HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina
1324 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,208
Posts195,773
Members1,324
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 30
kland 9
Daryl 2
July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Member Spotlight
Rick H
Rick H
Florida, USA
Posts: 3,171
Joined: January 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
7 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, 3 invisible), 2,197 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14
Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? #104070
10/29/08 11:35 AM
10/29/08 11:35 AM
Rick H  Offline OP
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,171
Florida, USA
I came across the building blocks of belief in the Adventist Movement and came across the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism. According to Calvinism:
"Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation."

Thus they stand against the freewill of man being turned to God on its own as seen in the following statement...
"... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that He is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men." (Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon ‘Free Will A Slave’ (1855) referring to Luther's book The Bondage of the Will which is listed with other resources on this topic after this article).

So is Adventism Arminian (Free will) or is there a middle ground?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #104072
10/29/08 01:13 PM
10/29/08 01:13 PM
S
scott  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 442
Wyoming, USA
Hi Richard,

I would say that you'll have a hard time putting all Adventists in one category, but I've always thought that we, in general and doctrinally, are Armenian. There are, however, many Adventists who tend toward Calvinism. Once we had a Calvinist come on a different forum and present his beliefs in a very direct way and one of the members, who happens to be an SDA pastor, agreed with everything he wrote not knowing that this man was a Calvinist. When someone pointed out that this man was presenting a Calvinist view the pastor was dumbfounded.

God offers salvation to all men and we determine if we love salvation or love evil. Both the Armenians and Calvinists believe that God judges us according to His grace. I suggest that we judge ourselves according to God's revelation of grace in Christ. God keeps no one out of heaven! All men are drawn, all men are invited, and all men's wills are empowered to choose God. Some simply refuse because they love evil! Everyone, in the end, gets what he/she really love.

scott

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: scott] #104075
10/29/08 05:25 PM
10/29/08 05:25 PM
Rick H  Offline OP
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,171
Florida, USA
I was kind of shocked when I came across this tension between Calvinism and Arminianism as I have always been a believer in mans 'free will', but try to understand how God draws man to him. Here is a background on Arminianism as I myself had not really focused on this before, especially in terms of Adventism.

"Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)[1] and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. The doctrines' acceptance stretches through much of mainstream, evangelical Protestantism. Due to the influence of Anglican priest and evangelist John Wesley, Arminianism is perhaps most prominent in the Methodist movement.[citation needed]

Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

Arminianism is most accurately used to define those who affirm the original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself, but the term can also be understood as an umbrella for a larger grouping of ideas including those of Hugo Grotius, John and Charles Wesley, and others. There are two primary perspectives on how the system is applied in detail: Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is understood by some of its critics to also include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims.

Within the broad scope of Church history, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement over the doctrines of predestination and salvation....."

And some sites that explain the differences...
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html
http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/armvscal.html

Last edited by Richard; 10/29/08 05:30 PM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #104095
10/31/08 06:00 PM
10/31/08 06:00 PM
Rick H  Offline OP
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,171
Florida, USA
Here is a good quote to go over...

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 47.1}

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #104097
10/31/08 08:41 PM
10/31/08 08:41 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Adventism's roots were from Methodism, so Wesley's ideas had a lot of influence. In the last 50 to 60 years many ideas have come into the church which didn't exist before.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #104101
11/01/08 01:39 AM
11/01/08 01:39 AM
teresaq  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

Very Dedicated Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
spurgeon, if i understand correctly was a calvinist. a calvinist, to me, is a person who believes in predestination.

the key words are,
Quote:
on its own

do any of us turn to God "on our own", without Him first drawing us?

Last edited by teresaq; 11/01/08 01:39 AM.

Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?

Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.

Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #104102
11/01/08 01:49 AM
11/01/08 01:49 AM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
Which of the Pioneers were Methodist? Weren't James White and Uriah Smith something else?


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #104106
11/01/08 03:48 AM
11/01/08 03:48 AM
A
Aaron  Offline
Regular Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 82
TN
Mrs White was Methodist. James was a Congregational minister. Actually I think it was called Christian Connexion at that point. But even they were an offshoot of Methodist. I think alot of our churches view on things like Salvation stem from Wesly. Im sure some here know much more then me about it. I think Woody Whidden has written some stuff on our Methodist roots, its at least an interest for him. One thing the Congregationalists were big on was Arianism. I believe James went to his grave believing Jesus was created. I think it comes out in some of Mrs. White's early stuff like when Satan was jealous of Jesus because God decided to exalt Him to God's level. Thats a loose quote, I cant remember how SOP puts it. But the point is, why would Jesus need to be exalted? But Mrs White went away from Arianism along with most of our early church after James died. Besides that, Im not sure what else Christian Connexion believed.

Aaron

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Aaron] #104110
11/01/08 11:16 AM
11/01/08 11:16 AM
Rick H  Offline OP
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,171
Florida, USA
Here is some more background by Woodrow W. Whidden
Andrews University in his article 'Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection':

"....While it is true that Adventist theology does not seem to be exclusively indebted to any one major Protestant theological tradition, the present article will argue that the more immediate and essentially formative baseline has been provided by the Wesleyan/Arminian Tradition.

It is quite clear that there are distinct emphases in the Adventist tradition, especially when it comes to eschatology (such as imminence of the Second Coming and the Millennium). These eschatological accents arose out of the broad impulse of American millennialist concern in the early Nineteenth Century.
Furthermore, there are some clear strands that have come down to the Seventh-day Adventist theological tradition from the Lutheran, Reformed/Calvinistic, Radical Reformation (Anabaptist), Puritan, Pietistic, and Restorationist Traditions. But I am suggesting that the way Wesleyans understood issues involved with soteriology and the closely related issues of the nature of man, law,[1] and sin were most directly formative for the core of Adventist theology.[2] ...."

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/wesleyanconnectionSDA.htm

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #104118
11/01/08 03:44 PM
11/01/08 03:44 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Is it possible that SDA theology is derived from Scripture?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Mountain Man] #104126
11/02/08 02:09 AM
11/02/08 02:09 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
But I am suggesting that the way Wesleyans understood issues involved with soteriology and the closely related issues of the nature of man, law, and sin were most directly formative for the core of Adventist theology.


I don't think there's any doubt this is true.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #104189
11/04/08 04:27 PM
11/04/08 04:27 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Again, is it possible God revealed it to Ellen White through the spirit of prophecy, and that He didn't rely on previous views?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Mountain Man] #130029
01/08/11 06:22 AM
01/08/11 06:22 AM
Kevin H  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 630
New York
Actually Adventism is a oneness of Armininism and Calvinism, with aspects of both being changed by the oneness:

Plan Calivanism is sort of like someone driving a car bring you the the destination the driver decides to bring you to. Plan Armininism is we driving, Mrs. White has God driving us to where we decide.

C. S. Lewis' "A Horse and his boy" makes a great discription of Mrs. White's view. But read the chapter about Caiphas. Was Ciaphis following his will, or was he fulfilling God's plan for the universe? Yes!

God could have picked a Moses who was facing a more willing leader of Egypt.

Satan is pictured as someone who even in his rebellion against God can't help but find everything he does fulfilling God's plan.

We choose to be rebels or faithful but which ever plays our part in the Great Controversy.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Mountain Man] #130030
01/08/11 06:25 AM
01/08/11 06:25 AM
Kevin H  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 630
New York
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Again, is it possible God revealed it to Ellen White through the spirit of prophecy, and that He didn't rely on previous views?


No, because this would be God forcing the will which God does not do (and we wish God would do). Truth always grows and builds on what others have seen. Prophets are only to point it into the right direction when it could grow into a different direction.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Mountain Man] #130034
01/08/11 03:53 PM
01/08/11 03:53 PM
J
JAK  Offline
FORMER-SDA
Active Member 2018
Banned
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 663
Canada
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Is it possible that SDA theology is derived from Scripture?


Possible, but not in isolation. Adventist pioneers came from many backgrounds and faith traditions, and brought their unique understandings with them. As mentioned above, many of these were of the Methodist/CC (Armenian) camp.

One's interpretation of Scripture is based on one's world view. The pioneers interpreted Scripture according to how they saw the world. The world has changed. It's not what Scripture says so much as how we interpret Scripture that really has an effect.


"All that is Gold does not Glitter, Not all who Wander are Lost." (J.R.R.T.)
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: JAK] #130049
01/09/11 04:33 PM
01/09/11 04:33 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Over time, as certain people protested this or that false doctrine advocated by the RCC, various followings and fellowships emerged (i.e. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Wesleyans, etc). All of them based their conclusions on what they found in the Bible. Is it unfair to say our pioneers also based their conclusions on what they found in the Bible? Or, were they guilty of assuming certain doctrines were correct without confirming them through serious Bible study and prayer? Also, did Jesus assist our pioneers in their efforts to arrive at the truth? Did He raise up a "messenger" to help guide them and to confirm their findings?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Mountain Man] #130106
01/13/11 02:23 AM
01/13/11 02:23 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
It is always comical for me to hear in such a discussion of God, the Future and Free Will how people will try to identify with either the schools of Arminianism, Calvanism, Augustinian, or preachers like Luther, Spurgeon, etc. The real question rather is, along the lines of “Mountain Man’s” question earlier: “What do the Scriptures themselves actually, i.e., exegetically teach? The answer takes much work to conclusive ascertain as it virtually involves all of Scripture, however there are several key indicators that point to what the Biblical Truth of the Matter is.

I have done a study on this topic which is posted in this blog post. Included in the comments sections is a 50+ comment exchange with an SDA Pastort (Arthur Gibbs of NC) who reflects the general (Biblically/Exegetically deficient) state of comprehension of the Church on this matter, leading to a most significant void in the Church’s Theology. (Comments on this study can be made here).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #130562
01/31/11 07:01 AM
01/31/11 07:01 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
This October 2010, “Arminianism and Adventism” Symposium by the Adventist Theological Society may be of, (at least, [in my view]), contributive background/informational benefit to this discussion. As mentioned above, it is a little too ‘“deferentially, and spuriously, “philosophical”’ vs. being directly, soundly exegetical for me!


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132335
04/04/11 10:02 AM
04/04/11 10:02 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Hi NJP,

I read 1/3 of your blog on this subject which I agree with your perspective of Isa 46:10 that God does declare from the beginning the end. This is His Sovereignty signature on all things which makes Him God and everything else a mere "creation" with no inherit power. God is all Powerful (El Shaddai).

In your second section of your blog entitled “limiting the Power of God”, I agree that God works all things and he uses “high scientific realities” by which many of us will define things we do not understand as a “miracles” undermining it as if He uses magic. He works through His Laws(which are all a reflection of His character) including in the physical reality and will not break His own Laws that He has establish at Creation. However your last paragraph is a popular belief which is unbiblical and contradictory in nature of your statement about Isa 46:10 where you are establishing His Sovereignty.

You said
Quote:
“Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles. And still He does this without violating the free will of any of His intelligently created free moral agents, i.e., human beings.”


On one hand you say God is Sovereign and on the other you say human’s choice supercedes God’s choices with his “free will” characteristic. Are you implying that God has no Sovereignty over our choices? Does God has Sovereigny over the choices of the animals? For sure He does for the inanimate objects for they have no freewill, right? All this is based because we have the ability of reason and whoever has no reasoning ability cannot choose their destiny. So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that human’s choices is above God’s choices in determining their present reality? Are you saying that God never imposes His will on human’s?

Quote:
Jer 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.

31:19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132337
04/04/11 12:06 PM
04/04/11 12:06 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Hi Elle. Appreciate your thoughtful comments. That is an interesting point your bring up. I did not think my statement there could be perceived wrongly. I meant for it to say that God will, at times, ultimately, not violate our free will in order to accomplish His Will for something favoring. I do not see that it is too hard for Him to “summons” (Isa 46:11) an evil person to do a work of destruction. In fact, not much convincing is usually needed there. Thus this is limited to finding people to do His “Good will.” There are many Bible examples that can be cited where, when God even uses supernatural manifestation to get someone to do His will (e.g, Paul on the Road to Damascus), that person always has the choice to obey or not. (Getting King Cyrus to let Israel return to their land also needed such supernatural convincing which I understand, as stated on my blog, as mentioning Him by name ca. 60 years before that time). However, because of that greater amount of revelation to convince that person, that person is held at a much higher level of responsibility. (E.g. Moses who saw God in the burning bush vs. in Exod 4:24-26). So this proportional risk of judgement due to this lower threshold for such use of compelling evidence makes this a fair sovereign act.

Another example is God restoring Israel after the Babylonian Captivity Judgement. As He says in Ezek 36:22-38, He did this despite Israel’s unworthiness. However because Ezekiel, as a declared “Son of Man” had, typologically, earlier been made to bear the sins of Judah and Israel (Ezek 4:4-6), God was able to effectuate this restoration. The, anti-typical, similar thing occurred with Jesus and the redemption of the world, with no one being, of themselves, worthy of this salvation. (Rom 3:23).

So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans. (Prime example: His Chosen People Israel, repeatedly, as they were until the New Covenant, His only means through which to duly advance and establish the Plan of Redemption). Indeed as seen with Ancient Israel, He cannot work with a faithless people. However I believe that God will not, though He can, force someone to do His will. He can however make it even life threateningly clear that they should, as with Moses. Indeed He instead uses such compelling, also favoring, evidence to strongly convince that person to do this will (e.g,. Paul), however that has greater consequences if that person becomes ‘unfaithful to so great a revelation.’

In regards to Jer 31:18, 19, I exegetically see that the most accurate reading should be:
‘After I turned [active verb - Qal], my ‘mind was changed’ [passive verb - Niphal] and after that I was instructed... [passive verb - Niphal]...’ (cf. NASB).

This shows that the active “turning” action was first done, then their my was (passively) “changed” and then “instructed” by God.

I hope this clarifies my view. Again, good observation.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132352
04/04/11 08:30 PM
04/04/11 08:30 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
“Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles. And still He does this without violating the free will of any of His intelligently created free moral agents, i.e., human beings.”


I believe it's clear that God consider His Characteristic Attribute to be Love (agape). "God is love."

Quote:
So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans.


I completely agree. I think this is the key to understanding the Great Controversy.

God is sovereign, but He has chosen to share His sovereignty. People, and other beings, have the free will to choose not to do that which God wishes, and when they do so, bad things happen.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #132361
04/04/11 10:33 PM
04/04/11 10:33 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Quote:
NJK (blog): “Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles. And still He does this without violating the free will of any of His intelligently created free moral agents, i.e., human beings.”

Tom: I believe it's clear that God consider His Characteristic Attribute to be Love (agape). "God is love."

I can readily see your, at least, Theo-logical point here Tom (i.e., derived from one’s theological observations), for God indeed is love, however my view here is based upon the fact that, as enumerated in my blog post (see e.g., this discussion comment and its continued next one), most of the names for God found in the Bible point to this unmatchable Power and Might. As a name defines one character, especially in the Bible, show me a name for God in the Bible that says/means: “God is Love”!? I can really only call and consider God by the name(s) He has explicitly chosen to be known by.

Perhaps this is for our good, because He saw that it would be easier to readily begin to have faith in His strength than out of Love since, this attribute is not so prominently discernable in this GC, indeed one has to be permitted to ‘look behind the scene’ as in the SOP’s Conflict of the Ages series to clearly see and understand that also present Characteristic fact. That is why I see that “fear of God” is often most acceptably mentioned as a way to enter in, and sustain a relationship with God. E.g., did Abraham accept to kill Isaac, as He knew this was going to be the case, out of a profuse Love for God, or was it, as God saw and stated it, because He “feared” God. (Gen 22:12; cf. Job 1:8; 2:3). So in this GC this Strength and Might is most prominent that God’s Love.

Also is “Agape” Love actually “unconditional” or “reciprocal, but also merciful”?


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132363
04/05/11 05:52 AM
04/05/11 05:52 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
"God is love" is stated by John, twice.

The best known verse in the world, explains that it was God's love that led to the sacrifice of His Son, which is the greatest event in the plan of redemption, the greatest event in all history.

The love chapter explains that "the greatest of these is love," and explains that all of our actions are fruitless apart from love.

Everybody knows God is powerful, but that power, apart from a knowledge of His love, can only lead to an "obedience" of fear, which is of no value.

Returning to the cross, it is the cross that reveals God's character as no other act. In the cross, and, indeed, in all of Christ's life and teachings, we see that it is not God's power that most clearly defines His character, but His love.

When we consider Christ, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God," what is it that stands out? Is it His power? Or is it His love?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132383
04/05/11 10:03 PM
04/05/11 10:03 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK
Hi Elle. Appreciate your thoughtful comments. That is an interesting point your bring up. I did not think my statement there could be perceived wrongly. I meant for it to say that God will, at times, ultimately, not violate our free will in order to accomplish His Will for something favoring. I do not see that it is too hard for Him to “summons” (Isa 46:11) an evil person to do a work of destruction. In fact, not much convincing is usually needed there. Thus this is limited to finding people to do His “Good will.”


Thx for your respond NJK, however, I didn’t deserve the compliment of being a good observer. I knew your statement was a general statement and I was disagreeing with your “freewill” idea. According to my biblical and health science studies, I just view the “freewill” concept as unbiblical.

