God's election to save vs. the human choice.

This is from a paper someone else wrote with whom I was discussing this (I was on his side of the argument). It's quite long, but it brings out the main points from the Arminianist persepective, and he does a better job than I could, so I'll quote at length:

quote:
First Statement – Romans 9 in Context

Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.

First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul’s larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.

As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.

Paul’s Overall Agenda in Romans

As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 –

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that – a logical argument for a case that needs proving.

In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.

This is a common theme in the letters of Paul –

1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29).

2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that “now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Ephesians 2:13-14).

Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:

1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.

2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.

To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.

I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -

'The basic Jewish answer to the question, “How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?” was of course that he had called Israel.'

While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were “saved” from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.

Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God’s election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God’s election and there were “those who volunteer to join the elect of God.” The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of “all those who had freely devoted themselves.”

While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.

(Note: See James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)

This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.

Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.

N. T. Wright puts it this way –

"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical ‘New Testament’, accepted this answer… Israel’s purpose had come to its head in Jesus’ work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus’ people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel’s history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"

Paul’s thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul’s thesis that we come to Romans 9.

Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:

1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand

In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people – who were called “God’s elect.” In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) –

1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God’s people.

2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.

This first point is presented in Paul’s introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:

1) I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2) 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 own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 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 them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

This issue can be summarized as follows:

Paul’s overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.

Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30–10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul’s ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people – the covenant people – are lost because they did not submit to God’s righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith – by submitting to God’s righteousness found in Christ.

Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God’s righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God’s righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God’s act in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, having established Paul’s issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) “have not submitted to God’s righteousness”. However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) “have attained … righteousness through faith.” In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.

The various claims or evidences found between Paul’s presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.

How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next statement.
Second Statement – Paul’s Use of Prophecy

In this very brief summary, I would like to examine those claims given by Paul in support of his conclusion.

Paul’s use of Old Testament Passages

Specifically, I would like to focus on Paul’s use of prophecy and Old Testament narrative to support his final conclusion, which I will repeat here –

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because THEY DID NOT STRIVE FOR IT on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

Now let us examine these evidences closer to see how Paul is using the prophetic passages he quotes.

As an ex-Pharisee, Paul would not be ignorant of the prophets’ intentions within these scriptures and he would follow that intent in his analysis of present “Israel’s” condition.

Fundamentally, what Paul is showing is that God is recreating or remolding Israel, the covenant community, based on the work of Jesus Christ. The passages that he chooses then are designed to focus on the work of God with this community, not with the individuals.
Given the timeframe I have, I will not get through all of the passages, but let me suggest that you jot down and examine these five passages:

1. Malachi 1:1-5 – which speaks of God’s favor of Israel over Edom as a people.

We will cover this one in the next post.

2. Exodus 33:1-23 – God starting Israel all over again with Moses because of their disobedience.

3. Exodus 9 – The passage of the hardening of Pharaoh.

4. Jeremiah 18:1-11 – the potter and the clay. This passage speaks of God remolding Israel into another vessel.

5. Hosea 1:1-9 – God choosing a new people to be his own instead of Israel.

Romans 9:14-18 – Moses and Mercy

Let’s look at how Paul uses these passages in Romans 9. To do that, I would like to go to our second evidence, in Romans 9:14-18, where Paul poses the following question:

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part?

The intent of the question reflects again the issue of the fate of ethnic Israel. If God has made the promise to them through Abraham, then is he being unjust in his decision about how to exercise the promise? We have to affirm with Paul -

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.”

Where God’s mercy is going to fall is not based on ethnic origin, but on whom he chooses, which is on those who have faith (as we have seen in Paul’s conclusion).

Now Paul goes on to conclude this claim in an interesting way. He states the conclusion of this claim as follows:

16) So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

I think we have already concluded that the works of the law do not yield righteousness. Justification (or rectification as it should be translated per Louis Martyn) comes by God’s mercy – his merciful response to our faith.

But what does it mean when we say that it is not “by human will”? Does that mean that faith is not sourced in the individual, but comes as some act of God?

I do not think the question here is about the source of faith, but rather whether obedience to the law via the human will yields God’s favor. The answer is simply, “No.” Only faith yields God’s favor, as Paul has already stated.

But what are we to do with Pharaoh? Did not God raise him up simply to destroy him?

17) For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18) So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

Is this not clear evidence that God does make some people to be “hardened” to destruction?

This is one of the dangers of trying to exegete Romans 9 in isolation of the broader context of Paul’s overall argument found in Romans 9-11. Most serious commentators would shudder at what we are doing in isolating Romans 9 to its own text and insist that we treat all three chapters as a unit. So in the light of this fact, I think we must understand the following about this statement.

1. First, Paul is borrowing this very short text from Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. This does not mean all or even specific individuals have been hardened, since some are clearly followers of Christ. He is simply speaking in general terms concerning “his people” as a whole.

2. Second, But we must understand this hardening to be for a purpose, just like Pharaoh’s hardening was for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was so that “God’s name would “resound through all the earth.” God’s hardening of Israel was so that salvation would come to the Gentiles. Romans 11, in speaking of Israel’s hardening poses the following question (11:11):

11) So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?

Paul’s answer is an emphatic “By no means!”

”But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”

Their stumbling is for a purpose (very similar to Pharaoh’s).

3. Finally, this hardening is temporary. Paul is very clear that through this process, a return of the Jews will eventually occur – not to the old covenant, but to the new.

“11:12) Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!”

Now even if we were to presume that the hardening is of individuals, then on the basis of this text in Romans 11, which is part of the overall argument and speaks of the same people, we must conclude that it is not a permanent hardening. For in this passage Paul speaks of the hardening and the inclusion in the covenant of the same people! We must therefore see this as a temporary hardening of a people where Israel becomes an instrument (SKEUOS – vessel is the term used in Romans 9) in God’s hands to accomplish his will by that hardening. In this case, they have become an instrument of wrath, but only for a time.

Romans 9:21 – The Potter and the Clay

We now come to Paul’s final evidence, which is also posed by a question:

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

Paul has already concluded based on the first two claims that:

1. God’s Word has not failed. God has the right to choose to save people outside of the ethnic Israel.

2. God has hardened Israel to declare his glory outside the ethnic boundaries of Israel. But this hardening is instrumental and temporary. These people are fully redeemable if they come to Christ.
If this is the case, then logically this question would lead to the next – why does God find fault in anyone? Paul’s response is one of those rhetorical techniques of rebutting the question with a short response – Who are you, oh man, to question God?

Now there is often an “AH HA!” given here where people will say, “See, he is speaking of individuals! He is speaking of a man who is questioning God!”

But I think this is misconstruing the text. First, Paul is posing the question in a rhetorical fashion – so that he can answer like this. Second – and forgive me for getting a bit technical here – the way Paul responds is a bit unique. The reference “oh man” is the word ANTHROPOS (from which we get our word anthropology – the study of humanity). It is used in the vocative case, meaning that Paul is using it as a title or proper name. What Paul is re-affirming here is what he has affirmed in the first claim – that human beings as a whole do not dictate how God builds the covenant community.

We then come to that curious argument about the potter and the clay.

Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

This concept is taken right out of Jeremiah 18:1-8.

1) The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2) “Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3) So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4) The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him.
5) Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6) Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7) At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8) but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

Now follow me here. Paul has been talking about the remolding of the covenant community. When challenged (rhetorically) as to why God would find fault, he states that it is not the place of humanity to challenge what God is doing. To prove his point, he goes back to the Jeremiah prophecy where Israel IS RESHAPED because of their sin into something else – another vessel. The covenant community is remade by the potter as far back as the prophet Jeremiah.

How is it remade? Paul goes back to another prophecy found in Hosea 1, to show that the Gentiles who “were not my people” are now called “my people” and “beloved” (a name reserved for Israel).

26) “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”

But not only the Gentiles are included. There is a remnant of believers from Israel as well. They are included as well.

27) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28) for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” 29) And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah.”

So what is Paul’s conclusion for this claim? That God has remolded the covenant community as he saw fit (it is not for us to question why or how he has done this) and it contains both Jews and Gentiles that have the faith of Jesus Christ.

Now the three claims show simply that God is remolding the covenant community by his own will and it includes those beyond the ethnic boundaries of Israel – all those of faith.

My next post will deal with the question of Esau and Jacob.

It could be argued that what I am calling the “evidences” or “claims” can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.

However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.

Let me deal with one of these claims at this point – In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the question of whether the word of God has failed.

6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 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 descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.”

Notice how Paul phrases this. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land to Abraham’s children. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.

So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word – his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise – Isaac and then Jacob. If the covenant people is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God’s promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. Paul’s conclusion here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise – which is the issue at stake here.

Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.

10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13) As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”

Now this text has been misunderstood by many people who believe that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:

23) And the LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples born of you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the elder shall serve the younger.”

Here the statement if very simply – there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise.

The statement “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau” comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations – Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. This statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God’s choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.

How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision.

Now to go back to Romans 9, as I have shown through this one example, the claims given in the argument are there to show that God does have the power and authority to make choices, and he is not locked into the assumptions made by some in Paul’s implied audience that the covenant is open only to those of physical descent from Abraham. His choices are made based solely on his own authority and not on works or religious rituals of individuals (like circumcision). That is why part of Paul’s conclusion in this section is that “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for EVERYONE who believes.”

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/02/06 08:05 PM

TE: Since the Spirit is constantly seeking to draw the attention of man to the cross, man must constantly resist the Spirit in order to remain in an unconverted condition. Man is free at any time to respond to the work of the Spirit. The bondage of the will remains so only at the choice of man.

MM: For most of us it is easy and natural to resist the wooing entreaties of the Holy Spirit. Satan is so busy blessing the unconverted with joy and peace that it is well nigh impossible for them to feel their God-given need of Jesus. They do not have to make a conscious choice to resist the loving pleadings of the Holy Spirit. Most are resting blissfully in the loving arms of Satan.

GC 589
Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some in order to further his own designs, and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them. {GC 589.2}

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/02/06 08:06 PM

Here is some scripture that speak of what I said earlier:

The only faculty that the will directly governs is ‘Faith”. Faith is a faculty and not a “belief”. Here man is sovereign. But if faith has been placed in the flesh by the will, then the will cannot govern the thoughts and actions of the flesh contrary to where it has placed faith regardless of how much controversial information we have in the mind; seeing that the same flesh that one proposes to govern has been established as the source of its instruction. The way the will can govern the whole being is through “faith”.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

What is the “sin” that dwells in me? Fundamentally, it is the broken faith with God. Until faith is established with God, sin will have dominion.

The way of the spirit is the way of faith.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/02/06 08:20 PM

Quote:

TE: Since the Spirit is constantly seeking to draw the attention of man to the cross, man must constantly resist the Spirit in order to remain in an unconverted condition. Man is free at any time to respond to the work of the Spirit. The bondage of the will remains so only at the choice of man.

MM: For most of us it is easy and natural to resist the wooing entreaties of the Holy Spirit. Satan is so busy blessing the unconverted with joy and peace that it is well nigh impossible for them to feel their God-given need of Jesus. They do not have to make a conscious choice to resist the loving pleadings of the Holy Spirit. Most are resting blissfully in the loving arms of Satan.

MM, you have gone past the bounds of what Satan is capable of giving. Joy Peace and Love are not his to give. The lusts and pleasures of the world and the deceitfulness of riches, which he offers, do not provide these.

Isa 48:22 There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
Isa 59:8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

I agree otherwise to the blinding aspect of Satan's work.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/02/06 09:37 PM

Here are a few more of Luther's 99 theses:

'We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous; but having become righteous we do what is righteous . . .

'Man is a greater enemy to the grace of God than he is to the law itself [!]. . .

'On the side of man there is nothing that goes before grace unless it be impotency and rebellion . . .

'From beginning to end, we are not masters of our actions but their slaves . . .

'He who is without God's grace sins continually even though he should neither rob, murder nor commit adultry. . . '

I can't comment much now. Tom's right that our understanding of the role of the will basically determines our view of the election.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/02/06 10:31 PM

That is right Mark.
That is what I have been posting.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/03/06 01:51 AM

John, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing. I have some trouble understanding your "language," so I'll put things how I understand them, and you can tell me if you agree with what I'm saying.

Satan told lies about God, insinuating that God does not have our best interests in heart, and cannot be trusted. By believing these lies, man was led into sin, and this unbelief has been entrenched in man. It is this false view of God which holds man in bondage to sin.

Another way of stating what happened in the garden is that man chose to use his own judgment of what is good, instead of sticking with God's. By replacing God's judgment with his own, he became under bondage. The same thing could be said in relation to justice or righteousness. (i.e. man has replaced God's justice, or righteousness, with his own).

So what man needs is a revelation of truth. This is what God has provided man through Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit communicates to the mind of the sinner the truth of God's character revealed in Jesus Christ, especially at the cross. The sinner chooses to respond to the truth, either yea or nay. If he responds nay, God will try again, until the sinner has so rejected the truth that he can no longer respond. If he responds yea, then God reveals more of His character, as light increasing to the noon day.

Another way of putting this is that God reveals the shortcomings of our paradigms by revealing the truth. Our paradigms our constantly challenged. The good news is that our paradigms always shortchange God's true goodness. By allowing God to reveal truth to us, and being willing to adjust our paradigms, we can see God with ever improving clarity, always better than what we thought before!

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 03:39 AM

Many good angles there, Tom.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 04:00 AM

Do you think this statement is true:

'Man is a greater enemy to the grace of God than he is to the law itself [!]. . .'

Today we don't see monks selling indulgences. Instead, Christians are buying indulgences of their own kind, and that for nothing. It's a better deal and more popular. But human nature is such that even while we might talk of free grace and give ourselves a 'plenary remission' at no charge, don't those who do this adhere all the more doggedly to one kind of legalism or another but in disguise? I think Luther is on to something.

So Tom, switching topics somewhat, what is it about the human will that makes it the highest power. How much power is there in the will of man before and after conversion, especially long after conversion.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 06:02 AM

I know you asked Tom, but here is my answer anyway.

I agree with what you said.

Re your question: The will has the same power before, after and ever, but it's power is directed in opposing directions; before than after.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 07:39 AM

Quote:

Man is a greater enemy to the grace of God than he is to the law itself.

Yes, I think this is true. Luther was a great man of God. He would have loved Jones and Waggoner

.

I had Luther's commentary on Galatians, but I don't know where it went. I remember thinking it was excellent as I was reading it.

I think I quoted this statement from EGW a bit earlier:

In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus. (SC 68)

In Gen. 3:15 we read of God's intervening in the work of the serpent. EGW comments:

God declares, "I will put enmity." This enmity is supernaturally put, and not naturally entertained. When man sinned, his nature became evil, and he was in harmony, and not at variance, with Satan. The lofty usurper, having succeeded in seducing our first parents as he had seduced angels, counted on securing their allegiance and co-operation in all his enterprises against the government of Heaven. There was no enmity between himself and the fallen angels. Whatever discord might exist between them, all were united, as by bands of steel, in their opposition and hatred against God. But when Satan heard that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, he knew that though he had succeeded in depraving human nature, and assimilating it to his own, yet by some mysterious process, God would restore to man his lost power, and enable him to resist and overcome his conqueror.

It is the grace that Christ implants in the soul that creates the enmity against Satan. Without this grace, man would continue the captive of Satan, a servant ever ready to do his bidding. The new principle in the soul creates conflict where hitherto had been peace. The power which Christ imparts, enables man to resist the tyrant and usurper. Whenever a man is seen to abhor sin instead of loving it, when he resists and conquers those passions that have held sway within, there is seen the operation of a principle wholly from above. The Holy Spirit must be constantly imparted to man, or he has no disposition to contend against the powers of darkness. (RH 7/18/82)

This is something God does for every human being. If it were not so, Calvin and Augustine would be right; man would be saved or lost by a unilateral decree of God.

But this is not the case. The free will of man is real, because God intervened to keep it so when man delivered it to Satan.

The will has the power to choose whom man will serve, but not the power to overcome sin.

What you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him. (SC 47)

This is Romans 7. We can choose to do right, any of us, converted or unconverted, but we cannot do it without the power of God. However, God gives that power freely to anyone who desires it.

I'm not sure I've answered your question Mark. Hopefully I've been clear at any rate. If I haven't answered it, you can re-ask it and I'll try again.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 02:40 PM

Even as Ellen White speaks of the will as that 'governing power' placing it at the forfront of our natures, did you notice in the same statement what a humble position it still has. You cannot charge your heart she says, you can only give your will to God.

How does that compare with your statement: "The will has the power to choose whom man will serve, but not the power to overcome sin."?

Here is a quote from Zwingli that has quite a bit of similarity to some of the things John has been saying:

Quote:

Before the fall, man had been created with a free will, so that, had he been willing, he might have kept the law; his nature was pure; the disease of sin had not yet reached him; his life was in his own hands. But having desired to be as God, he died . . . and not he alone, but all his posterity. Since then in Adam all men are dead and no one may recall them to life, until the Spirit, which is God himself, raises them from the dead.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/04/06 07:34 PM

In the following quotes it is clear to me that our will is by default under the controlling influence of Satan until we surrender it to the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit. First we give it to Jesus and then He gives it back to us sanctified and fortified. It empowers us to cooperate with heavenly agencies, to govern our faculties of mind and body, to cultivate character for eternity - unto the honor and glory of God our Father.

5T 515
This will, that forms so important a factor in the character of man, was at the Fall given into the control of Satan; and he has ever since been working in man to will and to do of his own pleasure, but to the utter ruin and misery of man. {5T 515.1}

MB 62
God does not design that our will should be destroyed, for it is only through its exercise that we can accomplish what He would have us do. Our will is to be yielded to Him, that we may receive it again, purified and refined, and so linked in sympathy with the Divine that He can pour through us the tides of His love and power. {MB 62.2}

2MCP 692
The Spirit of God does not propose to do our part, either in the willing or the doing. This is the work of the human agent in cooperating with the divine agencies. As soon as we incline our will to harmonize with God's will, the grace of Christ stands to cooperate with the human agent; but it will not be the substitute to do our work independent of our resolving and decidedly acting. {2MCP 691.3}

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 01:27 AM

We come from a Wesleyan tradition, not Zwingli. Zwingli's theology was totally different from Wesley's, and from SDAism.

Zwingli's thoeology was Reformist. What in John's theology is reformist? I'm not seeing the similarity. I don't think John believes that our will is set free by a divine decree of God, or a unilateral action on His part.

The starting point of Zwingli's theology was God's sovereignty. Nothing can thwart the divine will. That's not in the least what John has been saying.

Ellen White's statement was emphasizing the role of the will, as was mine. We can choose whom we will serve, but we must be born again. We do not have the ability to beget ourselves. When we respond to the Holy Spirit (which we can do), *then* He begets a new life in the soul (which we cannot do).

A central point to keep in mind is that God does not select some for salvation, but has selected all. The only way a person can be lost is to refuse to be drawn.

