Gods will vs mans free will
- Thread starter jacko
- Start date
-
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.
There just might be an important object lesson to be learned from this Psalm by all who insist on finding ways for fallen man to share in God's glory. The Psalmist reflects on God's/Israelites' conquest of the Land. Guess who gets left out in the cold credit wise? And since the mighty, valiant, armed-to-the-teeth flesh and blood warriors get tossed under the bus (in a manner of speaking), then how much more should the unarmed, ill-equipped Israelites whom God rescued from Pharaoh deserve the same treatment?
Ps 44:1-8
44:1 For the director of music. Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil.
1 We have heard with our ears, O God;our fathers have told us what you did in their days,in days long ago. 2 With your hand you drove out the nations and planted our fathers;you crushed the peoples and made our fathers flourish. 3 It was not by their sword that they won the land,nor did their arm bring them victory;it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them.
4 You are my King and my God,who decrees victories for Jacob. 5 Through you we push back our enemies;through your name we trample our foes. 6 I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; 7 but you give us victory over our enemies,you put our adversaries to shame. 8 In God we make our boast all day long,and we will praise your name forever.
NIV
Ps 44:1-8
44:1 For the director of music. Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil.
1 We have heard with our ears, O God;our fathers have told us what you did in their days,in days long ago. 2 With your hand you drove out the nations and planted our fathers;you crushed the peoples and made our fathers flourish. 3 It was not by their sword that they won the land,nor did their arm bring them victory;it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them.
4 You are my King and my God,who decrees victories for Jacob. 5 Through you we push back our enemies;through your name we trample our foes. 6 I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; 7 but you give us victory over our enemies,you put our adversaries to shame. 8 In God we make our boast all day long,and we will praise your name forever.
NIV
If Christ's death is efficacious for all then each and every person in the world is saved. No one has anything to worry about on Judgment Day; for Christ's dying for all means he actually saves all.
No. You are confusing atonement with full salvation. Experiencing perfectly one step of a multi-step process does not assure one that the entire process will be completed. I dare say that even you would not make that argument regarding any other process in life, that taking one step assures that completion will be achieved. You are applying this assertion only in theology and only to soteriology. Who has been blindng your mind so that you cannot see that, and humble yourself to bring your perspective on atonement and salvation into line with how you perceive every other process in the rest of your life?
Romans 9 says that the wrestling Esau and Jacob in the womb had not yet done nothing either good or evil. Therefore, they were neither do-gooders nor sinners. They were innocent. However, they were both saints, i.e. set apart for God's use once born. Now God does not automatically degenerate an innocent child, one who has done no good or evil in the womb, into a baby who automatically does evil once the umbilical cord is cut. A born-innocent child eventually does go astray from what it were in the womb, telling lies, once it understands via its conscience that lying is wrong and yet chooses to do so anyway. But both in the womb and after its birth God intends a child to learn to walk with Him and serve Him as it matures. It is set apart by God for God's service.
So, Romans 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
And, Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb (M-ReKheM, not L-ReKheM) : they go astray from the belly (M-BeTeN, not L-BeTeN), speaking lies. (Note: the prepositional prefix is M- i.e. from; not L- i.e. at/for: it does not say "at the womb/belly (L-ReKhem/ L-BeTeN)", but "from/since the womb" (M-ReKhem/ M-BeTeN), disprove your view. We are not conceived or born sinners/ evil-doers/ wicked. We are born innocent saints. We become guilty sinners when we first sin.
Scripture says nothing about the Israelites being inanimate wind-up toys. They complied with His deliverance.
It doesn't say "Gentiles". It says: ... God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 1 Tim 4:10 (KJV)
God redeemed a mixed multitude of both Israelites and other ethnic groups out of Egypt. However, most did not get saved into the promised land. Salvation is a process. The exodus of that mixed multitude out of Egypt by God's sovereign power was one step in a many-stepped process aimed at the Israelites inheriting the land promised to Abraham and His descendants. It is painfully obvious that most of those saved out of Egypt were not saved into Canaan. So, "as a TYPE of the true eternal spiritual salvation" the exodus actually does not support your soteriology.
There is no multi-step process per se because the helpless and powerless can't do anything to facilitate their own salvation. This is precisely why the New Covenant is unilateral. God does it all! But I suppose you believe, as at least one other here apparently does, that the ancient Israelites in Egypt helped God out in his rescue effort by walking out of Egypt on their two feet?
And what part of Psalm 44:1-8 didn't you get? The Israelites would have never made it into the land if it weren't for God, and they Israelites would never have conquered the land and settled in it if it hadn't been for God.
