Free Will or No Choice?

[brianc]

This is a thread discussing whether we have free will and can choose to accept salvation from God, or whether we have no real free will and God chooses completely separate from our choice.


Calvinists believe we have no real free will, and that God alone chooses who is saved and who goes to hell. They believe salvation is "irresistible". They believe God created the earth knowing that billions of people would go to hell (the majority of mankind) against their will, because He knew humans would sin eventually and it would d**n them all unless He saved some of them. For them, since we have no control over whether we're saved or not (due to no true free will), the purpose of life is for God to glorify Himself. They believe sending people to hell is one way God glorifies Himself. They believe if a person had free will and chose salvation, that somehow glorifies the person rather than God, and is something a person can be prideful in--a 'work'.


Arminianism believes that we do have free will, and that while God draws us to Him and does all of the work, He cannot force us to choose Him--salvation is not irresistable, according to this view. The purpose of life for Arminianism is to find that we need God, and choose to accept His salvation so that we may serve Him, and in doing so, serve others. God is a loving God, because He sends no one to Hell against their will, being that anyone can choose salvation of their own free will. They believe a person must be humble before choosing God, and that that choice is not a 'work' and does not make the special, but rather proves they are inadequate and worthless, needing a savior. In this view, God shows His glory to draw people to Him, and sending people to hell is simply a choice of theirs, not of God's, and has nothing to do with His glory. It is simply a function of love which requires justice for His people.


So, which do you believe the Bible teaches?

What problems do you have with each theory?

This is a fun discussion, so let the discussion begin!

- Brian

[Bainespal]

I want to be both Calvinist and Arminian at the same time. Is that allowed? I believe the apparent contradiction between Free Will and Predestination is a paradox that is utterly impossible for our human mind to resolve. However, existence itself is a paradox that our mind cannot resolve, either. We know God Is, but we can never understand Him. Therefore, I find it easy to believe that Predestination and Free Will can exist together.

I'll probably post more of my thoughts on this subject later; I've thought on it a fair bit. You sure do have an amazing amount of enthusiasm for debating theology, Brian!

[yoda47]

I used to be more Arminian, but am leaking more towards Calvianisam now... I don't know. It's a fascinating topic, and I'm currently researching it. Habent drawn any conclusions yet.

[brianc]

Jun 19, 2012 20:06:08 GMT -5 Bainespal said:

I want to be both Calvinist and Arminian at the same time. Is that allowed? I believe the apparent contradiction between Free Will and Predestination is a paradox that is utterly impossible for our human mind to resolve. However, existence itself is a paradox that our mind cannot resolve, either. We know God Is, but we can never understand Him. Therefore, I find it easy to believe that Predestination and Free Will can exist together.

I'll probably post more of my thoughts on this subject later; I've thought on it a fair bit. You sure do have an amazing amount of enthusiasm for debating theology, Brian!

I hate debate, actually. Can't stand it. Used to be very good at it, but it caused a lot of pride and did more damage to me personally than good. Discussing things, though, I don't mind at all. I don't feel a sense of debate in any of these conversations on here, and I try to keep it that way. It's fun to discuss here.

In my opinion, I believe our human minds can conceive of this, and I believe predestination and free will do co-exist. And I believe Calvinism is 100% incorrect, also. I'll elaborate.

For one to understand predestination, one must understand how God can know the future. The Bible is very subtle about telling this, but it does give us just the hints we need to know.

1. God gave us free will and therefore cannot interfere directly with our free will.

2. God can persuade and He can manipulate us with events.

3. God knows our hearts better than we do, so He knows exactly what choices we will make given any situation.

The only way for God to know the future (and the Bible says He is the only One who knows the future for certain) is for Him to know every man's heart. If God knows someone's heart, He knows what choices they'll make. That means He can set events in motion which cause people to have to make certain choices which change the course of history.

