of perspective.. The relationship of the salvation of all and the workings of God's sovereign will with man's will is not all that complex. God certainly willed the salvation of all.....but there remains an honest question, due valid discussion, as to HOW He has willed its fulfillment.

It is not so curious to believe that God, who as you agree, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will to a creation destined to be taught the glory of freedom- the freedom of love for God and for one another- the "glorious liberty of the children of God". For freedom Christ has set you free.

Certainly anything placed in the hands of man is chaotic, but only until the man/woman is placed in the hands of God, at which point the man/woman becomes a child of God, a steward of the ministry of jesus Christ, inheriting all things in Christ, becoming a part of the reconciliation/restoration of all things. The children of God, having been set free, are destined to walk in and become distributors of the "glorious liberty of the children of God", into which the whole creation is being set free(Romans 8).

The term "free", joined to "will" in theological terminology is an unfortunate one, because it implies for some a status of independence from God's action and intervention that does not exist- but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, in order to "agree" and to "serve" and to "love" there must be a freedom to choose.

So I believe God is executing the salvation of all by the glory of the revelation of Christ crucified, a universal testimony of His love that is drawing all men unto Him, "If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me"....."The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". This not happening apart from God who is acting in time and in each life- nor is it occurring in a totally dictated machination. God doesnt work like that in my view, He is spirit, wind, water, fire.

The end is not, and never was in doubt, God knowing all along that the superiority of love so transcends the chaos of self that His one great act of love would inexoranly draw all men into it, out of the bondage of futility(choosing self) into the harmony and freedom of choosing the love of God in Christ. This one great act of love being the Logos of God from the beginning... the source from which all was created and the bosom unto which all creation must return as it learns, as it is revealed and unveiled, the glory of laying down ones life, yielding to God who is an infinte river of joy filled love- not by command, but because the lessons of futility and the answer of grace for the one who is instructed....."For this reason I am determined to know nothing else among you but Christ and Him crucified."

In my opinion, it is not necessary to hold either view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate to embrace the salvation of all. It makes perfect sense from either view, if thoroughly presented.

From this perspective, the overall sovereignty of God is meted out within the choices of a learning creation, taught thru chaos to embrace the harmony of light- sacrificial love, bowing the knee of self to Christ and Him crucified; Embracing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

by **DaveB** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:10 pm

Eaglesway wrote:
In my opinion, it is not necessary to hold either view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate to embrace the salvation of all. It makes perfect sense from either view, if thoroughly presented.

IMO you have a nuanced and balanced perspective.

by **[email protected]** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:49 pm

>it is not so curious to believe that God, who as you assert, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will

Certainly not curious that God could do such a thing. But instead curious that any would hold the position in light of the Scripture's repeated assertion that we do not have the ability to change our own nature. Why is the good news that God is the heart changer so offensive?

>but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, in order to "agree" and to "serve" and to "love" there must be a freedom to choose.

Yes certainly we choose to reciprocate love for God and hopefully pursue it with zeal. However, in you own words you say that this happens when "The children of God, having been set free...". So do you agree that we are not free until the Holy Spirit sets each individual free from enmity toward God?

The only point I am making is that the great confidence we have that all will be finally saved is because God has determined to make it happen. Without his determination we would all continue hiding from him with our fig leaves.

You suggest that I don't understand.

Someone once suggested that true free will would be evidenced if the chooser could ultimately choose for or against God. Is that your understanding of whether someones will is truly free? However, I am convinced that, first, God has already decided on the basis of the death of Christ that no one will be lost eternally. Yet our first born will is lost from loving God until we are born again. Thankfully God did not even consider our will as he made payment for our sin. And second no one will be able to resist his overwhelming loving persuasion and pursuit of relationship with us. While we do our best to run from God, he runs the faster to overtake us. Our will is unable to finally resist his effective grace.

by **davo** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:36 pm

As I understand it… freewill means nothing more than “I can make independent choices for myself”. I can choose to jump off this planet, there is however the force of nature that counteracts my choice i.e., gravity. Just because my choice is affected by an outside force it would be a stretch to say gravity nullifies my freewill choice… it simply affects it. Thus there are bounds beyond which my freewill struggles to go… that does not mean I don’t have freewill, it just means there can be parameters wherein my freewill choices work. As a kid I was FREE to roam my back yard at my leisure, there were however fences that at a given point refrained my choices, so I adapted my choices; one day “I CHOSE” to climb over that fence.

Revelation (insight) helps direct our choices… someone might well be an enemy of God “in their mind” (Col 1:21), but come to a rather differing conclusion “about God” upon greater education or revelation of the mind, wherever that may occur.