I agree with you that God can summon an evil person more easily to execute His judgments, than have a saints to do His good work. With the evil person who is made a vessel of destruction(Rom 9:21) he simply does what is “natural”(1Cor 2:14) versus the saint, who was made to be a vessel of honor, needs lots of tutelage via tribulations throught the judgments(Lev 26:14-46) and when matured enough, then still needs supernatural powers to accomplish God’s good works. Whether it is “natural” or by “supernatural” powers, in both cases God “worked all things after the counsel of his own will” Ep 1:11(see also 1Cor 12:6) Because all powers comes from God(Jn 3:27) in either to have the evil works done, or to bring a saint to be born again to be used for His good works. We cannot be born again by our own choosing, the Bible makes this very clear in John 1

Jn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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. (see also jn 3:5; jm 1:17; 1Pe 1:23) It’s totally a gift from God “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights, which whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Jm 1:17; Jn 3:27; 1Co 4:6-7; Heb 5:4

Paul’s Conversion
Originally Posted By: NJK
There are many Bible examples that can be cited where, when God even uses supernatural manifestation to get someone to do His will (e.g, Paul on the Road to Damascus), that person always has the choice to obey or not.


Paul was literally knocked off his horse with the brightness of the light, blinded for 3 days, and the Lord made His voice clearly and directly heard to him. All of these is a clear example of God’s will above a person’s will. Paul was heading to persecute Christians. That was Paul’s will. Then Jesus didn’t ask him “if you choose you can go into the city and choose to follow me afterwards”. No Jesus commanded him saying “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Act 9:6 Paul was totally blinded. He couldn’t go anywhere anyway, plus God put Paul in a total dependency on Him to wait to have His vision back. So God put him in a very vulnerable situation on top of all of this to plainly overruled Paul’s will. In God’s wisdom to give us another witness of His Sovereignty, God chose to do all the above to get Paul’s attention and set him on a totally new direction against Paul’s will at that time.

I find quite interesting how we fight so fervently to preserve this illusion of “freewill”. Freedom is described by Newton’s Laws of Motion. An object can be moved “freely” by an exterior force and that’s the closest to the truth as to the Freedom we possess. Our “Will” part is inappropriately added to this freedom word when the Bible clearly states that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. There’s no middle ground as EGW stated also. When we are in Christ, that’s when we are truly “free” for He will move us to where we should go and do what we according to our design in the perfect season to the Will of His Father. Never it is according to Jesus’ will nor to our will, but always to the Will of His Father. For sure Jesus is in harmony and agrees with His Father’s will so it is also Jesus’s will, however let’s not stepped out from the ordained order of God described in 1Co 11:3. And we will come to agree with Jesus’s will also so that God can be the all in all. All will be brought into subjection to Christ as it was ordained to be in the beginning. What’s the emphasis here is that God the Father is Sovereign over all and has made Jesus the rightful ruler over all.

Here’s an interesting word study of Helkuo G#1670

John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (helkuo) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

G1670 helkuo; probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively).

You will find this same word used in:

John 21:6 “And he said unto them, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw (helkuo) it for the multitude of fishes.”

So this same word is used when fishermen drag their nets. The fishes caught in the net do not have a whole lot of free will in this. The same meaning is used with the same word in James 2:6,

James 2:6 “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (helkuo) you before the judgment seats?”

Those rich people with power in our world don’t give you much choice when they want to bring you to court. In James’ time probably it was much worst and they dragged you into court. In this text you have the same implication that you don’t have much free will in the matter. Someone higher and more powerful than you has made the decision, and you are forced to comply.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw (helkuo) all men unto me.


The same word helkuo is used in this well used text. If we recall that the rich and powerful are dragging you into court and the net is dragging fish into the boat, then the ones being dragged are having their “freewill” overruled by a higher will. Therefore we can say that Jesus was lifted up and He will drag all men unto Himself.

John 6:37 “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

Whomever the Father has given to Christ will come to Him. In other words, those who decide to come to Christ by their own “freewill” are really the people whom the Father has already given Him. The Father “who worketh all things” is behind the scenes who has called these people, and therefore their response is, “I want to follow Christ.” They think it is all by their own “freewill”, but in reality it is God who has brought them to Christ, choosing to remain anonymous.

God has first chosen them and dragged them to Christ, so that they will later seemingly choose God in return out of their “own free will”. I think God chooses to let us believe this illusion of “freewill” in our immaturity. God is patient and He continues to nurture us and teach us. However, once we mature and start to understand who God really is, and see His sovereignty over all things in the universe which he move all things by His power; we will come to understand that we are not much different than the animals and inanimate objects and begin to see that “our will” is merely a response to His will.

No Delays in God’s Plans
Originally Posted By: NJK
So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans. (Prime example: His Chosen People Israel, repeatedly, as they were until the New Covenant, His only means through which to duly advance and establish the Plan of Redemption).


From what I understand right now, there are no delays and what happened to the Children of Israel worked according to His plans to establish for us the “TYPE” so we can learn from it and come to know the “ANTITYPE” to come. I believe there’s nothing that catches God offguard(James 1:17; Jn 6:6) that He didn’t know what would happen. He knows what stages the nations or a people need to go through just as much a parent has an understanding of the stages their newborn child has to go through to reach maturity,( if by all means the child does get there in this lifetime for there are many immature adult walking around).

God working with Saints Vs. Wicked
Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed as seen with Ancient Israel, He cannot work with a faithless people. However I believe that God will not, though He can, force someone to do His will. He can however make it even life threateningly clear that they should, as with Moses. Indeed He instead uses such compelling, also favoring, evidence to strongly convince that person to do this will (e.g,. Paul), however that has greater consequences if that person becomes ‘unfaithful to so great a revelation.’


I agree that God cannot work with a faithless people and what I’m understanding now, he has worked this past 6000 years to bring forth a mature faithful people to establish on earth His kingdom. Angels cannot do this work and it has to be done by the “sons of God” only for they are His ordained witness on earth. He uses the angels as messengers in this, but not to establish things on earth. This authority was given to Adam and passed down through the firstborn or the birthright son holder. Christ was the birthright holder from the line of Judah and has passed on this authority right to his disciples and His church. We will soon see a holy priesthood stand up which God is working his biddings which I believe is happening right now.

I do agree with you that force is not God’s preferred way to work, however I am now starting to see that it is often needed to be used on immature CHILDREN. I think it is used in the same fashion a parent will force a child into some behavior with correction(Judgments Lev 26) and by overruling the child’s will oftentimes, however, it is always done with the purpose to instruct and to mold the child mind and heart to His image.

Just because “force” is not generally his way, doesn’t mean nor prove we have “freewill”. We do have a mind with the ability to reason, but this reasoning was never design to conduct our own life. That’s what Satan was promoting at the tree of knowledge. Nor does this “freewill” determine whether or not we are saved like most Christianity says that it is the determining factor.

We were design to be “moved” by His Spirit at all time by having His Spirit perpetually indwell in us. The big deception lies in the realm of the purpose of the intelligence and our perception of the source of our powers. Most of the time we are moved from the inside out. That’s why it is so hard to distinguish contrary if we saw a physical big hand from heaven guiding us at all time. God’s presence is very hard to distinguish and we can be easily deceived in believing that what we do see our self doing, come from us versus the reality it comes from God; therefore we oftentimes “steal” God’s glory and change the truth into a lie.(Rom 1:21,22,25)

The Turning of the Farmer’s Ox
Quote:
In regards to Jer 31:18, 19, I exegetically see that the most accurate reading should be:
‘After I turned [active verb - Qal], my ‘mind was changed’ [passive verb - Niphal] and after that I was instructed... [passive verb - Niphal]...’ (cf. NASB).

This shows that the active “turning” action was first done, then their my was (passively) “changed” and then “instructed” by God.


Well, I did check the verbs in my interlinear/ literal translation software, I’m not at that level in my Hebrew to distinguish the accuracy of it, and my literal translation seem to agree in an active verb for “to-turn-away-of me”, however the remaining 5 verbs seems to be all in passive along that texts. I cannot comment on that more than that. But taken that verse into context and deriving it’s meaning from the context, I understand the following :
Ephraim (nation whom the birthright is rightly his, and not to Judah) is symbolized “as a bullock” that was plowing a field. God the farmer, is the one to turn his bullock. We know that “to turn” also means to repent, as to go in another direction. It is not the ox place to turn himself, but it is the responsibility of the farmer/God. The problem is that this “bullock” was not accustomed to being obedient to the Farmer.

The passage says that after God turned him, he turned(or repented). The context does not say that Ephraim first repented and then God turned him, as if God were reacting to His “bullock.” God holds the reins. He is the One in control of the bullock as a sovereign God and owner of the bull should be. So this places the order of how things works. God initiate things in order that it will be accomplished.
None of us will be saved unless God is behind every step. Man can not do anything without God. No man can come to the Father, except the Father drags him. If God “predestine” any events, it will still appears as if we did it all by ourselves. However, we are called to grow into maturity in understanding the reality and to acknowledge God’s sovereignty in all things.

I do agree that God often leaves the immature saints or the wicked to their own decisions (Rm 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12 ; Act 7:42) however, there are boundaries that even Satan is well aware of them and Satan or anyone cannot do anything unless God allows them. So God is ultimately in control of everything and nothing is done without his approval.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #132390
04/06/11 12:54 AM
04/06/11 12:54 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Tom
God is love" is stated by John, twice.

The best known verse in the world, explains that it was God's love that led to the sacrifice of His Son, which is the greatest event in the plan of redemption, the greatest event in all history.

The love chapter explains that "the greatest of these is love," and explains that all of our actions are fruitless apart from love.


Indeed. These are all part of God’s character. Though, until Christ not prominently presented by God. My understanding is that this was not applicably appropriate at the time given the constant circumstances of having to discipline Israel early in this GC. One cannot demonstrate love where there are no genuinely applicable circumstances, or very little and not enough to make it as prominent as God’s attribute of power.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Everybody knows God is powerful, but that power, apart from a knowledge of His love, can only lead to an "obedience" of fear, which is of no value.


As the Bible repeatedly states that most important value would be that, given when everything else fails, that love would have help to begin to instill saving wisdom (See e.g., Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6) in turn leading to proper actions in turn leading to an achievable two-way Love relationship with God. Thus it implicitly, inceptively, it was an act of Love. Not demonstrating this power or not taken forceful corrective actions but ‘sparring the rod’ and letting that rebellious child quickly, i.e, even before the could cope, suffer the full extent of their course, would be an act of indifferent hate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Returning to the cross, it is the cross that reveals God's character as no other act. In the cross, and, indeed, in all of Christ's life and teachings, we see that it is not God's power that most clearly defines His character, but His love.


I rather see both God’s “power”, especially in relation to how it applies to this issue of ‘Foreplanning’ and His Love. (As well as His Justice and Mercy). After the Fall of Man, as related in EW 149.2, as you manifestly correctly understand, God was most reluctant to allow His Son to come and die because of the very likely possibility that it would not succeed, as it fairly and faith-basedly needed to, and that Jesus would also be lost eternally. So I see a most prominent demonstration of God power in overcoming all of the OT obstacles and wrenches that were strewn and thrown into His Way and Plans as He endeavored to bring this Plan to full and successful completion. And all that without violating any GC rule and also not going against His Character. That indeed to great power to do. Of course His Love for falling and undeserving man is also seen in that Event. So it also took a great deal of God’s power to make the cross possible so that anything that would come in this way could be justly removed. Fairly orchestrating things to effectuate, in turn that fair/just removal also took a great deal of power, where applicable. It also took a great deal of Wisdom to make the proper decision, however wise plans without Power to implement them, even forcefully when possible is useless. Nonetheless, it also took a great amount of sustained Love for fallen man to, at any of the many explicitly stated frustrating point along these 4000+ years of GC leading up to the Cross not to “push the button” and start all over, with a perfect Creation, thus not even having to risk Jesus for this lone group of Humans in this universe who had sinned/rebelled.

So again, I do not have a mutually exclusive view here but see that God’s Justice, Wisdom, Longsuffering Patience, Compassion/Mercy, Sovereign and/or All Mighty Power and Love were all equally manifested at the Cross, the culmination of God’s plan of Redemption.

Originally Posted By: Tom
When we consider Christ, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God," what is it that stands out? Is it His power? Or is it His love?


On a condensed scale all of these attributes were manifested in Christ in the 3+ years of public ministry leading up to the Cross, and then also on the Cross itself (e.g, Love to stay there, at least love for God, and the will power to do so against all opposing psychological compellations, especially as He took on the mind of all sinners. (See this blog post)

Again, God is real, and does not manifest or impose His characteristic where they are not pertinently applicable. One usually get turned of an annoyed by an individual who does this. So in the 4000 years leading up to the GC, He had very little opportunities to realistically/candidly demonstrate that Love. And this is pointedly what Jesus perceived and thus sought to emphasize in some of His pertinent public teaching and actions. This also was made the burden of EGW is many of Her writings.

In fact I Theologically believe that this understanding of God’s, previously “circumstancibly” suppressed Character of Love, will be the “name of My God” that Jesus will write on those who are faithful in the Church of Philadelphia. (Rev 3:12 - among other things that will be done). And I further see that this will only truly be the “written” case when those ones do indeed reflect perfect “brotherly love”. So a mere expression of Love will not accomplish this, but also truly having that character, and that indeed comes in, like Jesus, doing all that we can to truly Love God and others and not, especially, letting them die of curable/preventable diseases so that we can live our Crossless and selfish/self-centered lives. It can be seen that EGW was indeed commissioned to help begin to help write this name as her work towards this end started during the Philadelphia Church age.

You did not actually answer my distinct question of: “Is “Agape” Love actually “unconditional” or “reciprocal, but also merciful”?”

Also consider this if/when answering: “What did Jesus understand by “no greater love” than that of laying down their “psyche” for his friends (John 15:13), which is then immediately specified as those who will do His will?? (vs. 14). Why not say “all peoples” even “enemies”?? Are there levels of agape or is it, as I understand it “conditional” and thus inherently involves reciprocal levels. Thus punishment and opposition for those who, despising such a gift/opportunity, continue in hatred (E.g., Exo 20:5; Mal 1:3-5).

So in summary here, God’s Love does not need supercede any of His other Character Traits/Attributes as they are all equally worthy of prominence. It was just that OT circumstances caused God’s full revelation to be hindered/limited and so Jesus took deliberate measure to address and correct that ‘rebellious-men-caused’, divine slighting, even misrepresentation, especially as the Jews then themselves were only making it worst with their various false teachings.

The same reform and highlighting is tangibly needing to be done by God’s remnant, indeed as, and more, (to meet our current, post-modern/capitalistic oppositions to this Revelation), revealed in the SOP.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132406
04/06/11 05:15 AM
04/06/11 05:15 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
Thx for your respond NJK, however, I didn’t deserve the compliment of being a good observer. I knew your statement was a general statement and I was disagreeing with your “freewill” idea.


As you brought up a point on freewill then that I did not think would be seen as such, I saw it as a good observation, and hence made that comment. However, having read your completely opposing view on freewill here, I then can see how you wouldn’t think so, to any degree. I only commented on what I had read and understood.

Originally Posted By: Elle
According to my biblical and health science studies, I just view the “freewill” concept as unbiblical.


I think the key here in regards to the, (do illumine me if I am wrong) purely Spiritual/Theological subject of freewill and choices will be found in the Bible. So I will indeed endeavor to ascertain exactly what the Bible teaches.

As you seemingly also understand, our final Theological views are to be built upon the whole testimony of Scripture, properly, exegetically expressed and understood. So I will mostly focus on these underlying texts rather than on your expressions of your resulting views. In the end what I, or anyone else may think, really takes aback seat to what the Bible actually teaches. If I leave out a such a ‘resulting statement’ that you think should be validly addressed let me know.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Because all powers comes from God(Jn 3:27) in either to have the evil works done, or to bring a saint to be born again to be used for His good works.


John 3:27 pointedly speaks of someone having the ability to “take” away from John ministry which He and His disciples knew were of God. John always knew that He was the forerunner and so it now Jesus was “taking” followers away from him, then it surely was because that transition time had come for the recently baptize Jesus and it was God who was granting/allowing = “giving” this. So this text is not speaking of a giving of power, but a giving of followers, as allowed to be impressed by God to now go to Jesus instead of going to John. So John knew that his time to decrease had come.

Originally Posted By: Elle
We cannot be born again by our own choosing, the Bible makes this very clear in John 1

Bible: Jn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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 (base) flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (see also jn 3:5; jm 1:17; 1Pe 1:23) It’s totally a gift from God “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights, which whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Jm 1:17; Jn 3:27; 1Co 4:6-7; Heb 5:4


John 1:11-13
Keep in mind here that John is writing this introductory text for his gospel long after the events (probably in ca. 90+ A.D., and after the elucidating visions of Revelation, hence the more Theological and Christ’s Divine Nature distinct focus of His Gospel, and that in a summary way.
So in vs. 11, he is saying in summary way that the Jewish Nation in general did not receive Christ (though many did as seen in Acts).

Then in vs. 12 he turns to those who did receive Christ vs. Christ’s own people who “did not”, thus the Gentiles. These, though not ethnic Jews as ‘Christ’s own people’ thus had the “authority” to become children of God, i.e., these ones who believed in Christ’s name.

Then in vs. 13 John further explains that this full accepting of the Gentiles with “authority” as now the Children of God was done ‘not of their natural blood line rights, nor of the will of flesh (i.e., these Gentiles longing to replace the Jews); nor the will of man; e.g., someone (e.g., a Jews or Jews) wanting this be the case, but by God’s granting of this authority. So they indeed had the full rights and prerogative as the ethnic Jews, Christ’s own people, previously had.