The Bible says God raised Pharaoh for a purpose and hardened his heart. Now, it doesn't say how He hardened his heart. But if God can't infringe upon free will, then it means God threw a series of events into Pharaoh's path which caused him to be hard-hearted toward God. That's easily understandable. And so when Pharaoh needed to oppose God, he did, and God protected His people and brought them out of Egypt. Now, did Pharaoh accept God after that horrible loss? Maybe...maybe not. We'll never know. But we do know God manipulated Pharaoh and used him all without infringing upon his free will, because that would be a violation of Genesis 1:26-28 where God gave mankind free will, sovereignty here on earth.

Consider this: why would God pick someone who would not want to be with Him? Sounds ludacris, right? I agree. There's no reason for it. So, God, knowing our hearts and therefore knowing the future, would pick only those who He knows will choose Him. And to show His glory and power, He would do so ahead of time, before they themselves knew they would choose Him. That's power. For God to simply choose against our free will is more like a bully...a spoiled child just wanting to get His way no matter whom He hurts.

So, it's simple: God knows the future because He knows our hearts. He manipulates events and persuades the hearts of men in different ways, knowing their choices ahead of time, and therefore knows who will accept Him and who will not. So, ahead of time, He chooses His followers, then at just the right time, He calls them and they accept.

I'd say that's not only logical, but completely conceivable. It keeps free will intact and it keeps God from being some cruel task master who damns people against their will. All the verses in the Bible about predestination and free will agree with this. If we had no free will, God would have made Jonah go to Nineveh. But He didn't. Instead, He sent a series of events that caused Jonah to choose to go to Nineveh. That's just one way we know free will exists and God doesn't infringe upon it.

- Brian

[Bethany J.]

Reading your latest posts, Brian, I believe we actually agree a lot more than I previously thought!

I feel like your description of Calvinism is a bit unfair and in places inaccurate. (Understandable, considering it's the view you disagree with - but maybe you don't disagree as much as you think!) Calvinists DO believe there is free will, but we believe it coexists with God's Providence in a paradoxical way that we humans can't understand. The purpose of human life is not simply for God to glorify Himself (although He does), but for US to glorify and enjoy God, which means our purpose in life is to love Him and praise Him forever.

The Bible says God raised Pharaoh for a purpose and hardened his heart. Now, it doesn't say how He hardened his heart. But if God can't infringe upon free will, then it means God threw a series of events into Pharaoh's path which caused him to be hard-hearted toward God. That's easily understandable. And so when Pharaoh needed to oppose God, he did, and God protected His people and brought them out of Egypt.

I completely agree with this! God did not make us mindless robots. He works through means and circumstances to accomplish His will in the world. He doesn't take over our minds and force us to do things we don't want to do. He uses our lives and our experiences to shape us, and mold us. In saving us, He works in our hearts to change our attitudes toward Him.

I would say that we only differ in our understanding of free will in that you believe God looks ahead and sees those who will choose Him, whereas I believe that *no one* will choose God (Romans 3:10-12), so He works in the hearts of those who He chooses to be His own. Really, aside from that tiny difference, I think we're on the same page!

This is a fun discussion to have! Thanks for starting this thread, Brian!

-- Bethany

[brianc]

Jun 20, 2012 9:28:14 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

Reading your latest posts, Brian, I believe we actually agree a lot more than I previously thought!

I feel like your description of Calvinism is a bit unfair and in places inaccurate. (Understandable, considering it's the view you disagree with - but maybe you don't disagree as much as you think!) Calvinists DO believe there is free will, but we believe it coexists with God's Providence in a paradoxical way that we humans can't understand. The purpose of human life is not simply for God to glorify Himself (although He does), but for US to glorify and enjoy God, which means our purpose in life is to love Him and praise Him forever.

I constructed the description of Calvinism from what I've heard some very educated Calvinists say to me while discussing this topic. I admit, it may sound unfair, but it's because I am in no way dressing up the implications of what it means.

When someone says 'paradoxical', it means they have no explanation. I think God gives us explanation for many things in this life, and I think this is one of those things that is within our realm of understanding, personally. The way I understand it makes complete sense to me.

