Man is unable to choose to believe on his own!

[iRoswell]

Evangel,

So are you saying that a person coming to God, repenting of his sins, placing his trust in Christ, is not enough for salvation? That more work must be done to merit it?

[evangelist-1]

Evangel, So are you saying that a person coming to God, repenting of his sins, placing his trust in Christ, is not enough for salvation? That more work must be done to merit it?

Yes, sorry, but one must co-operate with the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process!
I know one is sanctified (set apart) in the very beginning, but there are one or two more steps!

But, I wouldn't believe all of this ...
if it weren't for ALL of those MANY warnings to the churches to not fall way, and etc.
Would you like a list of them? ... I have them all laid out.

I used to believe that these warnings were only to get believers to work for rewards, etc.
E.G. You do know there are thrones/seats close to THE throne, right?

[evangelist-1]

Getting back to the OP, I have added therein a new #1 reason for MAN's INABILITY.

IMO, who chooses what goes beyond what man would like to be the reality of the situation.

Can we explain ...
How can man override his totally hopeless spiritual situation, and decide to exercise
his free will to make a correct spiritual choice to believe in the "foolish" gospel?

Can we explain ...
How it is NOT possible for God's election to be followed up by man's free will to respond?

[Come forth]

I struggle to follow some of the points being made here because, for me, they are laid out in almost a cryptic way so that they don't contain a complete thought; perhaps my intellect isn't strong enough to follow.

In Gen 4:6-7, God gives Cain some really good advice on the choices he should make, and the consequence of what will happen failing to make the right choice. Are we now saying that God had no intention of allowing Cain to follow this advice, had already decided (which is different to knowing the outcome in advance and implies that it was God's decision not Cain's) that Cain would kill Able?

Lot of problems for me. If man does not have the ability to choose for self, if God is the total ruler of man's every choice, then God is guilty, by proxy, of every sin that has ever been committed. I can not even begin to comprehend any theology that says man has no power of free will. It automatically follows that God did not create us for relationship but as robots playing out His fantasy just as a child plays with dolls.

Beyond the free choice, which means that I choose to become a bond servant of my Lord, Saviour and Creator, I am only accepting everything that He has already preordained for me within that choice. He has done it all, everything, the price, the sanctification, the righteousness and everything else; but I can choose to walk with Him or away from Him.

In choosing to walk with Him I travel from the Outer Court to the inner parts of the sanctuary and eventually end up with the contents of the arc and become an overcomer.

I totally agree that the whole process is that of yielding to God's will for my life; but what I am yielding is my will (just as Jesus yielded His will Matt 26:39).

The parable of the ten virgins (virgins are symbolic of those waiting for the Bridegroom, as well as much more, and are therefor those who know He is coming) let's us know that not all of those who think they are saved actually are. But I come back to an old argument, is salvation an event or a process?

Going back to the early church fathers, when you first accepted Christ you were considered an 'initiate'; one who was beginning the journey, one who was on the way. Is salvation by Grace? Of course, but what is the full meaning of that. Are we not saved by grace (Eph 2:8) through faith, through being the operative word. Faith is action not thinking. If I have faith that a wall is not there, I walk through the wall. If I do not walk through it, I really do believe it is there and is a barrier for me; hence James' argument. (James 2:18)

Grace is the provision of salvation by understanding God's Word (which was actually made flesh so that it was easier to understand and fulfilled the Law so that we were no longer confused by the oral traditions of man born from a lack of understanding), faith is our acceptance of and obedience to that Word as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12)

You can walk away from your faith, or you can choose to walk with Him. God created me for relationship with Him, not as an animated doll that walks and talks only as He has preprogrammed me to do.

By this I do not imply that faith is all of my own making. To each is given faith by God Himself, as a gift when we reach out to Him, and that deposit is one we should invest so that it grows in quantity and increases in power. (Many parable teach this, including the parable of the talents).

I apologize if this seems all too arrogant and makes it sound as if I know all of the answers. Revelation of God's Word is not yet complete, new and wonderful revelations are just around the corner as we come into these final days. I don't have the answers, but a correct understanding of God's Word will reveal them all in time.

Blessings, Graham.

[evangelist-1]

... I do not imply that faith is all of my own making. To each is given faith
by God Himself, as a gift when we reach out to Him ...

It appears you believe that God will not give His gift of grace-faith
to one who is not reaching out to Him. I will need to ponder that.

Meanwhile, what does everyone think of this passage ...
Acts 16:
13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking
to the women who had assembled.
14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics,
a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond
to the things spoken by Paul.

[Paula22466]

I struggle to follow some of the points being made here because, for me, they are laid out in almost a cryptic way so that they don't contain a complete thought; perhaps my intellect isn't strong enough to follow.

You aren't alone, I'm not following some either. ...Be clear, people!