So I do not see this passage as addressing the will of man to be born again, but to the authority to become God’s People, even taking the place of the ethnic Jews. That currently validatingly applies to over 2.3 billion “Gentile” Christians.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Paul’s Conversion
NJK: There are many Bible examples that can be cited where, when God even uses supernatural manifestation to get someone to do His will (e.g, Paul on the Road to Damascus), that person always has the choice to obey or not.

Elle: Paul was literally knocked off his horse with the brightness of the light, blinded for 3 days, and the Lord made His voice clearly and directly heard to him. All of these is a clear example of God’s will above a person’s will.


Let’s see in the sum here is not greater than its parts.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Paul was heading to persecute Christians. That was Paul’s will.


Seems to me that if God wills to and has the authority to, in this GC, fairly force men like Paul who are avowed haters of His true way, to become believers then, in solely relation to Sabbath Keeping Christians, God is failing with over 99% the world!!

As EGW points out in AA, Paul was not acting out of hypocrisy, but because He effectively was deceived. She says:

Originally Posted By: SOP AA 115.2
He saw that his convictions of right and of his own duty had been based largely on his implicit confidence in the priests and rulers. He had believed them when they told him that the story of the resurrection was an artful fabrication of the disciples.


Indeed if Paul had not personally witness or heard in cognitive details the events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, then why not respectfully trust the words and judgement of his religious superiors and teachers. If he thought they were lying then he proudly would not be a part of them but rather seeking out the truth himself. Indeed God would not so manifest Himself to a hypocritically rebellious person, and persecutively at that. If that was so, Paul would have shared in the same fate as those hypocrite leaders in Christ’s day and the same persisted blindness as those leader who had caused him to be so deceived so God could work with that sincere and zealous faith to do what was right.

Also as I say in my blog post, God needed the various key and valuable “resources” of Paul for this great work of expansively raising up God’s New Israel now among the Gentiles. So his call was as undeserving as the call of, and justifying grace shown to, Abraham, an idolater (Jos 24:2; cf. PP 125.1) but also desiring to do God’s will, when God was seeking to establish Ancient Israel. Yet God found enough in both of them to call them and entrust them with this Great opportunity. (Notice the full circle here. God calls Abraham from pagans to establish a saving Jewish nation and when that is done He similarly raised a Jew Paul to now go back to the Gentiles and save them, as it was always planned. So by that circular, borrowing and returning, action this transaction made itself a fair one in the GC.)

So it seems to me that God reserves such “Aces in the Hole” to begin to do His will, and as shown later, all through their cooperating and responsive will, and a sustained relationship and obedience. However I understand that for each of those overpowering actions that God takes, the Devil is entitled to do the same. Hence we have directly inspired evil doers to various degrees such as Darwin, Joseph Smith, Voltaire, Hitler etc.

However, according to your non-freewill-but God’s-sovereign-will view, God is then decided who will be saved or not and obviously He gladly wants and is acting so that over 99%+ of the world,, and all those who were ever born, will burn in Hell!??

Originally Posted By: Elle
Then Jesus didn’t ask him “if you choose you can go into the city and choose to follow me afterwards”. No Jesus commanded him saying “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Act 9:6


As stated in Paul other one of his account of this conversion experience in Acts 22:10. I was Paul who asked Jesus, after now having in a flood of recollections, self-convinced of the Truth merely by the words “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (see AA 114.2-116.3) “What shall I do Lord” Notice that it is here Paul who initiatingly is offering himself, even his services, to Christ. He could have just answer. ‘Oh I did not know I was persecuting you. Sorry... I’ll go back home get married and raised a godly family.’ Instead Paul new that since this was clear the Truth then something active and definite must be done about it. Paul also understood that if such an appearance and faulting of someone he now in his recollections knew was God did not destroy Him then God must want Him to do something. And so he, like Moses (at least two times) passed this unspoken will test and God immediately enjoined this success. And by thus freely (as I understand it) placing himself under the full command of Christ, Jesus did indeed proceed to command him Paul as to what he should do for Him. However notice in Paul other recounting of these events in Acts 26:9-18. In vs. 19 & 20, he says to Agrippa that: ‘he, from then on, did not come to be disobedient to the heavenly vision (cf. vs. 16-18).

So clearly Paul believed that all along this time, since His encounter before proceeding onto Damascus, he had the possibility and thus “option”, and thus choice, and thus freedom to be disobedient if he wanted. If he believe in your view, as He could have known as you refer to OT passages which he was familiar with and then later became aware of the full Gospel story. (Needless to say that He wrote most of the NT that you are also using today to prove this view), then he would have told Agrippa, at, here, this much later stage in his ministry, that ‘I had no other choice but to be to this desired will of God.’ Indeed the word “dis-obedient” #545 (a word that Paul and others repeatedly use for evildoers in danger of condemnation) would not have been use a moot. You can only “disobey” if you have a choice, and a free one at that. (If a robber hold up a gun a me and threats to blow my brains out if I don’t hand over my wallet, I cannot go around telling people I was obedient to him, since I logically did not have a free choice. I instead “complied” to that threat and command.)

Originally Posted By: Elle
Paul was totally blinded. He couldn’t go anywhere anyway,


Paul was indeed totally blind but that does not mean “he could not go anywhere”?? HE clearly says he was not alone (Acts 9:7; 22:9). And how do you think he continued, now blind, to get to Damascus?? He clearly says that ‘he was led by the hand by those who were with him. (Acts 9:8; 22:11). He emphasizes this to show that he was indeed totally made blind by that apparition/light. So Paul could just have easily gone back to Jerusalem if he wanted to. He only proceed to Damascus because, as he said (Acts 26:19, 20a), he was right from that time, faithfully endeavoring to be obedient to that vision.

Originally Posted By: Elle
plus God put Paul in a total dependency on Him to wait to have His vision back.


It rather seems to me in reading Acts 9:17 & AA 121.4 that Paul more importantly need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Just like the disciples before him (Acts 1:8; 2:4). Indeed, although Paul was highly educated, with the Holy Spirit, he could not properly do, if at all this great task.

Originally Posted By: Elle
So God put him in a very vulnerable situation...


I rather see that this blindness was a natural collateral damage of the amount of power that was used for that convincing appearance. First of all, it was noon (Acts 26:13) so that light, to be distinctly seen and not be passed of as the midday sunlight, it had to be much brighter than it. That was mainly done for those with Paul as they only heard a “sound” and saw the light (Acts 22:9), but didn’t either see the countenance of Christ (AA 115.1) or understand a voice. This was evidently done so that those assigned temple men, (probably from the Temple guard) would not then abandon, betray/deliver up, or even kill a now persecution-refusing Paul. So the blinding was by this necessary brighter than noon radiance (cf. Acts 22:11) which he, unlike the others probably had to look directly into in order to figure out exactly who was appearing to him. The others probably just looked away and/or shielded their eyes.

Originally Posted By: Elle
on top of all of this to plainly overruled Paul’s will. ... and set him on a totally new direction against Paul’s will at that time.


For the reasons cited above, I do not see any “overruling of Paul’s will,” but a free choice to obey that great revelation, a commanding action that Paul himself freely initiated by asking what Jesus wanted him to do.

Originally Posted By: Elle
In God’s wisdom to give us another witness of His Sovereignty, God chose to do all the above to get Paul’s attention


Clearly Paul did not understand this ‘overruling sovereignty’ act when recounting that testimony. Acts 26:19. The only sovereignty hear was to the extent of getting Paul’s attention, but not to force him to do anything against his now, and first (i.e., between the first statement of Jesus and the later instructions) self-rectified will of Paul based on all that He already had heard and learned about Jesus and the Christian Faith.

[Answering to be continued. BTW, you can stop me (or also, respond) at anytime.]


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132446
04/07/11 10:00 AM
04/07/11 10:00 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
[Answers cont’d]

Originally Posted By: Elle
Here’s an interesting word study of Helkuo G#1670

John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (helkuo) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

G1670 helkuo; probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively).

You will find this same word used in:

John 21:6 “And he said unto them, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw (helkuo) it for the multitude of fishes.”

So this same word is used when fishermen drag their nets. The fishes caught in the net do not have a whole lot of free will in this. The same meaning is used with the same word in James 2:6,

James 2:6 “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (helkuo) you before the judgment seats?”

Those rich people with power in our world don’t give you much choice when they want to bring you to court. In James’ time probably it was much worst and they dragged you into court. In this text you have the same implication that you don’t have much free will in the matter. Someone higher and more powerful than you has made the decision, and you are forced to comply.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw (helkuo) all men unto me.

The same word helkuo is used in this well used text. If we recall that the rich and powerful are dragging you into court and the net is dragging fish into the boat, then the ones being dragged are having their “freewill” overruled by a higher will. Therefore we can say that Jesus was lifted up and He will drag all men unto Himself.


Interesting word study here, however I think you are overstating its meaning by making it include and affect free will. One simple text from that group entirely sink your ‘no free will, irresistible pulling’ claim, and that is Christ’s statement in John 12:32. If Christ “drew all to Him when He was lifted up on the Cross, the why have billions of people since that event not become Christians?? Clearly one still has the free will to accept or reject Christianity. So that “drawing” still allows one to reject that possible, when effectuate, Divine prompting/calling. As Jesus also says, Many are called but the choice ones are few (Matt 22:14) So that ‘call resisting’ possibility is how ‘God’s drawing’ in John 6:44 is to be understood. Indeed the logically irrational issue of why God does not ‘irresistibly draw’ all peoples, even all peoples, is raised up by holding your view for that verse. Also:

John 21:6 - ‘the fish’s will was a moot issue in that miracle.’ The only Theological lesson it teaches is that God knows how best to conduct the work of fishing for men, compared to our even best methods, training and knowledge. God’s guidance is what is to be crucially sought.

James 2:6 - The only way that people are ‘dragged’ before the courts is, as today, because of the penalties for not appearing, including a default judgement against them if they fail to appear. So they still have the free choice to appear or not, though with penalties if they do not.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Quote:
John 6:37 “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”


Originally Posted By: Elle
Whomever the Father has given to Christ will come to Him. In other words, those who decide to come to Christ by their own “freewill” are really the people whom the Father has already given Him. The Father “who worketh all things” is behind the scenes who has called these people, and therefore their response is, “I want to follow Christ.” They think it is all by their own “freewill”, but in reality it is God who has brought them to Christ, choosing to remain anonymous.


The setting up of the NT Church involved a great deal of key “election” of “choice” people as “firstfruits” = founders/pioneers. (= Rom 8:28-39). God looked around the Jewish and Gentile world and all those who were “electable” = “choice people”, he cast his vote with them and indeed “elected them” to these crucial NT Church/New Israel positions. However, like any elected individual, that did not mean that they could not fail, even completely in the future. God here had only cast their vote with them based upon their past good living and indeed offered them to Christ by drawing them to cross paths with Christ and the Gospel. Jesus fully understood this behind the scenes guiding work of God, all based upon due individual merit and that is why He said that he would not cast them out. However these were free to go away if they chose. They were not forced to stay. So just as God elected Abraham in the past to be both the Ancestral father of many, primarily, natural children to form a nation for God, and then he called Moses to be the Spiritual Father of this now great nation, in the same way, for the New Covenant Israel, and given the fact of almost total rejection by the Jewish people, God called the most sincere people to be the spiritual Children of Christ and then Paul to extend this work and family of Christ among the Gentile nations. This election does not do away with one’s freewill.

Originally Posted By: Elle
God has first chosen them and dragged them to Christ, so that they will later seemingly choose God in return out of their “own free will”. I think God chooses to let us believe this illusion of “freewill” in our immaturity. God is patient and He continues to nurture us and teach us. However, once we mature and start to understand who God really is, and see His sovereignty over all things in the universe which he move all things by His power; we will come to understand that we are not much different than the animals and inanimate objects and begin to see that “our will” is merely a response to His will.


Again the simple logical question that entirely sink this view of yours is: Why not more, and that much more, by God of so, supposedly “forced” to be faithful Christians???

Originally Posted By: Elle
No Delays in God’s Plans
Originally Posted By: NJK
So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans. (Prime example: His Chosen People Israel, repeatedly, as they were until the New Covenant, His only means through which to duly advance and establish the Plan of Redemption).


From what I understand right now, there are no delays and what happened to the Children of Israel worked according to His plans to establish for us the “TYPE” so we can learn from it and come to know the “ANTITYPE” to come.


In that case, as many OT prophetic statements will not, simply as most cannot, be literally fulfilled, then God, who would have been doing, (or nonchalantly allowing) all of the capital transgressions, rebellions and apostasies of Ancient Israel, actually made prophetic mistakes in his statements, by not making them literally speak of things, places events, etc of how they were “always supposed to be fulfilled at least 2000+ years after the fact. I.e., why would God not extend all prophecies in regards to Israel as literally and specifically as He did in e.g, Dan 2, 7, 8, 9 if they too were all to only be fulfilled 2000+ years later, in our day???

Originally Posted By: Elle
I believe there’s nothing that catches God offguard(James 1:17; Jn 6:6) that He didn’t know what would happen.


(A) Your supposed supporting text here do not say anything to this point so they are simply textbook “proof-texts” here.

(B) God Himself says that unexpected things happen to Him from man’s free choices and actions. (E.g., Isa 5:1-7) Indeed, many times He has to test man to find out/ascertain what is in there heart or how they will choose to act. (E.g., Gen 22:12; Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31). These are unequivocal, straightforward Biblical statements.

Originally Posted By: Elle
He knows what stages the nations or a people need to go through just as much a parent has an understanding of the stages their newborn child has to go through to reach maturity,( if by all means the child does get there in this lifetime for there are many immature adult walking around).


The two OT episodes in the Bible in Exod 32 and Num 14 (discussed in greater detail e.g., here shows that God twice wanted to destroy all of Israel and start all over with one person. That clearly does not look like a God who is going by a grandly manipulative, plan.

Originally Posted By: Elle
God working with Saints Vs. Wicked
Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed as seen with Ancient Israel, He cannot work with a faithless people. However I believe that God will not, though He can, force someone to do His will. He can however make it even life threateningly clear that they should, as with Moses. Indeed He instead uses such compelling, also favoring, evidence to strongly convince that person to do this will (e.g,. Paul), however that has greater consequences if that person becomes ‘unfaithful to so great a revelation.’


Originally Posted By: Elle
I agree that God cannot work with a faithless people and what I’m understanding now, he has worked this past 6000 years to bring forth a mature faithful people to establish on earth His kingdom.


If as you believe, God can ‘irresistibly force’ people to be obedient to him (= overiding all of their freewill) then why would He need to “work”, and that for so long to get a mature people?? Alos why not force them to instantly be mature, indeed never allowing them to take any steps back or stray aside as was the constant case in Ancient Israel. How do you explain God only being able to have at best ca. 120 ‘forced converts’ just after the resurrection, and very little of the over 2,000,000 Jewish People in Israel and the world by the 70 A.D. destruction?? Is it that God is not working enough or well or what, according to your no-free-will understanding??? It all seems to me that God is shooting himself in the foot. On one hand He is supposedly overriding the free will of people and on the other hand He is keeping most in the dark (Matt 13:10-17).

Originally Posted By: Elle
I do agree with you that force is not God’s preferred way to work, however I am now starting to see that it is often needed to be used on immature CHILDREN. I think it is used in the same fashion a parent will force a child into some behavior with correction(Judgments Lev 26) and by overruling the child’s will oftentimes, however, it is always done with the purpose to instruct and to mold the child mind and heart to His image.


You are making a different statement here. If God is overriding people will then how can they ever rebel by acting/continuing to be, immature. Indeed this view places all of the failures of people to do and be right in the world on God which makes no sense at all since God wants all to be saved. (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, 10) People need to freely choose (= Rev 2:21) to believe to be saved (John 3:16). The Bible is so copious and clear on that fact that I do not see how such texts are ignored to build a ‘no free will doctrine’ on even a handful of seemingly supporting statements, which non have exegetically checked out!

Originally Posted By: Elle
Just because “force” is not generally his way, doesn’t mean nor prove we have “freewill”.


I thought your view was that this was the only way of God in regards to one’s will. It seems clear to me that your view is continuing to come apart at the seams here.

Originally Posted By: Elle
We do have a mind with the ability to reason, but this reasoning was never design to conduct our own life.


Reason about what then, since in your view that is pointless. Here is the 180 switch that God allows and considers in one’s “reason”: Isa 1:18-20; cf. 21ff.

Originally Posted By: Elle
That’s what Satan was promoting at the tree of knowledge. Nor does this “freewill” determine whether or not we are saved like most Christianity says that it is the determining factor.


How could God allow Satan to tempt man with something that actually is not feasible. I.e., get freewill?? And didn’t God say, when Adam and Eve sinned that they had indeed achieved what Satan was offering them (Gen 3:22a)

Originally Posted By: Elle
We were design to be “moved” by His Spirit at all time by having His Spirit perpetually indwell in us.


Clearly not over 99% of us since they are not full commandment keeping Christians!! Thus God never wired them to be saved and be moved by His Spirit, right??

Originally Posted By: Elle
The big deception lies in the realm of the purpose of the intelligence and our perception of the source of our powers. Most of the time we are moved from the inside out. That’s why it is so hard to distinguish contrary if we saw a physical big hand from heaven guiding us at all time. God’s presence is very hard to distinguish and we can be easily deceived in believing that what we do see our self doing, come from us versus the reality it comes from God; therefore we oftentimes “steal” God’s glory and change the truth into a lie.(Rom 1:21,22,25)


Again how, in your view, can man be doing anything against God’s will. And what’s the point of trying to convince anyone of this supposed “Biblical/Theological teaching”?? What actual difference will it make since God overridingly decides who will be save or not, obedient or disobedient?? And ‘overriding what? If my cruise control (= free will) does not work, then by pressing my accelerator (evil choices) or brakes (good choices), I am in no way “overriding anything at all” My cruise control was never active and controlling the speed of my car!!