The Bible says God raised Pharaoh for a purpose and hardened his heart. Now, it doesn't say how He hardened his heart. But if God can't infringe upon free will, then it means God threw a series of events into Pharaoh's path which caused him to be hard-hearted toward God. That's easily understandable. And so when Pharaoh needed to oppose God, he did, and God protected His people and brought them out of Egypt.

I completely agree with this! God did not make us mindless robots. He works through means and circumstances to accomplish His will in the world. He doesn't take over our minds and force us to do things we don't want to do. He uses our lives and our experiences to shape us, and mold us. In saving us, He works in our hearts to change our attitudes toward Him.

I would say that we only differ in our understanding of free will in that you believe God looks ahead and sees those who will choose Him, whereas I believe that *no one* will choose God (Romans 3:10-12), so He works in the hearts of those who He chooses to be His own. Really, aside from that tiny difference, I think we're on the same page!

This is a fun discussion to have! Thanks for starting this thread, Brian!

-- Bethany

You cited Romans 3:10-12. Let's look at it:
10 As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”

When I read this, I see no conflict with free will acceptance of God's salvation. The Bible says God draws us to Him. The Bible says all good comes from God. That being the case, God is using events in our lives to shape us, as you said, so that we will choose Him. And you're saying that God chooses people ahead of time, and then shapes them so they'll choose Him. What I'm saying is that there are people who, no matter what or how you shape them, they will not accept God, period. Calvinists believe that salvation is irresistible when God offers it. I disagree.

Let's take Mount Sinai for instance. God starts to speak to the Israelites from the mountain and they are scared to death of Him. So they tell Moses to go talk to Him for them. Moses does. While Moses is on the mountain, the people make a golden calf and start worshiping it. Moses comes down from the mountain and is livid when he sees this. Even in the presence of God and after amazing miracles, the people are still worshiping false gods right in front of God Himself. God said that He would not allow those people to enter His rest. And so God says He ran them around the desert for 40 years so that all of those people die out before He brought His people into the Promised Land.

So, why didn't God just groom every one of the Israelites for entering His rest and entering the Promised Land? If God has the ability to shape us so we'll choose Him, why didn't He do it to His own people? That sounds awful cruel to me. It sounds especially unloving if God has the power to shape anyone so that they'll accept salvation. In fact, God once told Moses He was going to wipe them all out and start over with just Moses and his wife. Moses convinced God not to do this, though. And so God let everyone over the age of 20 die out in the desert before delivering the rest into the Promised Land.

What does that tell you about God?

Now, I'm going to show you a major conflict in God's character if you're correct about God being able to shape someone to accept Him. There is a verse that says God's will is that everyone repent and come to a knowledge of God (i.e. - be saved). If that is God's will, and yet He does not shape everyone so that they'll want to choose Him, even though He has the power to do so, then He is going against His own will. If He has the power to save us all, but won't, then there's something seriously wrong with Him, wouldn't you agree?

I'm curious how you explain that.

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy it too. Fun to speculate on and ask questions.

- Brian

[Bethany J.]

What I'm saying is that there are people who, no matter what or how you shape them, they will not accept God, period.

I agree that this is possible. Some people are more hardened than others! But I do think God can save anyone He elects, no matter how hardened they are. But there are many especially hardened sinners who He has left to their own wishes. (Romans 1:24-25.)

Regarding Mount Sinai, I can't explain why God saves or doesn't save certain people or groups of people. The Israelites were obviously blind and hardened sinners, but why God didn't save more of them is part of His plan for history, which only He knows. I guess you'll have to ask Him in eternity someday, but I honestly can't speculate.

If He has the power to save us all, but won't, then there's something seriously wrong with Him, wouldn't you agree?

Well, firstly, I think God has the power to save anyone. It sounds like you're implying that God is powerless when it comes to certain individuals.

Secondly, I think God shows forth His glory in the punishment of sinners as well as the saving of sinners. He is merciful AND just, and I believe He wants to show us both of those aspects of His character. This is why He elects some to salvation and not all.