No one is born "innocent" because Adam's sin is imputed to all of us.
Furthermore, no one born of a woman is pure! Babies are born with a sin nature.
What you conveniently overlook in Rom 9 is that it's teaching that God's election never depends upon the objects he elects. That's why it says "before the twins did anything good or bad", God chose them. How? According to his sovereign purpose and good pleasure. And the fact that Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant of promise tells us that they were elected unto reprobation, which is perfectly just of God since it's inevitable that all people come into this world are sinners by nature and, therefore, will sin. God only saves those who he sovereignly decrees to be in a covenant relationship with Him.
I know...you keep telling us that. But then...shouldn't we just write off the entire book of Job since it's replete with errors? All those errors would make the book totally untrustworthy, would they not?
And, yes, I agree with Job because the Book is divinely inspired by God and the specific passages I cited harmonize with the rest of scripture.
P.S. Since Job was such a pathetic spiritual slouch, I wonder why God didn't command Job's three friends to intercede for poor Job and offer sacrifices on his behalf.
Job and his three "friends" all had bad theology. They believed the idea of their day that a big sin brought on extreme suffering. Therefore, his "friends" put Job down because he MUST have done some huge sin to bring about his great suffering, whereas Job knew that he had been outwardly-faithful to God so that he wondered and lamented about why he was suffering so much.
His friends' judging and condemning of Job was the greater sin among the four men. God challenged Job for his questioning but condemned his "friends" for their condemnation of Job, who becomes their priest in the end. In reality, their bad theology was that they all wrongly judged God for Job's suffering, when Satan was its cause.
Well guess what...that "bad theology" of all them crept right into first century Judaism.
John 9:1-2
9:1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
NIV
Was Satan the ultimate cause? Job was brought to whose attention by whom? And would have Satan been able to afflict Job apart from God's permission?
Yep, must be across the pond from you Magenta, posted the last comment 11.23 pm my time. Been a bit under the weather but perking up today and it's lovely to chat with you again, we seem to have a lot in common.
Semi-retired? Thought you might be 40ish but sounds like you might be closer to my age, i'm actually much happier being older, was a real worrier when younger. Much more confident than i was when young too, think we get really cosy being ourselves in late life. Will still take it easy this eve, don't want to make myself poorly again but sure i'll be back to usual in a day or two. Blessings and hugs to you for now and see you soon
That is your Calvinist pretext inferred from misinterpreting proof-texts out of context. Nowhere does scripture actually say that Adam's sin is imputed to us. It says that the physical consequence of Adam's sin, mortality, comes upon all his descendants.
Rom.5:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death (entered the world) by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (eph' On i.e. upon which) all sinned: (I.e. all who sinned sinned because they were doomed to eventually die.)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (There is no law in the womb, or before the child can discern between right and wrong; so sin is NOT imputed to babies in the womb or before the "age of accountability")
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (death came upon even those who had not sinned, and had not had sin imputed to them, when their was yet no law given to them.)
That is also your Calvinist pretext inferred from misinterpreting proof-texts out of context. The context does not support your inference.
Job 15:14 and 25:4 are spoken by Eliphaz and Bildad, two men not commended by God as speaking with true knowledge.
That is another of your Calvinist pretexts eisegeted into a proof-text interpreted out of context. What does "For the children being not yet born, neither having done ANY good or evil (Rom. 9:11)" mean? It means "before they had ever either sinned or did good works. A person who has not yet sinned is not yet a sinner. In Ez. 18 God clearly says He does NOT impute the sins of fathers to their sons. You have no biblical basis for making the assertion that our father Adam's sin was inputed to all of his sons. But you need to assert it in order to duct tape your crumbling Swiss cheese theology together.
I get that. But not all who left Egypt by God's power, one step in the process of their salvation, arrived at the end of the process of salvation, entry into Canaan and establishment in peace within the land. The exodus in not a TYPE of your LOUPI Doctrines of Grease. Not all the elect, whom you claim monergistically left bondage and began to be saved, entered that promised rest that typifies salvation completed.
You are merely presupposing the truth of LOUPI and rejecting the truth because it conflicts with the presuppositions of LOUPI. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. Man must cooperate with God to inherit what God promises to those who love Him.
Since Job has come up again, I think it's only right that I dispel the argument by Mr,. PT that Job cannot be trusted because Job did not speak rightly of God. And since Job cannot be trusted, then that means the entire book must be suspect in terms of its veracity. The keynote passage that forms the basis to PT's complaint against Job is this one:
Job 38:1-2
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
NIV
In other words, Job had no real spiritual knowledge -- according to PT. But is this the right conclusion to draw from this one passage? Or did PT lift this verse out of context, as he is prone to do? Let's see for ourselves. God again speaks to Job:
Job 40:1-8
40:1 The LORD said to Job:
2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"
3 Then Job answered the LORD:
4 "I am unworthy — how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
twice, but I will say no more."