Lot of problems for me. If man does not have the ability to choose for self, if God is the total ruler of man's every choice, then God is guilty, by proxy, of every sin that has ever been committed.

To that, I would say, as Paul did in Romans 9:14, God forbid! Graham, since you believe men choose God rather than God choosing men (see above) what do you do with chapters like Romans 8 and 9? And what is your view on election? Every believer, no matter their beliefs concerning saving faith, must deal with election since it's clearly taught in scripture. I know you aren't big on debate, so I will tell you my goal in asking you these questions are to learn your sincere opinions - I am not seeking to change your mind.

[iRoswell]

To that, I would say, as Paul did in Romans 9:14, God forbid! Graham, since you believe men choose God rather than God choosing men (see above) what do you do with chapters like Romans 8 and 9? And what is your view on election? Every believer, no matter their beliefs concerning saving faith, must deal with election since it's clearly taught in scripture. I know you aren't big on debate, so I will tell you my goal in asking you these questions are to learn your sincere opinions - I am not seeking to change your mind.

I know that many interpret Romans 9 in an election for all sort of way. I would like to see your opinion on this article, written by a gentleman on the CARM forums. I have his permission to use this, for sharing only purposes. This is quite long, and I don't know if that's okay... If not, I'll remove it.

"To understand Romans 9, one must start at the beginning.

Paul is writing this book to the Church in Rome, which consists of Jews and Gentiles. The first 8 chapters are as close as we come in the New Testament to a theological treatise of man, sin, soteriology, and Christology. We might include some pneumatology, too. So, Paul's intent for the book is to be very instructional.

Chapter 9 turns a corner as Paul addresses a new topic:

9:1 "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh."

Paul does not include things in his letters frivolously. Certainly these are Paul's feelings, but there is a greater purpose, here, too. Paul wants to be sure that we know that he is talking specifically about the Jews. We can see this at the end of verse 3, where Paul refers to them as "my kinsmen according to the flesh." The nation of Israel, formed by the Old Covenant on Sinai, is Paul's subject, here.

"4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

And, again, Paul affirms to use that we are talking about the Israelites, and lists 8 things specific to the nation of Israel. And this list of things combined with the fact that they continue to cling to the Old Covanent, and do not come into the New Covenant promises to them (Jer 31) should cause us a bit of dissonance.

And apparently it did just that either for Paul or some of his readers:

"6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed."

OK, major charge being defended, here. Paul is putting a stake in the ground that the fact that Israel (as a whole) isn't coming into the New Covenant does not mean that God's word has failed.

What do we mean by "God's word failed?" Go back to verses 4 and 5. All of the things listed there should point to the nation of Israel, the one formed by the covenant on Mount Sinai when Moses was there, coming into the promised New Covenant established by Christ, and they aren't. And apparently the charge was made about whether God's word failed.

And Paul says that it has not, and the remainders of Romans 9-11 is a defense of that statement.

So, what we see so far is that Paul is speaking about the word of God as it relates to His interaction with the nation of Israel.

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
"7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

And Paul begins his defense by asserting that there is a subgroup within the nation of Israel, who are his offspring, but are the true Israel because they are children of the promise, not just children by birth.

"9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

If we recall this story, Sarah gave her servant girl to Abraham for her to bear a child, and Ismael was born. And being the oldest, he would be the natural inheritor. But God makes this promise to Abraham, and Isaac is born, making him the child of the promise.

"10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

And, again, with Isaac, Esau was born first, yet God chose Jacob. In both cases, the elder child who should have received the covenant and promises, but did not. And this happened because it was God's purpose in election: The older will serve the younger. Jacob was selected before he was born, Isaac the promised inheritor before he was conceived.

And this becomes the analogy by which Paul begins to explain promises made to Israel. This sub-group within Israel, those who believed and entered the New Covenant are akin to Isaac and Jacob, and the nation of Israel who did not believe and remained in the Old Covenant are likened to Ishmael and Esau.

"14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Note, here, that Paul cites Exodus, just after Israel breaks its covenant, and God threatens to destroy Israel (and changes His mind after Moses refuses to go along with God's plan). After this Moses and God meet at the tent of meeting, and this isn't given as a comfort to Israel, but as a warning that God will keep His own counsel as to whom He extends mercy and compassion.

So, now we have New Covenant Jews who are the "younger", and Old Covenant Jews who are the "older", and God saying that it is up to Him as to who He extends mercy.

"17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

And, contrastingly, Paul shows that God may raise up those for the purpose of hardening, as well, as analogized in Pharaoh.

And we now have a clearer picture. New Covenant Jews receive mercy. Old Covenant Jews are hardened.