[brianc]

Jun 20, 2012 13:56:17 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

What I'm saying is that there are people who, no matter what or how you shape them, they will not accept God, period.

I agree that this is possible. Some people are more hardened than others! But I do think God can save anyone He elects, no matter how hardened they are. But there are many especially hardened sinners who He has left to their own wishes. (Romans 1:24-25.)

Well, then you're leaning toward my view, slightly.

Regarding Mount Sinai, I can't explain why God saves or doesn't save certain people or groups of people. The Israelites were obviously blind and hardened sinners, but why God didn't save more of them is part of His plan for history, which only He knows. I guess you'll have to ask Him in eternity someday, but I honestly can't speculate.

This is where Calvinism fails in its understanding. Arminiamism explains it perfectly. The people have free will and simply chose not to choose God. It was that simple.

If He has the power to save us all, but won't, then there's something seriously wrong with Him, wouldn't you agree?

Well, firstly, I think God has the power to save anyone. It sounds like you're implying that God is powerless when it comes to certain individuals.

I wouldn't say He's powerless to save a hardened sinner. I would say that while we're here on earth, He's setup a system that doesn't allow Him to break our free will, and there are some people who simply won't choose Him while they're alive. Now, could He use hell to discipline people and humble them so that they will accept Him if He comes to ask them to repent? I think that's very possible, especially considering that the Bible seems to say that Jesus saved the people imprisoned in Hell who perished in the flood.

Secondly, I think God shows forth His glory in the punishment of sinners as well as the saving of sinners. He is merciful AND just, and I believe He wants to show us both of those aspects of His character. This is why He elects some to salvation and not all.

I don't think there's any glory in sending people to hell completely against their will, having never given them a choice to choose Him. I think it's completely twisting the concept of what "glory" is just to fit one's belief system when a person thinks punishment in hell with no hope of choosing heaven is glorifying to God.

I have never locked myself into a certain denomination or way of belief, because that immediately kills any chance I have for learning truth. If even one thing I believe is incorrect, my adherence to that set of beliefs is pridefully set for me. I would have to assume my beliefs and my denomination's beliefs are perfectly correct. It seems smarter to seek God and ask for His wisdom in determining beliefs. If I conform to man's set beliefs within the confines of a denomination, I'm blocking myself from learning truth, in my opinion. Would not the Jews have benefitted greatly had they not defined themselves as Pharisees or Saducees? I think the ones who sought truth found it in Jesus, and the others simply choose to stick with their denominational beliefs. You'll notice at the beginning of Acts, Peter accuses all of the Jews of knowing that their Messiah came, having seen the signs in the sky and on earth, and yet they openly rejected Him. That implies God didn't blind them against their will. God simply let their heart-heartedness guide their ways and they chose not to accept their Messiah because He wasn't what they wanted. That's pretty crazy.

I'm not an Armeninian, but I do think their doctrine is pretty close to correct. I didn't even know the term when I searched the Bible to figure out predestination and free will. I just trusted God to show me the answers. And as a result, I can answer the questions Calivinists can't. And the Bible makes sense from cover to cover as a result, where as Calvinists have some major problems, like why God said it's His will to save everyone, and yet He doesn't.

So, the fact that you say that God can save anyone, and the Bible says it's God's will to save everyone, but He doesn't, means that God simply likes to send people to hell for some reason. He could save them, but He chooses not to. That's a vengeful, cruel God if you ask me.

I hope I don't offend you by describing Him that way if your belief is true. I don't mean any offense by it. I just want to show you how Calvinism paints God. It is for this reason that Calvin wrote that book about torturing the unsaved. The Anabaptists, many of whom were tortured and killed by Calvinists, are whom we have to thank for our safety today in believing whatever we want. They stepped out and went against the Calvinists and said that what they were doing was wrong. They believed in free will and our choice in salvation. And so their goal was to convert people, not torture the unchosen. Calvin was a bit of a disturbed individual. Find some of his writings about torturing the unsaved and you'll see what I mean. It's disturbing. He was very prideful in his "election" from God due to his beliefs. And the Calvinists I've spoken with at length on the subject, so far, have all been very prideful, as well. You, actually, are the exception. You don't seem prideful as far as I can tell, which is refreshing. When discussing this subject, I'm always afraid someone's going to get their toes stepped on and the conversation get heated.

