Posted on 07/08/2012 2:51:23 PM PDT by NYer
I've also seen this thrown around without any consideration for what it really means.
Yes--no man can come to Him unless drawn. However, no where in that statement does it limit who is drawn, like you seem to think. Since Titus indicates that all are drawn, everyone can come to the Father--if he decides to.
Which brings the other point--Just because one is drawn, does not necessarily mean that one will come to Christ. Resistance is possible, and allowed. See Luke 18.
Please cite Jesus saying some are not drawn.
Well, Paul and Peter disagree with you, my FRiend.
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, sattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are CHOSEN ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF God the Father, by the sanctifying work of thw Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood..." "...for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to HIS CHOICE MIGHT STAND, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS, but because of HIM WHO CALLS."..."So then, it does not depend on the man who wills (CHOOSES) or the man who runs (WORKS), but on God who has mercy,"..."So then, He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
Of course, Paul heard your same arguments back in the first century, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" Obviously, they have proven that it cannot be this way! After all, this would not be fair. May want to check Paul's answer. Too bad, folks. Get over it, God can do whatever He wants and it is perfectly just, because He is the definition of just. Or do you wish to stand in judgment upon Him?
Yes, the free will argument is as old as man. Free will is a myth man concocted to derive a sense of independence from God, a freedom that is non-existent. And, when confronted by its error, recently the charge is thrown up, "This is nothing but Islam!". Sorry, God's management is biblical. Islam is an error of Satan as surely as "free will". Of course, God is managing and using it for His purpose, but we are told to identify it as wrongheaded.
And, of course we have heard the, "Well, are you saying God made a mistake then?" Not at all. The ones displaying the mistake are the agents He is using. And they are everywhere. Nevertheless, just as the darkened Jews were used to crucify the Hope of Israel by the plan and management of God, the unfortunate blame will be laid at the feet of the Jews and Romans, Muslims and "free willers".
Who made up the rule that one cannot be blamed for something one is compelled to do? Where exactly does that passage exist? How does blame transfer to Adam's progeny knowing that he is the only one who actually did it? We must let the text teach us, not the other way round. The Almighty is Holy and Just.
Matt. 7:22ff, "MANY will say to Me on the aday, 'Lord, Lord, did we not (choose of our own free will to come to you)? And, then I will say declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'"
John 6:63ff, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh (human effort) profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who whould betray Him. And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that NO ONE CAN COME TO ME, UNLESS IT HAS BEEN GRANTED HIM FROM THE FATHER.'"
Mark 4:11ff, "And He was saying to them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; BUT THOSE WHO ARE OUTSIDE GET EVERYTHING IN PARABLES in order that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE; and WHILE HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND LEST THEY RETURN AGAIN AND BE FORGIVEN."
This is just a sampling.
John 6--again, it does not limit those who are drawn. It merely limits the way of salvation to Christ.
Mark 4:22-23--immediately following your quote. Reconcile the two.
Ping to 63.
And, there is no epistle penned by Titus. The epistle of that name is Paul to Titus and nowhere does Paul claim that men have a will that is not conditioned by God. He was granted grace because, as he says, "He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was please to reveal His Son in me,..." Gal.
And Paul's explanation of the Gospel of grace discloses the same thing everywhere: God accomplishes everything. It does not depend upon the man who wills (chooses) or the man who runs (acts), but upon God. Rom. For it is God at work in you to both will and to do His good pleasure. Phil.
Your conclusion is even conditioned by God. Some are granted an opportunity to see; others are not.
John 6--again, it does not limit those who are drawn. It merely limits the way of salvation to Christ.
Mark 4:22-23--immediately following your quote. Reconcile the two."
As I mentioned...some are granted an opportunity to see; others are not.
Wow. You take a reference to a book and pretend I'm referencing an author?
Since your skill at interpreting even mundane text seems to be lacking, I have no idea how to go about discussing text (and context) with you.
Is this how you normally get people to quit pestering you with facts?
Factually incorrect; Mat 7:22 [YLT] says:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
(Verse 23 says: and then I will acknowledge to them, that -- I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.)