Originally Posted By: Elle
The Turning of the Farmer’s Ox
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
In regards to Jer 31:18, 19, I exegetically see that the most accurate reading should be:

‘After I turned [active verb - Qal], my ‘mind was changed’ [passive verb - Niphal] and after that I was instructed... [passive verb - Niphal]...’ (cf. NASB).

This shows that the active “turning” action was first done, then their my was (passively) “changed” and then “instructed” by God.


Originally Posted By: Elle
Well, I did check the verbs in my interlinear/ literal translation software,


Good laymen’s/starter study tool!

Originally Posted By: Elle
I’m not at that level in my Hebrew to distinguish the accuracy of it, and my literal translation seem to agree in an active verb for “to-turn-away-of me”, however the remaining 5 verbs seems to be all in passive along that texts.


An Interlinear’s English text is usually based upon a major English version, hence probably the non-exact reading here for instead a reading according to the understood sense of the translators.

Originally Posted By: Elle
I cannot comment on that more than that.


I cannot find any free/freely accessible resources online to show these grammatical taggings, including the free E-Sword software. (If you have access to a university library, you probably can find the book by John J. Owens, Analytical Key of the OT which has a detailed listing of these taggings.)

Originally Posted By: Elle
But taken that verse into context and deriving it’s meaning from the context, I understand the following :
Ephraim (nation whom the birthright is rightly his, and not to Judah) is symbolized “as a bullock” that was plowing a field. God the farmer, is the one to turn his bullock. We know that “to turn” also means to repent, as to go in another direction. It is not the ox place to turn himself, but it is the responsibility of the farmer/God. The problem is that this “bullock” was not accustomed to being obedient to the Farmer.

The passage says that after God turned him, he turned(or repented). The context does not say that Ephraim first repented and then God turned him, as if God were reacting to His “bullock.” God holds the reins. He is the One in control of the bullock as a sovereign God and owner of the bull should be. So this places the order of how things works. God initiate things in order that it will be accomplished.


Agreed... in part. Indeed, Jer 31:18 the same word “turn” occurs twice in the statement:

Originally Posted By: Bible Jer 31:18 NASB
Like an untrained calf; Bring me back (Hiphil - lit. ‘cause me to turn’) that I may be restored (Qal - lit. ‘may turn’), For You are the LORD my God.


While God does initiate the turning, it is the person who is to complete it. This is just like the farmer indicating to the bulls to turn and then they, of their own force turn. So this is just like a inceptive calling of God for people to turn as seen in the Bible and once that calling is heed and people have to complete/do this act of turning themselves. Then after that have “turned” (vs. 19, continuing the non-causative Qal verbal form), then their mind was changed. Etc.

Originally Posted By: Elle
None of us will be saved unless God is behind every step. Man can not do anything without God.


Jer 31:18, 19 actually shows that while God may initiate (in mercy vs. 20b = God’s calling), man, like the bull, has to, of their own volition/strength follow through. The farmer cannot turn the 1000+ pound ox if they refuse to obey that turning prompting. Hence the need of whips as I understand to force then if necessary.

Originally Posted By: Elle
No man can come to the Father, except the Father drags him.


That direct divine calling was only initially being done whenever applicable in the early days of the small NT Church. However very early Christ sent out disciples to go and call others to the Truth, with many have the choice to obey or not (e.g, Matt 10:5-7; 14, 15). However today, this calling is mainly recursively done through Christ’s followers again according to His instruction (Matt 28:19, 20). If God was actively doing, in all cases, a ‘dragging to the truth’, and an ‘irresistible one at that’ then there would be absolutely no need for Christians to do any Evangelism. Just leave the Church doors open and wait for “forcefully dragged” people to be “dragged” in, and, of course, against their (“non”) will.

Originally Posted By: Elle
If God “predestine” any events, it will still appears as if we did it all by ourselves. However, we are called to grow into maturity in understanding the reality and to acknowledge God’s sovereignty in all things.


How do you explain the many people who backslide and abandon the faith annually who once came to the truth, clearly, according to your view, only by God forcing will. In the SDA Church alone that is ca. 1300 per day who leave the Church. In your view no Christian are actually called by God unless God is dragging people to any Christian Church instead on His only True Church? And, according to you, what ‘singular Church’ would that be (as it sequiturly/logically have to be)??

Originally Posted By: Elle
I do agree that God often leaves the immature saints or the wicked to their own decisions (Rm 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12 ; Act 7:42)


I thought we couldn’t have or own decisions (= our “overidding” choices)

Originally Posted By: Elle
however, there are boundaries that even Satan is well aware of them and Satan or anyone cannot do anything unless God allows them.


How do they ever begin to will to go against “God’s irresistible will’ to the point here were God ‘leaves them to their own decisions’

Originally Posted By: Elle
So God is ultimately in control of everything...


(A) not really according to your sub views

(B) What force/meaning does “ultimately” means since man is not supposed to have any will??

Originally Posted By: Elle
...and nothing is done without his approval.


Approval/Approving of what??? It could only be “approving” a free choice/decision of man!!

Summary
You really need to decide how faithful your are going to be to your chief tenet that ‘freewill does not exist as not doing so causes your view to be quite incongruous. I however see then that you will have to outrightly ignore many Scriptures, indeed like your listed: “(Rm 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12 ; Act 7:42)” as they show that God does leave people to follow their own decision, stemming from their free choices! These are all the signs of a house of teaching that is not built with/on a deeply dug foundation, indeed without any foundation at all, but merely laid upon the surface ground thus a prime candidate to be swept away like a boat by a simple torrential flooding (Luke 6:47-49).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132448
04/07/11 10:44 AM
04/07/11 10:44 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Thx for your thorough reply NKJ of the first section. Can we take one thing at a time?
Originally Posted By: NKJ
Originally Posted By: elle
Thx for your respond NJK, however, I didn’t deserve the compliment of being a good observer. I knew your statement was a general statement and I was disagreeing with your “freewill” idea.


As you brought up a point on freewill then that I did not think would be seen as such, I saw it as a good observation, and hence made that comment. However, having read your completely opposing view on freewill here, I then can see how you wouldn’t think so, to any degree. I only commented on what I had read and understood.

That’s ok NKJ you were just caught off guard and didn’t expect it. I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt.
Originally Posted By: NKJ
I think the key here in regards to the, (do illumine me if I am wrong) purely Spiritual/Theological subject of freewill and choices will be found in the Bible. So I will indeed endeavor to ascertain exactly what the Bible teaches.

Yes, my source is totally Biblical. I only used the Newton’s law to illustrate the concept of freedom. I would appreciate you would also resort to only Biblical support and not rely on EGW statements. I believe we should be able to establish any truth from the Bible only.
Originally Posted By: NKJ
Originally Posted By: elle
Because all powers comes from God(Jn 3:27) in either to have the evil works done, or to bring a saint to be born again to be used for His good works.


John 3:27 pointedly speaks of someone having the ability to “take” away from John ministry which He and His disciples knew were of God. John always knew that He was the forerunner and so it now Jesus was “taking” followers away from him, then it surely was because that transition time had come for the recently baptize Jesus and it was God who was granting/allowing = “giving” this. So this text is not speaking of a giving of power, but a giving of followers, as allowed to be impressed by God to now go to Jesus instead of going to John. So John knew that his time to decrease had come.

Proofing vs. not proofing
NJK, I’m puzzle for the purpose of your statement above. I thought we were agreeing about God Sovereignty which to me encapsulate that He has all powers and gives it to whom He wants. Also isn’t my statement “all powers comes from God” one of those that is common knowledge? I really didn’t think this was an issue to prove and I stated John 3:27 only as a quick convenience text since I had it on hand. I hope you are not going to demand that I prove substantially things that are well known between us. I understand for things that are not common knowledge and is a crucial point needed to be backed up. Maybe your comment on John 3:27 was merely to point out to me that text was a weak proof and you were agreeing with my point in the same breath. If that’s so, in the future I would appreciate that you state it clearly and maybe give me a better text if you have one in mind.

John 3:26 “And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. 27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given from heaven.
I agree with you that in the specific context it is speaking of “giving of followers”, however, John answer is by stating a general principle/law of God’s Sovereignty. So this text is very relevant, if you really believe that God is Sovereign.

God Sovereignty in Influence
We all know the Father (and His Son) is above all, owns everything, and has power over everything, because He is the King over all. This Sovereignty the Father and Jesus possess is based on the fact they have created all things. Even all the particles to make any creatures were made by them. So there’s nothing that was made that they didn’t make. Based on this ownership, they have this Supreme Authority (Rev 4:11). With this Sovereignty, they have and the fact that they are God, all the “power” comes with the package of that title.

I would like to put an emphasis on the meaning of this power as an INFLUENCE. Jesus “is before all things” (Col 1:17); “he is the head” (1Co 11:3; Col 1:18);… ”that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col 1:18)

The word preeminence is proteuo(4409) which means to be first (in rank or influence). So Jesus is holding the highest rank or influence in the universe under God, that commands to motion all things into righteousness with his Words/ Torah (Heb 1:3) which is the voice of Wisdom stated in Prov 8. “Influence” is my preferred word to described this power because it has the emphasis of the fashion by which God “moves” all things. It’s often by that small still voice that the Lord is heard(1Ki 19:11-12). It doesn’t lessen it’s potency effect and it’s efficiency to get God’s will executed. Is 55:11 ”So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it”.
Concerning giving a better text than Jn 3:27 that states all power comes from God(the Father), here are some that I found today in a brief search only in the NT.
Originally Posted By: NT Bible Texts about God’s Power
Mat 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”
Luk 9:1; “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.” Jesus was able to give power and authority over the devils to the disciples because he had it to begin with.
Luk 10:18-20; ” Behold, I give unto you [u]power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Jesus here gives the disciples(the 70) power over all the power of the enemy(Satan and devils).

Jn 17:2 “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”
Jn 3:35 “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand
Jn 5:26-27 The Father gaved Jesus “[u]life in himself [u] and hath [u]given him authority to execute judgment also”

1Cor 15:25,27 The Father put all things under Jesus feet.
Jhn 19:11 “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”
Act 1:8 “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: ” The power comes from the Holy Spirit.
Act 10:38 “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”
Eph 3:20 “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,”
Col 2:10 “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Heb 1:3 “Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”


Can we be Born Again by the Will(choice) of Man or by the will of God
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: elle

We cannot be born again by our own choosing, the Bible makes this very clear in John 1

Bible: Jn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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 (base) flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ” (see also jn 3:5; jm 1:17; 1Pe 1:23) It’s totally a gift from God “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights, which whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Jm 1:17; Jn 3:27; 1Co 4:6-7; Heb 5:4

John 1:11-13
Keep in mind here that John is writing this introductory text for his gospel long after the events (probably in ca. 90+ A.D., and after the elucidating visions of Revelation, hence the more Theological and Christ’s Divine Nature distinct focus of His Gospel, and that in a summary way.
So in vs. 11, he is saying in summary way that the Jewish Nation in general did not receive Christ (though many did as seen in Acts).

Then in vs. 12 he turns to those who did receive Christ vs. Christ’s own people who “did not”, thus the Gentiles. These, though not ethnic Jews as ‘Christ’s own people’ thus had the “authority” to become children of God, i.e., these ones who believed in Christ’s name.

Then in vs. 13 John further explains that this full accepting of the Gentiles with “authority” as now the Children of God was done ‘not of their natural blood line rights, nor of the will of flesh (i.e., these Gentiles longing to replace the Jews); nor the will of man; e.g., someone (e.g., a Jews or Jews) wanting this be the case, but by God’s granting of this authority. So they indeed had the full rights and prerogative as the ethnic Jews, Christ’s own people, previously had.

So I do not see this passage as addressing the will of man to be born again, but to the authority to become God’s People, even taking the place of the ethnic Jews. That currently validatingly applies to over 2.3 billion “Gentile” Christians.


It is true that the tribe of Judah didn’t receive Jesus and it is true that the gospel was spread to the gentiles. And it is true that when we are born again, being Sons of God includes the passing the authority to them. However, you’re interpretation is narrowed while John was establishing a bigger picture in this chapter that Jesus is the Christ of God. I disagree with your narrowed interpretation and I read the text with John main emphasis that Jesus being the Christ of God is describing in v.13 how people becomes sons of God which are born of God. John emphasis was on the fact that Jesus is the Christ (the anointed) and being born of God can only be done from above through the Anointed by His Spirit as Jesus explained to Necodemus. Jn 3:5,6,8 ”Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. 6.That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and wither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

John confirm here that the Spirit dwells in us 1Jo3:24 “ And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Also James confirms by saying Jm 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father…”
Being born again is a gift and a phenomena that comes from above.

Peter further specifies what is the Spirit of God by saying 1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth fore ever.
That incorruptible seed is Jesus Christ(1Jo 3:9; Lk 8:11; Act 3:25;Gal 3:16 ) who is the word of God, that small voice of wisdom(Prv 8) that abideth in all souls and He guides them by His word that He whispers between our ears.

John also confirm that Jesus is the seed by saying 1Jo 3:9 “ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Also John specifies further in 1Jo 5:18 “ We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

Also Paul confirms this by saying in Eph 2:8 “ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Paul again emphasy that we are saved by grace and not the will of man in Rom 9:15-16 ” For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Summary :
If we claim that God is Sovereign this claim extends by acknowledging that God is Sovereign over us personally which include have Sovereignty over our "will". All through the Bible God’s people are describe as SERVANTS which brings in the dimension that we serve the will of someone higher than us. Of course, Jesus calls us FRIENDS, however, that doesn’t mean we are at the same level. Jesus Himself, acknowledge that His Father is above Him and will submit Himself to His Father when this CG is over “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1Co 15:28

I will stop here for now and comment on your reply of Paul’s conversion tomorrow.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132516
04/09/11 01:46 PM
04/09/11 01:46 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Did God Fail by having the Majority going to HELL

Originally Posted By: NJK
Paul’s Conversion
Originally Posted By: Elle
Paul was heading to persecute Christians. That was Paul’s will.
Seems to me that if God wills to and has the authority to, in this GC, fairly force men like Paul who are avowed haters of His true way, to become believers then, in solely relation to Sabbath Keeping Christians, God is failing with over 99% the world!!

As it is right now according to mainstream Christianity even with the free grace doctrines 80% is going to Hell and we, SDAs via EGW, estimate is what? 95%+ Both of these are not impressive numbers either. And we claim that Love conquer all. My, we are in major denial.

The thing with mainstream Christianity doctrines is they view Jesus 2nd coming as the end of Judgment. We, SDAs, believe it happens just before Jesus second coming at the close of probation. No one is considering the millennium, and after the millennium where there are a bunch of other events that happens before the Judgment at the Great white throne. There’s no time frame depicted clearly in the Bible for when that judgment is going to be but for sure it is not finish at Jesus 2nd coming because it is written there is a Judgment at the Great white throne by which we have no clue how long it will take after the resurrection of the dead and after that war Satan initiates. That’s when the real judgment happens and Jesus talks about it in his parables. But we gloss over these texts and we fill in what we don’t understand with speculation and we call it TRUTH. Everyone has made up their mind with their pre-conceived Hell doctrine and declare they already know God’s judgment without looking for Biblical support from God’s establish foundation depicted in the type of the Laws of Moses. In the type is where God clearly made us know His mind and heart in this matter and how he will judge the world.
Originally Posted By: egw
Now, if never before we should see that where there is a type there is also an antitype, and that WHERE THERE IS NO TYPE, THERE IS NO TRUTH. 1TG 46:15


Was Paul Elected because he was not Rebellious or Hypocritical

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed if Paul had not personally witness or heard in cognitive details the events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, then why not respectfully trust the words and judgement of his religious superiors and teachers. If he thought they were lying then he proudly would not be a part of them but rather seeking out the truth himself. Indeed God would not so manifest Himself to a hypocritically rebellious person, and persecutively at that. If that was so, Paul would have shared in the same fate as those hypocrite leaders in Christ’s day and the same persisted blindness as those leader who had caused him to be so deceived so God could work with that sincere and zealous faith to do what was right.

The Bible makes a very big distinction between those that are born again(spiritual man) versus those that are not(natural man). The state of mind of these two are totally different. One is “open” to the things of God; whereas the other is “close”. And Paul was not an exception to the rule or endowed with any special qualities different than any others. Before he was born again, he was the same as anyone else, he was a “natural man”.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” 1Cr 2:14

Paul did not receive the things of God before his conversion. We are all hypocrites and rebellious to many extend especially before conversion. I believe Paul literally meant it when he said that he was the chief of sinners(1Tim 1:15). We really don’t know if he was a big hypocrite or not.

You seem to imply that Paul was better than the rest of the Pharisees and that’s why he was subject to be a candidate to be saved. With such a statement then salvation depends on the individual and not 100% on Christ. Christ has saved many who were “more” whatever it may be than others and often the “more” is what God used to show them their heart.

However, according to Rom 9, Paul was made a vessel of honor and God was preparing him for that big moment at his conversion. According to Jesus, Paul was persecuting Him. If we take the text just as it read, Paul’s heart was persecuting Jesus just like any other zealous Jews whom he probably shared the same hatred against Jesus. You persecute those you personally hate whether it is by ignorance or not.