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me." None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ.(DA 387)

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 02:17 AM

MM, that selection of quotes strikes a good balance.

Tom, you've made a few statements about Luther's doctrine on the forum, maybe not on this thread, that I've found were inaccurate but I didn't say anything. Now your doing the same with Zwingli. I'm just mentioning that for the benefit of our readers. I would rather spend time addressing the issues directly though because in the end, it doesn't matter what Luther or Zwingli taught. What matters is scripture so I'd like us to keep our focus there. But I can tell you unequivocally that these two men who repeatedly showed the world they were ready to lay down their lives for the sake of the gospel of Christ were truly in the forefront of the ranks of those who took the Bible only as their rule of faith and practise. It lends credibility to their statements.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 03:07 AM

The starting-point for Zwingli's theology and personal piety is God's sovereignty. Nothing can hinder God's foreknowledge and election.

http://www.unizh.ch/irg/zwi-engl.html

You're the one who brought up Zwingli, not I. If you think I'm being inacccurate, please present the inaccuracy. Don't just make an empty claim. Present some evidence. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, so I can change my position.

If you want to keep the focus on the Scriptures instead of Zwingli, then wouldn't it make sense to quote Scripture instead of Zwingli?

Why would the fact that one is willing to die add any credibility to their statements? People throughout history have been willing to die for all sorts of crazy things. Look at the suicide bombers of today. In saying this, I'm not saying anything against Zwingli or Luther, just against your faulty logic that the fact that they were willing to die for their beliefs adds some credibility to their statements.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 04:23 AM

I mention self-sacrifice for the gospel because this is one of the things that the apostle also did in scripture. In making his recommendation to the church of certain individual(s) he points to this fact - the person(s) hazarded their lives for the sake of the gospel.

Regarding Wesleyism, one of the weakness of that theology could well be that there was too much emphasis on methodology, man's part, hence, Methodism, and not enough on Divine grace. So your point is well taken that Adventism has been influenced in that direction. What we want though is not Calvanism or Lutherism or Methodism or any other ism including Adventism, except to the extent that we get a balanced view of Christ and the Word.

Let's compare some of these statements from Ellen White and the reformers and pioneers with scripture. Below is the entire first chapter of Ephesians so we have it in context:

Quote:

1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
1:2 Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
1:16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
1:19 And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
1:22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church,
1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Ephesians

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 07:19 AM

I noticed no rebutal to the evidence I produced that my comment regarding Zwingli was accurate. I take it from your silence that you argee(?). The statement was from Institut für schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, which looked to me to be authoritative on this subject. But if you have some evidence that I was inaccurate, I'd be happy to see it.

I was commenting on your argument that their arguments gained credibility because of their willingness to die for the Gospel. This argument is faulty. Because A implies B does not mean that B implies A. The fact that they were willing to die for the Gospel means what they say *might* be true. They are not immediately ruled out. They *possibly* gain credibility. This is elementary logic.

Again, I'm not saying anything against either Luther or Zwingli, especially Luther. There is no doubt he was a great man of God. However there was a progression of light. Wesley came after Luther, and Adventism after Wesley. We come from a Wesleyan tradition, not a Lutheran one. The ground we are traveling has been traveled many times before, which is fine, but it's nice to have an awareness of our heritage. Actually there's a reason why Calvinism has crept into our church in the last 50+ years, but we can go into that some other time.

Ok, you've suggested a good course of action, comparing the words of Scripture, of Ellen White, and our pioneers. Let's do that.

The accepted in the beloved statement reminds me of this from Ellen White:

And the word that was spoken to Jesus at the Jordan, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," embraces humanity. God spoke to Jesus as our representative. With all our sins and weaknesses, we are not cast aside as worthless. "He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." Eph. 1:6. The glory that rested upon Christ is a pledge of the love of God for us.(DA 113)

From the standpoint of election, the entire human race is elected in Christ. The entire human race is made accepted in the Beloved. Whosoever will may come.

From A. T. Jones in a sermon to the General Conference session:

He hath given us all the blessings He has in Christ. Christ says, "I am with you." Brethren, let us feed on the blessings. We have them, and they are our own. Then we can be sure all the time that we have all spiritual blessings.
We can be sure all the time that He has chosen us. He says He has. We can be sure all the time that He has predestinated us unto the adoption of children. We can be sure all the time that He has made us accepted in the Beloved. We can be sure of all these things, for God says so and it is so. Then isn't that a continual feast itself?

Now He has done all that and has done it freely. For how many people did He do this? Every soul? [Congregation: "Yes, sir."] Gave all the blessings He has to every soul in this world; He chose every soul in the world; He chose Him in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinated him unto the adoption of children and made him accepted in the Beloved, did He not? [Congregation: "Yes."] Of course He did. We will read other verses on that presently. The thought I am after just now is that no one can have these things and know they are his without his own consent. The Lord will not force any of these things upon a man, even though He has given them already, will He? [Congregation: "No."] This is a cooperation, you see. God pours out everything in one wondrous gift, but if a man will not have it, the Lord will not compel him to have a bit of it. Every man that will take it, it is all his own. There is where the cooperation comes in. The Lord has to have our cooperation in all things.

This is the exact same idea. The blessings include the whole world, but God will not force any of these things upon any man. This is very well put!

Here's Waggoner:

God has not cast off the human race. Since the first man created was called "the son of God," all men can also be heirs. "Before faith came," although all were wanderers from God, we were "under the law," guarded by a severe master, kept under restraint in order that we might be led to accept the promise. What a blessed thing it is that God counts even the ungodly, those who are in the bondage of sin, as His children, wandering, prodigal sons, but still children!

God has made all men "accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:6, KJV. This probationary life is given for the
purpose of giving us a chance to acknowledge Him as Father and to become sons indeed. But unless we come back to Him we shall die as slaves of sin. (The Glad Tidings)

This is exactly the same idea. God has made all men "accepted in the Beloved." But we must choose to accept that which God has given us. Or we could say we must choose not to reject that which God has given us.

I found a chapter on predesitination by Uriah Smith, but it's too long to put here, so I'll put in in the next post.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 07:28 AM

The following is from Uriah Smith, written in 1884.

CHAPTER 29.

Predestination.

URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0304 paragraph 1 THAT the Bible teaches predestination, is true; that it teaches what modern theology defines the term to mean, we think is not true. As set forth in the Scriptures, it is a doctrine full of comfort and consolation; as taught in the creeds, it is full of spiritual paralysis and despair. In the Scriptures, it is the assurance of salvation so long as we maintain a certain relation to God; in theology, it is a relation determined for us independently of our own will, and a fixed destiny to a life which we cannot lose, or a death, which we cannot avert. Webster defines the word "predestination" in its theological acceptation to mean. "The purpose of God from eternity respecting all events; often the pre-assignment or allotment of men to everlasting happiness or misery."
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0304 paragraph 2 The tendency of this latter doctrine must be at once apparent. It leads the individual to throw off all responsibility, and intermit all efforts for himself. He says, If my destiny has been fixed from all eternity by an irreversible decree, I might as well resign myself to my fate, and let the current take me where it has been predetermined that it shall take
________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE
1. What may be said of the Bible view of predestination? 2. What of the theological view? 3. What is the contrast between these two views? 4. What is Webster's definition of the term? 5. What is the tendency of the popular view?

0305

me: if I am to be saved, I shall be saved, and no one can prevent it; if I am to be lost, I cannot avoid it.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 1 It is impossible to arouse such a soul to repentance. The answer comes, If I am to repent, God will make me repent when the time comes; and I need not concern myself about it. Such an one cannot be induced to heed the divine injunction to flee from the wrath to come; for he says, If I am appointed to that wrath, flee as I will, I cannot avoid it; and if not, then for me there is no wrath to come.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 2 We once heard of a Presbyterian minister, who, by some strange infatuation, conceived the idea that a certain one of his two sons was elected to be saved, and so taught him; but he considered that the other was fore-ordained to be lost, and taught him accordingly. Result: The elect son has entered the ministry; the reprobate is on the high road to that damnation which his father has held up before him as his inevitable portion. If that son is lost, what responsibility will rest upon that father! Give a man the natural inclinations of the heart to contend with, and then teach him that heaven is to him an impossibility, and it need not take long to divine what the result will be.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 3 Four times the word "predestinate" is used in the Scriptures, twice in Romans 8, and twice in Ephesians 1. Once we have the word "fore-ordain" 1 Pet.1:20. The word "ordain" is also used four times with a future signification. Six times we have the word "election," and twenty times the word "elect."
________________________________________________________________
6. How does it hinder repentance? 7. What instance is mentioned in illustration? 8. How many times is the word "predestinate" found in the Scriptures? 9. How many times is "fore-ordain" used? 10. How many times the word "election?"

0306

URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0306 paragraph 1 The meaning of the word "election" is a "choosing out, selecting;" and the elect are simply those who are "chosen out" by God, as the recipients of special privileges, because they are "choice" and "precious" in his sight. The question is whether this "choosing out" is an act absolutely arbitrary on the part of God with reference to individuals, or whether it pertains to a certain plane of life or to a people as a class, and reaches the individual only on conditions which he is himself to supply.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0306 paragraph 2 Let appeal be made to the leading texts upon this question. And as a direction to thought, let them be considered with reference to these propositions: 1. God "hath appointed" (Luke 22:29), or fore-ordained, Jesus Christ to the kingship of this world. This he did "before the foundation of the world" (1Pet.1:20); that is, this fore-ordination was coeval with his purpose to create the world. It was not ordained on what ground he should finally hold this position. Had man never sinned, it would have been on the ground of Creatorship alone; but since man fell, and the original purpose could then be carried out only by his redemption, Christ will hold his position by virtue of being both Creator and Redeemer. 2. God has ordained that all who will conform to the image of his Son shall be saved.
________________________________________________________________
11. How many times the word "elect?" 12. What is the meaning of the word "election?" 13. Who are therefore "the elect?" 14. What is the question to be here decided? 15. What hath God "appointed?" 16. When did he do this? 17. On what ground was it ordained that Christ should be head and ruler of this world? 18. How would it have been if man never had sinned? 19. Since man has sinned, on what ground will Christ hold his position at last? 20. What has God ordained respecting our relation to Christ? 21. What are those called who conform to his image? 22. How does this election control individuals?

0307

Such are the elect. But 3. He has not ordained that such and such individuals shall believe on Christ and be saved, whether they will or not; and such and such other individuals cannot believe on Christ, however willingly they would do so, and hence must be lost at last. On the question of accepting or rejecting Christ, our own free moral agency operates. On the plane of belief in Christ or connection with him, God's fore-ordination or election operates. Reaching that plane, we are its subjects, and become the elect. Falling from it, we lose our title to life, and cease to be the elect. Hence we are exhorted to make our "calling and election sure." 2Pet.1:10. We may accept or reject Christ as we will. All else is beyond our control. Believing in him, we are elected and fore-ordained to be saved, as surely as God's throne is to stand; rejecting him, we are as sure to be lost as sin is to be punished.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0307 paragraph 1 1. In Eph.1:4,5 the "choosing" and "predestination" is "in him," that is, in Christ. We are adopted as children to himself "by Jesus Christ." But if we reject Christ, we frustrate all these good purposes and promises, so far as our own cases are concerned.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0307 paragraph 2 2. Rom.8:29,30 doubtless refers to the company raised at the resurrection of Christ, among whom he was the "first-born" who were "justified," that is, were accepted in anticipation of the general Judgment, and also "glorified" when he led them
________________________________________________________________
23. On what question does our free moral agency operate? 24. On what plane does the law of God's fore-ordination operate? 25. What exhortation is given in 2Pet.1:10? 26. How much is subject to our control? 27. Believing in him, what is sure to us? 28. Rejecting him, what is our doom? 29. Explain Eph.1:4,5. 30. To whom does Rom.8:29,30 doubtless refer? 31. How are we chosen from the beginning, as set forth in 2Thess.2:13?

0308

up with him on high (Eph.4:8, margin) to be his assistants in his mediatorial work. Rev.5:8-10. If this application is correct, the testimony refers to a particular case, not to the destiny of men in general.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 1 3. In 2Thess,2:13 it is said that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation;" but the apostle immediately limits the statement by adding, "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." But suppose the Thessalonians had rejected the Spirit, and refused to believe the truth, as they certainly were free to do, where, then, would have been their salvation?
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 2 4. Another expression, found in 2Tim.1:9, is supposed to prove election before the world was: "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." As to the time, the Greek reads, prochronon aionion, "before the ages of time." But in many instances means simply "a dispensation;" and the passage may refer to the time when the plan of salvation, with its different dispensations, was laid. That which was given us at this time was the "grace," or favor, of God; but this was "in Christ Jesus." Now if any man rejects Christ, what grace does he receive? - None.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 3 5. 1Pet.1:1,2. The English version of this passage makes the strangers of Pontus, Galatia, etc., "elect according to the foreknowledge of God."
________________________________________________________________
32. Were the Thessalonians free to reject the conditions? 33. What is the expression found in 2Tim.1:9? 34. What may it mean? 35. What is asserted of God's foreknowledge in 1Pet.1,2? 36. How is Acts 13:48 explained?

0309

In the original, however, they are addressed simply as "the elect sojourners." So the revised version reads: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, according to the foreknowledge of God." Now all that is asserted respecting God's foreknowledge is this: Either Peter was an apostle according to the foreknowledge of God, or the elect whom he addresses (elect according to the principle stated above) were sojourners according to the foreknowledge of God. But in either case it has no bearing on the question of predestination, as here under discussion.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0309 paragraph 1 6. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This expression is found in Acts 13:48; and it is asked if this does not prove that certain ones believed because they were fore-ordained to eternal life, and hence were elected to believe and be saved. The word rendered "ordained" is tasso, and it means "to appoint, set, arrange, dispose, or frame" for any object. In the light of this definition, all difficulty disappears. As many as were disposed, inclined, or had a desire, for eternal life, believed. It does not assert a decree that they should be saved, any more than if one of our ministers should report that he found many disposed to receive the truth, and they readily believed.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0309 paragraph 2 7. Rev.13:8: "Written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." All this text asserts is that the Lamb was slain (in God's purpose) from the foundation of the world; that is, from the time when the great dispensation of redemption was fixed upon and begun. Rev.17:8 is unquestionably designed as a declaration exactly
________________________________________________________________
37. What is said to be from the foundation of the world in Rev.13:8? 38. What other passage is parallel with this?

0310

parallel with Rev.13:8, though quite elliptical in its form of expression. Here we have, instead of "the book of life [of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world," simply the words "book of life [] from the foundation of the world," designed probably as a statement of the same great fact. There is propriety and force in the declaration that the Lamb was slain and the book of life was opened from the foundation of the world; but what possible reason can be conceived why the name of any person should be entered therein before such person has openly professed to become a follower of that Lamb whose book it is. If it be said that they were entered there because God has passed his decree in all these cases, and they were elected to be saved, we reply that such a conclusion cannot be entertained; for though a person may have once had his name in the book of life, unless he proves to be an overcomer, his name will be blotted from that book, and he will find his portion at last in the lake of fire. Rev.3:5; 20:15.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0310 paragraph 1 8. An examination of a few expressions found in the 9th chapter of Romans will be all that is further required in this brief synopsis of the subject.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0310 paragraph 2 (1.) Through Moses, the Lord said to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee." Verse 17. The passage in Exodus (9:16) from which this is quoted, reads: "And in very deed, for this cause have I raised thee up," etc. The margin reads, "Made thee stand." This expression, applied to a king, simply means to bring to the throne, to establish in the kingdom; as, "There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia." Dan.11:2. The time was
________________________________________________________________
39. What is said about Pharaoh in Ex.9:16? 40. What does the expression mean? 41. When did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did he harden it?

0311

coming for the deliverance of God's people from Egypt. At the same time there was a reprobate upon the throne, who would not heed the voice of Jehovah, but would exert all the power of his kingdom to prevent that deliverance which God had promised. God might have removed him, and brought to the throne a just and amiable prince, who would have recognized Israel's right, and given them safe passage out of his kingdom. Then the world would have said, "Israel went out, not because God had promised, but because a weak and foolish king let them go." So God said, Let the wicked Pharaoh keep the throne; let proud, rebellious, reprobate man, exerting all human power, stand up against my purposes; and then let the world see how easily my work will go forward over it all. This is all the "raising up" God did to Pharaoh; yet the skeptic will represent it that God gave Pharaoh life on purpose that he might destroy him, and compelled him, time and again, to falsify his word, and to take the defiant, wicked course that he did, and then punished him for it; which was not at all the case.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0311 paragraph 1 But did not God harden Pharaoh's heart? Certainly; but when? - After he had endured his rebellious course to the limit of his longsuffering; for such, verse 22 declares, is God's method of dealing with these reprobates. He first offers to all men light, and truth, and mercy. 2Thess.2:10. If they incorrigibly refuse these, there follows, not only as an inevitable consequence, but as a judicial infliction from him, darkness, and error, and wrath, Verse 11. He offers them first the position of agents to carry out harmoniously his will. When
________________________________________________________________
42. What proves this? Verse 22. 43. What does God first offer men? 44. If they refuse these, what follows?

0312

they refuse this, he makes them monuments of his power by triumphing in judgments over all their opposition. Rom.9:22. He first tries to make them vessels of honor. If they will not be molded into these, he does the next best thing he can with them, and makes them vessels of dishonor, as the potter has power to do. Verse 21. So it was with Pharaoh; for though the particulars of his previous contumacy are not given us, the rule by which God acts in such cases is plainly stated.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 1 (2.) The "election" of Rom.9:11 is not a decree of damnation, but the choice of Jacob instead of Esau to receive special favors from God. God has a right to bestow his favors as he wills. No one has any claims upon him. The non-recipients are in nowise wronged, while the recipients are greatly favored.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 2 (3.) "Esau have I hated." Before either Jacob or Esau were born, it is recorded that God "loved" one and "hated" the other. Does not this prove eternal reprobation? - No; for the word "hated" does not here signify a positive exercise of ill-will or malevolence; but it has simply a relative meaning, signifying to "love less," as in Luke 14:26. For his own good reasons, God loved Esau less than he loved Jacob, and so made Jacob the subject of special favor. But he in nowise jeopardized Esau's eternal interests, nor did him any injustice.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 3 (4.) "Whom he will he hardeneth." Even here we have no occasion to "reply against God;" for he has revealed to us what his "will" is in this matter. He wills to harden only those who reject his mercy;
________________________________________________________________
45. What kind of election is brought to view in Rom.9:22? 46. What does the word "hated" mean, in the expression, "Esau have I hated?" 47. When does God "will" to harden? 48. Upon whom does he "will" to have mercy?