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:03 am

So if we hold that an individual will never choose to love God apart from a specific heart changed caused by the Holy Spirit, then is their will free? Instead the mind of natural man is fenced in to carnality, a fence he can never climb over, but can only be lifted over by the Holy Spirit. You mention education and revelation. It is an essential point that one cannot be educated to Christianity. Though God may use education, education alone remains in the natural dimension, but the supernatural is needed for conversion. That is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

I apologize, but I am saying the same things over and over again and probably not helping anyone. Ironically I am trying to educate others about God's amazing grace, when supernatural persuasion is needed.

by **pilgrim** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:11 am

[email protected] wrote:Ironically I am trying to educate others about God's amazing grace, when supernatural persuasion is needed.

Hi Jeff. That's one of the problems I have with the concept of 'no free will'. Everything then becomes God's responsibility. Whilst some are 'proud' to say that it removes any input/responsibility in the process of our own salvation, by the same token, it must also remove any responsibility for our own sin.

I've read the thread and I still cannot see any problem with believing in universalism AND the Arminian's view of freewill.

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:39 am

Hmmm instead the point of grace is that God made a way to forgive what should have been damned. His absolute holiness cannot withstand the least blemish. We are responsible for our sin and in light of God's holiness ought to be damned because of it. Yet his amazing grace made the way to forgive sin through Christ. He removed our responsibility / penalty for our actions and substituted the responsibility of Christ. The boast of the Christian is not that I am no longer responsible, but a boast and praise that Christ accomplished what we could could not accomplish. He freely willed our salvation.

by **davo** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:34 am

[email protected] wrote:Ironically I am trying to educate others about God's amazing grace, when supernatural persuasion is needed.

Ironically IMO it's the "sin consciousness" of evangelicalism that feels the needs for this to be done... neglectfully forgetting Jesus "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" -- grace!! Flog (revive/resurrect) 'sin consciousness' and there's always "works" to do... the very thing religion thrives on; but as always to the detriment of God's free creation.

by **Eaglesway** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:45 am

I do not claim to know where the line is between where God's sovereign will and whatever degree of autonomy He has given towards man. I just see that it is clear in the language of scripture that man has a choice on some level, even on a daily basis. What I wrote was a paradigm presenting a stewardship of will given unto man by God- so obviously God reigns supreme- but He has left man a choice. Without such a consideration so much of the scripture is just nonsense.

For this reason I tend to reject blanket complete determinism by God or by man, but I reject total determinism by God because I believe He works in another way- not because of any limit upon Him, beyond His own desire to teach us to be His children through stewardship. I don't think God ever had any doubt as to what every being would eventually choose because He knows the limits of His creation and the overwhelming superiority of light to darkness and love to hate and harmony to chaos. He has set it up this way from the beginning.

My point also, is that making UR dependent on one view or another of the debate about man's will and God's will, is unnecessary because universal reconciliation is demonstrable in either paradigm.

by **Eaglesway** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:08 am

When you speak of the assertions of scripture, you have to realize that this particular discussion usually ends in two polarized points of view throwing up scriptures that seem to contradict one another.

Of course sound hermeneutics and exegesis demand that the truth incorporate all the scriptures.

So even if we are to see man's will as a bubble, maintained by God within an infinitley greater bubble of His own higher will and ways(the scripture definitely asserts that His ways are higher and that no one completely knows His mind) we must acknowledge that our choices are a part of the way God works- or else the scriptures are broken.

His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

At some points we must simply acknowledge all the assertions of scripture do integrate into a larger, or higher, or deeper paradigm than we presently understand-

But in seeking that understanding we cannot disregard scriptures inconvenient to our view- as if the truth was a matter of a majority of verses. That is just settling short of the peak, making camp below Zion, refusing to take another step through the wilderness, cuttin it outta whole cloth.

As far as suggesting you dont understand.... obviously if we disagree there is something one of us doesnt understand- but probably some things both of us dont understand- but my point was that your definition of the view of universalism + free will was incorrect or incomplete, as if perhaps you didnt understand the perspective you were describing.

It is difficult to discuss a difference in viewpoint when your presentation of the other view is inaccurate- so I fleshed it out a bit to give it some visible form as it really exists in my mind- which doesnt make it correct/true.... just makes the point of view more legible for another considering the issue.

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:04 pm

Can you then show me one Scripture that teaches that man has the ability to love God without the Holy Spirit first changing his nature? I understand the human logic and reasoning above, but can you provide a Scripture?

I have shown you Scriptures above that do teach that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential or we remain dead to the things of God. This part of the discussion would naturally lead to the extent of the depravity of man's nature and how did it become depraved.

Also the word 'determinism' misses the beauty of the Holy Spirit's work in transforming individuals as if God painted check marks in our lives with a paint roller. I am sorry that you use this word. John 3 instead uses the beautiful picture of the wind that blows where it pleases. Of course both the will of a house painter and the will of a fine artist are the reason that paint is applied. However, the house painter is just getting a job done whereas the artist is expressing beauty. I prefer to think of God's sovereign will in transforming lives and bringing individuals through the new birth as the artistry of the Holy Spirit. Or as John 3 explains, like the wind that blows gently through tree leaves or rips trees from the ground when a hurricane blows. But again the point is that if the wind does not blow, there is no transformation.