"19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

This question, then, is hypothetically from the Jew who is in the Old Covenant, who has been hardened. And Paul gives a clear answer:

"20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

The analogy of the potter and the clay pretty clearly comes from Jeremiah, where the clay is, just as it is here, the nation of Israel, and the potter is God. And the analogy works well, as God is justified in doing as He wishes with His nation.

Except that now, rather than one kind of pot, there are two kinds:

"21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—"

And thus, the nation of Israel minus the sub group, the older, the Old Covenant find themselves prepared for wrath, and the sub-group, children of the promise, the younger, the New Covenant find themselves prepared for glory.

And the hypothetical Old Covenant Jew is disarmed, because the prophets (Jeremiah) do say that God may do as He wishes with His people, especially as they are an obstinate and disobedient people who, in the analogy of the vineyard workers, killed the son.


So, we can conclude a few things from what we see up to this point:

1) Romans 9-11 is primarily about Old Covenant Israel and whether God's word to them (in terms of the 8 items spoken of in vv4-5, especially those promises) have failed.
2) Paul establishes a sub-group in Israel, Jews who are children of the promise, who have a different destiny than those who remain in the Old Covenant.
3) God's election in this portion was about Covenants, not individuals.

[evangelist-1]

I struggle to follow some of the points being made here because, for me, they are laid out in almost a cryptic way so that they don't contain a complete thought; perhaps my intellect isn't strong enough to follow.

You aren't alone, I'm not following some either. ...Be clear, people!

I do apologize if I have not been clear. If so, please provide an example so I may clarify.

[evangelist-1]

iRoswell,

Re: Romans 9 ... Of course, he is correct that it focuses on the OT vs NT Jews.

However, please note that God's "chosen people" (the Jews)
of God's old covenant were cut off because of their rebellion, disobedience, etc.

And that is the parallel with rebellious, disobedient, etc. "chosen people"
of God's new covenant.
However, this does not concern initial election, but OUR sanctification process.

As you are aware, God often has dual meanings/applications in His Scriptures.

[Come forth]

I do apologize if I have not been clear. If so, please provide an example so I may clarify.

Here is an example:

Evangelist1

Can we explain ...
How can man override his totally hopeless spiritual situation, and decide to exercise
his free will to make a correct spiritual choice to believe in the "foolish" gospel?

Can we explain ...
How it is NOT possible for God's election to be followed up by man's free will to respond?

I feel that you are avoiding the direct questions that both Mike and I have asked and are answering with questions of your own in what I would almost call a manipulative manner. I don't appreciate it, and also dislike the return to red ink, and I feel you are deliberately baiting to get a rise. Just being honest here.

I want friendly conversation and will not be a part of this. Bless you and you are welcome to all you believe.

To the others:

I absolutely agree that God calls and chooses, we are not saved by our choice, we are saved by God's grace through the faith that He has planted and He has provided all the evidence to support our faith as it grows.

It is not that I dislike debate, quite the opposite in fact. My problem is that I feel it always ends up in an argument with all of us believing we are right when it is impossible for man and his intellect to even begin to comprehend God's ways.

Are the Calvinists right? Is it impossible for man to do anything of his own free will to earn salvation? Absolutely, they are 100% correct. But...

Is the Arminian idea of God giving man a fee will to be in a relationship with His Creator correct? Is it right that a loving God and Father would never violate a human's free will in what would amount to rape of his emotions and thoughts? Absolutely, they are 100% correct. But...

Is the Calvinist correct that as God creates each soul He says, this one is bound for heaven and this one is bound for hell? Is it right that I am simply either saved or unsaved and nothing I do or say will ever change my destination? Absolutely not, they 100% wrong. Scripture is constantly telling us of our need to choose life and not death. Our choices and lives make a difference in this world, on the people we love and those we share the gospel with. But...

Is the Arminian right that God is actually bound by our choices and His grace is not available freely to all? Is it true that our will is actually more Sovereign than God's will and it is our effort and our faith which saves us. Absolutely not, they are 100% wrong. I can do nothing of and within myself to add one ounce to my salvation. But..

And so on and so forth.

The truth is that both sides are 100% correct, and in some points both sides are 100% wrong, the problem is that they both see themselves as being right and the other wrong without seeing the valid points in what they believe are opposing views. In fact all that I read on this issue claims they are mutually exclusive, you must be one or the other and cannot be a little bit of both? Why not? Is the human intellect now more powerful than God? Are not His ways beyond our ability to understand. So why do we keep trying to explain with human reasoning?

Explain the gospel to all who will listen with human reasoning because as carnal man that is the only way they can hear it. But for ourselves, step out of human reasoning and live in comfortable ambiguity with the God of all things.

Scripture tells us that we can better understand the spiritual by understanding the natural first. Here is the most important thing to me.