0313

and he "will have mercy" upon all who will receive it.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0313 paragraph 1 9. But if God foreknows that I will be lost, must I not be lost despite all contingencies? - In this case you are to be lost, of course, but not because God foreknows it, nor by any personal decree of his. It would be the same if God did not foreknows it. To illustrate: A young man moves into the society of evil companions and the atmosphere of the saloon. He is perfectly free to resist if he will; but he yields to temptation, goes down, and is lost. You felt morally certain it would be so in the beginning. Suppose you had foreknown it absolutely; would your foreknowledge have compelled him to that course? - Not at all. Neither does God's foreknowledge, in any case. Events transpire, not because God foreknows them; but he foreknows them because they are to transpire. In this we speak only of events connected with free moral agency. Such agents he leaves free to decide their own destiny.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0313 paragraph 2 Such as herein set forth we believe to be the Bible doctrine of election and predestination. We have called it a doctrine full of consolation. It assures the heart of every believer. It dispels doubt and misgiving. It shows how sure is the Christian's hope. In Christ we are elected to be saved. In him we stand upon the decree of Jehovah, declared from the beginning, and as firm as the pillars of his own throne. The only contingency lies in our own course of action. Let us, therefore, labor to make our calling and election sure.
________________________________________________________________
49. Does God's foreknowledge that a man will sin compel him to sin? 50. Does any event, connected with free moral agency, transpire because God foreknows it, or does he foreknow it because it is going to take place?[0314]

0314

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 02:51 PM

Tom I'll not comment on Smith for now because I'd like to hear what others have to say, especially members who don't often post. I want to ask them, what do they see as the meaning of Eph 1 on the topic. Who is closer to the meaning of Eph 1, Smith, Jones, Waggoner, White, Luther or Zwingli? Personally, I favour Luther, White and Zwingli.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/05/06 04:27 PM

I'm still curious as to why you think I was inaccurate in regards to Zwingli. I produced a web site, Institut für schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, to substantiate what I wrote. Do you disagree with the web site?

Waggoner, Jones and White, if you mean Ellen White, are saying the same thing, as you can see from the quotes. They each brought out that the work of Christ was for the entire human race, that all are accepted in the beloved, but that the gift given to the race must be received by each individually.

Luther and Zwingli are closer to Calvin's ideas, which are not Arminianist, but rather due to Augustine's influence. Really it comes down to whether one thinks Augustine had the right concept or not.

I'm just curious, but how can one read Ellen White and not know that she was strongly Arminianist? She was a *stronger* Arminianst than Jones or Waggoner, not weaker.

Why would you lump Ellen White with Luther and Zwingli in the context of predesitination? That seems bizarre to me.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/09/06 03:05 AM

I was hoping to hear from others but maybe I was premature. The thoughts have not been developed as well as they might so I'll continue giving an overview of this doctrine in the Protestant Reformation and then as we discuss it futher bring my views together in a more systematic format . . .

At the turn of the 16th century a newfound love for the Greek classics had created a curious custom among the scholars of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Spain, Belgium etc) and France. Many of these men took on Greek names and preferred to use them over their native names. So they became know by a single Greek name in history rather than by a first and last name. Luther’s closest, life long friend and fellow reformer, Melanethon, was one those.

In 1521 during Luther’s captivity in Wartburg Castle, Melanethon at Wittenberg, Germany wrote a book entitled “On the Common-places of Theology”. Between that date and 1595 the Common-places passed through sixty-seven German editions not including translations and D’Aubigne in his History of the Reformation says of this work; “Next to the Bible, this is the book that has possibly contributed most to the establishment of the evangelical doctrine.” D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, Book 3, Volume IX Chapter ix. Page 340.

As I’ve read D’Aubigne, I’ve come to respect his opinions as those of one of the greatest theologians of the 19th century. He was not only a learned historian; he was a man of God and of scripture. Here is a brief, candid analysis by him of Luther, Melanethon, and the latter’s treatment of the topic of free will in Melanethon’s work, Common-places:

Quote:

The first edition of Common-places is especially remarkable for the manner in which the theologian of Germany speaks of free will. He saw more clearly perhaps than Luther, for he was a better theologian, that this doctrine could not be separated from that which constituted the very essence of the Reformation. Man’s justification before God proceeds from faith alone: This is the first point. This faith enters man’s heart by the grace of God alone: here is the second. Melanethon saw clearly that if he allowed that man had any natural ability to believe, he would be throwing down in the second point that great doctrine of grace which he had stated in the first. He had too much discernment and understanding of the Holy Scriptures to be mistaken in so important a matter. But he went too far. Instead of confining himself with the limits of the religious question, he entered upon the metaphysics. He established a fatalism which might tend to represent God as the author if evil, - a doctrine which has no foundation in Scripture. “As all things which happen”, said he, “happen necessarily, according to the Divine predestination, there is no such thing as liberty in our wills.”

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/09/06 03:07 AM

But in spite of this shortcoming in the theology presented in Common-places, D’Aubigne continues his summary of the book and ends with the ringing endorsement I quoted above. “Next to the Bible, this is the book that has possibly contributed most to the establishment of the evangelical doctrine.”

I have more than one reason for quoting this passage from D’Aubigne. One is to show that the seeds of Calvinism can be traced back to Melanethon and to Luther. Although I don’t know of any statements of Luther’s that mirror Melanethon’s overstatement on predestination, it is clear that Luther believed the two points regarding grace cited above and these were consistently at the core of his theology. While Luther may have had reservations about this last statement, he viewed Melanethon’s work as one of the greatest treasure of Christendom. When I have a chance I plan to read it.

Another reason for citing this overstatement of Melanethon’s on predestination is that there is a warning in it to all thought leaders to vet their opinions thoroughly before making them public and even after making them public they should be revised as needed.

A third reason I have for quoting D’Aubigne is to allay fears that belief in the doctrine of election and predestination necessarily leads to fatalism and errors regarding the role of the will. D’Aubigne is the embodiment of proof that both doctrines can be harmonized and that both are essential and scriptural. Only as we let all scripture to have its intended meaning in both areas will be arrive at a sound, balanced understanding of the role of grace and the role of the human will.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/09/06 04:15 AM

I do not know what you would like comments on; the subject, or the various writers in history.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/23/06 01:06 AM

John, either if fine. But continuing on with my overview of Reformation history on this point . . . .

Protestant and Catholic historians alike agree that the most brilliant and influential scholar of the early Reformation period was a Dutchman from Rotterdam named Erasmus. His writings and advice were regularly sought by not only the scholarly community of Europe and Britain, but in the earlier years of the Reformation by all of the nobility and theologians, Protestant and Catholic alike. For example, Frederick the Wise, Luther’s protector, had a private interview with Erasmus on the question of the indulgences. Henry VIII of Britain vied with several other monarchs to add him to their courts. Erasmus only temporarily accepted some of these invitations. His preference though was to live in one of the free cities of Switzerland where he could have complete freedom to pursue and promote his love of the classics.

For the first seven years of the Reformation, 1517 to 1524 Erasmus was inclined to favour the evangelical doctrines of Zwingle and Luther. But this tragic man’s downfall was that he loved the praise of men more than the approval of God and when he was pressed between the two parties of Reformed Christianity and Catholicism he decided in favour of Catholicism. Seven years after the start of the Reformation in the fall of 1524 Erasmus published a book, his first direct attack on Protestantism and in defense of Roman Catholicism, entitled “Dissertation on the Freedom of the Will”.

D’Aubinge gives the following account of the events surrounding the book’s publication. Also, D’Aubinge analyses the book’s arguments and summarizes Luther’s reply. Notice especially the bolded parts which show how Luther viewed this issue, the role of the will, as the crux of the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism. And after reading his views, readers, I challenge you to take a few thoughtful moments and ask yourselves which side you presently take on the issue that both Luther and Erasmus viewed the most significant distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism:

Quote:

Henry VIII. of England, and the nobility of that kingdom, earnestly pressed [Erasmus] to declare himself openly against the Reformation. Erasmus, in a moment of courage, suffered the promise to be wrung from him. His equivocal position had become a source of constant trouble to him; he loved repose, and the necessity he felt of continually justifying his conduct disturbed his existence; he was fond of glory, and already men were accusing him of fearing Luther, and of being too weak to answer him; he was accustomed to the highest seat, and the little monk of Wittemberg had dethroned the mighty philosopher of Rotterdam. He must then, by some bold step, recover the position he had lost. All Christendom that adhered to the old worship implored him to do so. A capacious genius and the greatest reputation of the ago were wanted to oppose the Reformation. Erasmus answered the call.

But what weapons will he employ? Will he hurl the thunders of the Vatican? Will he defend the abuses that disgrace the papacy? Erasmus could not act thus. The great movement that agitated men’s minds after the lethargy of so many centuries filled him with joy, and he would have feared to trammel it. Unable to be the champion of Romanism in what it has added to Christianity, he undertook to defend it in what it had taken away. In attacking Luther, Erasmus selected the point where Romanism is lost in Rationalism,—the doctrine of free will, or the natural power of man. Thus, while undertaking the defence of the Church, Erasmus gratified the men of the world, and while battling for the popes, he contended also on behalf of the philosophers. It has been said that he had injudiciously confined himself to an obscure and unprofitable question. Luther, the reformers, and their age, judged very differently; and we agree with them. “I must acknowledge,” said Luther, “that in this controversy you arc the only man that has gone to the root of the matter. I thank you for it with all my heart; for I would rather be occupied with this subject than with all those secondary questions about the pope, purgatory, and indulgences, with which the enemies of the Gospel have hitherto pestered me.”

His own experience and an attentive study of the Holy Scriptures and of St. Augustine, had convinced Luther that the natural powers of man are so inclined to evil, that he cannot, of himself, reach any farther than a certain outward rectitude, altogether insufficient in the eyes of the Deity. He had at the same time recognised that it was God who gives true righteousness, by carrying on freely the work of faith in man by his Holy Spirit. This doctrine had become the mainspring of his religion, the predominant idea in his theology, and the point on which the whole Reformation turned.
While Luther maintained that every good thing in man came down from God, Erasmus sided with those who thought that this good proceeded from man himself. God or man, - good or evil,- these are certainly no paltry questions; and if “trivialities” exist, they must be looked for elsewhere.

It was in the autumn of 1524 that Erasmus published his famous treatise entitled Dissertation on the Freedom of the Will; and it had no sooner appeared, than the philosopher could hardly believe his own boldness. With eyes fixed on the arena, he looked tremblingly at the gauntlet he had flung to his adversary. “The die is cast,” wrote he with emotion to Henry VIII.; “the book on free will has appeared.—Trust me, this is a dating act. I expect to be stoned for it.—. But I console myself by the example of your majesty, whom the rage of these people has not spared.”

His alarm soon increased to such a degree that he bitterly regretted the step he had taken. “Why was I not permitted to grow old in the garden of the Muses?” exclaimed he. “Here am I, at sixty, driven into the arena, and holding the cestus and the net of the gladiator, instead of the lyre!—I am aware,” wrote he to the Bishop of Rochester, “that in writing upon free will, I have gone beyond my sphere. You congratulate me upon my triumphs! Ah, I know not that I triumph. The faction (i. e. the Reformation) is spreading daily. Was it then fated, that at my time of life I should be transformed from a friend of the Muses into a wretched gladiator!”

It was no doubt an important matter for the timid Erasmus to have stood up against Luther; he was, however, far from showing any very great boldness. In his book he seems to ascribe but little to man’s will, and to leave the greater portion to Divine grace; but at the same time he chose his arguments in a manner to make it be believed that man does every thing, and God nothing. Not daring openly to express his thoughts, he affirms one thing and proves another; and hence we may be allowed to suppose that he believed what he proved and not what he affirmed.

He distinguishes three several opinions, opposed in three different degrees to Pelagianism. “Some think,” Said he, “that man can neither will, nor commence, and still less perform any good work; without the special and continual aid of Divine grace; and this opinion seems probable enough. Others teach that man’s will is powerless except for evil, and that it is grace alone which works in us any good; and finally, there are some who assert that there has never been any free will either in angels, or in Adam, or in us, either before or after grace, but that God works in man both good and evil, and that every thing happens from an absolute necessity.”

Erasmus, while seeming to admit the former of these opinions, makes use of arguments that confute it, and which the most decided Pelagian might employ. In this manner, quoting the passages of Scripture in which God offers man the choice between good and evil, he adds: “Man must therefore have the power to will and to choose; for it would be ridiculous to say to any one, Choose! when it was not in his power to do so.

Luther did not fear Erasmus. “Truth,” said he, “is mightier than eloquence. The victory remains with him who lisps out the truth, and not with him who puts forth a lie in flowing language.” But when he received Erasmus’s treatise in the month of October 1524, he found it so weak that he hesitated to reply to it. “What! so much eloquence in so bad a cause” said he; “it is as if a man were to serve up mud and dung on dishes of silver and gold. One cannot lay hold of you. You are like an eel that slips through the fingers; or like the fabulous Proteus who changes his form in the very arms of those who wish to grasp him.”

But as Luther did not reply, the monks and scholastic divines began to utter shouts of victory: “Well, where is your Luther now? Where is the great Maccabeus? Let him come down into the lists! Let him come forth! Ah, ah! He has met with his match at last! He has learnt now to remain in the back-ground; he has found out how to hold his tongue.”

Luther saw that he must write an answer; but it was not until the end of the year 1525 that he prepared to do so; and Melanethon having informed Erasmus that Luther would be moderate, the philosopher was greatly alarmed. “If I have written with moderation,” said he, “it is my disposition; but Luther possesses the wrath of Peleus’ son (Achilles). And how can it be otherwise? When a vessel braves a storm such as that which has burst upon Luther, what anchor, what ballast, what helm does it not require to prevent it from being driven out of its course! If therefore he replies to me in a manner not in accordance with his character, these sycophants will cry out that we are in collusion.” We shall see that Erasmus was soon relieved from this apprehension.

The doctrine of God’s election as the sole cause of man’s salvation had always been dear to the reformer; but hitherto he had considered it in a practical light only. In his reply to Erasmus, he investigated it particularly in a speculative point of view, and endeavoured to establish by such arguments as appeared to him most conclusive, that God works every thing in man’s conversion, and that our hearts are so alienated from the love of God that they cannot have a sincere desire for righteousness, except by the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit.

“To call our will a free will,” said he, “is to imitate those princes who accumulate long titles, styling themselves lords of sundry kingdoms, principalities, and distant islands (of Rhodes, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, &c.), while they have not the least power over them.” Here, however, Luther makes an important distinction, clearly showing that he by no means participated in the third opinion that Erasmus had pointed out and imputed to him. “Man’s will may be called a free will, not in relation to that which is above him, that is to say, to God; but with respect to that which is below, that is, to the things of the earth. As regards my property, my fields, my house, my farm, I can act, do, and manage freely. But in the things of salvation, man is a captive; he is subjected to the will of God, or rather of the devil. Show me but one of all these advocates of free will (he exclaims) that has found in himself sufficient strength to endure a trifling injury, a fit of anger, or merely a look from his enemy, and bear it with joy; then—without even asking him to be ready to give up his body, his life, his wealth, his honour, and all things—I acknowledge you have gained your cause.”

Luther’s glance was too penetrating not to discover the contradictions into which his opponent had fallen. And accordingly, in his reply, he endeavours to fasten the philosopher in the net in which he had entangled himself. “If the passages you quote,” said he, “establish that it is easy for us to do good, why do we dispute? [These points of Luther that follow would be good for Morris Vendon to consider – Mark] What need have we of Christ and of the Holy Ghost? Christ would then have acted foolishly in shedding his blood to acquire for us a power that we already possessed by nature.”

In truth, the passages cited by Erasmus must be taken in quite a different sense. This much debated question is clearer than it appears to be at first sight. When the Bible says to man, Choose, it presupposes the assistance of God’s grace, by which alone he can do what it commands. God, in giving the commandment, also gives the strength to fulfil it. If Christ said to Lazarus, Come forth, it was not that Lazarus had power to restore himself; but that Christ, by commanding him to leave the sepulchre, gave him also the strength to do so, and accompanied His words with His creative power. He spoke, and it was done. Moreover, it is very true that the man to whom God speaks, must will; it is he who wills, and not another; he can receive this will but from God alone; but it is in him that this will must be, and the very commandment that God addresses to him, and which, according to Erasmus, establishes the ability of man, is so reconcilable with the workings of God, that it is precisely by these means that the working is effected. It is by saying to the man “Be converted,” that God converts him.

But the idea on which Luther principally dwelt in his reply is, that the passages quoted by Erasmus are intended to teach man their duty, and their inability to perform it, but in no way to make known to them the pretended power ascribed to them. “How frequently it happens,” says Luther, “a father calls his feeble child to him, and says: ‘Will you come, my son! come then, come!’ in order that the child may learn to call for his assistance, and allow himself to be carried.”

After combating Erasmus’s arguments in favour of free will, Luther defends his own against the attacks of his opponent. “Dear Dissertation,” says he ironically, “mighty heroine, who pridest thyself in having overthrown these words of our Lord in St. John: ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ which thou regardest nevertheless as the prop of my argument, and callest Luther’s Achilles, listen to me. Unless thou canst prove that this word nothing, not only may, but must, signify little, all thy high-sounding phrases, thy splendid examples, have no more effect than if a man were to attempt to quench an extensive conflagration with a handful of straw. What are such assertions as these to us:
‘This may mean; that may be understood’, whilst it was thy duty to show us that it must be so understood Unless thou doest so, we take this declaration in its literal meaning, and laugh at all thy examples, thy great preparations, and thy pompous triumphs.”

Finally, in a concluding part, Luther shows, and always from Scripture, that the grace of God does every thing. “In short,” says he at the end, “since Scripture every where contrasts Christ with that which has not the spirit of Christ; since it declares that all which is not Christ and in Christ is under the power of error, darkness, the devil, death, sin, and the wrath of God, [notice here Tom that Luther lists sin and the wrath of God separately] it follows that all these passages of the Bible that speak of Christ are opposed to free will. Now such passages are numberless; the Holy Scriptures are full of them.”

We perceive that the discussion which arose between Luther and Erasmus is the same as that which a century after took place between the Jansenists and Jesuits, between Pascal and Molina. How is it that, while the results of the Reformation were so immense, Jansenism, though adorned by the noblest geniuses, wasted and died away? It is because Jansenism went back to Augustine and relied on the Fathers; while the Reformation went back to the Bible and leant upon the Word of God, It is because Jansenism entered into a compromise with Rome, and wished to establish a middle course between truth and error, while the Reformation, relying upon God alone, cleared the soil, swept away all the rubbish of past ages, and laid bare the primitive rock. To stop half way is a useless work; in all things we should persevere to the end. Accordingly, while Jansenism has passed away, the destinies of the world are bound up with evangelical Christianity.

Further, after having keenly refuted error, Luther paid a brilliant, but perhaps a somewhat sarcastic, homage to Erasmus himself. [Personally, I don’t see any sarcasm in the following statement] “I confess,” said he, “that you are a great man; where have we ever met with more learning, intelligence, or ability, both in speaking and writing? As for me, I possess nothing of the kind; there is only one thing from which I can derive any glory—I am a Christian. May God raise you infinitely above me in the knowledge of the Gospel, so that you may surpass me as much in this respect as you do already in every other.”