6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
NIV
The bolded verse above provides us with a big clue as to how Job specifically "darkened God's counsel with words without knowledge".
Job's sin, throughout all his discourses, was that he waxed self-righteous, thinking that he did not deserve what God brought upon him. Job wanted to confront God with his complaint precisely to plead his own righteousness before his Creator! But this sin on Job's part doesn't mean that everything Job spoke throughout the book was in error. And now I will prove this point. First Job acknowledges his sin!
Job 42:1-6
42:1 Then Job replied to the LORD:
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3[You asked,] 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4["You said,] 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
NIV
It's extremely noteworthy that, unlike some here on this thread, Job ultimately acknowledged and recognized that all the troubles that came upon him were ultimately part of God's plan for his life. Job did not blame the devil for his afflictions! Job clearly understood who is running the show on the world stage.
Secondly, Job humbled himself by acknowledging and recognizing his own sin -- his sin of self-righteousness (v. 6). This was the specific sin that "darkened the counsel of God". Job thought of himself as being unworthy of the troubles that God had planned for him.
But then God vindicates Job's words twice over before his three friends -- words that had noting to do with Job's opinion about his own righteousness.
Job 42:7, 8c
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has....:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
NIV
It's also noteworthy that three times in this passage (vv. 7-9) God refers to Job as his "servant". It's also important to note that God considered Job to be his servant from the very beginning (1:8; 2:3) and Job was still considered to be his servant at the end of his trials. This could hardly be true if Job was this stupid, foolish man who had virtually no true spiritual knowledge of God, which is how PT portrays Job. He implicitly characterized Job as such because Job did not speak in flattering terms about the human race, so Mr. PT lifts a passage totally out of context (38:1-2) in order to discredit virtually everything God's servant said.
Job 38:1-2
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
NIV
In other words, Job had no real spiritual knowledge -- according to PT. But is this the right conclusion to draw from this one passage? Or did PT lift this verse out of context, as he is prone to do? Let's see for ourselves. God again speaks to Job:
Job 40:1-8
40:1 The LORD said to Job:
2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"
3 Then Job answered the LORD:
4 "I am unworthy — how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
twice, but I will say no more."
6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
NIV
The bolded verse above provides us with a big clue as to how Job specifically "darkened God's counsel with words without knowledge".
Job's sin, throughout all his discourses, was that he waxed self-righteous, thinking that he did not deserve what God brought upon him. Job wanted to confront God with his complaint precisely to plead his own righteousness before his Creator! But this sin on Job's part doesn't mean that everything Job spoke throughout the book was in error. And now I will prove this point. First Job acknowledges his sin!
Job 42:1-6
42:1 Then Job replied to the LORD:
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3[You asked,] 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4["You said,] 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
NIV
It's extremely noteworthy that, unlike some here on this thread, Job ultimately acknowledged and recognized that all the troubles that came upon him were ultimately part of God's plan for his life. Job did not blame the devil for his afflictions! Job clearly understood who is running the show on the world stage.
Secondly, Job humbled himself by acknowledging and recognizing his own sin -- his sin of self-righteousness (v. 6). This was the specific sin that "darkened the counsel of God". Job thought of himself as being unworthy of the troubles that God had planned for him.
But then God vindicates Job's words twice over before his three friends -- words that had noting to do with Job's opinion about his own righteousness.
Job 42:7, 8c
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has....:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
NIV
It's also noteworthy that three times in this passage (vv. 7-9) God refers to Job as his "servant". It's also important to note that God considered Job to be his servant from the very beginning (1:8; 2:3) and Job was still considered to be his servant at the end of his trials. This could hardly be true if Job was this stupid, foolish man who had virtually no true spiritual knowledge of God, which is how PT portrays Job. He implicitly characterized Job as such because Job did not speak in flattering terms about the human race, so Mr. PT lifts a passage totally out of context (38:1-2) in order to discredit virtually everything God's servant said.
So what, not all arrived at their destination? Show me in the Abrahamic Covenant wherein God promised Abraham that each and every descendant of his would inherit the Land! That, sir, only happens under the unilateral New Covenant which is the ultimate fulfillment of all the OT covenants!
P.S. You conveniently overlook the fact that the vast majority of Abraham's descendants who left Egypt were not true believers.