Did Paul Ignorance make him worthy to be saved?

Paul confessed in 1Ti 1:13 that he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief”. Because of this mercy Paul received, He extends this mercy to all the Jewish nation past and present Rom 11:31 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

And Paul even dared to say “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” Rom 11:29. Why can he say such a thing? Because He knows that it is God that leads us to repentance and not vice versa. God will do is job and He has all the time in the world to accomplish it. Hab 1:12.

It is not by Man’s will, but by God’s Work through His Spirit

Originally Posted By: NJK
Also as I say in my blog post, God needed the various key and valuable “resources” of Paul for this great work of expansively raising up God’s New Israel now among the Gentiles. So his call was as undeserving as the call of, and justifying grace shown to, Abraham, an idolater (Jos 24:2; cf. PP 125.1) but also desiring to do God’s will, when God was seeking to establish Ancient Israel. Yet God found enough in both of them to call them and entrust them with this Great opportunity. (Notice the full circle here. God calls Abraham from pagans to establish a saving Jewish nation and when that is done He similarly raised a Jew Paul to now go back to the Gentiles and save them, as it was always planned. So by that circular, borrowing and returning, action this transaction made itself a fair one in the GC.)

That’s an interesting circular observation.

I agree that both Paul and Abraham were undeserving of God’s special attention, and I agree that God needed ONE important man to make a difference to the world of their time. It is partly true that they chosen based on what these people already possessed at the time. However, my understading of this and yours presently is not the same. You imply that they had some type of inherit qualities that made them deem electable which partly is true but your emphasis is is contrary to the Gospel message and not biblical. Paul makes very clear in Rom 9 that God makes vessels of honor and some vessels of dishonor(Rom 9:21) and therefore has nothing to do with the person’s will or what they did that might deem them to some worthiness of the election. It all hast to do on whom God decides to show mercy on and put special attention to form that person’s character at the time according to His plan. (Rom 9:11-23). God worked on Paul and Abraham and was molding and preparing them for their task. Probably God started molding them from conception, who knows. But when the time came, all was already in place for their respond. So their “yes” was a true respond of their whole being with all those pre-preparatory work in connecting neurons together by the Holy Spirit through events God brought in their life. It is God that leads us to repentance and it is a very specific timely work that God makes beforehand which He continues after during the sanctification process.

One of my favorite EGW quote is COL 98.3. However I’m not using it to establish proof here and won’t quote it. It is a beautiful description of the work of the leaven comparing it to the work of Holy Spirit on our mind which is exactly what we all experience before conversion. Just like Jesus said to Nicodemus, you do not know where the wind came from or where it is going for it is out of our control. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). We can not even take 0.000001% credit of our conversion, and if we do, it is a pure boasting and a robbery of God’s glory. What happens in us is a “respond” to the planned event based on what was already in place before hand by the Holy Spirit.
Some Texts:
Originally Posted By: Scriptures How God moves Man
Jer 10:23 O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Ps 37:23 A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directed his steps.

Prov 20:24 Man’s going are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?

Prov 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.

The Natural Man

Since the fall, the “natural man” is married with the powers of darkness—we are “ONE” with darkness/death heading for self destruction. (Texts : Darkness(Prov 4:19; Is 8:22; Is 42:7,16; Is 59:9; Is 60:2; Mat 6:23, Jhn 3:19; Jhn 12:46); self-Destruction(Rom 3:16; Hos 13:9; Ps 107:20; Pro 11:19; 2Pet 2:1); Death(Prov 24:11; 102:20; 107:10,14,18; Is 28:15)). Now thinking of it, I believe the Bible always describes this as a relationship with “lovers”, an adulteress, not a marriage because there are really only one true marriage because there are only one true Husbandman which is the Lord our God.

Regardless, it figured it as a “woman” going after her “lovers”. If you ever been in “love” you would know how strong it is and I know this in a perspective of a woman. The directions of the powers of darkness(sin or the lover) becomes our directions. So it becomes “our choices” because of the affinity we have towards our lover(or sin). When a woman is married, many experience their “desires shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over you” Gen 3:16. I believe God has built in the woman to make their husband’s desires theirs. I know it for I have experienced this. The ruling the man or the subjection of the woman is in harmony to the ordained order of God in 1Co 11:3. However, because of sin, the ruling here can be either an oppressive ruling or one out of love. Nevertheless, in both case the woman is ruled by her husband.

I believe Gen 3:16 illustrates the science behind “the choice” when man or woman is either “married” to sin, or to God. Whoever you are married to, your desires shall be to him, and he will rule over you.

So after the fall, God put us in direct subjection to our own mind(=corrupt heart) instead of being subjected to His Spirit as we were before. When we do not have the Spirit of God ruling our thoughts and desires, then we become “foolish”(Jer 10:8; Eze 13:3; Rom 1:21; Ps 94:8; Pro 1:22; 15:7,14;…) and “vain”(Jer 2:5; 4:14; Rom 1:21; Ps 10:7; 12:2; 39:11; 94:11; 119:37; Ecc 1:2; Is 30:28; 41:29; 59:4; Rom 3:12; 8:20; Ep 4:17) and we are led by our own “imagination”(Gen 8:21; Deu 29:19; Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17;Rom 1:21). That’s the “natural man” disposition without God’s influence. And the spiritual things are very foolish to him. This “natural man” cannot seek God(Rom 3:11) because He thinks God is foolish(1Cor 2:14; 1:18, 23) for he cannot understand God(Rom 8:5-7;1Cor 2:14; 2Pet 2:12; Jud 1:10; Dn 12:10) . To understand or want spiritual things you need to be spiritual(Rom 8:5-7;1Cor 2:14); therefore the “natural man” cannot go to God by his own choosing and that’s why he needs to be “dragged” to God via multitudes corrective events that God’s brings in our lives. This process is what the Bible describes as learning Righteousness(Is 26:9; Hab 1:12; Is 29:24; Ps 94:10; Hos 2:6-10; Is 32:16,17; Hos 10:12;… )

The Hell Doctrine
Originally Posted By: NJK
However, according to your non-freewill-but God’s-sovereign-will view, God is then decided who will be saved or not and obviously He gladly wants and is acting so that over 99%+ of the world,, and all those who were ever born, will burn in Hell!??

NJK, the Hell doctrine is not even Biblical and it is totally contrary to the type establish by the Laws of Moses. “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.” Lev 18:21 God abides to His own Moral Laws and this atrocity of the burning in Hell fire doctrine didn’t even come to his mind. “And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” Jer 32:35 This is a man-made doctrine.

The Hell doctrine is another of those pass down pre-conceived ideas we inherited resulting from 1700+ years of darkness after the early church slowly apostatized. For this discussion sake, let’s just finish looking about the “freewill” for now. If later on you want to discuss about the inaccuracy about the Hell Doctrine with the Laws of Moses, and the Prophets and other scriptures, I will be happy to discuss.

The Conversion is like a Seed Sprouting

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
Then Jesus didn’t ask him “if you choose you can go into the city and choose to follow me afterwards”. No Jesus commanded him saying “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Act 9:6
As stated in Paul other one of his account of this conversion experience in Acts 22:10. I was Paul who asked Jesus, after now having in a flood of recollections, self-convinced of the Truth merely by the words “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (see AA 114.2-116.3) “What shall I do Lord” Notice that it is here Paul who initiatingly is offering himself, even his services, to Christ.

It is true that Paul said “what shall I do Lord?”, thx for pointing it to me, I missed that one. This is the first I ever presented about Paul, so I appreciate this opportunity to study this more deeply.
Despite, you need to acknowledge according to scriptures our disposition as a “natural man” , the pre-preparatory work of the Holy Spirit beforehand(the water that swells the seed), and God waiting for the perfect timing to show Himself or to orchestrate an event to bring on the conversion(the zapping of the genetic makeup to bring about the sprout).

Paul respond is equivalent to a sprouting of a seed and it was not a “choice” phenomena but the work of the Spirit of God in you. This is the same principles how God guides the animals, or the plants, which is the same with us. The only difference is that we have a brain to understand what is happening and we can “respond” “intelligently”. The principle is the moving influences of the Spirit of God which is comparable to the invisible wind or leaven in the dough. That’s how God “worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” Phil 2:13.

Originally Posted By: NJK
And so he, like Moses (at least two times) passed this unspoken will test and God immediately enjoined this success. And by thus freely (as I understand it) placing himself under the full command of Christ, Jesus did indeed proceed to command him Paul as to what he should do for Him. However notice in Paul other recounting of these events in Acts 26:9-18. In vs. 19 & 20, he says to Agrippa that: ‘he, from then on, did not come to be disobedient to the heavenly vision (cf. vs. 16-18).

I do agree that God does test(try) us and that’s how he purifies us like a refiner who purifies metals in the fire(Mal 3:3). The fire in our life is our afflictions or tribulations(Ps 34:19; Act 14:22; Rom 5:3) that the Lord gives us to refine us. Not to punish us, but to correct us and to purify us. I never studied in dept the Moses incident you specified, so I cannot comment on it.

Correcting Strongs mistranslation of G545 apeithes

Originally Posted By: NJK
So clearly Paul believed that all along this time, since His encounter before proceeding onto Damascus, he had the possibility and thus “option”, and thus choice, and thus freedom to be disobedient if he wanted. If he believe in your view, as He could have known as you refer to OT passages which he was familiar with and then later became aware of the full Gospel story. (Needless to say that He wrote most of the NT that you are also using today to prove this view), then he would have told Agrippa, at, here, this much later stage in his ministry, that ‘I had no other choice but to be to this desired will of God.’ Indeed the word “dis-obedient” #545 (a word that Paul and others repeatedly use for evildoers in danger of condemnation) would not have been use a moot. You can only “disobey” if you have a choice, and a free one at that. (If a robber hold up a gun a me and threats to blow my brains out if I don’t hand over my wallet, I cannot go around telling people I was obedient to him, since I logically did not have a free choice. I instead “complied” to that threat and command.)

Regarding Acts 26:19, and #545, I don’t know what lexicon you are using but according to strongs :

Originally Posted By: G545
G545 apeithes ap-i-thace' from G1 (as a negative particle) and G3982;

unpersuadable, i.e. contumacious.
KJV : disobedient



The KJV has inproperly translated them all as disobedient. It is not true to the definition. Let’s also look at the root definition of G3982 to verify this :

Originally Posted By: G3982
G3982 peitho pi'-tho

a primary verb;

to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty).


KJV: agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.


So, Paul is actually saying that since the vision he never came unpersuaded or “unconvinced”(apeithes).

Is Disobedience a Choice according to the Bible?


Originally Posted By: NJK
You can only “disobey” if you have a choice, and a free one at that.


Our disobedience is out of ignorance which is how God describe the sins in Lev 4& 5 for the sin offerings and the trespasses offerings. All are describes as a sin of ignorance. Sin is not due to a “choice” but more accurately described as ” a missing of the mark”. The cause of sin is “unbelief”. The consequence of sin is the breaking of the Law. You cannot believe if you are not convicted first. And to be convicted you first need to hear. And To hear you first need to have your ears opened. And only God can open your ears.

The Bible describes sinners as people that have “gone astray” or are “ lost”. That’s how the Bible describes those that “sin” because they are put in subject to their own corrupt heart, or another word, they are subject to the “vanity” of their mind.

Rom 8:20 “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope”

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
Paul was totally blinded. He couldn’t go anywhere anyway,
Paul was indeed totally blind but that does not mean “he could not go anywhere”?? HE clearly says he was not alone (Acts 9:7; 22:9). And how do you think he continued, now blind, to get to Damascus?? He clearly says that ‘he was led by the hand by those who were with him. (Acts 9:8; 22:11). He emphasizes this to show that he was indeed totally made blind by that apparition/light. So Paul could just have easily gone back to Jerusalem if he wanted to. He only proceed to Damascus because, as he said (Acts 26:19, 20a), he was right from that time, faithfully endeavoring to be obedient to that vision.

I agree he was not alone and he could of went somewhere else with the help he had.

Did Paul Understand God’s Sovereignty

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
In God’s wisdom to give us another witness of His Sovereignty, God chose to do all the above to get Paul’s attention
Clearly Paul did not understand this ‘overruling sovereignty’ act when recounting that testimony. Acts 26:19. The only sovereignty hear was to the extent of getting Paul’s attention, but not to force him to do anything against his now, and first (i.e., between the first statement of Jesus and the later instructions) self-rectified will of Paul based on all that He already had heard and learned about Jesus and the Christian Faith.

I believe Paul understood about the Sovereignty of God very well and that’s why he made it clear with Rom 9 and 11 and other places relating to it. I do understand that currently you do not see it as an act of overruling Paul’s will despite the fact that you know that Paul intention was to execute Christians in Damascus. If Jesus wouldn’t of intervene, Paul most likely would of continued his way and did what was ordered of him and wanted to do. He admitted that he was as “zealous toward God, as ye(Jewish Leaders) all are this day”.

Does God Rule by Force or by Influence

I do understand that you’re main objection to this is the concept that God “forces” His will on us. Force is not the proper word even when overruling measures are necessary. We see clearly that God overruled King Nebuchednezzar. He was warn a year prior, and when he boasted and took God’s glory for his own, God took away his reasoning ability and he became like a beast of the field. Don’t know if it was figurative or literal, but for sure Nebuchednezzar lost his mind. Force does not consider the individual interest, nor the laws, nor the benefit of the whole universe, but only seek it’s own interest. God considers everything and His interest is one of the last thing He’s considering. We do not view a loving parent disciplining his child like a tyrant. God “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will“ Eph 1:11. It is not force, but discipline, correction, and tutelage.

To describe the manner God works via His Spirit, it is an authoritive “Influence” given always at the perfect timing that makes us resound. God created us easily influenceable, that’s why we are the optimum “free” machine. Free to be moved in any direction according to God’s will in a fraction of a second that is. We’re like a top, spinning at high speed on its own axes that respond/move to the slightest touch. That’s why when we’re not between God’s hand, we are so vulnerable susceptible to be damaged by anything because of our super sensitivity which explain why the root word of mortal man anash H605 (to be frail, feeble, or (fig) melancholy translated as desperate, incurable, sick and woeful).

When an overruling authority is used on immature children, it is often viewed as a “force” by the child because they do not understand, nor do they know parent/God’s character very well. To me this is the real heart of the GC is us not knowing God’s character and not understanding what’s going on because God chose to start us with a blank mind at creation that didn’t have any knowledge. We had “intuition” which comes from God also, but we had no experiences and everything was new.

God is a very personal King and He doesn’t splurge out commands without pre knowledge, consideration, and care of us. He knows where we are at, how to bring us to the next step, and what is our abilities and when we are ready to receive a command. Plus He knows all the details of what is currently happening all around and where the overall needs to go next. God does impose His will and plan on all His subject, for how can a King rule a kingdom if he cannot issue commands to establish His laws and to execute His plans. His commands are important for the sake of all His subjects and the harmony of His kingdom. The King of King does not ask His subjects what He should do, nor if we want to do his commands or not. This is not the place of a subject and it is not how a King rule. However He is a responsible and sensible King that rules righteously and with mercy. Because He created beings with advance “intelligence” and saw wisdom to give them a blank memory at creation; he can and will bring them all to maturity “unto the knowledge of all truth.” 1Tim 2:4 as He promised.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132621
04/12/11 11:34 AM
04/12/11 11:34 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Part 1 of 2 (of NJK Part 3 post)

Using of Helkuo instead of other words available
Originally Posted By: NJK
Interesting word study here, however I think you are overstating its meaning by making it include and affect free will.

I don’t think it is overstating it, for I’m deriving the meaning of helkuo from it’s context of being used in the Bible. I agree that Strong could of have made an error in his difinition in his dictionary, but that can be verified by the usage of the word in context in the Bible which makes clear what is the definition of that word. According to the context of usage, Strong’s definition is correct and it does mean drag.

They had other words to use if they wanted to clearly express your current interpretation of the word. They could of used G1448 eggizo or G4334 proserchomai. These two words would of express your current preference, but they didn’t and they chose G1670 helkuo because that’s what they wanted to give as a meaning including Jesus.

Originally Posted By: Strongs word Definition of DRAW
G1448 eggizo : from G1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach. KJV: approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.


G4334 proserchomai : from G4314 and G2064 (including its alternate); to approach, i.e. (literally) come near, visit, or (figuratively) worship, assent to. KJV: (as soon as he) come (unto), come thereunto, consent, draw near, go (near, to, unto).


G1670 helkuo : probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively). Compare G1667. KJV: draw.


Is Jesus Lifted Up Today Vs. God Lift Him up in the Future
Originally Posted By: NJK
One simple text from that group entirely sink your ‘no free will, irresistible pulling’ claim, and that is Christ’s statement in John 12:32. If Christ “drew all to Him when He was lifted up on the Cross, the why have billions of people since that event not become Christians?? Clearly one still has the free will to accept or reject Christianity.

John 12:32 saysif I be lifted up”

Currently, with our old covenant tinted Gospel, Christ is not being lifted up. Just as God willed it for the Children of Israel to have the Old Covenant for 1600 years before Christ, he allowed the old Covenant to creep back in our theology soon after the Pentecost. However, God will lift up Christ in His planned timing when He will manifest His glory via the 144K at the end time. The truth will come down as an overflowing scourge(Is 28:2-6,15-29; 30:27-33; Jer 47:2; Ez 13:10-13; Ez 38:22-23; Hab 3:10) so “that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Jhn 17:23.