Erasmus was beside himself when he read Luther’s reply; and would see nothing in his encomiums but the honey of a poisoned cup, or the embrace of a serpent at the moment he darts his envenomed sting. He immediately wrote to the Elector of Saxony, demanding justice; and Luther having desired to appease him, he lost his usual temper, and, in the words of one of his most zealous apologists, began “to pour forth invectives with a broken voice amid hoary hair.”

Erasmus was vanquished. Hitherto, moderation had been his strength,—and he had lost it. Passion was his only weapon against Luther’s energy. The wise man was wanting in wisdom. He replied publicly in his ‘Hyperaspistes, accusing the reformer of barbarism, lying, and blasphemy. The philosopher even ventured on prophesying. “I prophesy,” said he, “that no name under the sun will be held in greater execration than Luther’s.” The jubilee of 1817 has replied to this prophecy, after a lapse of three hundred years, by the enthusiasm and acclamations of the whole Protestant world.

J.H. Merle D’Aubigne and H. White, “History of the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century”, Book XI, Chapter IX, Pages 415 to 417.

Posted By: dedication

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/27/06 04:16 AM

God made it possible for ALL to be saved if they choose to be.

However, mankind is confused as to what it means to "choose to be saved".

Not all who say "LORD, LORD" will be saved.
"But Lord didn't we ...... do all these great things in your name.....But the Lord says, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity.

Now Adventists do not believe in predestination -- that is we don't believe that in the beginning God made a list of all people He would call and save, and which people He wouldn't bother with. God calls all. He sends His Holy Spirit to work on the hearts of all.

It is mankind's choice to respond or to reject.

However, Adventist doctrine does not support the belief that all who claim to be saved (choose to be saved) will be saved.
The Investigative Judgment brings before the heavenly court all the names of people who have made a "claim" for salvation.

It's only those who accept Christ and are not only forgiven but cleansed by the blood of Christ and place their will UNDER the will of Christ in surrender.

God decides who really responded to His call, as opposed to who only chose because it was convient at the time.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/27/06 01:39 PM

Welcome D. Three questions for you or whomever. 1) Does God know in advance who will be saved? 2) How free are we to place our wills under the will of Christ? Can we freely choose to do that according to our desire? Where does that desire originate? In our own minds? 3) Adventists don't believe in predestination, but what does the Bible mean by predestination?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/27/06 03:04 PM

1) Does God know in advance who will be saved?

No.

2) How free are we to place our wills under the will of Christ?

As free as we are to place our wills under anything else.

2a) Can we freely choose to do that according to our desire?

No.

2b) Where does that desire originate? In our own minds?

All desire originates from awareness, experience and cultivation. (Not counting - thirst, hunger, tiredness, etc as desires.)

3) Adventists don't believe in predestination, but what does the Bible mean by predestination?

It means God’s plan and purpose for all creation. In other words; IF we will hear him, this is where he will take us and what he will make of us.

Posted By: dedication

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/28/06 03:07 AM

Does God know in advance who will be saved? Yes.

How free are we to place our wills under the will of Christ? The devil has no power over the weakest of saints that gets down on their knees and surrenders their lives to God.
"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. The weakest saint, as well as the strongest, may wear the crown of immortal glory. All may win who, through the power of divine grace, bring their lives into conformity to the will of Christ."
Yes, we are free, through the power of Christ and His angels who give us that freedom -- to make the choice.

Can we freely choose to do that according to our desire?
I sense that you are moving into another field here.
Are you still speaking of freely choosing to place our wills under the will of Christ, or are you speaking of now moving on in doing works in our own strength? We MUST NOT CONFUSE THE TWO. The person who desires to do good in his own strength fails (as Romans 7 points out) BUT THE PERSON in whom the Holy Spirit resides who continually surrenders to the leading of the Holy Spirit, puts to death the carnal things of the flesh and lives by the Holy Spirit (as Romans 8 points out).
Yes, we can freely choose to walk with Christ, or walk on our own.

Where does that desire originate?
The desire is given by the Holy Spirit.
In the heart of every person is placed a desire for God. To the conscience of every person the appeals are made. Every person hears the tender call of the Redeemer.
But Christ does not force --
Every person makes a choice -- a choice to respond or a choice to reject. With each choice to respond a person is lead into closer fellowship with Christ. With each choice to reject the heart is hardened and the appeal is weakened.

Adventists don't believe in predestination, but what does the Bible mean by predestination?
Adventists do not believe in Calvinistic predestination. Calvinistic predestination claims that God selected who would be saved and who would not and sends His Holy Spirit on some and ignores the rest.

Biblical predestination -- Before the foundations of the earth were laid the covenant was made that all who should through the abundant grace provided accept the matchless grace of Christ, forsake their lives of sin and become holy in character and without blame before God by appropriating that grace, should be children of God.
That is what God predestined us for!
But He won't force anyone -- the choice is ours whether we will let Him mold our lives or if we will tell the master potter we don't want Him to mold our lives.

Posted By: dedication

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 07/28/06 03:21 AM

Does God know who will be saved?
How does this affect how He deals with people?

Let's go to the upper room for understanding.

There is Judas, already committed to betraying His Lord. Jesus knows Judas will betray Him. He knows He will lose Judas as His prayer in John 17 reveals.
BUT Jesus, with love tried to win Judas back. His heart was crying, How can I give thee up? The constraining power of that love was felt by Judas. When the Saviour's hands were bathing those soiled feet, and wiping them with the towel, the heart of Judas thrilled through and through with the impulse then and there to confess his sin. But he would not humble himself. He CHOSE to harden his heart against repentance; and with that choice, the old impulses, which for the moment had almost been swept aside, again controlled him. He chose to follow the will of Satan.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 04:39 AM

Interesting John that you think God does not know who is going to be saved. God knows all things. I don't have a text off hand to quote, but I'm sure there is more than one.

When Christ says, 'Without me you can do nothing' what does that say about our wills? Are they free? We have desires to do good, but our wills are not free to do a single good deed; not one thing according to Christ. So, it's a mistake to call them free. We have wills but they are anything but free. And yet, when we respond to the creative and regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, and become slaves of Christ, our wills are liberated. But notice, they are 'free' only as long as they are captive to the will of Christ and renewed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. So we need to be more careful in our use of the term 'free will.' Wills, yes, free, no.

Dedication, I'd invite you to have another look at Ephesians one and explain some of the verses that would be hard to harmonize with some of your thoughts.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 07:46 AM

Interesting John that you think God does not know who is going to be saved. God knows all things. I don't have a text off hand to quote, but I'm sure there is more than one.

God knows everything that's knowable. To assert God knows something which cannot be known is non-sensical, similar to asserting that because God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it, He is not all-powerful.

Regarding the question if God knows who will be saved, one could respond "Yes: everyone who believes in Christ will be saved."

When Christ says, 'Without me you can do nothing' what does that say about our wills? Are they free?

Christ said of Himself, "I can of myself do nothing" so we can conclude that if our wills are not free, then neither was His.

We have desires to do good, but our wills are not free to do a single good deed; not one thing according to Christ. So, it's a mistake to call them free. We have wills but they are anything but free.

If our wills are not free, how can we respond to the invitation of Christ?

And yet, when we respond to the creative and regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, and become slaves of Christ, our wills are liberated. But notice, they are 'free' only as long as they are captive to the will of Christ and renewed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. So we need to be more careful in our use of the term 'free will.' Wills, yes, free, no.

Again, if our wills are not free, how can we resond to the Gospel invitation? Christ said, "Whosoever will may come." What does this mean?

You have suggested that Dedication should consider Ephesians because this doesn't agree with some of her thoughts. That's awfully vague. Which thoughts?

I thought her explanation of Biblical predestination was on point. "Predestination" means simply to destine ahead of time. God has destined that all those who choose Christ shall be saved. Christ is the way of salvation. Whosoever will may come.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 07:57 AM

I thought I'd mention something that I think many confuse, which is what predesitination means to classical Arminianism and Calvinism. Classical Arminianism says that God looks into the future, sees who will be saved, and then elects those whom He sees to be saved.

In Calvinism, God's election of the saved is not dependent upon His foreknowledge; He simply chooses who will be saved on the basis of His sovereignty, because He is God, and can do whatever He wants. If you think this is unfair, who are you, oh pot, to complain of the Potter?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 03:18 PM

I was hoping you or John would expand on the idea that God does not know who will be saved. Please tell me more. You think this is one of those unknowable areas? Why? Are you basing it on the idea that God did not know if Christ would succeed or fail until he was tested perhaps?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 07:58 PM

Tom, you wrote:

Quote:

Christ said of Himself, "I can of myself do nothing" so we can conclude that if our wills are not free, then neither was His.

That's a good point. Christ was our example in submitting His will to God. Just as we can do nothing without Christ, so he could do nothing except as He was submitted to God. At one point He stated that even every word He spoke, aside from His acts, was only what He heard from God. This is the ideal that we are aiming for.

Here is the nub of the matter; can we submit our wills ourselves to God? No. The invitation, 'Whomsoever will' is also the Word of creative power that enables us to respond. Without that power outside of ourselves we are abject slaves. The power is there in the invitation.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/02/06 09:42 PM

It's true that man's will would have been in bondage had God not intervened, but God did intervene. God supernatually put enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. The grace of God encirles the earth with an atmosphere as real as the air we breath.

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God and draws every person to the foot of the cross in repentance. Every person actually has to resist this drawing in order to be lost. God's goodness is leading everyone to repentance. Everyone who does not resist will be saved, and not a one will be lost unless they steadfastly refuse to repent. There's not a soul who will be lost except that they have adamantly chosen this to be the case. God's love makes it difficult for the wicked to destroy themselves.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/03/06 03:54 AM

Most Adventists would say we can choose who we serve. In that sense, they would agree with you that our wills are not in bondage. But even most Adventists would say our wills only allow us to make the choice between the two competing masters of the earth, Christ and Satan.

But actually, we're in much worse shape than that. We are born carnally minded and it is *only* through the regenerative word that we can choose our master. So the enmity God promised to place between us and Satan is not something that is natural to our fallen condition; it is something each one of us has to be infused with by the Holy Spirit before we can be born again and choose what is good.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/03/06 06:21 AM

I think most Adventists would agree with what I wrote, almost every word of which was a direct quote from Ellen White.

None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ. (DA 387)

We have free will to resist God's drawing, or to refuse to come. This is not dependent upon being born again. In fact, this idea doesn't even make any sense, does it? That is, that we need to be converted before we can choose to refuse to come to Christ?

God loves freedom of choice! The respect of free will is a pillar of God's character. It contradicts the idea that God is arbitrary, which is what the lack of freedom preaches.

Tom

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/03/06 04:18 PM

We can definitely resist God's drawing as you say. But can we respond to God's drawing without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit? People are normally drawn to God long before they are converted, and once converted they still have subsequent conversion experiences like Peter and Paul. Paul died daily. The drawing itself is regenerative. The carnal mind is not attracted to unselfish love. In otherwords being drawn to God is in itself a transformation that we cannot account for in our carnal state.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/03/06 04:53 PM

Quote.
Most Adventists would say we can choose who we serve. In that sense, they would agree with you that our wills are not in bondage. But even most Adventists would say our wills only allow us to make the choice between the two competing masters of the earth, Christ and Satan.

But actually, we're in much worse shape than that. We are born carnally minded and it is *only* through the regenerative word that we can choose our master. So the enmity God promised to place between us and Satan is not something that is natural to our fallen condition; it is something each one of us has to be infused with by the Holy Spirit before we can be born again and choose what is good.
Unquote.

Is it that bad?

I think that the matter of life and death, of saved and lost is dependent on our choice.

The principal idea is that God had saved humanity through Christ redemption and is working hard to maintain this salvation unto those who believe Christ, who put their faith in Christ, who wants to live after the Spirit, in order they might have a change of heart, from self centered, which is their nature, to unselfish heart that is fit for heaven.

What must be done is just to choose between to live for self or to live for God, knowing that if we lived for self we will end in hell, but if we lived for God we will end in heaven. But I admit that to choose between both is not that easy. To live for self is our nature, it just happen, but to live for God, we must have a strong will, a consistent one, a daily self denial, which is of course not that easy. And since what we can do of our self is just loving our selves, for our own goodness, then to live for God we need a supernatural power, we need the power of the Holy Spirit from the very beginning; from making a choice and following what we have chosen. It is a war between self and the Spirit, each of this power is trying to dominate our heart, or better self is dominating and the Spirit is trying to overtake its place as long as we cooperate with the will of the Spirit.

Therefore I agree that in order to make life more easy for those who choose to live for God, a new heart and a new mind is needed, which we get through the miracle of rebirth. The problem is if we have been baptized twice, would we go for another one, and another one again if we again crawl back to our old habit? When would it be over?

But thanks to God that the wages is just the same for those who work since 0600 am and those who work from 1700 pm, at the end of the day 1800 pm they all received the same wage, eternal life.

So it is our choice to be in heaven and live eternally, for from God’s part, he had saved humanity and he didn’t want that anyone should perish, but the choice is us, he just cooperate when we have made the choice and consistent to our choice till the end.

In his love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/03/06 09:53 PM

If one cannot respond to the drawing of God until after one is converted, then the whole description of salvation presented here is wrong:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 176)

Notice the order is:
a.Drawing
b.Response
c.Repentance
d.Conversion

It is not:
a.Drawing
b.Conversion
c.Response
d.Repentance

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 04:21 AM

Tom, you should slow down a little more. On the Atonement thread you told Rosangela that you spent a long time putting together a post summarizing her view. But she said that your summary did not at all represent her postion. The same thing is happening here.

Dedication, what do you think? (Are you willing to disclose your sex. That would allow us to use pronouns when referring to you. Actually, maybe you can just suggest the pronoun and we don't have to know whether we have it is right. I'm guessing you're a male by your style.)

James, don't get me wrong, we do have a choice. But I'm saying that we can't exercise our wills to do make a single right choice without divine help, converted or unconverted. And unconverted people are often, some even routinely, empowered by the Holy Spirit to do right.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 05:40 AM

Quote:

I was hoping you or John would expand on the idea that God does not know who will be saved. Please tell me more. You think this is one of those unknowable areas? Why?

Sorry, I have been preoccupied, welcome back Mark.

God does not know, because of the nature of the power that he created and the sovereignty that he vested it. He knows its range and options; and he has a plan for it; but whether it will be accepted or not, he waits to find out. He takes the risk. I know this probably sounds abstract, but we need to establish some issues first and then maybe come back to this. There are many things about the will that are knowable that appear to be the same as the issue of salvation; but that is part of the problem.

One thing I note, since your question above, that except for the last ‘quote’ that Tom put up, ‘faith’ was not mentioned.

Faith is the sovereign faculty of man over which the will rules. Outside of faith the will is powerless. If man would understand the function of the will and faith, he would be genuine sovereign of them.

Sin however has brought in deception; changing the meaning of faith from ‘who’ do you believe to ‘what’ do you believe. Having done that ‘faith’ has been established in one’s own self; thus subverting/enslaving the will.

So the problem with slavery has to do with the fact that man is ignorant, by virtue of sin, of his own faculty of faith. So that faith is a big effort at what you believe; remaining therefore committed to one’s own reason which in turn has many other inputs of flesh.

That is why the preaching of faith is vital, for what comes in the ear or eye is from an outside source and opens the window. Naturally the enemy uses those channels as well.

Once man wakes up to faith and its proper governance, then comes the question whether he will be willing to trust his life to God. Sounds simple, but on the practical level rather foreign to man; not to speak of the enemy being most interested to dissuade man from doing such, with every deception.

On the issue of God’s drawing of man; the problem is with the concept of it being selective. God’s drawing is universal; man’s response is selective. We do not speak of God's drawing and invitation as a condition for salvation because it is universal. That which is not universal is how man responds to God; therefore it is the condition for salvation.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 07:04 AM

Mark, you asked?

Quote:

But can we respond to God's drawing without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit?

If we cannot respond to God's drawing without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, then the regeneration of the Holy Spirit must preceed our response. Wouldn't you say this is a logical conclusion of what you asserted (in the form of a rhetorical question)? Most people mean by "regeneration of the Holy Spirit" being born again, or converted. Did you have something else in mind?

If you disagree with something I wrote, provide evidence for why you think so. Simply asserting something without any reason or evidence for the assertion is gratuitous.

I spend a great deal of time putting the post responding to Rosangela together, and can back up every single point I made with direct quotes from Rosangela, taken in context. If you wish to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so.

You wrote, "Tom, you should slow down a little more." What was your intent in writing this?

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 01:49 PM

Quote.
How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live.
Unquote.

At Moses time; Just look and you are healed. Very easy!

Would it be the same now for us?

To whom we should look so that we may live? To Christ? We can’t look at Him, he is in heaven.

What we can look at, which is easy, is the world, the glitter of the world and the passions of the world.

We can’t say, look at Christ and you will live.

We must imagine, we must concentrate, we must fight, etc. etc.

That is not easy!

I wonder if indeed we have a great deal of effort in saving our selves. “"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;…………………….”

In His love

James S

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 02:38 PM

In my last post I've explained that the Holy Spirit works and gives regenerative power to the unconverted. So there is no mistaking my meaning, I'm saying that the Spirit can regenerate a person in a limited sense without converting him.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 02:55 PM

James, you've made an important point. Salvation is not like rolling off a log. It is more like swimming upstream against a powerful current of sin. But there are resting places along the way, and the journey, full of perils, is also full of rewards. The struggle itself is a great blessing. The great bolders and dams that prevent our progress, once overcome place us higher and closer to our goal. At the end of the journey we should be able to say with no little gratitude and satisfaction, 'I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.'

Speaking of faith John, (btw, thanks it's good to be back) I'm suggesting that faith is a divine gift that empowers the will. It is the point of fusion between the will of man and the will of God.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 04:14 PM

In my last post I said faith is the point of fusion between the will of God and the will of man. That is probably a bit inaccurate. A better statement would be to say that faith is the motive force that makes the fusion between the will of God and the will of man possible. The apostle says faith is the victory that overcomes the world. The victory is referring to the battle that Christ won for us. So 'our' faith is the faith of Christ, a gift given to 'us'.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 05:18 PM

Quote:

I'm saying that the Spirit can regenerate a person in a limited sense without converting him.

This is a very unusual use of the term, one I don't think I've ever seen before. Webster's defines is as "spiritually reborn or converted."

This is both the dictionary definition of the word, and the way I've always seen the word used. If you are going to use a word to mean something different than its normal usage, I think it would be a good idea to make that very clear.

If your point is that we cannot be drawn to God apart from the Holy Spirit, and that the drawing itself is for the purpose of healing, and has a healing effect upon the person being drawn, I'm in complete agreement with that point. In fact, I'm so much in agreement with it (as it seems to be exactly what I've been saying) I'm curious as to what we are disagreeing about.

Let me ask the question this way. From the Ellen White quote we see the following steps:

a.The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God to everyone.
b.That love draws everyone.
c.Unless one resists, one will respond and be saved.