Note all of those things are actions, they are trying to justify themselves by actions. But Eph 2:8-9 says: for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift, not of works, that no one may boast;
But if grace is a gift, then to whom is it given? John 3:15-17 clearly states that it is to the whole world, that is all men.
So then if the gift of grace is not available to all men is not God a liar? But you have restricted grace from being "available to all men" to being "available to those God preordained salvation". Are you greater than God? Why then do you impose restrictions that God himself did not impose?
God cannot do whatever He wants and be perfectly just; for example He cannot lie nor break a promise, for to do so would be both unjust and dishonorable.
It is precisely because God is Just that He cannot do such things.
Free will is a myth man concocted to derive a sense of independence from God, a freedom that is non-existent.
Again you say that free-will is mutually exclusive of both God's sovereignty and his omnipotence. If man is made in God's image, then man must have a will, for a will is requisite for personhood; further, if that will is not free, then mankind cannot be made in God's image because the lack of such freedom would make man utterly unlike God. (Note: "free will" does not mean "cannot be influenced", or unbounded by reality, or un-predisposed -- why, even God was willing to be influenced, because of his gracious nature, by Abraham regarding Sodom and Gomorrah was He not? Or was the change from 50 to eventually even 10 empty words from God? [Genesis 18:16-33])
And, when confronted by its error, recently the charge is thrown up, "This is nothing but Islam!". Sorry, God's management is biblical. Islam is an error of Satan as surely as "free will". Of course, God is managing and using it for His purpose, but we are told to identify it as wrongheaded.
Managing and micro-managing are two widely different things; though you may not know it.
Managing allows the inferior to act with some self-determination, that is free-will, and bear the responsibility for such.
Micro-managing is so offensive because it is making the will and competence of the managed to no effect; thereby dishonoring the managed and stripping him of [exercise/recognition of] one of the basic acknowledgements of personhood (free will).
For man to have no free will, God would have to micro-manage everyone's lives, and if God were to do so then He would be denying that they were real persons. Perhaps people call your theology [similar to] Islam is because it really is quite similar: mankind is only a clot, there is no free-will, and only those on Allah's "good list" (which is arbitrarily decided by him) get anything good.
Good point; but there's another parable that can also be used. That of the Talents. If man does not have free will then the master, who represents God, cannot justly throw the last servant into outer darkness precisely because that man had no free will; of course in their world-view all mankind seems to be little more than remote-controlled robots.
Which brings us full circle to the parable of the prodigal son. God constantly/consistently paints Himself as a parent, particularly a father (though there are some references as a mother as well). But what sort of parent would be called good or loving that treated their [normal] child the same way at 40, or 20, or 15, or 10 as the did when he was an infant?
None would... and yet these folks would have us believe that God gives stones instead of bread, and snakes instead of fish, eternally treating His children as as infants, indeed as less than persons.
Since your skill at interpreting even mundane text seems to be lacking, I have no idea how to go about discussing text (and context) with you.
Is this how you normally get people to quit pestering you with facts?"
The reference from Paul's letter to Titus, to which I believe you refer, is 2:11, where Paul writes, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."
If you read the context carefully rather than beginning with a conclusion (exegesis not eisegesis), you will notice that Paul is explaining that grace is being poured out upon all KINDS of men, causing them to become "saved". Thus, even difficult owners of bondslaves may be believers, not just the downtrodden bondslaves. He is encouraging bondservants to not to behave badly, thinking that owners (like rulers, Pharisees, and other high-ups) could not possibly be believers.
Read several verses previous to 11 and you will notice that Paul's advice is part of a longer list of advice to believers.
But, you did not answer my question about whether my previous response answered your concern about the prodigal son and "free will". Did it help?
None would... and yet these folks would have us believe that God gives stones instead of bread, and snakes instead of fish, eternally treating His children as as infants, indeed as less than persons."
Most peculiar remarks. Do these have anything at all to do with our discussion about whether free will exists?
I read the context. It only reads the way you want it to read after some heavy twisting of the Scripture.
I don't twist Scripture. It's written that way for a reason. The text says all men. A couple versions say 'all people"--not "all peoples". The language clearly indicates all men, as individuals.
