Gods will vs mans free will

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Interesting comment, i don't personally agree with some of it but know my theory isn't more worthy. Think it's possible Adam and Eve had free will because they were perfect, hence why they could choose to sin and that God could lie/change if he chose to. Think he's the Creator of those rules because they're important to him.

Don't think we have free will but do still have moral agency which makes us answerable for our actions. Think this article is worth a read, has much in common with my own view:

https://www.monergism.com/inability-free-will-vs-free-agency
Yes...we are free moral agents, who have a will and nature bound by sin
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
How could "church" historians tell how the gospel spread throughout the world when they didn't even know the extent of the world?


Of course man knew. Man LIVED beyond the Roman Empire.
But men in the Roman Empire didn't know about the world beyond them. So...when the writers of the NT wrote about the "whole world", they meant the world known to them, which would have been only the Roman Empire.

And how we learn about the dissemination of the Gospel throughout the entire world begins with the Church Fathers.

Also, if for the sake of discussion we assume my interpretation of Mat 24:14 when understood in light of v. 34, then there's no way on this little green planet that the gospel was spread to the uttermost parts of the earth in roughly 37 years (assuming Jesus' death occurred around 33 A.D.. The canon of scripture wasn't even put together by 70 A.D.! And the written word was scarce. It wasn't as though every first century disciple of Christ had his own personal bible! Nor were there airplanes to zip around the world in, etc. And how did all those first century disciples learn each and every language in the world in order to preach to people in their native tongue? What happened on the day of Pentecost apparently did not go beyond that feast day. There's no record in the NT of the disciples speaking in earthly tongues after Pentecost.

But one of the major reasons why the Gospel was spread so quickly throughout the Roman world was due to Roads and Language -- roads and highways built by Rome and the fact that the Greek language was pretty much the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. It was not uncommon for the ancient peoples of the Empire to speak more than one language -- and that second language would have likely been Greek. But this would not have been the case outside the Roman Empire which embraced the territories of the conquered divided Greek Empire. The Tibetans were not a Greek speaking people. Nor were the Chinese. Nor were the people of India, etc. So, there were not only great distance obstacles to overcome but language barriers...and the lack of written scriptures, as well.

Here we are in the 21st century and to this day Wycliffe and other bible translators are still translating God's Word into people's native tongues! And it has taken us nearly 2,000 years just to get where we are today and the Church still haven't completed the job! Yet, we're supposed to believe that in the very short span of 37 years or so, every single person on the planet heard the gospel in their native tongue?
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
Interesting comment, i don't personally agree with some of it but know my theory isn't more worthy. Think it's possible Adam and Eve had free will because they were perfect, hence why they could choose to sin and that God could lie/change if he chose to. Think he's the Creator of those rules because they're important to him.

Don't think we have free will but do still have moral agency which makes us answerable for our actions. Think this article is worth a read, has much in common with my own view:

https://www.monergism.com/inability-free-will-vs-free-agency
Moral agency is certainly biblical! (y)
 