Originally Posted By: NJK
So that “drawing” still allows one to reject that possible, when effectuate, Divine prompting/calling. As Jesus also says, Many are called but the choice ones are few (Matt 22:14)

Matt 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen” As this verse is relating to the wedding parable to someone that didn’t have a wedding garment, I think Jesus is referring to the elects vs. those that are not. Only a few are chosen to be a vessel of honor, many are vessels of dishonor as it is very apparent today in the world. Jesus only chose 12 disciples at His 1st coming. God also only chose the nation of Israel to be a holy priesthood, and even got it reduced to the sons of Aaron. That’s the principle God chose to spread the good news. It always has been through a few chosen ones. This selected group is also called the firstfruit which is represented by the barley harvest. There are 3 harvests, Barley, wheat, and grapes. These respectively represent 3 groups of spiritual types of fruits, the overcomers, the believers, and the unbelievers, that requires different harvesting techniques and tools. Is 28:24-29.
Originally Posted By: NJK
So that ‘call resisting’ possibility is how ‘God’s drawing’ in John 6:44 is to be understood.

The popular assumed ‘call resisting’ is not according to what Paul reveals in Rom 9, Rom 3, 1Co 2:14 and so many other scriptures which I have supplied only a portion of what is there. There are other texts that support what you are saying. So the two needs to be reconciled under one Truth. I’ll come to it later on in a separate post. But now let’s focuss on what the Bible says concerning no “freewill”.

Coming back to John 12:32 “if I be lifted up…will draw all men unto me” , you need to remember, the GC is not over after Jesus 2nd coming and there’s still the great white throne where God will judge the lawless. Then we have a scene that all in heaven and all in earth bow down and confess that Jesus is Lord(Is 45:23, Phil 2:9-11, 1Cor 15:22-28).

Is 45:23 “I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” Is 45:23

So I see that Biblically it is written that God will make John 12:32 happen and it will be via a long “dragging” (inculcating) process before they come ready for them to confess Jesus as Lord. Time is not an issue for God. He has all the time in the universe and He will take the time needed to accomplish what He has said He will do. Hab 1:12

Catching Fishes and Dragging them into the Boat

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed the logically irrational issue of why God does not ‘irresistibly draw’ all peoples, even all peoples, is raised up by holding your view for that verse. Also:

John 21:6 - ‘the fish’s will was a moot issue in that miracle.’ The only Theological lesson it teaches is that God knows how best to conduct the work of fishing for men, compared to our even best methods, training and knowledge. God’s guidance is what is to be crucially sought.


All of Jesus object lessons in the parables are deep and wide to ponder on. For sure God knows exactly how to best catch fishes and he showed us in that parable. He cast the net on the “right side” of the boat and drags the fishes into the boat. The choice of these words were specific to describe important dimensions. I have heard two interpretation of what the right side can mean. One says it is the mercy(right side) versus judgment being the left side. Another one said it means the right side of our brain where the intuition, emotion, creation, motivation thinking takes place; versus not by the “left” side with the logic, rational thought, problem solving, and detail oriented thinking that the fishes can be caught/convicted. So I don’t know which one is correct or if both are.

Dragging People to Court

Originally Posted By: NJK
James 2:6 - The only way that people are ‘dragged’ before the courts is, as today, because of the penalties for not appearing, including a default judgment against them if they fail to appear. So they still have the free choice to appear or not, though with penalties if they do not.

The law system was different in those days under the Roman rulership than today. Romans laws was depicted as an iron rule. I’m sure they dragged the people to court as soon they got their hands on them especially those that were unwilling were more harshly dragged in. When they came to get Jesus, Jesus didn’t have any formal warning before hand. They came in a troop and Jesus didn’t have any choices nor any chance to escape. Of course, Jesus knew before hand this was coming and did submit, yet he was totally circled(like a net circles the fishes) by a group of Jewish authorities that made sure he was brought directly to their court right away. And Jesus didn’t even do anything wrong. Just as James 2:6 says it is the Rich ones that oppresses and brings someone to court. They didn’t even had a case against Jesus and grounds didn’t matter, it is money and power and position that gives them the right. So, they “drag” Jesus over to the Jewish court and after to the Romans courts.

The Merits of Election and Salvation

Originally Posted By: Elle
Quote:
John 6:37 “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
Originally Posted By: Elle
Whomever the Father has given to Christ will come to Him. In other words, those who decide to come to Christ by their own “freewill” are really the people whom the Father has already given Him. The Father “who worketh all things” is behind the scenes who has called these people, and therefore their response is, “I want to follow Christ.” They think it is all by their own “freewill”, but in reality it is God who has brought them to Christ, choosing to remain anonymous.
The setting up of the NT Church involved a great deal of key “election” of “choice” people as “firstfruits” = founders/pioneers. (= Rom 8:28-39). God looked around the Jewish and Gentile world and all those who were “electable” = “choice people”, he cast his vote with them and indeed “elected them” to these crucial NT Church/New Israel positions. However, like any elected individual, that did not mean that they could not fail, even completely in the future. God here had only cast their vote with them based upon their past good living and indeed offered them to Christ by drawing them to cross paths with Christ and the Gospel. Jesus fully understood this behind the scenes guiding work of God, all based upon due individual merit and that is why He said that he would not cast them out. However these were free to go away if they chose. They were not forced to stay. So just as God elected Abraham in the past to be both the Ancestral father of many, primarily, natural children to form a nation for God, and then he called Moses to be the Spiritual Father of this now great nation, in the same way, for the New Covenant Israel, and given the fact of almost total rejection by the Jewish people, God called the most sincere people to be the spiritual Children of Christ and then Paul to extend this work and family of Christ among the Gentile nations. This election does not do away with one’s freewill.

Your emphasis is on the merits of man for the election. If you hold to this view, then anyone has to be saved by the same principle/rule. Salvation hast to do on the merits of the works of Christ and the mercy of the Father. Nothing to do with man’s merits or doing. All are saved by grace.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
God has first chosen them and dragged them to Christ, so that they will later seemingly choose God in return out of their “own free will”. I think God chooses to let us believe this illusion of “freewill” in our immaturity. God is patient and He continues to nurture us and teach us. However, once we mature and start to understand who God really is, and see His sovereignty over all things in the universe which he move all things by His power; we will come to understand that we are not much different than the animals and inanimate objects and begin to see that “our will” is merely a response to His will.
Again the simple logical question that entirely sink this view of yours is: Why not more, and that much more, by God of so, supposedly “forced” to be faithful Christians???

I agree with your simple logic. If we stop taking the credit for our own salvation, and start to see it like the Bible says that it is 100% based on the Merits of Christ and to whom the Father shows mercy on; then this basis of salvation means “much more” are saved, even to the extend that ALL are saved ….
“And so all Israel shall be saved as it is written “ Rom 11:26
“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1Ti 2:4
I have over 30 texts of this sort that the Bible says that God will save ALL.

God’s ForeKnowledge

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
No Delays in God’s Plans
Originally Posted By: NJK
So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans. (Prime example: His Chosen People Israel, repeatedly, as they were until the New Covenant, His only means through which to duly advance and establish the Plan of Redemption).
From what I understand right now, there are no delays and what happened to the Children of Israel worked according to His plans to establish for us the “TYPE” so we can learn from it and come to know the “ANTITYPE” to come.
In that case, as many OT prophetic statements will not, simply as most cannot, be literally fulfilled, then God, who would have been doing, (or nonchalantly allowing) all of the capital transgressions, rebellions and apostasies of Ancient Israel, actually made prophetic mistakes in his statements, by not making them literally speak of things, places events, etc of how they were “always supposed to be fulfilled at least 2000+ years after the fact. I.e., why would God not extend all prophecies in regards to Israel as literally and specifically as He did in e.g, Dan 2, 7, 8, 9 if they too were all to only be fulfilled 2000+ years later, in our day???

I’m not fully understanding your question, but will try to answer what I think I understand. When I referred to the Type it is mainly Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers. These are the established types by which all these Laws are prophetic and spiritual( Rom 7:14). Jesus gaved us a good example how he spiritually applied the types into antitypes at his sermon ot the mount. We have this tendency to see things literal and we need to develop the ability to understand the spiritual meanings of the laws of Moses.

God had to let the immature children of Israel learn by their mistakes for there own sake and for ours, and to establish the Type to come. 1Co 10:11 “all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.. Probably what I responded below will further support this concept and address your point above.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I believe there’s nothing that catches God offguard(James 1:17; Jn 6:6) that He didn’t know what would happen.
(A) Your supposed supporting text here do not say anything to this point so they are simply textbook “proof-texts” here.

James 1:17 “… the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
To me this says God’s flow or stride is constant and straight, he’s never caught offguard. If God doesn’t know what will happen and Israel caused Him frustration and delays, then I would assume that would mean he had to changed to plan B to respond to Israel choices. So to me their would be shadow of turnings in His plans.

John 6:6 “And this he said to prove(test) him: for he himself knew what he would do.
This text says Jesus already knew what He was going to do, when he saw the great multitude coming. This is Jesus talking and not the Father. The Father’s knows everything, and I believe He tells Jesus when the time is near for we know that even Jesus doesn’t know the hour of his 2nd coming. So maybe Jesus knew about this as early when he was communing with His Father early that morning. We don’t know.

The Type in Abraham’s two Sons

Originally Posted By: NJK
(B) God Himself says that unexpected things happen to Him from man’s free choices and actions. (E.g., Isa 5:1-7)

Isa 5:1:7 God was not taken by surprise with the house of Israel and of Judah rebellion’s(Deut 31:29; 32:1-47) and wild fruits they produced(Deut 32:32). Also, it was prophesied way back with Abraham. Abraham had 2 sons by which the first one was with the bondwoman wife(Gen 16:3) whom Hagar was Egyptians(Gen 16:1). Therefore Ishmael was half Egyptian. His birth was a result of Abraham and Sarah reasoning to give God a little help to bring forth the promised seed. But through man’s works was not how the promise seed was to come. It was through faith.

At that time Abraham’s name was still Abram. The change of his name occurred around 17 years after Ishmael was born. The change of name does not signify the conversion from unbeliever to believer. Abraham was indeed a believer when he begat Ishmael. He was a believer in training like we are all at this present time. The change of name signify the Christian becoming matured = an overcomer. As an overcomer at the age of 99, Abraham was circumcised and only then did he and Sarah conceive Isaac. They conceive Isaac by faith. Hagar and Abraham conceived Ishmael by the “natural man’s” persuasion and works to bring forth God’s promise. Thus, Ishmael was born after the will of man= the flesh. “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise” Gal 4:23

God planned this to happen for an object lesson and also to be used as a prophecy of what was to come. What happen to Abraham’s life, happened in history. Even what happened between Ismael and Isaac was prophecy. Ismael persecuted Issac(Gal 4:29), and so did Egypt(Ishmael heritage and who knows maybe his own seeds multiplied there by which he and Hagar probably return to Egypt) put Israel(seed of Isaac) into bondage. Another prophecy fulfillment is that God took “Hagar”(the nation of Egypt) and brought forth the Children of Israel. When Egypt gave birth to Israel, they were half spiritually Egyptians. Israel had God as their father, but Egypt as their mother. That’s why all through the exodus, Israel had both loyalties. In one hand they wanted to go to the promise land; and on the other, go back to Egypt to mommy when they didn’t like daddy’s training and corrections. And so it was.

The Wild-Asses : Ishmael and Israel
The parallele between Abram&Hagar=Ismael and God&Egypt=Israel can be seen when we look at the big picture. In Gen 16:12, God told this to Hagar about her son she was carrying “And he will be a wild man; (pereh adam, “wild-ass man”) his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

The Hebrew word pereh is always translated as “wild-ass” in the KJV except in this verse. That’s too bad that the translator didn’t see the importance and the spiritual correlation because in Jer 2:24 Jerusalem is identified as a “wild ass” : A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? All they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her.

It is evident that Ishmael and Jerusalem were not literal “wild-ass”, but figuratively they were both spiritually wild-asses whose affinity was to the “wild life” or the “natural life” instead of the life of servanthood in God’s house. Jerusalem loved her sexual freedom, who was married to God, but still was quite attracted to her lovers(idols/sin). Israel played the harlot openly in public(like the Catholic), while Judah played the harlot in secret(like the SDAs). Jer 3:4-11 “And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah

So the evidences are there that God knew way beforehand about Israel spiritual wild-ass condition. He even gave them a song to memorize what was to come before they enter the promise land.(Deut 32). Moses even confirmed God preknowledge of Israel rebellion in Deut 31:29 he said For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way….and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

It is the works of man’s hand that provokes God to anger. It is the little help of Abram and Sarai that through Hagar a son was birthed via the works of the flesh which was by nature a “wild-ass”(natural man) that could not inherit the kingdom of God. We’re all wild-asses and that’s why Jesus said we need to be reborn from above. Paul said to cast out that bondwoman(that old covenant wild-ass spiritual immature mentality that makes us say silly things like “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” Ex 19:8.

God’s Reason to Test Man

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed, many times He has to test man to find out/ascertain what is in there heart or how they will choose to act. (E.g., Gen 22:12; Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31). These are unequivocal, straightforward Biblical statements.

God test individuals not because He doesn’t know what they will do, but to humble the individual so they can see their own heart(Deut 8:2 “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments or no. ”) or for other purposes.

Gen 22:12, Here, I believe the test was for Abraham sake to understand more deeply the sacrificial services contrary to the pagans. Through that experience, Abraham saw Jesus’ sacrifice, which Jesus confirmed this experience by saying “your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. ” John 8:56

Exod 15:25 Was another plain example of showing their heart. God brought them to some bitter waters and let the immature people complain about it. God knew they were going to complain as always, but if God had brought them to sweet water directly, the people wouldn’t had the opportunity to see their heart condition. So God created this situation to teach the people what is the nature of their natural heart so to create an opportunity of a need for Jesus. Thus God cast a tree which represented Jesus in the bitter water, and made it sweet. So it was an object lesson for them to see what God can do with Jesus in them. This complaining habit is the result of a heart of unbelief. That’s what the GC is all about.

Exod 16:4 Is another teaching tools God gaved the Israelite an opportunity to exercise their trust in God by receiving their daily needs of manna. This is the Type that we should eat our daily bread whom Jesus is the body. However, even thought they had their physical belly full, they still complained. Again, so they could see the nature of their heart there also,

2Ch 32:31 Hezekiah’s story, well I was reading about him just two weeks ago, and I failed to study it in dept. So I cannot comment on it right now. But superficially just the way the text reads, it’s another case that God is showing Hezekiah’s heart. If God doesn’t create incidences for us to see our own heart, we won’t know where we are at and how far we are from him and our need of Jesus.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
He knows what stages the nations or a people need to go through just as much a parent has an understanding of the stages their newborn child has to go through to reach maturity,( if by all means the child does get there in this lifetime for there are many immature adult walking around).
The two OT episodes in the Bible in Exod 32 and Num 14 (discussed in greater detail e.g., here shows that God twice wanted to destroy all of Israel and start all over with one person. That clearly does not look like a God who is going by a grandly manipulative, plan.

I like your view and thx for sharing this. So probably God created a situation for the purpose of Moses to step up to be an intercessor. Moses taking this “decision” doesn’t mean that God didn’t prepare him for it before hand, and didn’t create the situation, for him to stand up for what He was made for. Yes, God needed an intercessor on earth and Moses was His man. This requirement/need is according to the law of redemption and the duty of the priesthood. Moses was indeed the ga’al/intercessor needed for the people. So all went according to plan while fulfilling God’s Laws.

God working with Saints Vs. Wicked
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I agree that God cannot work with a faithless people and what I’m understanding now, he has worked this past 6000 years to bring forth a mature faithful people to establish on earth His kingdom.
If as you believe, God can ‘irresistibly force’ people to be obedient to him (= overiding all of their freewill) then why would He need to “work”, and that for so long to get a mature people?? Alos why not force them to instantly be mature, indeed never allowing them to take any steps back or stray aside as was the constant case in Ancient Israel.

I have described in the previous post just above this one under the header “Does God Rule by Force or by Influence”. Basically, God does not force but “move” people with His influences those he has chosen. Most are left subject to their corrupt heart, however, always to a certain limit and within his plans. If the wicked or immature saints way stand in the way of God’s will, God will overruled them and divert their path to another direction.

Why does it take Time to Mature Man?

So why does God need to work so long to get a mature people? Because it takes time for God’s Laws to be written on our heart(mind). First of all, in His wisdom, God chose to close our ears(Deut 29:4-5) and even till today most Christianity don’t even know God’s Laws because they don’t study them as they see them as nailed to the cross. Even SDAs are guilty of this. For sure we know about the Sabbath, but there are many more laws that are needed to be learned and acknowledge, and put into our daily life practice. He is letting the people learn Righteousness Is 26:9 via trials as stated in the previous post. He is correcting, disciplining, humbling, and forming the minds of his people so that His laws will be properly written there and not on an exterior piece of paper or on stones like it was with the Israelites at Mt Sinai with the old convenant. With the “new” covenant the laws are written on our heart(Jer 31). This was always God’s pursuit from the very beginning of creation. And that requires much much time. This is to show that he doesn’t force it, but rather let us learn it within our abilities with him beside us teaching us His ways and showing us His heart, just like any parent does with their own children. We all know these principles with our own children. It takes time to bring a child to full maturity. It took 99 years to bring Abraham to full maturity when he became an overcomer an received his new name of victory.
Originally Posted By: NJK
How do you explain God only being able to have at best ca. 120 ‘forced converts’ just after the resurrection, and very little of the over 2,000,000 Jewish People in Israel and the world by the 70 A.D. destruction?? Is it that God is not working enough or well or what, according to your no-free-will understanding??? It all seems to me that God is shooting himself in the foot. On one hand He is supposedly overriding the free will of people and on the other hand He is keeping most in the dark (Matt 13:10-17).