The context also clearly instructs believers to behave in a sober and clear-minded way to be a credible witness, and because that is what is right--not because others may also be believers.
Reading it your way strips all meaning out of it--All kinds of slaves should try to please their masters, rather than all slaves. All kinds of young men should be self-controlled, rather than all. See how ridiculous that sounds?
God's grace has appeared to all men. It rains on the godly and un-godly, on the righteous and unrighteous.
But, you did not answer my question about whether my previous response answered your concern about the prodigal son and "free will". Did it help?
Help what? I don't twist Scripture to make it fit my views. You never answered the fact that the Son came to himself and started his journey home by himself. The Father did not come to him to drag him home.
Ouch...I should have put the /s on.
If you review the post carefully, you will notice that this passage was cited to demonstrate Jesus said some are not drawn. Here are some who think they are believers are not actually known by Christ, thus rejected in the end. If all men are drawn, then there could not be someone who were drawn to Jesus, thought they were rescued, but were rejected. But, here is an example. Notice, Jesus does not say, "You did not quite get it right. You didn't join the right group." He says, "I never knew you." That point met the request.
"But if grace is a gift, then to whom is it given? John 3:15-17 clearly states that it is to the whole world, that is all men.
So then if the gift of grace is not available to all men is not God a liar? But you have restricted grace from being "available to all men" to being "available to those God preordained salvation". Are you greater than God? Why then do you impose restrictions that God himself did not impose?"
This is a completely different question(s).
Actually, the famous John 3:16 (and surrounding verses) has commonly been used to prove a "universal invitation" to believe. But, please, read the verses. There is no invitation.
Jesus is stating a fact: God has loved the world so much that He gave His Son to rescue it and whoever believes in Him will not die eternally, but live with Him forever.
You are presuming this should be read with the addition of, "And by the way, anyone who wishes to believe, may believe." But, that is not there. He simply says, "Whoever believes will be rescued." Then, later (John 6) He makes it clear that only those whom the Father draws to Him may believe.
And, I wish to place no restrictions upon God. I am simply opening up the text which He has provided. A text which was kept away from many folks by groups of so-called "priests" and "church authorities". Under their care, the concepts of "free will" (and other incorrect doctrines) were fabricated.
You have mis-read my post. I did not say "all kinds of slaves". I said that Paul was advising bondslaves to behave in a godly manner because God was rescuing all kinds of men, even their masters. You may check your own hermeneutic.
I did not mis-read your post. I know you did not come out and say “all kinds of slaves,” but if we are going to interpret that passage the way you want to, then we must be consistent and apply that same logic to the rest of the passage.
Islam is a doctrine of demons, as is "free will". Man is not free from God's determining control. But, while I produce dozens of passages demonstrating the extent of that control, you return with philosophical arguments. Re-read your post and notice the dearth of references from the Bible.
The two words "free will" appear only once in the entire Bible. That is in Paul's letter to Philemon, the owner of the slave Onesimus. Paul is asking him to give Onesimus mercy from his own free will. The context is clear. This is not, repeat not, a claim that Philemon is free from God's micro-management of his mind, soul, and spirit, but that Paul is not compelling him by his authority to do so. All other appearances of the word "freewill" is in connection with a sacrifice which is not required. Whenever the Jewish person is moved to give it, he is to offer a "freewill" sacrifice. The context is clear, there is no compulsion to do so.
This is the extent of "free will". But, the weight of passages claiming God controls everything is enormous. That you wish to dismiss it, I leave between you and God.
The logic is that since God is saving all kinds of people, including guys like your boss, behave as if you understand that. How is it that you must twist this into anything more?
Why should I entertain your thoughts on theology when they are not philosophically sound? (Any theology that is philosophically unsound is a theology not worth looking at, IMO, precisely because it would be the equivalent of discussing a system of physics where the math behind it allows true and false to be equal.)
But, the weight of passages claiming God controls everything is enormous. That you wish to dismiss it, I leave between you and God.
You continually conflate free will with the exclusion of sovereignty. Just because God is sovereign does not mean the exercise of free will is precluded.
(Or, at least, you have not shown such.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.