Jimbone

Senior Member
Aug 22, 2014
2,941
953
113
44
No he is not right because he assumes freedom means "without restraint" but that is not free at all. There can only be true freedom when true authority (restraint) is exerted. Without authority there is only chaos.
Well Jesus says we are slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness and I believe Him and not you. Our will is ALWAYS tied to our natures and is NEVER free, so yes he was right and you are wrong if you are saying our will is free at any time. This isn't some crazy hard to understand concept here, we are born with our wills enslaved to sin, then if/when we are born again our will becomes enslaved to Him.
Never at any point of any persons life is their will "free". Period.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
670
321
63
So...when the writers of the NT wrote about the "whole world", they meant the world known to them, which would have been only the Roman Empire.
The Holy Spirit, who inspired them, knew about the whole world.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,709
29,056
113
I don't know where to go from here. I understand every thought and deed to be a reflection of a consideration of God or not. That is, either I am attempting to actively bring glory to God or not. Another way, that my heart is actively engaged towards God. I believe this is the essence of what it is to be walking in the Spirit.
I think it is safe to say that it is not necessary to check in every single day to see if the color of socks we are wearing is important or appropriate. It is easy enough to determine once and for all what is good in the eyes of the Lord and what is not, in many matters.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,088
3,680
113
I'm afraid that the KJV occasionally leads us astray; the correct translation is "relent," meaning a "change." God changes from his justice to his mercy in response to human repentance, but he always has both qualities.
The word "repent" means to change. God's changes his direction throughout scripture. The correct word is "repent".
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
The Holy Spirit, who inspired them, knew about the whole world.
So...the Holy Spirit himself did all the evangelizing of each and person in the world? The Holy Spirit spoke in the tongues of all the different peoples in the world? Did the Holy Spirit also give all the indigenous people of this planet a copy of the canon of scripture so that they could also share the gospel with future generations? And he did all this by 70 A.D.?
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,778
6,449
113
62
I think it is safe to say that it is not necessary to check in every single day to see if the color of socks we are wearing is important or appropriate. It is easy enough to determine once and for all what is good in the eyes of the Lord and what is not, in many matters.
There is a moment by moment existence in the presence of God wherein an individual is humbled and dependent upon God for all things. In such an estate, the heart and mind is stayed upon the Lord, and every choice and decision is exactly as Jesus Himself would make were He actually you. And this is so because, in fact, He is literally living in you. The choices and decisions are generally of little consequence, but are reflective of a communion with Christ.
I'll grant you that few people know and experience little of the intimacy of this union, but it is the very thing Jesus describes in John 14 wherein the Father and the Son come and pitch a tent and tabernacle with a believer. And out of this intimacy, in Christ, we live, and move, and have our being. We live, yet not us, Christ truly does live in us. And the end of every thought and action is the glory of God.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,465
447
83
PaulThomson said:
The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,

A paradox is a seeming contradiction that is not a true contradiction.

To prove that X and Y are a paradox, a seeming contradiction, but not a true contradiction, one needs to explain how statements X and Y are not truly assertions about the same thing at the same time in the same way, but there is actually some obfuscated difference between the two statements in regard to their subject, object, time or manner. The existence of a paradox relies on some kind of equivocation in the two statements that makes it seem like they are equivalent when they are not actually equivalent statements, i.e. not truly describing the same thing in the same way at the same time.

A great paradox in scripture is the nature of Christ's Atonement. Many view his atonement as Unlimited (universal) in the quantitative sense, i..e he [actually?] died for each and every person in the world. But it's also important to understand the UNSPOKEN, implicit truth in this particular theology: This same group also believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively since Christ's death alone did not efficaciously procure anyone's salvation, as it only made one's salvation a possibility. IOW, while Christ died for "all", the application of that atoning work is finally applied only by the many of those "all" who actually repent and believe the Gospel.

Others view his atonement as limited in the quantitative sense since Jesus died only for his Father's elect. However, this group also believes in unlimited atonement in the qualitative sense since Christ's death is guaranteed to be applied by the Holy Spirit to all of God's elect.

Therefore, both groups simultaneously believe in both limited and unlimited atonement but in different senses.

As far as our free choices go: We're all free to make choices that accord with our nature; just as God is free to make choices in accordance with his nature. But neither the Creator or his moral creatures have the power to make choices contrary to their natures.
You are dishonestly framing the issue here. You say, "But it's also important to understand the UNSPOKEN, implicit truth in this particular theology: This same group also believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively since Christ's death alone did not efficaciously procure anyone's salvation, as it only made one's salvation a possibility." No one who rejects limited atonement says or believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively. That is a position that you are dishonestly attributing to your opponents to present a fallacious tu quoque argument. You are trying to frame things as, "Yes, those claiming limited atonement agree they are asserting faith in a paradox, but those who reject limited atonement are doing the same thing." However, no proponent of unlimited atonement sees a paradox in their view. Our view is logically very straight-forward. Atonement is not salvation, but is one of the initial steps in the process of salvation, and unless other steps are taken, there will not be a complete salvation for the person who has been atoned for.

If a One World Order decreed that all humans on the planet are entitled to drive a vehicle and issued a vehicle to every person on the planet, they would need to issue ignition keys to every person. The gift of a vehicle and keys is both quantitatively and qualitatively universal. But in order for a person to actually be a driver they will need to seat themselves in their gifted vehicle, close the door, insert the gifted key, turn the ignition, engage the gears, and pump the accelerator, as they release the brake. Anyone who fails to do those steps that follow being gifted the vehicle and keys, will not be a driver. The fact that someone does not become a driver does not mean that the gift of vehicle and keys was qualitatively limited. They we given a perfect car and a perfect key. There is no need to invent and claim a paradox to explain why any particular person was given a vehicle and a key but did not become a driver. It is obvious why they did not become a driver; because it is obvious that receiving a vehicle and key is only one step in a process of becoming a driver.