Two questions:
1.Do you agree that I have accurately summarized the EGW quote? Or would you suggest another way of summarizing it?
2.Is this summary how you perceive things to be working? Or is there something missing, or out of order in the explanation?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 05:25 PM

Quote:

The drawing itself is regenerative. The carnal mind is not attracted to unselfish love. In otherwords being drawn to God is in itself a transformation that we cannot account for in our carnal state.

It appears to me that you are saying here that a person cannot be drawn without God doing something to the person first, because unless God did something to him, he wouldn't be attracted. This seems very similar to the argument Calvinists use for the "T" in "Tulip." Also the "i".

That is, the Calvinistic argument is as follows:

a.Of himself, man is totally depraved, with a will in bondage, so that he cannot respond to the grace of God. ("T" = "Total depravity")

b.God must unilaterally operate upon man in such a fashion that he is able to respond, and it is a sure thing that man will respond once God does this, because His grace is irresistable. ("I" = "Irresitable grace")

It seems to me certain that you are suggesting "a" is true. I'm not sure about b. You might be saying that God must unilaterally operate upon man in such a fashion that he is able to respond, but not that man must respond after God's unilateral action.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 05:26 PM

Quote:

Speaking of faith John, (btw, thanks it's good to be back) I'm suggesting that faith is a divine gift that empowers the will. It is the point of fusion between the will of man and the will of God.

I like that: It is the point of fusion between the will of man and the will of God.

The question: is faith a universal divine gift, and the misplacement of it through sin; so that salvation is to bring it back in its proper place; or is faith a selective divine gift, and only those who get it, benefit?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/04/06 05:47 PM

When we speak of "faith," what are we meaning?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 07:16 AM

Quote:

When we speak of "faith," what are we meaning?

Faith is not a belief. “Faith” defines the source of our lives. So yes it is the point of fusion between the will of man and the will of God. Faith is the door by which we let God in, and keep all other out. Faith determines the source or input of our life. Faith is also the means we sever from the flesh and the old man as source.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 02:51 PM

My view of faith closely agrees with John's definition as to the *role* of faith in man. Regarding the *source* of faith, it's origin is divine. The saints have the 'faith of Jesus':

Quote:

Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12

Does the text mean that the faith of the saints only immitates the faith of Christ, or does it mean that their faith proceeds directly from the ministry and priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary? It includes both, but it especially means the latter. Through the intercession of Christ grace and spiritual life is infused into our veins, His blood becomes ours, His life ours, and this alone makes it possible for us to submit our wills to God.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 05:28 PM

Good points and well said Mark.

The Faith I described, is ‘faith’ as the faculty in man. Every man has this faculty. But faith as in its placement and actual allegiance has been subverted in sin. Sin placed faith in self, and thus the will became subject to self, and the concept of faith was changed to beliefs.

The ‘faith of Jesus’ is a very vital concept and the heart of the gospel. Without it there is no salvation. It is the ‘faith of Jesus’ as in him being the author and finisher of our faith. So it is not a faith of man’s concept. It is not a faith of beliefs. It is the faith by which Christ has made his Father his source. This is a spiritual battle, and it cannot be fought by imitation; it is a genuine transaction in which man is transacting and Christ is ministering his spirit of faith. It is not something done for us; it is worked in us in an active transaction. Wherever the faith of the Son of God is, there is the Father also.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that is of the faith of Jesus.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 05:32 PM

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 05:51 PM

Luther, writing to Duke Charles of Savoy in about 1524, one of the most influential of the French royalty and uncle to the king of France, Francis I, describes faith in the following way:

Quote:

We believe that the commencement of religion and the sum of Christianity is faith in Christ, who by His blood alone, and not by our works, made atonement for sin and put an end to the dominion of death. We believe that this faith is a gift of God and that it is created by the Holy Ghost in our hearts and not found by our own labours. For faith is a living thing which spiritually begetteth the man and maketh him a new creature.

Further on in his letter to the duke, Luther goes on to say that a person thus regenerated will do good works as naturally as a good tree bears good fruit.

Notice though Luther's statement that faith is not 'found by our own labours'. The scripture agrees:

Quote:

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The above passage, in the simple eloquence of the beloved John, stikes the perfect balance. It shows that man must receive Christ, that there is a choice to be made and the will, once awakened and empowered must act. But the motive force is supplied not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

God draws and enlightens every man by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Those who respond are saved. Those who do not are what inspiration refers to as the vessels of dishonour or wrath. The election doctrine is essential to preserve the role of God in salvation. It will come to be better understood at the end by the final generation because it illuminates the central focus of the church at the end - Christ our Righteousness - and it will be instrumental in, as Ellen White puts it, 'laying the glory of man in the dust'. It will help to show that our wills are depraved and only by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit can we choose right. It is only through the election doctrine that the proper credit belonging to Christ for our salvation can be fully understood - how any why His is our rightousness.

When I was in my twenties, for a some years after my conversion in my teens, I used to say that before being converted I had made a god out of a career in business, but it wasn't too long before I was convinced that the world only had vanities to offer me even if I was fabulously successful. I blush now looking back at the explanation I used to give of my conversion because I attributed my thought process to my own rationality. What really happened was that the Holy Spirit, little by little regenerated my mind so that I became capabale of seeing the vanity of the world and eventually I yielded to Him.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 08:45 PM

Tom, regarding the will of man and the extent of depravity that is native to us, not having studied Calvinism, I’m not aware of what Calvinists teach regarding ‘total depravity’. I can say though that in the bible, man is depraved and not able to choose or appreciate good in his natural state. ‘The [human] heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it.’ Jer 17:9. The answer to that last question is 'noone can know it without the regeneration of the Spirit.'

Charles Wesley who you’ve been correctly referring to as the inspiration for much of Adventist thinking on the role of the will offers the following thoughts in his well known hymn, Jesus Lover of My Soul. The third verse says:

“Just and holy is thy name,
I am all unrighteousness;
Vile and full of sin I am,
Thou art full of truth and grace.”

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/05/06 10:28 PM

I was a Calvinist before becoming an Adventist. I learned Arminian theology from Adventistism. It's really bizarre for me to see the very things I "unlearned" being repeated.

Quote:

Those who do not are what inspiration refers to as the vessels of dishonour or wrath.

Were they vessled of dishonor or wrath before or after they refused to be drawn?

You disagree with Calvinism in that you are stating that all are drawn. Calvinists teach that only the elect are drawn, and noone can resist the drawing. You seem to be suggesting (please correct me if this is wrong) that all are drawn, but only those whom God has chosen to respond will do so.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 03:46 AM

There are probably many areas I differ with Calvinism on. Another one would be irresistible grace. If grace could not be resisted, it would not be grace, it would be force. Grace is gracious, it doesn't force.

From the writers I've read that are outside of Adventism, I'm probably closest to Luther on atonement/salvation, the will vs. the election.

To answer whether only those whom God as chosen to respond will do so, I'm saying that it is true that man's response is essential and that there is an essential role for the will. But I'm also saying that those who are finally saved at the end of their probation are in the Bible called the elect. The two ideas, the first and the second, appear to be in tension but it's our limited understanding that is the problem. One of the problems is that we place far too much confidence in what the unaided will is able to accomplish. In scripture the will can do nothing unaided. It is equally true though, the will of man must have its place in the plan of salvation. At the end of the day, the election gives God all the credit for our salvation notwithstanding our choice to respond positively.

This is likely another area I differ with Calvinism on. We don’t know who in the church is saved and unsaved, so, with few exceptions like the apostles and prophets, we don’t know who is elect. If our hearts are right with God though, we can have confidence that we are elected now. If we reject the grace of God in the future we will loose that confidence or our confidence will be replaced with presumption. That may be another departure from Calvinism. But my personal testimony is I believe that I am elected by grace and as are all believers. Still, our work is to ‘make our calling and election sure.’ So there is a clear duty that devolves on us in the plan of salvation, but all of the credit for our salvation, through the doctrine of the election returns to God.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 04:35 AM

I think the credit business falls far short of the true glory given to God by simply receiving him, the source of our lives by faith.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 05:14 AM

Everyone agrees that those who are saved at the end are the elect. There's no disagreement on that. There's also no tension in the two factors you cited, that there is an essential role for the will, and those who choose Christ will be elect. What you are enunciating here is not Luther's position, but Arminius's.

Calvinist's teach that God predestines man on the basis of His will, not His foreknowledge. Arminianists teach that God predesinates man on the basis of his foreknowledge.

Calvinist's teach that saving grace is given only to the elect. Only the elect have either the ability or the desire to be saved. Arminianists teach that saving grace has been given to all men, so that all have the ability to be saved, if they so choose.

Calvinist's teach that the free will gospel is false; that is, they are opposed to the idea that our free will play any part whatsoever in our salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be 100% a free gift of God, from grace. Arminianists teach that the gift has been given to all men, but that one must choose to accept the gift in order to be saved.

Here are some questions which may help to define things:

1.On what basis does God predestinate the elect?
2.How many does God predestinate to be elect?
3.How do the elect become elect?
4.Does God choose some to be saved and others to be lost, on some other basis than their decision to respond to the Gospel?

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 01:33 PM

The way to heaven.

To be in heaven some one needs to have an unselfish heart, which is his fitness for heaven. He needs to have a pure heart, free of self seeking, to see God and live with Him through eternity.

To have an unselfish heart some one needs to live in self denial under the leading of the Spirit.

To deny self some one needs a new heart, a new unselfish heart in exchange of his self seeking heart.

To receive a new unselfish heart some one needs to be converted first through baptism.

To be converted some one needs to repent from his sinful way.

To repent some one needs Jesus.

To need Jesus some one needs to put his faith in Christ.

To have faith in Christ some one needs to hear the Gospel first, understand it and accept it.

In all of these process what is our part?

None? Then we are saved because God did it for us (elected). Take it easy man, do what you will, because it is God who decide you to be saved or to be lost. Don’t bother about your life style, if you are elected, you will become good and righteous one day.

If there is any, then it depends to us, not dependent on God’s election.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 02:08 PM

Tom wrote:

Quote:

There's also no tension in the two factors you cited, that there is an essential role for the will, and those who choose Christ will be elect. What you are enunciating here is not Luther's position, but Arminius's.

I'm saying the election is according to the will of God, not the foreknowledge of God. That is where the tension is. The will of God and the will of man appear to be in tension largely because of our incorrect view of the role of man's will.

James, have another look at what I said regarding the role of the will. The role of the will is not as much the determining factor in salvation as most Adventists think, but notice that I've said it is still essential; that we have to make our calling and election sure. Grace is the determining factor. It arouses us to our need and empowers us to repond. The will is required to act at this point but it can only do so with the ongoing transformation and aid of the Holy Spirit. Again, the first part of John 1 strikes the perfect balance. The new birth is not according to the will of the flesh or the will of man, but by the will of God.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 07:37 PM

Quote:

I'm saying the election is according to the will of God, not the foreknowledge of God. That is where the tension is. The will of God and the will of man appear to be in tension largely because of our incorrect view of the role of man's will.

To assert that election is on the basis of God's will, if it is assumed that this includes specific individuals and excludes other, without reference to the individuals choice, is Calvinistic rather than Arminianistic. Classical Arminianism asserts God predestines on the basis of foreknowledge. Adventism asserts something different, which I'll get to in a moment.

Quote:

Luther believed and taught that God does indeed predestine some to eternal salvation, but denied that God predestined any to eternal damnation. (http://experts.about.com/q/Lutherans-956/Predestination.htm)

Lutherans believe in single predestination. Calvin argued that it was illogical to assert that God predestines some to be saved but does not predestine the others to be lost, because logically if you can be saved only if God predestines you, it follows that you must be lost if God doesn't, which is equivalent to God's predestining you to be lost. Lutherans argue that there position may not be logical, but it is Biblical.

Quote:

However some of our beliefs are not shared by all Christians. For example we believe that God has given us free will - we don’t accept predestination.(http://www.adventistinfo.org.uk/about/fundamen.php)

This is using the word "predestination" according to the meaning "single predestination" or "double predestination."

A common idea within Adventism is that all men are predestined in Christ to salvation. Waggoner expresses the view here:

That is God's purpose and foreordination concerning man. Still further, "whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." Whom did He foreknow?-- There can be no limit; He must have foreknown all. If there were any exception, then God would not be infinite in knowledge. If He foreknows one person, then He foreknows every person. There has not been a person born into the world whose birth God did not foreknow.

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Therefore, since every person has been known to God, even before the foundation of the world, and those whom He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, it follows that God has purposed salvation for every soul that has ever come into the world. His love embraces all, without respect of persons.

"Then everybody will be saved, no matter what he does," some will say. Not by all means. Remember that the purpose of God is in Christ. It is only in Him that we are predestined. And we are free to choose for ourselves whether we will accept Him or not.

Man's will has been forever set free, and God Himself will not presume to interfere with it. He holds the choice and will of each individual sacred. He will not carry out His own purpose contrary to man's will. His will is to give man whatever man decides will best please him. So He sets before man life and death, good and evil, and tells him to choose which he will have.

God knows what is best, and has chosen and prepared that for man. He has gone so far as to fix it beyond all possibility of failure, so that man shall have that good thing if he chooses it. But the wonderful kindness and courteousness of the great God is seen in this, that He defers in everything to man's wishes. If man, in his turn, will but defer to God's wishes, there will be the most delightful and loving companionship between them.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/06/06 07:39 PM

Quote:

It arouses us to our need and empowers us to repond. The will is required to act at this point but it can only do so with the ongoing transformation and aid of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know any Adventists that disagree with this.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 02:06 AM

Tom you quoted me and wrote:

Quote:

"It arouses us to our need and empowers us to respond. The will is required to act at this point but it can only do so with the ongoing transformation and aid of the Holy Spirit."

I don't know any Adventists that disagree with this.

That statement of mine was in the context of the main idea I’m presenting – the human will is depraved. I wish that most Adventists saw that our wills are depraved, but it doesn’t appear to be that way.

In the post just before you quoted Waggoner:

Quote:

Man's will has been forever set free, and God Himself will not presume to interfere with it. He holds the choice and will of each individual sacred. He will not carry out His own purpose contrary to man's will. His will is to give man whatever man decides will best please him. So He sets before man life and death, good and evil, and tells him to choose which he will have.

In the same post you quoted someone from the UK who was writing about our fundamental beliefs saying that man’s will is free. Luther is right. There is no such thing in scripture as free will. We have choices to make, but no free will to make them. That is quite an overstatement by Waggoner – man’s will forever set free. Our will’s are in bondage and only can be used to submit ourselves to God when empowered by Him. Waggoner had a lot of good things to say about the human nature of Christ, the role of the law, and some of his material on justification, but as with all authors, we have to compare his work carefully with scripture. I'm actually quite surprised he would say something like that. It indicates to me that he may have taken the idea of corporate justification to mean that not only all men have been pardoned, but all men have been in some way rennovated by the death of Christ.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 02:38 AM

Our wills *were* in bondage, until Christ set them free. Christ has made it possible for men to respond to the Gospel.

Adventists do not have Luther's idea of the bondage of the will, but agree that apart from divine aid it would not be possible for a man to respond to the Gospel. However, God gives that aid to everyone.

Ellen White expresses the Adventist idea throughout her writings. Here's one place I've cited a number of times in this thread:

None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ. (DA 387)

The will has been set free to the point where anyone is free to respond to the drawing of Christ, who said "if I be lifted up, I will draw all unto me." Regarding this, EGW writes the following:

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. (DA 176)

This idea is entirely Biblical. Paul tells us that the goodness of God leads us to repentance. Jesus said, whosoever will, may come.

Luther had many great things to say, but Adventists have never accepted his ideas on predestination.

Later on I may present some other pioneers' thoughts on predesitination.

The idea that there is no such thing in Scripture as free will is completely opposed to what Adventists have taught, since at least the 1850's. I'll see if I can find some material on that as well.

An interesting line of discussion is what difference it makes to the rest of our theology. That is, what are the implications if we hold to the idea that there is no such thing in Scripture as free will.

Sounds like a good topic.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 05:21 AM

Quote.
Our wills *were* in bondage, until Christ set them free. Christ has made it possible for men to respond to the Gospel.
Unquote.

When this happened, the setting free of our will from bondage?

Quote.
None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ. (DA 387).
Unquote.

When does it happen, God draws us to Christ?

Quote.
The idea that there is no such thing in Scripture as free will is completely opposed to what Adventists have taught, since at least the 1850's. I'll see if I can find some material on that as well.
Unquote.

I read:
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Romans 7:16-18.

I see that according to Paul, we do have a free will, but our will is in bondage.

Which will was in bondage? Our original will that was created in us, the will to always respond to the will of God.
Which will is running free? The will to serve sin, the sin that is in our veins and flesh.
Do we have two “wills” in us?
Yes, our own will and the will of the Spirit. The fight within us is the fight between the will of the Spirit and our will to serve sin, but deep within us, our original will correspond to the will of the Spirit and get stronger till the day it is set free, where the will to serve sin vanish from our hearts. From then on, there is only our will to serve God, strengthen by the Spirit till the conversion of the body at the day Christ returns to earth.

The will to serve sin vanish from our heart but settles in our veins and flesh and remain there till Christ’ come, giving its signals from time to time to the brain. Therefore Paul said: So then, I my self in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Romans 7:25.

Only at the time of His returns, we would be sets free from the enslavement of sin in our sinful nature because we shall be changed, in a twinkling of an eye, we shall be change to a glorious body, without sin in it.

In is love

James S,

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 05:41 AM

…for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

This is the true situation. The will is free and can choose either way; but how to perform that which is good is not in us.

It is like a child who says I want to be a doctor; and then thinking that because it wants to be a doctor, that therefore if it has a free will it should be able to be a doctor right there and then. Does that make sense? Is it not in bondage to ignorance? It’s free will cannot make it a doctor. Why? So what does one have to do to become a doctor?

Likewise with salvation; we can choose the Lord, but we have to come to grips with our reality; that all we know is how to do evil, and how to do good we find not. What is needed?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 06:30 AM

I agree with John; we have free will, but our will needs to be united to God's will for us to how power to do.

We have free will to choose to respond to the Gospel. If we respond, then we are born again and receive power to do.

As to when our will was freed, it was when the plan of salvation was implemented. Had God not acted, man would have been lost, but God did act, supernatually implanting enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 02:55 PM

The enmity that God promised is found in the human conscience that God enlightens, not in the will. Christ, through our conscience enlightens every man that comes into the world right from the time of birth. So, we know to some extent what is right and what is wrong, but the will is powerless to obey. The law further enlightens the conscience but makes our state all the more desparate until we understand that 'without me, ye can do nothing.' As Jones and Waggoner say, the law is the schoolmaster leading us to Christ.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 03:36 PM

Quote.
…for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

This is the true situation. The will is free and can choose either way; but how to perform that which is good is not in us.
Unquote.

Your explanation is well understood, even though your illustration of a child is not good enough.

Now imagine the reality, I want to serve God, I want to live for God, but I keep doing things to satisfy the flesh, I still live for self no matter how great is the urge to live for God. Why it won’t work? What is wrong with me?