All of Scripture talks of our relationship with God as being similar to that of a man and wife; a marriage. So, difficult for men to see a woman's point of view and vice versa, would any wife be content to believe that her feelings for her husband are of no importance to him? When being courted, did it matter what her response to him was? How would she have felt if one day he had rocked up to her house and said, "Today you are coming with me and nothing you say or desire matters." That relationship would never have got of the ground.

And yet, once love controls it all and if it is real devoted love, like a mother for her child, she would lay her life down without hesitation and her feelings are no longer important.

I can't be clear here because I'm trying to explain in a human way a God Truth. But I have no doubt, we matter to Him and we can accept or reject what He offers. I also have no doubt that He is the lover of my soul, it is He that has wooed and chased me. He has provided the way and no matter how much I mess up He will not let go of my hand. But I also believe that I can trade in my marriage with Him, just like divorce, for the cheap thrills of this temporal place.

Blessings, Graham.

[iRoswell]

It is not that I dislike debate, quite the opposite in fact. My problem is that I feel it always ends up in an argument with all of us believing we are right when it is impossible for man and his intellect to even begin to comprehend God's ways.

How dare you be so... Level headed!!!

I think that quite a few of us are going to be very surprised in eternity. And by quite a few, I don't include myself because, I already know He is going to have to sit me down and go over everything anyway.

Have a great day!!!

[Come forth]

Amen, amen!

I know, for an absolute fact, that I know nothing. So I'm right because I know I'm wrong; but I'm also wrong because I'm right in that I am wrong.

Praise God, in Him there is no confusion.

Blessings, Graham.

P.S. I enjoyed the post about the duality of election; and actually agree with it.

Out of interest however and to add to the ambiguity, Abram was a gentile and became Abraham a Jew. So the borders between the elected people and the election of individuals is not black and white. We are now the spiritual nation of Israel and are His chosen people, but how do you move from a natural Israel to a spiritual one and do both become His chosen ones, the elect, or some of both seeing as there is going to be a great falling away.

[iRoswell]

I think the book of Romans actually has that line of thought running all through it. Many times Paul spoke of the duality by saying things like, first for the Jew, then to the gentile. It seems to indicate that the Jew will always be first among the chosen. It also coincides with the statement he made in chapter 11, of us being grafted in and that branches are being broken off to make room.

The great falling away, at least as I've seen it, indicates the false converts and not true ones. It's shown in history, whenever persecution erupts, it seems to drive away those who are not truly of the faith. It would also seem to me that in order for there to be such a great falling away, Christianity would have to be a very large organization, like we see today. Makes you wonder if the end isn't possibly sooner than we may expect??? At least I hope so !

But don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

[Paula22466]

I know that many interpret Romans 9 in an election for all sort of way. I would like to see your opinion on this article, written by a gentleman on the CARM forums.

I agree with the CARM writer as to the main thrust of Romans 9 being an explanation of why God’s Word had not failed concerning His promises to Israel.

But to assert Paul is only talking about Israel in this chapter is baffling. It’s right there in v. 6: For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, (not all Jews by birth will receive the promise just because they are Jews) And v.8: This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God – how much more clear could this be? Children of the flesh refer to all who descended from Abraham according to the familial blood line, so “not the children of the flesh” must be referring to those who did not descend from Abraham, Gentiles.

Then, in vs.23-24 Paul makes it abundantly clear he is referring to both Jew and Gentile: in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? And again in vs. 30-31 Paul distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles: What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. How this writer came up with Romans 9 referring only to Israel and some “sub group of Israel” seems quite illogical and extremely poor exegesis.

Paul anticipates not only what the Jew will say but what everyone will say, (that’s not fair) and gives his answer in v. 20, But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

The CARM’s writer point no. 3: “God's election in this portion was about Covenants, not individuals,” is such a stretch that I had to laugh. And even if we are generous and allow this portion to be referring to covenants and not individuals, we still end up in the same spot. A covenant is a promise made to either a group of people or an individual. Even if Paul is speaking about God electing New Covenant promises over Old Covenant promises, where does that leave us? God is still electing individuals who are under the New Covenant and rejecting others for the sole purpose of His pleasure.

[Paula22466]

It is not that I dislike debate, quite the opposite in fact. My problem is that I feel it always ends up in an argument with all of us believing we are right when it is impossible for man and his intellect to even begin to comprehend God's ways.

It does sometimes end up in an argument, but even those can sometimes be good if they are redemptive. Iron sharpening iron and all that. I agree pride usually gets in the way of these discussions, but not always. I was a staunch Armenian when I joined these forums many years ago and because I was willing to listen and take to heart to what others said, plus tons of digging in the scriptures for myself, of course - I am now a Calvinist. (the change did not come easy or without kicking and screaming) Anyway, sometimes people do pay attention, lie aside their egos, and allow God to speak in this sort of setting and minds can be changed.