Have a good day!

- Brian

[Bethany J.]

Now, could He use hell to discipline people and humble them so that they will accept Him if He comes to ask them to repent? I think that's very possible, especially considering that the Bible seems to say that Jesus saved the people imprisoned in Hell who perished in the flood.

Where is the text you refer to? I'm not familiar with it. From my own reading and understanding of Scripture, I believe Hell is permanent, but as you pointed out earlier, the Bible is not completely clear on details of Hell, so - not being a theologian or anything - I can't necessarily defend my own stance on this very well. Mainly, I believe Hell is permanent because of various texts that refer to it as "eternal".

If I conform to man's set beliefs within the confines of a denomination, I'm blocking myself from learning truth, in my opinion. Would not the Jews have benefitted greatly had they not defined themselves as Pharisees or Saducees? I think the ones who sought truth found it in Jesus, and the others simply choose to stick with their denominational beliefs.

I don't really define myself by my denomination (which is Presbyterian, by the way). I prefer to refer to myself as simply a Christian. I align myself with Presbyterianism because I believe most Presbyterian doctrine aligns with the truth as I find it in Scripture, but the doctrines of my church are not the ultimate determiner of my beliefs - the Bible is. If I was to find discrepancies between my church's doctrine and the Bible's teachings, I would search for a new church where I know the teaching is more accurate to God's word. (This is what my family did years ago; we left our Evangelical church for a Presbyterian congregation.) I think denominations can be helpful in explaining what we believe and why, but I also believe many Christians are too hung up on them, and prejudiced against fellow believers merely on account of small doctrinal differences, and that makes me sad!

I feel like I should clarify here that when I say I am a "Calvinist", that is simply short hand for "I believe in the accuracy of the 'five points of Calvinism', T.U.L.I.P." (You're probably familiar with the term, but just in case, it stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.) I don't mean that I adore Calvin as a person and I love everything he's ever written and believe. That said, I have a great respect for the man, but I had never, ever heard anything about him torturing (or wanting to torture) unbelievers, until our discussions! I believe he participated in the burning of heretics once or twice, which was unfortunately a common punishment of the day because of Roman Catholic teaching. But as for the stuff about torture, I would have to do some research before I could discuss that at any length.

In short, please don't consider me guilty by association, with him or with other unpleasant Calvinists you have encountered. I'm thankful that I do not come across as prideful. The Lord knows I am all too prone to it by nature!...but He is graciously helping me overcome that tendency year by year.

Blessings,
Bethany

[Bethany J.]

Oops, I completely forgot the other point I was going to reply to!

So, the fact that you say that God can save anyone, and the Bible says it's God's will to save everyone, but He doesn't, means that God simply likes to send people to hell for some reason. He could save them, but He chooses not to. That's a vengeful, cruel God if you ask me.

I don't think so at all. We will probably differ on this...but I don't believe God is obligated to offer salvation to every sinner. Mankind as a whole is corrupted, and because He is completely holy and cannot look upon sin, and we are naturally bound to reject Him, He would be completely within His right as God to destroy us all without any hope of heaven. So therefore it is incredible and amazing to me that He would choose ANY of us hopeless sinners and make us His children. That is why His grace is so incredible! It is offered to all sinners (and God's will expressed as the desire to save all sinners) because He uses this promise to draw His own people unto Him, and those He does not draw condemn themselves by their own hard-heartedness, because they have rejected the offer of salvation. The thing is, I believe we would all reject Him except for His grace, which is precisely why His grace is so amazing. In the last days, we will see the unbelievers pitched into Hell, and we will marvel because that is what we deserve, and the free gift of eternal life with Christ is so glorious and so, SO undeserved.