I have chosen to live for God, I have chosen to live with faith and do his commands, but I keep doing evil. What is wrong with me?

The will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. Why?

Because I am a slave to sin which is in my member, how could a slave do what he wants except only doing what his master told him, right? A slave has no free will, he might choose anything he wants, but he could not perform the things he wants to do as what he could do and allowed to do is just doing things his master told him.

And sin is my master, I am self centered, it is my nature.

I have a free will choice but could not perform the thing which is against my master, my nature! I am free to choose what I like but could not do what I want to do when it is against my master wishes, because I am a slave to sin, I am enforced to do what my master wish, I only could do what sin in my members told me to do. So, the will is present but it is in bondage, it is tied up, could not perform what it wants to do when it is against the master wishes.

I think; when we live for self, we have no free will, but when we live for God we do have a free will. In other word, when sin is my master I have no free will, but when God is my master, I do have a free will. When I am a slave to sin, I have no free will, but when I am a son of God, I do have a free will.
The question is, when does the change happen, from a slave of sin we become son of God? Who changed us? If God did change us, is personal salvation then not predestined?

In His love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 04:36 PM

Regarding the situation you brought up, James, here's a nice thing from Steps to Christ:

Many are inquiring, "How am I to make the surrender of myself to God?" You desire to give yourself to Him, but you are weak in moral power, in slavery to doubt, and controlled by the habits of your life of sin. Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections. The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you; but you need not despair. What you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him.(SC 47)

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 04:42 PM

The SC quote applies to your comments as well Mark. In our own strength we are powerless to control our thoughts and affections. Of ourselves we cannot change our heart, or give its affections to God, but God has given us the power of choice, and we can choose to give Him our will. When we do this, God gives us the power to do that which we choose to do.

What we need to understand, as she puts it, is the true force of the will.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 08:26 PM

Quote:

but the will is powerless to obey.

Now, this is an interesting thought!

I have never thought about it in this way, but when I think back over 30 years ago, I can see how that is actually the idea that religion gives. It is a very interesting point.

People try to obey in or with their will. That is impossible. The will was never designed to obey. It has no such function. The will is the supreme ruler in man; it does not obey anyone. So it is impossible to obey in or with our will. God never ever expected or expects us to do so. He did not create us to do so. The will has a much higher and nobler position.

To attempt to cause someone’s will to obey would be to break the will and kill the spirit. To attempt to cause our own will to obey is but a futile effort, and would only make us a hypocrite.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 08:29 PM

Quote:

Your explanation is well understood, even though your illustration of a child is not good enough.

Admittedly it is rather simplified, but for that very purpose that we may grasp that one thought. Whether child or adult, if we want to be something (even in the things of this world) which we are not, we cannot just by willing it so, become what we are not. We need to consider the cost and take effort and be willing to go through what it takes to become that which we want to be.

Quote:

Now imagine the reality,…I have chosen to live for God, I have chosen to live with faith and do his commands, but I keep doing evil. What is wrong with me? The will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. Why?

The problem is “I” don’t have the tools of the trade, the skill needed, or the knowledge. “I” am as a customer, not as the tradesman. People want to be the tradesman without ever availing themselves of what it takes to be one. So all we end up being is a judge, a critic, demanding, and fault-finding without ever being able to do the good, ourselves.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/07/06 09:13 PM

Quote:

I think; when we live for self, we have no free will, but when we live for God we do have a free will. In other word, when sin is my master I have no free will, but when God is my master, I do have a free will. When I am a slave to sin, I have no free will, but when I am a son of God, I do have a free will.
The question is, when does the change happen, from a slave of sin we become son of God? Who changed us? If God did change us, is personal salvation then not predestined?

Well in some ways that statement is meaningful, but in context of discussion here it is not clear.

When we live for self; when sin is the master, we still have a free will or we could never choose ‘to live for God’, and we would never find out that we have a problem living for God. What we do not have is the means by which to live for God. But when you choose God for your master, then you still have a free will, and you have the means by which to live his will.

So how do we change masters?

By faith!

What faith? Yes, but not a belief.

Faith is the door by which we (the will) determine our source or master. As long as our faith is in ourselves we are slave to sin. I would like us to note that religiousness and ardency has nothing to do with it. Paul was zealous and highly educated and trained in religion about God; knowing the scriptures, yet he had that very same problem. But that was not faith.

The will determines who we listen to by Faith. The will determines who our source is through faith. The will establishes who our master is by authorizing faith to only accept that which is from the Lord. So as we see the will obeys no one. The will rules empirically. It commands faith to its place. But that is where the power of the will ends. Past that, it can only enforce the position that faith has been put in. It cannot rule anything else contrary to faith.

In simple words, if we want to be a doctor, we must learn from a doctor.
If we want to be a son of God; we need to go to the Son of God, and learn of him.

And we cannot learn anything, except we will believe him who is instructing us.

One more thought: there can be a big difference in "living for God” and “God living in me”.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 01:48 PM

Quote:

85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.
85:5 Wilt thou be angry with us for ever? wilt thou draw out thine anger to all generations?
85:6 Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
85:7 Show us thy mercy, O LORD, and grant us thy salvation. Psalms

One of the proofs of the election doctrine on an individual level is its parallel on the corporate level. In the cases of the great reform movements in Jewish history, the birth of Christianity and of the Protestant Reformation, we see in these movements the over-arching hand of God. Like the new birth in the individual, they are not born of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but by the will of God.

Quote:

A real work of reformation, prepared during many ages, is the work of the Holy Spirit. Before the appointed hour, the greatest geniuses and even the most faithful of God’s servants cannot produce it; but when the reforming time has come; when it is in God’s pleasure to renovate the affairs of the world, the divine life must clear a passage, and *it* is able to create of itself the humble instruments by which this life is communicated to the human race. Then, if men are silent, the very stones will cry out.
J H Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Protestant Reformation page 499.

This is quite contrary to most Adventist's thinking. Isn’t sincerity and fervent prayer enough to effect great transformations? But consider Isaiah and Jeremiah, next to Moses, possibly the two greatest of the prophets; men of prayer and faith, and yet unable to stem the tide of apostasy. And so I’ve quoted for you at the beginning of this post the corporate parallel from scripture of the election doctrine. In the Psalm, corporate revival is only possible when God removes his wrath from the corporate body.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 04:17 PM

85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

Who is talking and why?
By what means are they talking?
Why do they want God?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 04:51 PM

Quote:

When we live for self; when sin is the master, we still have a free will or we could never choose ‘to live for God’, and we would never find out that we have a problem living for God. What we do not have is the means by which to live for God. But when you choose God for your master, then you still have a free will, and you have the means by which to live his will.

This, IMO, is very clear and well stated.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 04:57 PM

Mark, if corporate election is something that can teach us about individual election, isn't the lesson we learn that God's will can be thwarted?

Surely it wasn't God's plan that Israel should fail. He says all day long He waited for Israel with outstretched hands.

If the only thing that reformation depends upon is God's taking action, one wonders (I say this reverently) why God is so incompetent. Doesn't it make much more sense to understand that God is not willing that any should perish, that He is always working to save, to reform, but His purposes are counteracted by evil forces?

Consider, for example, the following statement:

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1SM 234, 235)

This points out that God intended to do something (lighten the earth with glory through a message which He sent), but His purpose was counteracted by the work of angels and men.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 08:03 PM

Don't missunderstand me please on the importance of prayer in every revival. Just notice that no amount of prayer will bring revival corporately unless the revival is ordained of God. We can't choose when that happens either individually or corporately. It is the work of God.

I've given proof of this in the case of Isreal's apostacy. The prayers of the prophets and the pious ones could not prevent it. God allowed them to choose evil, true, but He also did not overrule for good. There are the two sides. Which is the deciding factor?

Let me give you an example now of a revival the succeeded - Mount Carmel. Who does Elijah credit with the great transformation the was lauched that day - the choice of the people, or the work of God?

Quote:

18:36 And it came to pass at [the time of] the offering of the [evening] sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou [art] God in Israel, and [that] I [am] thy servant, and [that] I have done all these things at thy word.
18:37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.

Was it the people who turned their hearts back, or was it God that turned their hearts back? The people responded, God did the work. It is the same in every case individually and corporately.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/08/06 09:19 PM

God is a loving, wise Father. He knows when the time is right. I agree with you 100% that revival must be ordained of God, and is not something which can be manufactured by man. But there is no arbitrary reason why God witholds His Spirit. God never ordains that a revival should *not* occur. He simply waits to act at such a time when His actions are most likely to succeed.

But revival is simply not something God can unilaterally cause to occur, which is obvious. If it were, Israel wouldn't have apostasized, Adam and Eve would never have sinned, and Lucifer wouldn't have rebelled.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/09/06 04:36 AM

Quote:

Don't misunderstand me please on the importance of prayer in every revival. Just notice that no amount of prayer will bring revival corporately unless the revival is ordained of God. We can't choose when that happens either individually or corporately. It is the work of God.

Of course, it needs to be realized that we cannot summon God to give us His spirit, with our will. Yes, that may be a bigger problem than one thinks it is. Too many people look on the watch and say: I still have some time, and somehow they expect to be saved, just in time. Salvation is not a formula that we can use at will. That is salvation by demand, and not by faith. Today is the day; if you hear my voice, harden not your heart.

On the other hand it is just as wrong to think that God does not receive sinners, who come to him in faith; who fall at his mercy; who when they hear his voice respond of a free will.

The one thing that I have seen as the fruit of the election doctrine is that while suggesting that there is nothing we can do; it in turn requires God to change our feelings, desires, physical dispositions, and our own will; in order for us to respond to him. “If I am chosen then I will be saved”. In that way the man remains living by his physical dispositions, feelings, desires, and will of man; and there is no response of faith. Thus the man is never turned from flesh to spirit.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/09/06 07:05 AM

The problem with putting off responding to God's pleas that we be reconciled is not that God will change His mind, or become impatient, or say, "Too bad, you had your chance" but that sin hardens our heart. It causes us to lose interest in spiritual things. We lose a desire to have anything to do with God.

We don't have the luxury to harden our heart and think we can repent at will. God will never withhold His spirit from us (He is not willing that any should perish), but we may reach a situation like Esau (and Satan) where we seek repentance with tears, but are unable to find it.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/09/06 02:06 PM

Excellent points in the last two posts John and Tom. John's point that God never turns a sinner away who comes humbly seeking God's mercy was very well said, as was his point that today is the appointed day of salvation.

Have you folk given more thought to the idea that in reality, although God enlightens and draws everyone, individually and corporately He is still the creator of the moral regeneration and since He is the author of all creation and true rennovation, we have to give place to Him as the one responsible, and not take the credit for our responding. I referred you to Elijah's view of Isreal's reformation. It was God who turned the people's hearts back - the people only responded. It is God who turns the sinners heart to him. And although Joshua's excellent challenge to 'Choose this day whom you will serve' still re-echo's in our ears, it is God who creates the desire and empower's the will.

God, speaking of the revival of the final days that are just ahead says "Shall *I* bring to [spiritual] birth and not cause to come forth." Is 66:9

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/10/06 01:58 AM

Thanks for rounding it out, Tom.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/10/06 02:32 AM

John, my pleasure.

Mark, I don't see how any converted person could take credit for responding. What is there to take credit for? God, out of His mercy and kindness, graciously forgives us.

It's like the guy who owed the king 10,000 talents, asked the king to forgive him, and the king "freely forgave" him. What does he have to take credit for? Asking for forgiveness?

Is he likely to take credit for asking the king for forgiveness, or lauding the graciousness of the king who forgave him?

I think you're bringing out a good point, Mark, which is that if any of us are saved at last, it will be 100% due to God's goodness, kindess and grace.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 08/10/06 04:05 AM

The man owing the 10,000 talents apparently thought he was saved because he chose to be and was therefore a cut above. He went out and abused his debtor who owed him a tiny fraction, remember?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/09/06 05:28 AM

Tom, you suggested earlier that Adventist doctrine on free will is rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. I was reading Luther’s Commentary on Romans translated by JT Mueller and on the flyleaf it quoted John Wesley’s journal entry of May 24, 1738:

“In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldergate Street where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangly warmed; I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for my salvation; an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins . . . .”

I was quite interested in this amazing connection between Luther’s preface which I read today for the first time, and Wesley’s conversion for several reasons. One is that the preface is full of the life, pith and substance of the gospel, as Wesley is witness. So there is a clear connection between Wesleyan doctrine and Luther’s thought. Another is that Luther’s preface also refers to your illustration of the man who owes the debt that you posted above in your last post. I’ll quote Luther on it tomorrow – it’s short. Another reason is that in this same little preface - only about 12 pages long - Luther has some insightful and timely things to say about predestination that I’ll quote in full tomorrow and that I hope stimulate thought.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/09/06 07:45 AM

Mark, are you not aware that SDAism comes from a Wesleyan tradition?

Wesley's conversion story is well known. I think Ellen White quotes it in "The Great Controversy". There's no doubt that Luther was sincerely converted, and used of God. But that doesn't mean he had all truth. If he did, we'd be Lutherans!

Some differences between Lutheran theology and Wesleyan theology include differences in predestination and perfection of character.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/09/06 04:55 PM

Tom, here is the quote I promised on Luther’s view of the atonement. I’m sure the Wesley brothers shared this view. Luther was God’s instrument to revive the church in modern times and link it once again to the prophetic faith of our fathers. Luther’s genius was in his firm and scriptural understanding of righteousness by faith without works but which bears fruit in works of every kind. Do you think it is possible for Luther to have been used effectively by God to revive our ancient faith if he was so mislead regarding the mechanism of salvation? if he believed, like you, that Christ did not satisfy the justice of the law for us. It is no coincidence that Wesley found conversion in reading this very work of Luther that contains the following statement:

Quote:

This [gospel] freedom is, therefore, a spiritual freedom which does not suspend the law but which supplies what the law demands, namely eagerness and love. These silence the law so that it has no further cause to drive people on and make demands of them. It's as though you owed something to a moneylender and couldn't pay him. You could be rid of him in one of two ways: either he would take nothing from you and would tear up his account book, or a pious man would pay for you and give you what you needed to satisfy your debt. That's exactly how Christ freed us from the law.

If all of the great Protestant reformers were united on this point, (and although they were sometimes divided on secondary points, they were never divided on the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ and on the fact that Christ satisfied the demands of the law), then we not only have the testimony of scripture, we also have a host of witnesses in reformation history that this doctrine is true and central to all genuine Christian faith. Where is there any evidence that anyone brought any spiritual life and revival to the church who openly taught that Christ’s death was not essential to meet the justice of the law? There is evidence, though, that the Maxwellian view or moral influence theory in its different forms produces only unwholesome fruit – witness for example the general state of the church in southern California. I expect you’ll deny the connection I'm making but it exists regardless. It is no surprise that a doctrine like this would find traction in a church that is close to being devoid of the spirit of Christ and of a true understanding of the gospel, that mistakes licence for love, that openly rebels against the world body of the church (regarding women's ordination), that has little love and reverence for the law. But they apparently do have one thing in California in their favour: I understand that there are some congregations that still value the bible and Ellen White's writings.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/09/06 06:32 PM

On the doctrine of the election in Romans, Luther says:

Quote:

In chapters 9, 10 and 11, St. Paul teaches us about the eternal providence of God. It is the original source which determines who would believe and who wouldn't, who can be set free from sin and who cannot. Such matters have been taken out of our hands and are put into God's hands so that we might become virtuous. It is absolutely necessary that it be so, for we are so weak and unsure of ourselves that, if it depended on us, no human being would be saved. The devil would overpower all of us. But God is steadfast; his providence will not fail, and no one can prevent its realization. Therefore we have hope against sin.

But here we must shut the mouths of those sacrilegious and arrogant spirits who, mere beginners that they are, bring their reason to bear on this matter and commence, from their exalted position, to probe the abyss of divine providence and uselessly trouble themselves about whether they are predestined or not. These people must surely plunge to their ruin, since they will either despair or abandon them selves to a life of chance. You, however, follow the reasoning of this letter in the order in which it is presented. Fix your attention first of all on Christ and the Gospel, so that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then struggle against sin, as chapters 1-8 have taught you to. Finally, when you have come, in chapter 8, under the shadow of the cross and suffering, they will teach you, in chapters 9-11, about providence and what a comfort it is. Apart from [the Christian experiencing the] suffering, the cross and the pangs of death, you cannot come to grips with providence without harm to yourself and secret anger against God. The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don't drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast. There is a proper measure, time and age for understanding every doctrine. Preface to Romans, Dr. Martin Luther, 1522.

Earlier in the thread I suggested the same reason that Luther gives above that Ellen White is not more open in her writings in advancing the election view – that is, because it is meat that the church wasn’t and still isn’t able to tolerate. Luther confirms that view. Notice his advice. Luther is a man that although he was never convicted on the Sabbath, still understood the heart of the gospel better by far than most Adventists. He counts this doctrine as essential to a more advanced understanding of faith, but notice that he warns it is not possible to tolerate it by those who haven’t personally experienced the ‘suffering, the cross and the pangs of death’ of Christ in their own lives. His advice to those who haven’t done this, and I second his opinion, is to leave the doctrine alone until they have. As Luther points out, we need to become grounded in the experience outlined by the Apostle in the first eight chapters of Romans before attempting to understand the intent of chapters 9 to 11.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/09/06 09:15 PM

I accidently put a post here that was supposed to be for another thread. Sorry friends.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 06:57 AM

Quote:

If all of the great Protestant reformers were united on this point, (and although they were sometimes divided on secondary points, they were never divided on the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ and on the fact that Christ satisfied the demands of the law), then we not only have the testimony of scripture, we also have a host of witnesses in reformation history that this doctrine is true and central to all genuine Christian faith.

This logic would also argue that we should be keeping Sunday. What's the difference?

Truth is progressive. The reformers didn't know of Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary. That's another point they all agreed upon, but were incorrect about.

As to what the testiomony of Scripture says, that's what the whole question is. Can you produce a single quote of Jesus Christ to support your ideas regarding the atonement?

Consider the following statement by E. J. Waggoner:

The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. (Waggoner on Romans)

I haven't done a study to know how many SDA's in Waggoner's time understood this. I know of at least one other (Fifield).

The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Materials 1052)

Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner's message over 1,000 times! (and we get excited over one endorsement of Luther -- seems wierd to me). She wrote over 2,000 pages on the subject! More than on the Sabbath, or just about any other subject she wrote about.

I'm making this point because it seems to me you are overemphasizing works with which we should be familiar (Luther, and the others) to the detriment of works we should be even more are of; a message given to us by God directly for our church!

The reformers did not know about the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary. They presented views we don't agree with in regards to predestination and perfection of character.