It was basically not the time. At Pentecost the believers only had a down payment of the Spirit of God. There are 3 levels of Maturity depicted by the Feasts: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The Passover was fulfilled by the Israelites when they left Egypt. They had the basic faith of Justification by which it is the blood of the Lamb that Justified them. But, they did not enter the Pentecost level at Mt Sinai. They couldn’t handle hearing God’s voice and they stepped back. They couldn’t handle it because they were not ready and God knew that. So the Pentecost level of faith was only fulfilled at Pentecost, but Pentecost is only a transition between Passover and the Tabernacles Level of faith. So why so little converted then? Because they didn’t have the full measure of the Spirit, and only a downpayment that only could convert a little. Then after that, many reverted back to the Passover Level of faith and took that Old covenant life again.

Concerning the Jews destruction in AD 70, it is the same as the destruction before. It is based on the same Laws of God. Whatever get puffed up, must come down. It happened twice, and it will happen again as most are quite puffed up today.

God knows where we are in maturity and is not going to force anyone into conversion. He prepares the heart before hands. God keeps our ears closed until we are ready to hear. The opening of the ears happens after the heart is ready to hear. So God kept the Israelites ears closed, kept the new Church after the Pentecost experience ears closed, till today. However, He still holds us accountable for all the laws we personally break. God will take His level of accountability, but God will also hold the individuals to their own liabilities. All the guilty will be judged at the big white throne according to the Laws of God and justice will be served properly and thoroughly.

The Cause of Immaturity

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I do agree with you that force is not God’s preferred way to work, however I am now starting to see that it is often needed to be used on immature CHILDREN. I think it is used in the same fashion a parent will force a child into some behavior with correction(Judgments Lev 26) and by overruling the child’s will oftentimes, however, it is always done with the purpose to instruct and to mold the child mind and heart to His image.
You are making a different statement here. If God is overriding people will then how can they ever rebel by acting/continuing to be, immature.

The immaturity is due to our unbelief and the fact that our mind were blank at creation. The fact that our mind was blank at creation, there was the necessity to write the laws of God in our mind as the opportunity came through living and walking with God. After the fall our minds has now corruptness embedded in it which makes the task even harder since the corruptness needs to be removed before the rewriting of God Laws.

The writing is not done by force, but by living and growing with God and Him teaching us His Righteousness meaning His ways, His mind, His heart, etc...

A teacher is the one that is in control of its class. He chooses the material to teach, the techniques at times is tailored to the case and the individuals, he repeats material in many ways and via practicum until the student learns it well and the lesson taught becomes second to nature. The students do not learn what he chooses, but rather what the teacher sees is important for the student to learn. A good teacher will also let the student learn by their mistakes because you learn more effectively that way and that’s why God chose to let us go to the imagination of our hearts when we fell, however, he’s there with us all along the way correcting us through our trials and pulling our attention to the needed lessons. God’s will is to save all His children and to do that He needs to teach them Righteousness(Is 26:9; Hab 1:12).

Unbelief is the root of sin. You cannot force a person into believing in you. Trust is built with time with the person and seeing the teacher in action and receiving his corrective kindness builds trust. This is what the Lord is doing when He is teaching us. You cannot have true “obedience” with an outward form of Baalim(MasterSlave) type of worship. True “obedience” and worship comes from the heart of faith that comes with a marriage type relationship where we call Him Ishi(Husband) Hos 2. This is the maturity God is working on Israel, His future bride to be.

Does God Sovereignty over Man’s will make Him Responsible for Sin?

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed this view places all of the failures of people to do and be right in the world on God which makes no sense at all since God wants all to be saved. (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, 10) People need to freely choose (= Rev 2:21) to believe to be saved (John 3:16). The Bible is so copious and clear on that fact that I do not see how such texts are ignored to build a ‘no free will doctrine’ on even a handful of seemingly supporting statements, which non have exegetically checked out!

The Bible is very clear in the law of Jubilee that God’s mind in the matter is to restore all back to their inheritance(Lev25:8-13) which means our inheritance which was given initially to mankind at the garden of Eden. All will be saved because all debts(sin is equated as a debt…see the Lord’s prayer) are erase regardless if they are paid in full or not at the Jubilee. The Laws of Liabilities states that God is ultimately responsible for all sins(Ex 21:28-34; Deut 22:8) and He must die. The Laws of redemption states that the next of kin have the right to redeem his brother(Lev25:49) which Jesus had that right by becoming a man. All these laws and the others, lay out clearly the truth about God’s Plan of Salvation. This is the Type that God establish in the Laws of Moses which is the foundation of all truth. The Prophets prophecied according to this Type, therefore Prophecies are an application of the Type, and if they are not in harmony with the Type, then it is not coming from God. Without understanding the Type, true prophecies cannot be understood properly, and the false prophets cannot be discerned. If the Type is not studied and understood, then there’s no way anyone can come to understand the Truth about the Plan of Salvation.

Sovereignty & FreeWill & Force & Sevanthood

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
Just because “force” is not generally his way, doesn’t mean nor prove we have “freewill”.
I thought your view was that this was the only way of God in regards to one’s will. It seems clear to me that your view is continuing to come apart at the seams here.

You seem to not understand how God works via the power of love. I think that’s why you only see “force” possible with no freewill. Animals don’t have our ability of reason, but they do know love and they respond to it very well. With Love, you can better train a dog or any animals. Plants even respond to Love. Even water molecules crystallizes differently with Love versus hatred. This is how God moves all things it is with His character(His Laws) which reflect His name that John describes – Agape.

You are being dualist in your own belief because in one side you claim God is Sovereign and in the other side, you claim we have free choice, and our free choice over rules God’s. The two doesn’t go together and it is not what the Bible teaches either. We are servants and always will be servants. Servants serves the will of their masters. Plus the Bible depicts God’s people as a wife, a good wife always serves her husband. It’s not the other way around when it comes to setting up the plans and directions. God does serve us, because He is our provider. But He is not under our will to be manipulated and telling Him what to do.



Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132622
04/12/11 12:33 PM
04/12/11 12:33 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Part 2 of 2 (of NJK Part 3 post)

Purpose of Reason
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
We do have a mind with the ability to reason, but this reasoning was never design to conduct our own life.
Reason about what then, since in your view that is pointless.

Up to now I have found one text in the Bible that explicitly tells us the purpose of reasoning. I haven’t really applied myself to study this yet. I came across this text when studying some other stuff.

Ps 47:7 “For God is the king of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding ”(sakal, intelligence)

I’m sure there’s more but I haven’t digged them out yet. One additional thing I would like to mention regarding for the reason why God gaved us the ability to reason, is God created the Heavens and the earth. In Heaven, God created the angels to be His witness in heaven and to establish things there via the angels. To do that, he gives certains Angels authority. However, their authority is not beyond the King of King and it is always to be used to be an extension of God Himself in them serving others and to establish His Laws and ways in the Kingdom. The same applies for the Kingdom on earth. God gives authority to men to rule and establish God’s ways and rule on earth. God does not give authority to angels to establish things on earth, or men to establish things in heaven. So for the kingdom of God to be establish on earth, trusted matured men are needs to be given the authority. In Gen 1:26-28 we have God giving Adam this authority when He said “

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This was the first authority given to man and this authority was always passed down to a son of God’s choosing. So it is God’s purpose that man can mature into “sonship of God” and be an overcomer having the fullness of God dwelling in them so that they can be an extention of God’s mind and will on earth to rule and subdue the earth according to God’s Laws. This is another purpose of God giving us the ability to reason, for if we have God’s ways and mind inprinted in our minds thus become an image of God, then we can rule this earth in Righteousness and Justice. But this to be an ability, we need to know His Laws first, and God’s mind and God’s Heart so we can recognize His voice and His ways when He speaks to us in that small still voice.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Here is the 180 switch that God allows and considers in one’s “reason”: Isa 1:18-20; cf. 21ff.

Is 1:18 “Come now, and let-us-reason-together, saith the Lord: ” let-us-reason-together is one Hebrew word Yakach H3198. The literal translation of this word should be “and-we-shall-correct”.
Originally Posted By: Yakach H3198
H3198 yakach yaw-kahh'

a primitive root;

to be right (i.e. correct); reciprocal, to argue; causatively, to decide, justify or convict.

KJV: AV — reprove 23, rebuke 12, correct 3, plead 3, reason 2, chasten 2, reprover + 0376 2, appointed 1, arguing 1, misc 9

You can see that the Hebrew word Yakach was mainly translated as reprove, rebuke, and correct. It was only translated twice as reason. Reason somehow needs to come in the definition of being rebuked, as I recalled looking at these texts, I could see the primary meaning of reprove in the contexts. But I need to review these to have a better grip of extracting the proper definition and come to know God’s definition of this word.

So the Lord’s invitation here is not ‘to come and reason together’ but according to the Concordant literal translation Is 1:18 “Go you! Please! and we-shall-correct saith Yahveh…

I discovered this just 2 months ago when I made an attempt to study the purpose for our reasoning abilities. I decided to start with Is 1:18 and look at all the occurences of Yakach in the Bible. When I started to note down in my study journal Strong’s word definition, I was totally stunned. It was not what I expected and since I had already written everything out in the journal, I decided to just go ahead and finish that word study. Then after I got distracted with others studies since there are always so many coming to the surface. So I never got to tackle this study yet.

Many times by studying specific words and deriving the meaning from the context, has changed my view quite a bit. What I discovered that our meanings of words in the english (or French) language has the world/pagans definition embedded in them. I saw that I had to redefine words according to the Hebrew philosophy which I believe it is in harmony with God’s thinking and language.
So from this word study I found a gem text that I use quite often. It is Hab 1:12.

We’re Ordained for Judgment and Established For Correction

Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction(YaKach)”.

God’s plan of salvation is layed out very clearly here in perspective of time, in perspective if any of us will die, in perspective how he will deal with his children. He has ordained us for judgment. Currently, I’m studying God’s judgment. Just like any other words, we can have the world perspective in our definition and we could have an incorrect view and understanding of God’s judgment. So, we need to always seek God’s view and definition. Currently the North America’s justice system is geared up to be a punitive system where the judgment is a punishment and afterward the criminal’s is put in prison where there’s no true restorative aid for him available, and the criminal didn’t have the chance to pay for the damage according to the law of Moses therefore the victims never received proper restitution for the wrong commited to them. Our society defines that justice is served if the criminal is put to prison or put to death. True justice is only serve when restitution is given to the victim and the criminal is restore. This is God’s way to bring true justice. All His Laws given to Moses defines the proper restitution for an offence. Where there is stoning it spiritually means the law.

Satan Temptation at the Tree & Freewill

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
That’s what Satan was promoting at the tree of knowledge. Nor does this “freewill” determine whether or not we are saved like most Christianity says that it is the determining factor.
How could God allow Satan to tempt man with something that actually is not feasible. I.e., get freewill?? And didn’t God say, when Adam and Eve sinned that they had indeed achieved what Satan was offering them (Gen 3:22a)

The illusion that decisions or the will comes from us is very persuasive and very hard to see God behind the scene. God chose it this way, to be invisible. Accepting the possibility that our thinking was ‘our will’ was by ‘design’ very persuasive for we were incredibly wonderfully made. So that’s how Satan could ‘tempt’ us. I don’t believe Satan was tempting us at all, he believed this himself. He really believed that we could figure out how to lead our own life by knowing what was good or bad and we didn’t need to be under God’s authority.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
We were design to be “moved” by His Spirit at all time by having His Spirit perpetually indwell in us.
Clearly not over 99% of us since they are not full commandment keeping Christians!! Thus God never wired them to be saved and be moved by His Spirit, right??

It is not over NJK. There’s still lots of time ahead and God’s plan has steps. Soon we will enter in the millennium age where the Kingdom of God will be given to His Saints.

God’s Will vs. Us breaking God’s Laws

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
The big deception lies in the realm of the purpose of the intelligence and our perception of the source of our powers. Most of the time we are moved from the inside out. That’s why it is so hard to distinguish contrary if we saw a physical big hand from heaven guiding us at all time. God’s presence is very hard to distinguish and we can be easily deceived in believing that what we do see our self doing, come from us versus the reality it comes from God; therefore we oftentimes “steal” God’s glory and change the truth into a lie.(Rom 1:21,22,25)
Again how, in your view, can man be doing anything against God’s will.

It is true that God ultimately allows everything that happens. But that doesn’t means that what is happening is in harmony with His laws and His ways. He allowed it because He’s merciful and longsuffering and is Wise and all powerful. He understands our immaturity state and has taken charged to teach His Children and to bring them in harmony with His Ways and Laws. This is His will. So things are moving along according to His will despite that we are still not full grown yet, and are breaking His laws. Since He is Sovereign He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens since He allowed this from the beginning, and has the control to stop everything and anything.

If God is Sovereign over our Will, what’s the point of convincing about the Truth?

Originally Posted By: NJK
And what’s the point of trying to convince anyone of this supposed “Biblical/Theological teaching”?? What actual difference will it make since God overridingly decides who will be save or not, obedient or disobedient??

Our function is to teach God’s ways and mind according to the Laws of Moses. As part of the Holy Priesthood, we are to eat the sin offering which means to bear the sins of our fellowman in intercession prayers and teaching them God’s Laws and to instruct them how to make full restitution for their sins. When we do that and teaching them about the ways of God in His Kingdom, we unite with God’s effort to teach His children and get that brain properly wired to know and to trust God.

Cruise Control Analogy

Originally Posted By: NJK
If my cruise control (= free will) does not work, then by pressing my accelerator (evil choices) or brakes (good choices), I am in no way “overriding anything at all” My cruise control was never active and controlling the speed of my car!!


Since when does a car drives itself? Your error is assuming that the car can drive itself, just as you are assuming that we can drive ourself. That’s the whole point of the fatality of the “freewill” concept error. We cannot drive ourself anymore than a car can. The one that put on the cruise control, presses on the brakes and the accelerator is God, not us. Plus, cruise control needs electricity, and a mechanic to maintain it when it wears off.

Originally Posted By: Elle
The Turning of the Farmer’s Ox
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
In regards to Jer 31:18, 19, I exegetically see that the most accurate reading should be:
‘After I turned [active verb - Qal], my ‘mind was changed’ [passive verb - Niphal] and after that I was instructed... [passive verb - Niphal]...’ (cf. NASB).
This shows that the active “turning” action was first done, then their my was (passively) “changed” and then “instructed” by God.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Well, I did check the verbs in my interlinear/ literal translation software,

Good laymen’s/starter study tool!

:+)
Is there a Good Hebrew Literal Interlinear Bible Available Anywhere?

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I’m not at that level in my Hebrew to distinguish the accuracy of it, and my literal translation seem to agree in an active verb for “to-turn-away-of me”, however the remaining 5 verbs seems to be all in passive along that texts.
An Interlinear’s English text is usually based upon a major English version, hence probably the non-exact reading here for instead a reading according to the understood sense of the translators.

Oh! My interlinear is not English based it is a Hebrew literal translation done by Concordant and is available for free at scripture4all.org I had checked a few verses with the Tanakh and they seem to agree. It’s a very nice software and very good literal translation.

BTW. Would you know if there’s available a good Hebrew literal English translation of the OT with the Masoretic text and the Strong codes available? I have here Green’s 4 volume set and it’s just junk. There’s some good literal translation, but most is the same English incorrect translation that he seems to follow KJV translation.

Does the Bull Turn Himself?

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
But taken that verse into context and deriving it’s meaning from the context, I understand the following :
Ephraim (nation whom the birthright is rightly his, and not to Judah) is symbolized “as a bullock” that was plowing a field. God the farmer, is the one to turn his bullock. We know that “to turn” also means to repent, as to go in another direction. It is not the ox place to turn himself, but it is the responsibility of the farmer/God. The problem is that this “bullock” was not accustomed to being obedient to the Farmer.

The passage says that after God turned him, he turned(or repented). The context does not say that Ephraim first repented and then God turned him, as if God were reacting to His “bullock.” God holds the reins. He is the One in control of the bullock as a sovereign God and owner of the bull should be. So this places the order of how things works. God initiate things in order that it will be accomplished.
Agreed... in part. Indeed, Jer 31:18 the same word “turn” occurs twice in the statement:
Originally Posted By: Bible Jer 31:18 NASB
Like an untrained calf; Bring me back (Hiphil - lit. ‘cause me to turn’) that I may be restored (Qal - lit. ‘may turn’), For You are the LORD my God.

While God does initiate the turning, it is the person who is to complete it. This is just like the farmer indicating to the bulls to turn and then they, of their own force turn. So this is just like a inceptive calling of God for people to turn as seen in the Bible and once that calling is heed and people have to complete/do this act of turning themselves. Then after that have “turned” (vs. 19, continuing the non-causative Qal verbal form), then their mind was changed. Etc.

I’m glad you agree that God initiate the turning, and it is true that the person/bull does turn, but it is not they that completes it alone. The Bible and Jesus said that there’s nothing we can do without God. Absolutely nothing and that includes all the chemical reactions that happens in our body and muscles activation to make that turn.