In many ways I feel like we are at an impasse, because we see things very differently at this juncture. In your eyes, God would be cruel if He didn't offer salvation to every sinner. In my eyes, God is amazing because He offers salvation to ANY sinner, considering how undeserving we are. So the thought that He condemns some to Hell without a choice, as you put it, does not bother me. But that doesn't mean I believe God is vengeful and cruel. I just see the issue differently, that's all.

Have a good day!

-- Bethany

[brianc]

Jun 21, 2012 8:20:27 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

Oops, I completely forgot the other point I was going to reply to!

So, the fact that you say that God can save anyone, and the Bible says it's God's will to save everyone, but He doesn't, means that God simply likes to send people to hell for some reason. He could save them, but He chooses not to. That's a vengeful, cruel God if you ask me.

I don't think so at all. We will probably differ on this...but I don't believe God is obligated to offer salvation to every sinner. Mankind as a whole is corrupted, and because He is completely holy and cannot look upon sin, and we are naturally bound to reject Him, He would be completely within His right as God to destroy us all without any hope of heaven. So therefore it is incredible and amazing to me that He would choose ANY of us hopeless sinners and make us His children. That is why His grace is so incredible! It is offered to all sinners (and God's will expressed as the desire to save all sinners) because He uses this promise to draw His own people unto Him, and those He does not draw condemn themselves by their own hard-heartedness, because they have rejected the offer of salvation. The thing is, I believe we would all reject Him except for His grace, which is precisely why His grace is so amazing. In the last days, we will see the unbelievers pitched into Hell, and we will marvel because that is what we deserve, and the free gift of eternal life with Christ is so glorious and so, SO undeserved.

In many ways I feel like we are at an impasse, because we see things very differently at this juncture. In your eyes, God would be cruel if He didn't offer salvation to every sinner. In my eyes, God is amazing because He offers salvation to ANY sinner, considering how undeserving we are. So the thought that He condemns some to Hell without a choice, as you put it, does not bother me. But that doesn't mean I believe God is vengeful and cruel. I just see the issue differently, that's all.

Have a good day!

-- Bethany

This is always what the discussion comes down to.

Here's a scenario for you:

Let's say you have two children (imagine your own children if you have any). Now, you've decided that one of them to hell to show your glory, and you must do so completely against his or her will. I would like you to choose one of them to go to hell and burn forever and then explain why that is loving. Of course, neither deserve heaven, but it's within your power to save them. But again, you have decided it glorifies you to send one to hell, so you're going to have to send one there.

Which one do you pick? And why? And show how that shows your glory? (You must imagine you're in God's place for this scenario, obviously, because everyone is a child of God since He is the Father and the Creator)

- Brian

[metalikhan]

Don't know if y'all have seen it, but there's a thread here on page 2 of Learned Disputations titled "The Lost vs. the Unsaved Elect" which discusses a similar question.

One of the things participants seemed to be in accord about was that it was unresolvable this side of heaven. Some of the definitions (what do we mean by the Elect? ) are too slippery unless you start out with a clear understanding of what you're talking about from the get-go. Scripture doesn't give us a dictionary for how we are to understand what is meant in any particular book of the Bible.

There are clues that Jesus took to Himself some whom He wasn't seeking at the time (that is, the lost sheep of Israel): the thief on the neighboring cross, the centurion who asked Him to heal a member of his household, the woman who asked Him to heal her daughter. The last in particular always fascinated me because of His reply to her and her response; when Jesus told her He was here for the lost sheep of Israel, she responded that dogs may partake of what falls from their master's table.

Had God prepared their hearts to receive Him even though they hadn't been particularly prepared by the milieu of their day? Or is it more in line with the Scripture that what may be know of God is manifest in them because He shows it to them, that He writes His law in their hearts and their conscious bears witness, that no one has an excuse for not believing and glorifying God. If that's the case, then truly He does want all to come to Him, but our own rebellion and rejection is what damns us. He allows us the free will to choose or reject, and then He ratifies our own choice.