Regarding the atonement and justification by faith, Waggoner had the benefit of Luther and the other's writings. He built upon what they wrote, taking advantage of the truths which God had revealed to them, to bring us truth which those who preceeded him were not aware of.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 06:59 AM

I responded in this thread because what I wrote was generic in nature, not limited to the atonement question, but addressing more the issue of how we should understand the writings the Lord has provided us.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 03:31 PM

You're partly right regarding the reformers view of the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. They did not have the understanding that we do regarding the immutable nature of the law, and yet they did look to Christ there for all their strength and grace to keep the law as they understood it. And by all accounts they were often more faithful to the truth than Adventists have been to the increased light that we have. Waggoner lost his way and his ministry became ineffective. One of the reasons for his personal tragidy is no doubt a skewed view of the character of God that began in failing to yield in some point to the Holy Spirit and that eventually crippled his theology. The very points that you seize on are the symptoms of his trouble.

Isn't it true that all those who go astray do so blindly. Those who presecute the saints do it as a service to God. But they could have known better if they had permitted themselves to be enlightened.

Because the reformers were not convicted on the Sabbath, does it follow that they were in error on predestination? Not at all. The Sabbath is another progressive truth that many will accept once they are ready for it. Does that bar them from accepting more advanced truth than we might have? No. Not if they follow the light that they do have. And the Sabbath is no barrier to accepting gross error when it is only kept as a form. The Jews who crucified Christ were in gross error on many points and while they clung to the outward froms of the law.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 05:49 PM

Quote:

One of the reasons for his personal tragidy is no doubt a skewed view of the character of God that began in failing to yield in some point to the Holy Spirit and that eventually crippled his theology. The very points that you seize on are the symptoms of his trouble.

Here's a comment from the Spirit of Prophecy on this point:

It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God.(1888 Mat. 143)

Let's be careful not to enter in a fatal delusion! There was nothing wrong with the message, and it would be a "fatal delusion" to thus conclude, and indicate our not being under the control of the Spirit of God.

Over a thousand times she states that they had a message of God, and not even once does she cast doubt on that message.

Waggoner and Jones had to confront something that noone else ever had to. They knew, from the endorsements of the Spirit of Prophecy, that they were presenting a message from God, the beginning of the latter rain and loud cry of the third angel's message, as she referred to it, to the last church. And yet they were met with such a spirit of unChristlike persecution that EGW could only compare to the Jews. She said that had Christ been physically present, they would have treated Him as the Jews did. (i.e., they would have crucified Him).

Shortly after the 1888 General Conference session, Jones, Waggoner and EGW preached together, to great effect at revivals. The impact of Jones and Waggoner's message is quite evident in EGW's writings during this time. But the brethren sent EGW to Australia, which she saw no light in, and sent Waggoner to England. They did all they could to fight against the message, and succeeded in delaying Christ's coming who knows how long.

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1SM 234, 235)

However, there is a silver lining to the cloud. We note that she wrote "the light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory," which indicates that there will come a time when the message they brought is received and taken to the world.

May that time come soon!

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 05:53 PM

Mark, regarding predestination, I'm not quite sure what your position is. Is it the same as Luther's? Assuming it is, do you realize that this position is contrary to what every SDA taught in the 19th century?

In the twentieth I have come across a few who hold to the Reformationist ideas on predestination, but those who I have met recognize that their views do not agree with Ellen White's views, and set her aside. I have never met anyone who holds to the Reformationist views of predesitination and simultaneously accepted Ellen White's views, since they are so clearly contrary the one to the other.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/10/06 05:57 PM

This is from Waggoner, "The Everlasting Covenant"

In this covenant, securing to Christ the "travail of his soul" (Isa.53:11), lies the predestination and foreordination of the Scriptures, so troublesome to many. It is simply the "election of grace," not of any particular individuals, singled out and made sure of heaven, independent of their own wills, free choice, or mode of action, but only of those who are willing to receive Christ as their Saviour, and do his will. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." John 1:12. Those whom the Father hath given him are the elect; and all are given to him, who make it their will to accept him; and of these he will lose none, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:39,40.

When the plan of salvation had been formed, and Christ had elected to give his life for the redemption of men, he was then, already, in the intent and purpose of that plan, the offered victim, and is spoken of as the "Lamb slain" - "slain from the foundation of the world" (kosmos), or from the time when the redemptive economy was established. Rev.13:8. It will be noticed that he is not said to have been slain before the foundation of the world, implying that the fall of man and redemption by the death of Christ, were events fixed and foreordained before the world was formed, and man created. This would place too powerful a weapon against the divine government, in the hands of the skeptic.

But the disbeliever asks with an air of expected victory, Did not God foreknow that man would sin? Was it not therefore a settled fact that he would sin? And did not God, therefore, when he made man with that certainty before him, become responsible for the entrance of sin into this world? - So it might look from that point of view, and with that method of reasoning. But as the Scriptures do not so express it, it is not necessary to formulate it to such a conclusion.

God made man, as he must make all intelligences who are to serve him, a free moral agent, that such service may not be mechanical and constrained, but voluntary and free. As such, he could obey or disobey; could maintain his rectitude or fall into sin. His course was to be determined by his own choice. God did not force him to sin, nor did he intend that he should sin. On the other hand, he made every possible inducement (short of constraining his free will) to keep him in the path of obedience. Being free, of course God knew that he might sin; but this would be a very different thing from saying that he know that he would sin.(end quote)

This is just what I've shared so many times. God knew of the possibility of sin, which is inevitable because of free will. God predestinates individuals in Christ to be saved, but they can use their free will to choose to be lost.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 12:34 AM

Tom, it is an equally fatal delusion to seize on the errors of Waggoner and promote them as new light. I accept the main part of their message that Ellen White endorsed. But clearly neither their message nor their experience was error free. You mainly promote the errors found in Waggoner's message. One of the reasons Ellen White warned that they might be overthrown is she saw that they already endorsed some error and also she very likely detected that they were not meeting some of their trials as good soldiers in the cause of Christ. Error in theology has its root in both preconceived opinion and in a false religious experience. If we don't meet our trials in the strength of Christ our theology ultimately becomes skewed.

Regarding Ellen White's theology on predestination and free will I've given evidence of her position in prior posts. She definitely is similar if not identical to Luther on the role of free will. And that view is foundational to the election doctrine.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 02:13 AM

Mark, what of their message do you accept? Could you quote something specific from Waggoner or Jones? I'd be interested in seeing this. You say you accept the "main part". Would that include elements which they characterize as essential to salvation?

I'm not aware of any error in Waggoner or Jones' message, during the time EGW endorsed them, except for the error that Ellen White corrected Waggoner on, which was that Jesus couldn't sin because He had perfect faith. What error were you thinking of? I assume you would agree with me that any errors they may have had must have been very minor, or Ellen White, who endorsed them over 1,000 times, surely would have warned us about it, right?

Quote:

One of the reasons Ellen White warned that they might be overthrown is she saw that they already endorsed some error and also she very likely detected that they were not meeting some of their trials as good soldiers in the cause of Christ.

You just made this up, right? You don't have any evidence of this, do you? I'd be interested in seeing any statement from the Spirit of Prophecy suggesting that they might be overthrown because they already endorsed some error. I've read the 2,000 pages released by the Ellen White estate on this subject, and don't ever recall reading anything like this.

You think Ellen White is similar or identical to Luther on free will? That's interesting. I don't recall any evidence you posted suggesting this. I recall you're saying there is not such thing as free will, which is certainly contrary to what Ellen White taught. Perhaps you could indicate the number of the post you had in mind. I'd be very interested in seeing such evidence as I've read quite a lot of her writings, and a fair amount of Luther as well, and don't recall their positions being identical. I find her position to be pretty much identical to Wesley's, not Luther's.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 05:30 AM

Tom, I did post on some of Ellen White's statements on free will. You'll have to look for those posts. I'm sorry I don't have time to look them up again.

Here is what the German reformers through Philip Melancthon said regarding free will in the famous Augsburg Confession almost 500 years ago.

Article 18: Free Will

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc. "

I looked through the confession quickly and I didn't see any direct reference to the election, which is a good indicator that the reformers did not view the doctrine as essential. But it would be interesting to do a survey of the reformers from Luther for the first 100 years of the reformation. My impression is that they were quite united on the election doctrine. What seems to have happened since that time is that as the protestant church wained in spirituality it lost its hold on some important truths and human reason, which was also the downfall of the early church, came in to make false contrasts. This is similar to your approach Tom in focusing on one aspect of salvation, the relational, to the exclusion of the legal issue. In scripture both exist in harmony and both are aspects of our salvation. In the same way, the election doctine does not exclude free will (as the Bible teaches free will) and as set out in the Augsburg Confession. And free will does not do violence to the election.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 07:31 AM

What we're dealing with is compatibilistic and imcompatibilistic or libertarian free will. The reformers, taking after Augustine, were compatibilitistic, whereas Arminius, and those who followed after the Arminian tradition are libertarian.

There is a whole structure of beliefs which follow from whether one takes a deterministic (i.e. compatibilistic) or libertarian point of view. This impacts how one views election, predestination, and free will. Adventists have always been libertarian on these views!

It shows great confusion to mix Ellen White's views on these points with Luther. They really don't have anything to do with one another. Luther often writes that there is no such thing as free will; that no being has free will, except God. This is in agreement with Augustine's teachings, but has nothing to do with Ellen White's view, or any other Adventist of the 19th century. This idea is simply foreign to Adventism, until the second half of the twentieth century.

Here's just one simple example of this:

To-day Christ is inviting us, "Come unto me, . . . and I will give you rest." He waits to raise to newness of life those who are dead in trespasses and sins. But he uses no compulsion. He employs no external force. We are left free to act as we choose. If we turn from disloyalty, and place ourselves under the banner of Christ, it is because that of our own free will we choose to do this. (YI 9/20/00)

Ellen White understood that even the unconverted have free will.

Now this does not mean that someone can become converted without God's involvement. Of course not! But God's action is not unilateral, and that's the key point. Ellen White, and all SDA's who were her contemporaries, emphasized the exercising of one's free will in salvation. This is in complete contrast to Luther who emphasized the opposite! Luther stated there was no free will (which you also have stated), and that salvation must be a unlateral decision on the part of God.

Either we have free will or we don't. Either Luther was right, or Ellen White, but not both.

I'll end with the following:

THAT the Bible teaches predestination, is true; that it teaches what modern theology defines the term to mean, we think is not true. As set forth in the Scriptures, it is a doctrine full of comfort and consolation; as taught in the creeds, it is full of spiritual paralysis and despair. In the Scriptures, it is the assurance of salvation so long as we maintain a certain relation to God; in theology, it is a relation determined for us independently of our own will, and a fixed destiny to a life which we cannot lose, or a death, which we cannot avert. Webster defines the word "predestination" in its theological acceptation to mean. "The purpose of God from eternity respecting all events; often the pre-assignment or allotment of men to everlasting happiness or misery."

The tendency of this latter doctrine must be at once apparent. It leads the individual to throw off all responsibility, and intermit all efforts for himself. He says, If my destiny has been fixed from all eternity by an irreversible decree, I might as well resign myself to my fate, and let the current take me where it has been predetermined that it shall take me: if I am to be saved, I shall be saved, and no one can prevent it; if I am to be lost, I cannot avoid it.

It is impossible to arouse such a soul to repentance. The answer comes, If I am to repent, God will make me repent when the time comes; and I need not concern myself about it. Such an one cannot be induced to heed the divine injunction to flee from the wrath to come; for he says, If I am appointed to that wrath, flee as I will, I cannot avoid it; and if not, then for me there is no wrath to come.

I'm not positive who wrote this, but pretty sure it was Uriah Smith. It's a typical 19th century SDA statement on predestination.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 02:15 PM

What do you find wrong with Article 18 on free will? I'll repeat that Ellen White's view of free will agrees with this statement. Can you provide any scripture or statements from her that disagree? Did you review the statements I provided Tom? We need to look carefully at this pivitol document which, along with the Marburg declaration are the the first two public confessions of faith of Protestantism. As far as I know, all of the European Protestants were in agreement with it at the time, including the Swiss who also sent representatives to Augsburg.

Does anyone know what the English reformers believed - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Barnes, Latimer, Knox etc. I've heard Knox was Calvinist, but I'm not aware of the rest.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 02:57 PM

To clarify, I said recently that the election doctrine and the doctrine of free will were initially viewed by the Protestant reformers as being in harmony with each other. I suggested that the increasing tension between the two was a result of backsliding in Protestantism. I just want to clarify that it appears to have occurred in both branches of Protestantism. Those who took the Calvinist path also lost the harmony that the initial reformed church understood.

There is a balance that needs to be struck. Today, on one hand the liberal branch of Protestantism is ready to accept all interpretations of scripture as valid and to acknowledge other 'holy' writings outside of scripture as well. These churches are no longer Protestant. On the other, there are many who take the scripture only but then futher narrow that to texts that will agree with their view. We need the whole of scripture including and especially the parts we don't understand well.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 04:51 PM

When I get a chance, I'll look carefully at the actual article, but as I pointed out the question revolves around the compatabilistic/incompatibilistic positions. There are fixed positions which follow from these assumptions. If one believes in compatibilitistic free will, one will believe that the free will of man has no place in salvation, that salvation is a unilateral action on the part of God, that God elects certain individuals to be saved, just as Luther explains in "The Bondage of Will." What Luther writes is entirely logic. Luther had no problem with logic.

OTOH, if one holds to the incompatibilistic position, one will hold that free will is essential in salvation, and that God does not unilaterally elect selected individuals to be saved (leaving out others). The two positions are well defined, and impossible to reconcile.

There's simply no way that Ellen White can agree with Luther, because she believes in incompatibilistic free well, while Luther doesn't. The evidence for this is clear for anyone familiar with the concepts and what Luther and Ellen White wrote. Both are entirely consistent in their positions.

To highlight these differences, if you look at Ellen White's writings, you will see that she emphasizes the role of man's free will in salvation. OTOH Luther emphatically denies this, as strongly as possible (cf. "The Bondage of the Will").

Similarly, if you look at Ellen White's writings, you will see that she never attributes the salvation of the individual to a unilateral action on the part of God. OTOH, Luther emphatically does.

Similarly, Ellen White never says that God predestined individuals to be saved. She consistently emphasized that a person's salvation depends upon the action of their will. Luther, OTOH, emphatically states that God predestines inviduals.

In conclusion, both Luther's (and the Reformers in general, who agree with Luther regarding incompibilistc free will, a holdover from Augustine) and Ellen White's positions follow logically from their assumptions.

The question comes down to this: Does man have compatibilistic free will or incompatibilistic free will?

When I get a chance, I'll go into the difference between these two positions, as these are technical terms, which are helpful in distinguishing between the two positions.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/12/06 07:53 PM

Compatibilism has to do with whether free will and determinism are compatible. According to this point of view, we have free will in the sense that we can do what we want to do.

Incombatibilism, (aslo called libertarianism) says that free will and determinism are incompatible (i.e., they can't both be true). Man is truly free in the highest sense of the word. That is, he not only can choose to do something he is disposed to do, but can choose to do something he is not disposed to do.

Edwards (defending the compatibilistic view) wrote, "The mind will always choose that which it most desires," so our greatest desire in any given circumstance compels us to choose, forces our choice, of that which we most desire."

According to Edwards, there is a reason for every choice we make! We are always free to choose whatever we desire. We are not free to choose what we do not desire. We cannot go against our greatest desire in any situation. Whatever we choose will be based on our greatest desire, our motive for choice.

Libertarian free will denies these assertions, and affirms that we can choose to do things we do not most highly desire.

In the compatibilistic framework, there is always a reason for everything one chooses to do, and this is important to uphold the deternimistic framework. In the deterministic framework, all actions we will undertake has already been determined -- we just don't know what they are. We are not free to do something other than that which has been determined. Our freedom is not real, in a libertarian sense, but we perceive that we are free because we never act contrary to what we desire. A key point is that our desires are not determined by ourselves, but are determined by forces outside of ourselves. So our destiny is not determined by the exercise of our free will, but to the contrary, by other forces.

Ellen White was strongly libertarian in her outlook. For example:

What you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. (SC 47)

If we look at the key areas of determinism, we see that Ellen White was consistently against these ideas. For example, she expressed the idea that God undertook a risk in sending Christ, which is impossible from determistic standpoint.

Another typical statement of Ellen White's:

No one is compelled to serve God. The full results of a man's choice rest upon himself, for he chooses of his own free will. (13 MR 219)

This is the libertarian perspective. There is strong emphasis throughout her work on the part that man's choice plays in our salvation.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 12:33 AM

Ellen White strikes a better balance than Luther. I'll grant you that. However, she was not in any camp. There are more than two ways of looking at this issue. The scriptures give evidence of that. And we need to be careful not to put words in Luther's mouth that he never spoke. The same with Ellen White and the Bible.

What about Article 18 of the Confession? Where is it unscriptural?

On a related topic, why, if sin is always a choice, is there not a single man or woman or child who has never sinned?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 01:02 AM

What other way is there of conceiving of free will than as compatibilistic or libertarian? I'll grant you that within the different camps there are differences (e.g. the 5 points of Calvinism, hard core Calvinists hold to all 5, other are "3.5 Calvinists" and so on), but the two camps are clearly divided. For example, Ellen White is a 0 point Calvinist. She doesn't agree with any of the points. Luther would probably be 3.5.

Ellen White is definately in the compatibilistic camp. She never wrote anything deterministic. For example, she wrote this:

The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the beasts of the stall. Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. Yet this was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

This is completely contrary to Luther's entire train of thought, from beginning to end.

I'll look at the confession. Thanks for your patience.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 01:20 AM

Quote:

To clarify, I said recently that the election doctrine and the doctrine of free will were initially viewed by the Protestant reformers as being in harmony with each other. I suggested that the increasing tension between the two was a result of backsliding in Protestantism. I just want to clarify that it appears to have occurred in both branches of Protestantism. Those who took the Calvinist path also lost the harmony that the initial reformed church understood.

This isn't accurate. The Protestant reformers held to a compatibilistic view of free will. They never held to a libertarian view. There has always been tension between the libertarian view and the Reformationist view of election, and always will be. OTOH there is no tension with the compatibilistic view because it, by definition, is compatible with determinism.

There is no more or less harmony between the Calvinist path and the Reformed church on the quesitons of free will and determinism. Their views are identical. Just as Luther asserted "Since God's foreknowledge is not uncertain, 'free-will' is non-existent." so is Calvin's view, and all those who hold to either the Reformed view of Calvin's view.

Where they differ is not in regards to the will, but in regards to the points of the tulip. Luther did not teach that the lost are lost because God predestined them to be lost, whereas Calvin did.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 01:42 AM

Regarding the Augsberg Confession, it doesn't appear to me that Melanchthon was considering the same question we are. He writes, "They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." This is not the same issue we are discussing. So it is not surprising that Ellen White wouldn't write something that would disagree with this since this is dealing with Pelgaianism and not with compatibilistic free will.

The creeds, or confessions, were written in the context of dealing with certain issues. If something was left out, I would not read too much into that. That does not mean that the issue was not considered to be important, just that it wasn't necessarily a pressing issue at the time.