Those who reject limited atonement and believe in universal atonement see Jesus atoning as a step in a process toward salvation; a step that needs to be followed up with subsequent steps that the recipient is responsible to perform by grace through faith.

So we can easily see that it is only those promoting limited atonement who need to invent the extra-biblical categories "quantitatively limited atonement" and "qualitatively universal atonement" and claim to see a paradox, to excuse their misreading of scripture. Those who believe in universal atonement do not need to invent two categories that paradoxically conflict. with one another. We do not hold to the "UNSPOKEN implicit truth" you falsely attribute to us.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,465
447
83
No...the only reason they're called "free will" offerings is because God desired that his covenant people make such offerings voluntarily from their heart and not because they're merely following some rigid religious ritual. The free will offerings no more presume that dead men have the spiritual ability to obey than any other law under the OC.
Someone who offered a freewill offering obeyed the law regarding free will offerings from the heart. But there was no compulsion upon them to offer a freewill offering.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
PaulThomson said:
The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,

A paradox is a seeming contradiction that is not a true contradiction.

To prove that X and Y are a paradox, a seeming contradiction, but not a true contradiction, one needs to explain how statements X and Y are not truly assertions about the same thing at the same time in the same way, but there is actually some obfuscated difference between the two statements in regard to their subject, object, time or manner. The existence of a paradox relies on some kind of equivocation in the two statements that makes it seem like they are equivalent when they are not actually equivalent statements, i.e. not truly describing the same thing in the same way at the same time.



You are dishonestly framing the issue here. You say, "But it's also important to understand the UNSPOKEN, implicit truth in this particular theology: This same group also believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively since Christ's death alone did not efficaciously procure anyone's salvation, as it only made one's salvation a possibility." No one who rejects limited atonement says or believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively. That is a position that you are dishonestly attributing to your opponents to present a fallacious tu quoque argument. You are trying to frame things as, "Yes, those claiming limited atonement agree they are asserting faith in a paradox, but those who reject limited atonement are doing the same thing." However, no proponent of unlimited atonement sees a paradox in their view. Our view is logically very straight-forward. Atonement is not salvation, but is one of the initial steps in the process of salvation, and unless other steps are taken, there will not be a complete salvation for the person who has been atoned for.

If a One World Order decreed that all humans on the planet are entitled to drive a vehicle and issued a vehicle to every person on the planet, they would need to issue ignition keys to every person. The gift of a vehicle and keys is both quantitatively and qualitatively universal. But in order for a person to actually be a driver they will need to seat themselves in their gifted vehicle, close the door, insert the gifted key, turn the ignition, engage the gears, and pump the accelerator, as they release the brake. Anyone who fails to do those steps that follow being gifted the vehicle and keys, will not be a driver. The fact that someone does not become a driver does not mean that the gift of vehicle and keys was qualitatively limited. They we given a perfect car and a perfect key. There is no need to invent and claim a paradox to explain why any particular person was given a vehicle and a key but did not become a driver. It is obvious why they did not become a driver; because it is obvious that receiving a vehicle and key is only one step in a process of becoming a driver.

Those who reject limited atonement and believe in universal atonement see Jesus atoning as a step in a process toward salvation; a step that needs to be followed up with subsequent steps that the recipient is responsible to perform by grace through faith.

So we can easily see that it is only those promoting limited atonement who need to invent the extra-biblical categories "quantitatively limited atonement" and "qualitatively universal atonement" and claim to see a paradox, to excuse their misreading of scripture. Those who believe in universal atonement do not need to invent two categories that paradoxically conflict. with one another. We do not hold to the "UNSPOKEN implicit truth" you falsely attribute to us.
In other words, it is the forbidden truth. And that is why it's unspoken! The Arminians and other similar groups like to conceal this bit of dirty laundry that is implicit in their theology. Non-Reformed folks do not truly believe (regardless of how they frame their understanding of the atonement) that Christ's death on the Cross actually procures anyone's salvation -- again, even though they say "Christ died for everyone under the sun". But this is a meaningless and dishonest statement, since their theology demands that it's the hearer of the gospel who actually applies Christ's atonement to his soul through his faith by his own"free will" decision. If the non-Reformed were honest, they would tell the world that Christ's death simply makes their salvation possible and that the rest is up to hearers of the gospel. Saying that instead of preaching the lie that "Christ died for each and every person in the world" puts the two versions of the gospel as far from each other as the East is from the West! It is the believer in the Doctrines of Grace that firmly holds to the truth that Christ's death is unlimited qualitatively and limited quantitatively, since Christ actually died for all that the Father gave to him throughout the earth; and for all those and only those will the Holy Spirit in time and space apply Christ's atonement through His effectual call.