But our part as believers is not to say this one or that one is hell-bound because s/he doesn't believe or understand Scripture the same way I do. Our part is to love God and love one another as He loves us.

[Bethany J.]

Brian,

In all honesty, I don't think your analogy works. I don't believe that all human beings are God's children - certainly not in the way that my son and unborn daughter are mine. To verify if my thoughts were supported by Scripture, I did a keyword search for the phrase "children of God" throughout the whole Bible. In every example that surfaced, the phrase specifically refers to the elect/saved as God's children. I think you might be able to see my search results if I put the link here: www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=children%20of%20God&version1=47&searchtype=phrase

The elect are even contrasted with "the children of the devil" and "a crooked and twisted generation", those who are of the world. I believe that when God saves us, he *makes* us His children by adoption.

I can't pretend to know why God chooses the certain people he does vs. those he leaves condemned. But it seems to me that it's not like His going into His kids' rooms and deciding which ones to throw out - it's more like He's going into an orphanage full of filthy, rebellious ingrates who treat each other badly and have no respect for Him, and deciding which ones to redeem. That's an entirely different kind of analogy.

As I said, I think we've reached an impasse here. I feel like the general discussion has become more of a one-on-one debate between us (a friendly one, certainly! - but a debate nonetheless). It was never my goal to convert you to my point of view, only to defend the consistency of my own views, which I feel I have done. And I don't think I could "argue" my point any more deeply or effectively than I have done.

Thank you for this discussion, Brian! It's been fun. It's provided me a chance to really examine my doctrine on this matter and work through some hard questions, and I feel like I have been able to cement more firmly why I believe what I believe. I hope it has been as enjoyable and enlightening for you!

Your sister in Christ,
Bethany


Metalikhan,

Had God prepared their hearts to receive Him even though they hadn't been particularly prepared by the milieu of their day? Or is it more in line with the Scripture that what may be know of God is manifest in them because He shows it to them, that He writes His law in their hearts and their conscious bears witness, that no one has an excuse for not believing and glorifying God.

This is a good point! I think that both are true. All men have an innate knowledge of God which condemns them in their sin...on our own we choose to suppress this knowledge, but God prepares the hearts of His elect so that their eyes will be opened. At least, that is what I believe on the subject.

But our part as believers is not to say this one or that one is hell-bound because s/he doesn't believe or understand Scripture the same way I do. Our part is to love God and love one another as He loves us.

I couldn't agree more!

-- Bethany

[brianc]

Jun 21, 2012 12:04:22 GMT -5 metalikhan said:

Don't know if y'all have seen it, but there's a thread here on page 2 of Learned Disputations titled "The Lost vs. the Unsaved Elect" which discusses a similar question.

One of the things participants seemed to be in accord about was that it was unresolvable this side of heaven. Some of the definitions (what do we mean by the Elect? ) are too slippery unless you start out with a clear understanding of what you're talking about from the get-go. Scripture doesn't give us a dictionary for how we are to understand what is meant in any particular book of the Bible.

There are clues that Jesus took to Himself some whom He wasn't seeking at the time (that is, the lost sheep of Israel): the thief on the neighboring cross, the centurion who asked Him to heal a member of his household, the woman who asked Him to heal her daughter. The last in particular always fascinated me because of His reply to her and her response; when Jesus told her He was here for the lost sheep of Israel, she responded that dogs may partake of what falls from their master's table.

Had God prepared their hearts to receive Him even though they hadn't been particularly prepared by the milieu of their day? Or is it more in line with the Scripture that what may be know of God is manifest in them because He shows it to them, that He writes His law in their hearts and their conscious bears witness, that no one has an excuse for not believing and glorifying God. If that's the case, then truly He does want all to come to Him, but our own rebellion and rejection is what damns us. He allows us the free will to choose or reject, and then He ratifies our own choice.

But our part as believers is not to say this one or that one is hell-bound because s/he doesn't believe or understand Scripture the same way I do. Our part is to love God and love one another as He loves us.