That Luther's view of free will was compatibilistic is undeniable. For example, he wrote:

Since God's foreknowledge is not uncertain, "free-will" is non-existent. It is fundamentally necessary and healthy for Christians to acknowledge that God foreknows nothing uncertainly, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will....

However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no "free-will", but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.(The Bondage of the Will)

Notice the emphasis that God purposes all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This comes from Augustine. Now someone who believes in libertarian free will could affirm the same thing as Luther in regards to God's will, but it would mean something entirely different. Luther, from Augstine, held that nothing happens which is not God's will. (Luther spoke of God's inscrutable will to deal with the problems of injustice that arise when dealing with the question of how there could be evil if all things happen according to God's will). Thus the saved are saved only because God has so willed. Their free will has no part to play in the equation. This was very important to Luther, who was deterministic.

Ellen White, on the other hand, was not deterministic, but strongly libertarian. For example, she spoke of God's undertaking risk, which puts her even further away from a deterministic position than compatibilism requires.

I'll try to illustrate by way of a diagram:

......Compatibilism ...........Libertarianism.......
Calvin.....Luther........................Ellen White

Ellen White is not in the center on this question, but way off to the edge. This is because of her position on risk, which many Arminiainists disagree on. That is, Ellen White wrote that God undertook risk. For example:

(I)nto the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. (DA 49)

Many Arminianists (who all believe in libertarian free will) would disagree with this statement because it asserts that God undertook risk. They would hold that God cannot undertake risk, not because of determinism (i.e. God determines everything that happens, therefore there can be no risk in anything He undertakes; everything happens just as planned) but because of His absolute foreknowledge. Some Arminianists agree with Ellen White that God did undertake a risk. Among theologians, Ellen White's position is definitely a minority position. She is way out on the edge, as illustrated by the diagram.

The "balance" that Ellen White takes regarding free will is to get as far away as possible from Calvin's position.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 02:12 AM

Quote:

On a related topic, why, if sin is always a choice, is there not a single man or woman or child who has never sinned?

What are you asking?

Is sin, never, sometimes, or always a choice?

Or,

Is it that none has never sinned, or that many have sometimes or many times not sinned?
Is it that sometimes we have a choice and other times we don't?
Is it that, sometimes we choose not to sin and sometimes we don't?

Or,

Perhaps we have not learned what sin is, and/or what the choice consists of.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 02:14 AM

So you find nowhere that Scripture or Ellen White disagree with the Article 18 on free will. OK that's good. Where do you see in the Article that they are dealing with anything other than *biblical* free will.

Please, let's limit the theospeak. This is a laymen's forum. We owe it to the members to use terms that are familiar to them. Did Christ or any great authors for that matter use terms like the ones in your recent posts? Also, if you attribute something to someone, please be fair and thorough in your research and include balancing statements by the same person.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 02:18 AM

What about my question on how it is that sin is always by choice and yet everyone has sinned. How is that?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 05:14 AM

So you find nowhere that Scripture or Ellen White disagree with the Article 18 on free will. OK that's good. Where do you see in the Article that they are dealing with anything other than *biblical* free will.

As I explained, Mark, Melanchthon was dealing with Pelagianism. He said so in the confession. Right here:

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Why would you expect Ellen White to disagree with Luther about Pelagianism?

Please, let's limit the theospeak. This is a laymen's forum.
We owe it to the members to use terms that are familiar to them. Did Christ or any great authors for that matter use terms like the ones in your recent posts?

It's a technical subject, Mark. You brought it up, not me. If you read the works by Edwards and others have hashed these things out, it's far more technical than the little bit I've written here.

I explained what the terms I used meant. If there's something you didn't understand, just ask. I think anyone reading the posts can understand the terms as they were explained.

Also, if you attribute something to someone, please be fair and thorough in your research and include balancing statements by the same person.

What are you talking about here? What did I attribute to whom? What is not balanced?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 07:06 PM

Sorry I missed your post John. We know what sin is. But there is a question here on what or how much free will we actually have. I posted Article 18 of the Confession as being a scripturally accurate statement. I think it is possible to harmonize this statement with the fact that although we have free will, everyone sins. The fact that everyone sins is evidence that our wills are not as free as some think.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/13/06 11:05 PM

How free do you think people think we are Mark? How free are we really? How is the fact that people sin evidence that we suffer a lack of freedom? Couldn't we say that the fact that people are converted is proof that they are completely free to choose to be saved?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/14/06 01:31 AM

How free are we really? That is the question. If we are free to choose to be saved then why hasn't someone yeilded to God fully before he or she committed sin. Sin is a deliberate choice to do wrong. Everyone has made that choice, so how is it that no one with free will ever choose not to sin? Is that by chance? What are the odds of that happeneing? The scriptures say it is no chance - that God has consigned all to sin so that He can have mercy on all. So what does that tell us about free will. Have another look at what the reformers taught in Article 18.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/14/06 02:50 AM

Article 18 has to do with Pelagianism, as I've pointed out several times now. I think this is the third time I'm presenting this quote:

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Melanchthon is talking about Pelagians. I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Ok, let's skip this, and consider your other questions.

Quote:

How free are we really? That is the question.

The question of how free we are can be answered in two basic ways, as far as the context of our discussion is concerned. One is that a person is free to do whatever he chooses to do. This is the libertarian or incompatibilistic view. This is the traditional SDA view, and what Ellen White taught.

The other way to answer the question is that a person is free to do whatever they want to do, or most desire to do. There will is in one sense determined, because all things are determined by God, but in another sense free, because God does not force anyone to do something they do not want to do. This was the view of the Reformers.

Quote:

If we are free to choose to be saved then why hasn't someone yielded to God fully before he or she committed sin.

I'm not seeing that this question makes any sense. I'll illustrate this as follows. Let A be the statement that one is free to choose to be saved. Let B be the statement that one can yield to God before sinning. You are suggesting the proposition that A should imply B: If one is free to choose to be saved, then one can yield to God before sinning.

This is equivalent to suggesting that ~B should ~A, the converse of the first proposition: if one cannot yield to God before sinning, then one is not free to choose to be saved. This proposition is clearly false, so therefore your original proposition is also false.

This is a formal proof. To state it in simple terms, there's no reason the conclusion you are stating should follow from the premise. That is, the fact that one does not yield one's self to God before sinning does not imply that one cannot freely choose to be saved.

Quote:

Sin is a deliberate choice to do wrong. Everyone has made that choice, so how is it that no one with free will ever choose not to sin? Is that by chance? What are the odds of that happeneing? The scriptures say it is no chance - that God has consigned all to sin so that He can have mercy on all.

Here you are saying that God is responsible for people sinning before the age of accountability, correct? I think I'd better clarify this before commenting. This certainly appears to be what you are saying. But I may be misunderstanding your point, so please explain what you mean by your last sentence.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/14/06 04:06 AM

Perhaps we have not learned what sin is, and/or what the choice consists of.

The problem is to think that we are born in a neutral state and think we can choose to sin or not to sin on an arbitrary basis.

Since Adam every man is born in a sinful state. Every man is born with his spirit turned in towards his own being, thus forming ‘self’. That is, every one is born with the Lord on the outside, knocking.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

From self and the flesh comes no ability to perform that which is good; no matter how much I will to do it.

But man still has the ability to choose whether he wants to remain a sinner or not. Man can choose to turn away from his ‘self’ and make the Lord his source. Now, the point is: that this is not an arbitrary action or choice; just as much as God is not arbitrary in whom he saves.

Before one will choose to be saved, or turn from ‘self’ to God, he needs to realize that he needs to be saved, and that ‘self’ is no good for source.

The amount of sins one commits is beside the point.

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Though we all come into this world in unbelief (our spirit turned to our own being); this results in an unmerciful state; a sinful state. God offers us all mercy and grace so that we may turn from ‘self’ to him and receive mercy and grace and thus be saved from unbelief.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/17/06 03:15 PM

It is unfortunate that you insist, Tom, on mischaracterizing Article 18. The main point of the Article is to tell the world what the reformed Church believed regarding the biblical concept of free will. The Article is part of their confession of faith. The reference to Pelagianism is only to help clarify the scriptural position of the Lutherans on free will by way of contrasting it to one of the common errors of the day. We could examine what error Pelagianism taught, and that would probably help somewhat, but that's not essential for the discussion because the main position on free will is set out in the main part of the article that precedes the reference to Pelagianism.

True John, we can choose to yeild to the Holy Spirit. True, everyone who is lost is lost by their own choice in not yeilding to the Holy Spirit. But can we be saved by choosing to be any more than we can choose not to sin? God has consigned all to sin. Out of those consigned to sin, He has chosen the elect. The elect are saved because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. This seems cruel to the unaided mind. The doctine though is a consolation to the open-hearted. It places the primary responsibility for our salvation with the unchanging love of God rather than with the fickle human will.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/17/06 04:47 PM

Quote:

But can we be saved by choosing to be any more than we can choose not to sin? God has consigned all to sin. Out of those consigned to sin, He has chosen the elect. The elect are saved because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. This seems cruel to the unaided mind. The doctrine though is a consolation to the open-hearted. It places the primary responsibility for our salvation with the unchanging love of God rather than with the fickle human will.

I should have said it differently.
But man still has the ability to choose whether he wants to be God’s child. Man can choose to turn away from his ‘self’ and receive the Lord for his source. Now, the point is: that this is not an arbitrary action or choice; just as much as God is not arbitrary in whom he saves.

The part that I find amiss with your statement is the meaning you give to: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”. This was never intended to be taken as an arbitrary statement; as is evident by the multitude of all-inclusive statements, like:
Rom 11:32 …that he might have mercy upon all.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

But it was to be understood that “on whom I will have mercy” is and was a revealed qualification. So instead of taking it as an arbitrary statement, the proper question to ask is “On whom will you have mercy, Lord?” And then the answers come back:

Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

Psa 34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

Psa 51:17 … a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

And I know you know the multitude of other statements. Likewise it also says whom it is that the Lord works against. It is likewise not arbitrary, but a revealed qualification.

Pro 11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Deu 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/17/06 11:55 PM

Quote:

It is unfortunate that you insist, Tom, on mischaracterizing Article 18. The main point of the Article is to tell the world what the reformed Church believed regarding the biblical concept of free will. The Article is part of their confession of faith. The reference to Pelagianism is only to help clarify the scriptural position of the Lutherans on free will by way of contrasting it to one of the common errors of the day. We could examine what error Pelagianism taught, and that would probably help somewhat, but that's not essential for the discussion because the main position on free will is set out in the main part of the article that precedes the reference to Pelagianism.

I'm not mischaraterizing it. I'm saying the same thing you are. The purpose of the article was to express a concept in the light of an issue of the day. This is always what drives statements such as these.

No one at that time was disputing Augustine's teachings. This didn't come until later. So to take what they say as making some sort of comment on free will from an Augustinian free of reference is to take it out of context. You're trying to have the statement address an issue which wasn't an issue at the time of the statement. No one was disagreeing with Augustine yet, so there would have been no point in a statement being produced to address an issue which didn't exist.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/18/06 12:02 AM

Mark, I'm curious. How did you happen to become an SDA? Where did you learn the ideas on election that you have?

As I mentioned earlier, before becoming an Adventist, I was a Calvinist. In becoming an Adventist, I "unlearned" the Calvinist ideas, and learned that Adventists are Arminianists. Anyone who attends Adventist churches knows the emphasis preached like this: "Yes, Christ died for everybody, but it does you know good unless you accept it." Surely you've heard this. This is typical Adventism.

So it's interesting to meet an Adventist who has obviously come at this from a different perspective.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/18/06 05:37 AM

Tom, I was brought up an Adventist, the son of an Adventist pastor. My ideas come from my study of the Bible. I've never studied Calvanism.

I agree with this statement you quoted:

"Yes, Christ died for everybody, but it does you no good unless you accept it."

The early church taught this and the early reformers like Luther and Zwingli believed and taught it too. That statement is scriptural as well as the quotes that John posted above that say God shows mercy to all. They don't overrule other scripture though. That is the reason for the success of the reformers - they allowed the scripture to speak and although they retained some error, they were better than most generations at putting aside their own opinions and allowed the Spirit to speak through scripture.

The difference between what I believe and what most Adventists believe is that I accept the scriptural statements regarding the election even though on the surface they seem to conflict with our view of free will. The reason for that is that our view of free will in Adventism is not completely in harmony with scripture, although if we accepted all of the statements of Ellen White on the topic we would have a better balance. So I refer you to the more scripturally accurate statement found in Article 18. I could requote Ellen White as well.

My summary of scripture is that both the human will and the will of God are essential ingredients in salvation, but the primary ingredient is the will of God, the secondary is the human will. We err if we change that order or place the human will on par with the will of God.

Regarding God consigning us all to sin, this means that although God tempts no one, the God has ordained this order of things so that He can have mercy on all. It is something of a mystery, but I don't know how successful I will be at persuading you of that.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/18/06 06:20 AM

Thank you for answering my personal question to you.

I would like it if you would requote Ellen White.

The following statement seems typical to me of her thought:

None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ.(DA 387)

Do you understand Luther's and Zwingl's teaching to be in harmony with this? Don't they teach instead that God's will is irrestible? Isn't that what the doctine of election is about? God elects who He will, and then draws them with irresitible grace, so that they are saved? And this is how it is that God is fully responsible for the salvation of the elect?

Does God elect some to be saved, and then irresitibly call those whom He has elected? Or does God elect all to be saved in Christ, draw all, and only those who resist the drawing are lost? How can you reconcile these two schools of thought which are so diametrically opposed to one another?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/18/06 02:07 PM

I'm not aware of any reformer from that time who believed in irresitible grace. Later Calvin may have believed that, I'm not sure.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/18/06 05:01 PM

How would you express the thought then, Mark? What do you see as different in Calvin's presentation of irresitible grace and what Luther and the other Reformers believed in regards to the salvation of the elect?

What the term is called doesn't really matter. What I'm concerned with is the process. Is it a unilateral process, or is it one which involves the free will of the one responding? You do agree that Luther taught that human free will is not involved in salvation, don't you?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/06 04:19 AM

Quote:

You do agree that Luther taught that human free will is not involved in salvation, don't you?

Not only did Luther believe that human free will was important, he believed it was essential, the only thing more important being the Divine will. To Luther, and in scripture, Divine will that sets the love of God on us, God's people, is the primary ingredient; the secondary ingredient is the human will. It is not the primary, but it is still an essential ingredient.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/06 06:20 AM

Since God's foreknowledge is not uncertain, "free-will" is non-existent

It is fundamentally necessary and healthy for Christians to acknowledge that God foreknows nothing uncertainly, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks "free-will" flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it.

This is from Luther's "The bondage of the will."

This does not appear to me to be saying the same thing you are saying, Mark. It appears to me to be saying the same thing I'm saying.

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/22/06 02:26 AM

From time to time Luther made emphatic statements like this because he wanted people to see that scripture does not teach free will as most people think of it. But his view of free will is summarized in Article 18 of the Confession. Historians tell us that he fully concurred with Melancthon the author on everything of any importance. In fact, Luther, while he didn't attend the Augsburg conference of 1530 (or 31?) where the Confession was drafted, coached the movements of the Protestant theologians and princes from a lodging just far enough away from Augsburg so that his presence wouldn't be a distraction to the catholic princes who mortally hated him, but close enough so that he could be in almost daily communication with his followers.

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/22/06 08:45 AM

Mark, I'm not following your reasoning here. Luther's statement was not dealing with how people see free will so much as an argument which was based on Luther's percpetions of God's attributes. Luther reasoned from the premise that God's will is immutable and all-powerful, accepting Augustine's premises. From the premises of Augusting, the rest follows. Luther was not illogical; just his premises were wrong.

Article 18 was dealing with a different issue. If you want to know what Luther thought, just look at the Lutheran church! Look at what they teach about election and predestination. They have faithfully preserved his teachings on these subjects.

"The human doctrine of free will and of our spiritual powers is futile. The matter (salvation) does not depend on our will but on God’s will and election." (Martin Luther)

Either Luther was right about this or he wasn't.

What do you think, Mark? Is our salvation dependent upon our will to any extent? Or it is totally dependent upon God's will as Luther, Calvin, and reformed theology asserts?

Posted By: Charity

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/06 09:18 PM

Again, you mistate Luther's position as you do many other passages by Ellen White and scripture. Luther and scripture agree that the human will plays a vital role. We all need to be born again, and we cannot be born again against our wills. The Holy Spirit is always an invited guest. He can be greived away by our unbelief. We can choose to believe or to not believe. Abraham chose to believe God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Isn't that true?

Posted By: Tom

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/06 08:43 PM

Mark, how am I misstating Luther's position? I quoted him. He stated his position. I'm not following you.

What do you think Luther's position was? Perhaps you could quote him.

Do you understand what Reformed theology believes regarding the will? The Reformed position has been quite well defined and is well known. I'm getting the impression that you're not really aware of the actual positions of people you have been discussing. Do you understand the difference between the compatible and incompatible positions? I've tried to make these clear. The two positions really are diametrically opposed to one another. I don't see how one can lump EGW's position with Luther's unless one is not aware of the respective positions. Luther was fully compatibilistic and EGW libertarian.

Let me just ask the following questions.

1.What do you think Luther's position was?
2.What do you think Calvin's position was?
3.What do you think Ellen White's position was?
4.In what way do you think Adventists have in general a wrong position regarding human free will?

God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 03:22 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 04:09 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 04:13 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 05:40 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 07:42 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 07:10 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/21/05 08:59 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/22/05 01:53 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/22/05 04:18 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/22/05 04:21 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 02:29 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 02:45 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 07:36 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 03:13 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 06:39 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 06:43 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 06:45 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 06:54 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 07:28 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 09:17 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/23/05 09:25 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 02:07 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 05:32 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 03:49 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/24/05 10:54 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 12:28 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 12:47 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 01:48 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 08:04 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 04:09 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 04:27 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 04:35 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 05:17 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/25/05 09:19 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/27/05 04:41 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/27/05 04:50 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/27/05 05:48 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/27/05 06:41 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/27/05 03:33 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/28/05 06:53 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/28/05 02:13 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/28/05 02:23 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/28/05 03:13 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/28/05 06:17 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/29/05 03:15 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 09/30/05 01:46 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/01/05 12:53 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 04:56 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 03:30 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 04:35 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 04:48 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 04:55 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 08:14 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/02/05 08:45 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/04/05 04:15 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/04/05 04:41 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/04/05 06:07 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/04/05 06:39 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/05/05 02:52 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/05/05 03:12 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/19/05 03:51 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/19/05 05:00 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/19/05 02:36 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/19/05 08:54 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/19/05 09:17 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 12:52 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 01:41 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 01:44 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 04:45 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 05:09 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 03:42 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 04:15 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 08:22 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/20/05 09:08 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/23/05 06:18 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/23/05 05:40 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 10/23/05 10:33 AM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 01/07/06 08:27 PM

Re: God's election to save vs. the human choice. - 01/10/06 07:01 AM