And you know this is the truth! No non-Reformed person will ever tell you that Christ actually and truly procured anyone's salvation, even though he will glibly say that "Christ died for all". The final decision of whether God elected someone or not to salvation depends entirely on whether or not the hearer of the gospel elects to believe the gospel and repent of his sins. The hearer of the gospel always has the final say; for he is in control of his own eternal destiny. He's the pilot of his own ship and God is just along for the ride as the co-pilot.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
And people offered them freely and willingly without any compulsion from a decree/command to do so.
Ahh...but you don't know that. You're assuming that they had the spiritual power to make such offerings voluntarily. The prescriptive texts in the bible do not presuppose ability; they only presuppose duty.
 

sawdust

Active member
Feb 12, 2024
898
178
43
67
Australia
Well Jesus says we are slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness and I believe Him and not you. Our will is ALWAYS tied to our natures and is NEVER free, so yes he was right and you are wrong if you are saying our will is free at any time. This isn't some crazy hard to understand concept here, we are born with our wills enslaved to sin, then if/when we are born again our will becomes enslaved to Him.
Never at any point of any persons life is their will "free". Period.
Huh? That is what I said. The other poster was trying to argue that freedom is to have no restraints. I said that is chaos. Freedom can only exist within boundaries.

To be a slave to our sin nature is to be free to destruction and death.

To be a slave to Christ is to be free to righteousness and life.

John 8:36
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Stop thinking, when you see the word "free", that it means no restraints and you will understand what I'm saying.
 

glf

Active member
Mar 18, 2023
251
108
43
Interesting comment, i don't personally agree with some of it but know my theory isn't more worthy. Think it's possible Adam and Eve had free will because they were perfect, hence why they could choose to sin and that God could lie/change if he chose to. Think he's the Creator of those rules because they're important to him.

Don't think we have free will but do still have moral agency which makes us answerable for our actions. Think this article is worth a read, has much in common with my own view:

https://www.monergism.com/inability-free-will-vs-free-agency

Deuteronomy 30: 19, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

James 1: 13-15, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

1 Corinthians 10: 13, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

2 Peter 3: 9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all men should come to repentance."

Rom 2: 4, "Or despiseth thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,234
237
63
Someone who offered a freewill offering obeyed the law regarding free will offerings from the heart. But there was no compulsion upon them to offer a freewill offering.
God's effectual call is "compulsion"? You mean the kind Jesus taught about in the Parable of the Great Banquet in Lk 14:23?
 

Blade

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2019
1,766
621
113
God created man but gave man free will. Yet God wants man to give us our free will and live according to Gods will.
This intersection of free will and "discerning" Gods will, can be quite challenging.

Here is an example. I'm 51 currently out of work. I've been praying for God to guide me through this difficult time. To be honest, I DONT want to go back to corporate work, but the reality of finances and such might dictate i do so versus starting a new business on my own.
I've been praying and asking God to open doors and opportunities which requires faith. At the same time, God isn't a genie, so a job or new business isn't going to come unless I apply, network, etc. I must DO or ACT upon my own free will and or thoughts to make it happen. While there may be some Christians are many who might say patiently wait upon the Lord.

Another example, prior to be going back to church, I was listening to David Goggins (Navy seal, motivational speaker) and purchased his two audio books. Listening to his message of self-empowerment allowed me to lose 20+ pounds through dedicated working out and a strict diet. The mindset of "you are on your own" and you can do it was empowering. However, does this conflict with biblical principals as well? For the bible says "I am made perfect in your weakness." My point is we have the ability through our own free will do certain things, we can choose what car we buy, what foods we eat, surely, I don't need Gods discernment on everything, etc right?