Actually, the verse to which you're referring is in Romans 1, and it's in reference to the creation being what God has shown men which lets them know He exists so that no one is without excuse. I think that's why Creation Science is an important subject to teach.

I wasn't trying to pick out whom the elect are. In my opinion, it's a free will thing, just as you said. There's an innumerable amount of people saved in the end, according to Revelation, from every tongue and nation, so quite a few choose Him. I hope that He has a way to save the rest after death like it appears Jesus may have done in the New Testament when He went to make proclamation to the spirits in prison from the time of Noah. But it's not something we'll know.

Also, you said "this side of heaven." I challenge you to find a verse that says we go to heaven as our eternal home. Nowhere does it say that in the Bible. Paradise seems to be the only reference that is even close, and it seems to be more of a holding tank, like hell, until Jesus returns. At the end of Revelation, it says that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and the bride (us) comes down onto the earth from heaven (maybe from Paradise to earth). It doesn't appear we are in heaven for eternity after we die according to scripture. Just something interesting to think about and research.

- Brian

[brianc]

Jun 22, 2012 9:38:55 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

Brian,

In all honesty, I don't think your analogy works. I don't believe that all human beings are God's children - certainly not in the way that my son and unborn daughter are mine. To verify if my thoughts were supported by Scripture, I did a keyword search for the phrase "children of God" throughout the whole Bible. In every example that surfaced, the phrase specifically refers to the elect/saved as God's children. I think you might be able to see my search results if I put the link here: www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=children%20of%20God&version1=47&searchtype=phrase

The elect are even contrasted with "the children of the devil" and "a crooked and twisted generation", those who are of the world. I believe that when God saves us, he *makes* us His children by adoption.

I can't pretend to know why God chooses the certain people he does vs. those he leaves condemned. But it seems to me that it's not like His going into His kids' rooms and deciding which ones to throw out - it's more like He's going into an orphanage full of filthy, rebellious ingrates who treat each other badly and have no respect for Him, and deciding which ones to redeem. That's an entirely different kind of analogy.

As I said, I think we've reached an impasse here. I feel like the general discussion has become more of a one-on-one debate between us (a friendly one, certainly! - but a debate nonetheless). It was never my goal to convert you to my point of view, only to defend the consistency of my own views, which I feel I have done. And I don't think I could "argue" my point any more deeply or effectively than I have done.

Thank you for this discussion, Brian! It's been fun. It's provided me a chance to really examine my doctrine on this matter and work through some hard questions, and I feel like I have been able to cement more firmly why I believe what I believe. I hope it has been as enjoyable and enlightening for you!

Your sister in Christ,
Bethany

I appreciate the discussion, and I wasn't debating you. I was simply asking you to back up your doctrine scripturally and give an answer to a similar scenario.

I disagree that the scenario was unlike our current situation. If you are a great-great-great-grandmother, is everyone in your line one of your ancestors? Of course. Is everyone in your line related to you? Of course. Is everyone in your line one of your children? Of course, because you are either their mother or grandmother or great*grandmother.

God created Adam originally, and therefore, He is our great-great-great-great-great (and so on) grandfather. Hense the name "Father". We are His children, whether saved or unsaved, no matter what. (Children of God is referring to spiritual sonship, not physical. Physically, all of us are children of God whether saved or unsaved). It doesn't matter that they came up with a colloquialism in the Bible for "Children of God" which refers to people whom are saved. The fact still remains that God is everyone's father, plain and simple. And being as such, my scenario is accurate for your belief system and yours is inaccurate. If we were using your analogy, you would had to have mothered all those children, and many of them would have forgotten you were their mother or outright rejected you as their mother. But to tell you the truth, not one Calvinist has answered that scenario when I've asked it of them, because not one of them can make the answer just or merciful or loving in any way. That's why I ask it. An Arminianist has no problem with the scenario, because shaped for their belief, they can save all the children, but the children have the ability to reject the salvation.

Thanks for the discussion. Have a great day.

- Brian