I don't know if others feel this, but when I feel vulnerable (and humble) when I pray to God several times a day.
But when I feel like it's not my time (God doesn't or hasn't answer my prayer) then I say OK, and I'm going to make something happen if you get my point. Please correct me if I'm not thinking about this right.
Something you said reminded me a show I watched last night where the man was telling God how good he did and how he didn't fall for that temptation. God said "but you did want to do it in your heart". God is not against us He does so much for us that we never notice never give thinks for. Had a dream were I died and yet was still standing on earth and this thought came "if I am dead why am I still...." poof shot up and stars were whizzing by and then I was in this beautiful place green grass.. a tree a dear and this lol.. small woman said "there is no such thing as luck here" and it was over. My point is we didn't get this far still alive by luck. What did He say in His word? He supplies all your needs.. He said if two shall agree.. He said what so ever you desire when you pray believe you receive it you shall have it. OT delight your self in the lord He will give you the desires of your heart. <--we tend to stop there but the rest is "Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, And He shall bring it to pass. ". Just that one verse there are no if or ands or buts.

God will is not something different then His word aka "Bible". His will is His word. I know where I am.. faith, it has to be by faith not doubt. We live by faith we walk by faith. That's not what we see hear or feel we walk by faith. As long as I doubt.. that is what I will get.. nothing. Is it not written if we doubt let not that man think he will get anything from God? The flip side is if we know .. key word there.. if we know He hears us then we know we have the petitions/prayers we asked for. So I can keep going but I will say what I mostly never read "don't believe me". Yeah.. its no my word.. its not my truth to tell anyone what GOD really said or really meant.

I find what my Father said in His word and I then make sure there is no sin no doubt no "feelings" I blindly stand on His word. Blindly is I can't see anything I only have His word. I stand on it no matter what anyone says.. He has .. and anyone .. any believer here can pray and ask if I am not being truthful. He always keeps His word. He is the one that told me I am righteous because I believe in Christ.. and its written. He is the one that tells me "don't entertain doubt" He is the one that said "you do not invoke/speak the name of Jesus enough" I can go on and on. Its always backed up by His word. He is always for us.. never against us. But again don't believe me.. seek pray study find this for your self.

Know this the moment you really take that stand on His word the enemy will come in so fast to steal it.. and he does not play fair he knows your weakness much better then you.. but greater is He that is in you then He thats in the world. Don't try to do it your self of you will fall. Lean on rely on trust Him no matter what you see what you hear.. speak His word
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,465
447
83
In other words, it is the forbidden truth. And that is why it's unspoken! The Arminians and other similar groups like to conceal this bit of dirty laundry that is implicit in their theology. Non-Reformed folks do not truly believe (regardless of how they frame their understanding of the atonement) that Christ's death on the Cross actually procures anyone's salvation -- again, even though they say "Christ died for everyone under the sun". But this is a meaningless and dishonest statement, since their theology demands that it's the hearer of the gospel who actually applies Christ's atonement to his soul through his faith by his own"free will" decision. If the non-Reformed were honest, they would tell the world that Christ's death simply makes their salvation possible and that the rest is up to hearers of the gospel. Saying that instead of preaching the lie that "Christ died for each and every person in the world" puts the two versions of the gospel as far from each other as the East is from the West! It is the believer in the Doctrines of Grace that firmly holds to the truth that Christ's death is unlimited qualitatively and limited quantitatively, since Christ actually died for all that the Father gave to him throughout the earth; and for all those and only those will the Holy Spirit in time and space apply Christ's atonement through His effectual call.

And you know this is the truth! No non-Reformed person will ever tell you that Christ actually and truly procured anyone's salvation, even though he will glibly say that "Christ died for all". The final decision of whether God elected someone or not to salvation depends entirely on whether or not the hearer of the gospel elects to believe the gospel and repent of his sins. The hearer of the gospel always has the final say; for he is in control of his own eternal destiny. He's the pilot of his own ship and God is just along for the ride as the co-pilot.
No, it's unspoken because it not what those who see universal atonement think or say. It is purely a figment of your imagination. According to the way your imagination works on atonement, those who are not drivers in my analogy are not drivers because the gift of a vehicle and a key was quantitatively universal but not qualitatively universal. Explain how this is the case in my analogy.