Nothing is Automatic in this Universe

I agree with EGW in her statement that there’s nothing in this universe that is automatic. I am quoting EGW to spare me some typing and her writing is better than mine, but there’s lots of scriptures that says that God guides all things and I can bring Biblical support if you would like.
Originally Posted By: MH 417.1
“God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will.

It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain.

It is by His power that vegetation is caused to flourish, that every leaf appears, every flower blooms, every fruit develops.

The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God. ” {MH 417.1}

So God is behind the bull’s turning also in every tiniest possible step that orchestrates the turn. That is why it is truthfully written “For it is God which worketh in you BOTH to WILL and TO DO of his good pleasure. ” Phil 2:13

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
None of us will be saved unless God is behind every step. Man can not do anything without God.
Jer 31:18, 19 actually shows that while God may initiate (in mercy vs. 20b = God’s calling), man, like the bull, has to, of their own volition/strength follow through. The farmer cannot turn the 1000+ pound ox if they refuse to obey that turning prompting. Hence the need of whips as I understand to force then if necessary.

God knows when it is time to give the command to turn. God will not issue a command out of season and He never ‘miss the mark’.

Mat 28 and God’s way to Teach

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
No man can come to the Father, except the Father drags him.

That direct divine calling was only initially being done whenever applicable in the early days of the small NT Church. However very early Christ sent out disciples to go and call others to the Truth, with many have the choice to obey or not (e.g, Matt 10:5-7; 14, 15). However today, this calling is mainly recursively done through Christ’s followers again according to His instruction (Matt 28:19, 20). If God was actively doing, in all cases, a ‘dragging to the truth’, and an ‘irresistible one at that’ then there would be absolutely no need for Christians to do any Evangelism. Just leave the Church doors open and wait for “forcefully dragged” people to be “dragged” in, and, of course, against their (“non”) will.

The command that Christ gaved in Mat 28:20 was to “teach” them to-be-keeping all things “I-direct”(g1781) to you. So this is our commission. We are to teach others not in the fashion of the evangelistic seminars SDAs do today. This was never Jesus fashion of teachings. But to work side by side with his disciples in going town to town to relieve the sufferings. In doing that, the student learns very fast and much by example. Plus the heart of the student is bonded to His teacher which facilitate the learning and the teacher can correct them more efficiently. The teacher opens up Scriptures and teaching them God’s moral Laws, how God defines sins, how God rule the land and nations, how God corrects the people, how God will Restore His people, Nations, His Kingdom on Earth. In this way the teacher reveals God’s heart and mind in His Plan of Salvation. All these things are shown via the teachings the Laws of Moses – the Type – the foundation of All TRUTH, and the prophets – the Application of the Type.

Why Many today Leave the Church and Where is God’s Church

Originally Posted By: NJK
How do you explain the many people who backslide and abandon the faith annually who once came to the truth, clearly, according to your view, only by God forcing will. In the SDA Church alone that is ca. 1300 per day who leave the Church. In your view no Christian are actually called by God unless God is dragging people to any Christian Church instead on His only True Church? And, according to you, what ‘singular Church’ would that be (as it sequiturly/logically have to be)??

As explained in the Natural Man section in the post above, God left us to the subjection of our heart, so to humble us when we can see that there’s nothing good in it. That’s how he corrects us. He overrule our “will” when it is contrary to His grand plan.

Since God worketh all things and has established all authorities on earth, then we can say that the Church we are in right now and its existence was God’s will despite that it is so Laodicean. He can use the Church pathetic state to show us further the nature of our heart.

The reasons people leave the SDA Church is because they don’t have the message, it is a man-led organization, they are only a form of godliness, they do not know nor reflect God’s mind and heart, and they are a business oriented organization. I do believe God has a real Church who are simple people connected to Jesus directly who he is preparing/training them to be one of the overcomers/144K that will rule with Him in this coming Millennium/Tabernacle age. I believe these people are scattered in all different denominations and are not denominationilized.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I do agree that God often leaves the immature saints or the wicked to their own decisions (Rm 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12 ; Act 7:42)
I thought we couldn’t have or own decisions (= our “overidding” choices)

I forgot to put decision in quotes. As stated in details here under the “Natural Man” title the decision that is executed in our minds is the desires/will that came from whomever we are married to. It is not ours, but we agree with it and have an affinity towards it. Actually, the wicked or immature believers won’t always agree to their hard slavemaster called sin.

Jesus Evangelistic Method via the Elected
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
however, there are boundaries that even Satan is well aware of them and Satan or anyone cannot do anything unless God allows them.
How do they ever begin to will to go against “God’s irresistible will’ to the point here were God ‘leaves them to their own decisions’

God is first preparing His saints. That’s is His focuss, just like Jesus didn’t focuss on training everyone when He came. His focuss was on the 12 disciples by teaching them personally. They worked together and ministered to the people; however, the disciple’s training was God’s main objective. After His resurrection, there were 40 assembled at the upper room who receive the Holy Spirit. Then afterwards thousands were convicted daily and was added to their numbers.
God has a plan and it doesn’t entails to reach everyone at once. There are 3 harvests depicted in the feasts(Barley/Overcommers, Wheat/believers, and Grapes/unbelievers) which are Types of the order of which God prepares the people.

Sovereignty Means Ultimately in Control of Everything

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
So God is ultimately in control of everything...
not really according to your sub views

Could you specify my sub views if you still see it after reading all of this. Basically, God is ultimately in control of everything including Satan. Satan cannot do anything unless God allows him. The Bible is clear that Satan is not allow to touch one hair out of head unless he has the permission.

Originally Posted By: NJK
(B) What force/meaning does “ultimately” means since man is not supposed to have any will??

Ultimately means, God is in control over all things and “who worked all things after the counsel of His own will”. Ep 1:11. There’s no being’s “will” that is above God’s. God will overrule any individual “will” if and when it obstructs with His plans. God has all the powers and authority and He gives to whom He pleases according to His Wisdom and plan. Right now Satan has some power and anything the Devil does, God gave him permission first. We see this clearly in the book of Job. Even God brought Job to the attention of Satan(Job 1:8). God knew Satan was going to jump on the occasion and God set up the limits on what Satan could do. God often will bring many hardship to His saints and the nations so they may learn to forgive. Often Christians blames God or fight Satan for their troubles, when their hardship was given by God for their own growth. Satan is God’s servant(Job 41). We need to have the attitude of Joseph who understood that God is behind everything and works things out for their good. This is what I mean by “Ultimately”.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
...and nothing is done without his approval.
Approval/Approving of what??? It could only be “approving” a free choice/decision of man!!

Approval of whatever ways our imagination’s(of our idols) pursuit may be whether of the lust, the hatred, the envy, the bitterness, or etc. That means wherever our minds leads us, or whatever events or influence we get, by which our current “choice” reflects these. Our reasoning formulated some “cognitive persuasion” that we need to do this or that. This “persuasion” is a product of the ruling of ignorant and vulnerable corrupted heart filled with vanity and lot’s of imagination. God leaves us to do what our imagination dictates as long as it’s not in the way of His grand plans. However, He also watches over us and will work with where we are at so the consequences of these “choices” can humble us by showing us our natural/wild and vulnerable and ignorant heart.

Summary
Originally Posted By: NJK
You really need to decide how faithful your are going to be to your chief tenet that ‘freewill does not exist as not doing so causes your view to be quite incongruous. I however see then that you will have to outrightly ignore many Scriptures, indeed like your listed: “(Rm 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12 ; Act 7:42)” as they show that God does leave people to follow their own decision, stemming from their free choices! These are all the signs of a house of teaching that is not built with/on a deeply dug foundation, indeed without any foundation at all, but merely laid upon the surface ground thus a prime candidate to be swept away like a boat by a simple torrential flooding (Luke 6:47-49).

I’m sure this conversation would of taken a different direction, if you had read my first reply of your long and well appreciated 3 part post before writing the two last one. Most likely some of your objections would have been answered in my first reply. So please forgive the redundancy of the replies since your questions was a little redundant also in nature because of what you didn’t know at the time.

I really do appreciate your time in reading and replying thoroughly all my points. Also I appreciate your concern to me that you express in the first sentence of your summary.

I have supplied solid scripture basis and I believe I have been consistent in my presentation and I am not lacking harmony. However, if you see some lack, I would appreciate that you would point them to me. I have maintained the true definition of the Sovereignty of God within the context of sinful man in this GC. Whereas your belief is dualist in nature by saying God is Sovereign on one side and Man’s choice cannot be over-ruled on the other. You are making man’s will above God’s. Thus you’re making man sovereign also. You haven’t given any solid argument up till now to disprove what I’ve presented. Anything you want to add, I’ll be happy to discuss this further.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132643
04/13/11 01:19 AM
04/13/11 01:19 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
Part 1 of 2 (of NJK Part 3 post)

Using of Helkuo instead of other words available
Originally Posted By: NJK
Interesting word study here, however I think you are overstating its meaning by making it include and affect free will.

I don’t think it is overstating it, for I’m deriving the meaning of helkuo from it’s context of being used in the Bible. I agree that Strong could of have made an error in his difinition in his dictionary, but that can be verified by the usage of the word in context in the Bible which makes clear what is the definition of that word. According to the context of usage, Strong’s definition is correct and it does mean drag.

They had other words to use if they wanted to clearly express your current interpretation of the word. They could of used G1448 eggizo or G4334 proserchomai. These two words would of express your current preference, but they didn’t and they chose G1670 helkuo because that’s what they wanted to give as a meaning including Jesus.

Originally Posted By: Strongs word Definition of DRAW
G1448 eggizo : from G1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach. KJV: approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.


G4334 proserchomai : from G4314 and G2064 (including its alternate); to approach, i.e. (literally) come near, visit, or (figuratively) worship, assent to. KJV: (as soon as he) come (unto), come thereunto, consent, draw near, go (near, to, unto).


G1670 helkuo : probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively). Compare G1667. KJV: draw.


Is Jesus Lifted Up Today Vs. God Lift Him up in the Future
Originally Posted By: NJK
One simple text from that group entirely sink your ‘no free will, irresistible pulling’ claim, and that is Christ’s statement in John 12:32. If Christ “drew all to Him when He was lifted up on the Cross, the why have billions of people since that event not become Christians?? Clearly one still has the free will to accept or reject Christianity.

John 12:32 saysif I be lifted up”

Currently, with our old covenant tinted Gospel, Christ is not being lifted up. Just as God willed it for the Children of Israel to have the Old Covenant for 1600 years before Christ, he allowed the old Covenant to creep back in our theology soon after the Pentecost. However, God will lift up Christ in His planned timing when He will manifest His glory via the 144K at the end time. The truth will come down as an overflowing scourge(Is 28:2-6,15-29; 30:27-33; Jer 47:2; Ez 13:10-13; Ez 38:22-23; Hab 3:10) so “that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Jhn 17:23.


Okay Elle. As per your original request, as I better understand it now, I’ll focus on one section at a time. (Not necessarily in posted order).

First the Greek term elko “drag #1670. While the lexical comparison you make is telling of what its pointed meaning is, indeed “to drag” there are a couple of exegetical issues that challenge your “no free will” view here.

-As it appears in John 6:44 it is in the Greek subjunctive mood. That is the mood of “probability” The other Greek Moods, listed by degree of certainty, are: “assertion/certainty” (indicative mood); “possibility” (optative); “(volitional) intention” (imperative). (See e.g. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 748-751). The Subjunctive mood depicts an action (or state) as uncertain but probable.

My scholarly approach when faced with a subjunctive is to ask where is the ‘(probable) uncertainty.’ So in this case in John 6:44, where God to do the “dragging”, is it that:
a. God may or may not do the dragging
b. the targeted people may or may not be drag

I think that Jesus knew that the Father would do His part, so I see choice (b) as the area of uncertainty.

Then if as you say, these people have no freewill but what God commands, then why the uncertainty? Even if this is been seen as a probable, it manifestly is ‘uncertain’ because these targeted people may not allow themselves to be dragged. Indeed God is going to “target” some people for this dragging and not clearly everyone, therefore the question indeed is why is it still uncertain that these chosen/targeted people may not be drawn? I can only see because they have free will and therefore can choose to be dragged or not.

-Indeed I believe that the early pioneers of the Church, being “choice people” were handpicked by God as “firstfruits”. However I see they had a choice to fulfill this “election” or not. Jesus had first done this by selecting the 11 (Judas volunteered his “services”) from a larger groups of early followers, and here Jesus was speaking to that larger group of followers. Indeed Jesus was pointedly addressing the fact that some of his supposed believer/followers started to grumble amongst themselves at his saying (John 6:41, 42) and Jesus thus told them that they should not be surprised that they were grumbling. Meaning that they should not be surprised that they were expressing doubts about Him.

I think given this exegetical Biblical context DA 391.2-392.1 provides interesting insight on this episode. In DA 392.1 she speak of these disciples having made a “choice” to not continue to follow Jesus here.

-Not in John 12:32* the word “drag” is used again. This time in the most certain of moods (indicative) and in the future sense. Now does mean that Jesus will “certainly” force everyone to believe in Him, and even if they do not want to? I have never seen so, as it should have occurred, at least by the resurrection. Does this instead mean this will surely occur by the end of time? If so then that “all” (Greek “pas”) did not mean “all” as billions of people died in most evident wicked states. So I can only see that even if a ‘dragging of God/Jesus’ occurs the dragged ones still have a choice. Therefore the “dragging” that took place at the Cross was merely in drawing the attention of all, somehow to the cross where they could make a knowing choice for or against it. And that global drawing/dragging work was to be tangibly done through Christ’s disciples. As Jesus had described earlier on this ‘lifting up’ issue, only those who believed would be save (John 3:14, 15). Thus that drawing on the Cross was indeed in Jesus, when He would be uplifted, becoming, like Moses serpent, the only focal point for life. So all who wanted to be saved, would have to look at Him and believe.

*By the way, I understand the “if” in that verse to be in relation to whether Jesus would go through with that grueling ordeal or not. (Luke 12:49, 50). He indeed had to ‘“constrained Himself” so that it may be accomplished (by God) ((passive) subjunctive mood.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132731
04/16/11 08:43 PM
04/16/11 08:43 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
I’ve edited this post as I found I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I did added 3 small paragraph clump together in the middle of the post entitle (1)God is The Lord(Sovereign) our God,(2)How our Minds got Corrupted. and (3) Whosoever shall Exalt Himself shall be Abased. Otherwise nothing was taken out or added just edited for clarity sake.


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Elle
Part 1 of 2 (of NJK Part 3 post)
Using of Helkuo instead of other words available
Originally Posted By: NJK
Interesting word study here, however I think you are overstating its meaning by making it include and affect free will.

I don’t think it is overstating it, for I’m deriving the meaning of helkuo from it’s context of being used in the Bible. I agree that Strong could of have made an error in his difinition in his dictionary, but that can be verified by the usage of the word in context in the Bible which makes clear what is the definition of that word. According to the context of usage, Strong’s definition is correct and it does mean drag.

They had other words to use if they wanted to clearly express your current interpretation of the word. They could of used G1448 eggizo or G4334 proserchomai. These two words would of express your current preference, but they didn’t and they chose G1670 helkuo because that’s what they wanted to give as a meaning including Jesus.

Originally Posted By: Strongs word Definition of DRAW
G1448 eggizo : from G1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach. KJV: approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.


G4334 proserchomai : from G4314 and G2064 (including its alternate); to approach, i.e. (literally) come near, visit, or (figuratively) worship, assent to. KJV: (as soon as he) come (unto), come thereunto, consent, draw near, go (near, to, unto).


G1670 helkuo : probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively). Compare G1667. KJV: draw.


Is Jesus Lifted Up Today Vs. God Lift Him up in the Future
Originally Posted By: NJK
One simple text from that group entirely sink your ‘no free will, irresistible pulling’ claim, and that is Christ’s statement in John 12:32. If Christ “drew all to Him when He was lifted up on the Cross, the why have billions of people since that event not become Christians?? Clearly one still has the free will to accept or reject Christianity.

John 12:32 saysif I be lifted up”

Currently, with our old covenant tinted Gospel, Christ is not being lifted up. Just as God willed it for the Children of Israel to have the Old Covenant for 1600 years before Christ, he allowed the old Covenant to creep back in our theology soon after the Pentecost. However, God will lift up Christ in His planned timing when He will manifest His glory via the 144K at the end time. The truth will come down as an overflowing scourge(Is 28:2-6,15-29; 30:27-33; Jer 47:2; Ez 13:10-13; Ez 38:22-23; Hab 3:10) so “that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Jhn 17:23.


Okay Elle. As per your original request, as I better understand it now, I’ll focus on one section at a time. (Not necessarily in posted order).

Thx.

Originally Posted By: NJK
First the Greek term elko “drag #1670. While the lexical comparison you make is telling of what its pointed meaning is, indeed “to drag” there are a couple of exegetical issues that challenge your “no free will” view here.

-As it appears in John 6:44 it is in the Greek subjunctive mood. That is the mood of “probability” The other Greek Moods, listed by degree of certainty, are: “assertion/certainty” (indicative mood); “possibility” (optative); “(volitional) intention” (imperative). (See e.g. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 748-751). The Subjunctive mood depicts an action (or state) as uncertain but probable.

I’m glad you agree that helkuo means drag.

With respect to Mr. Wallace, I read in a linguistic forum about the Ancient Greek subjunctive aorist, and it looks like there’s much debate and much uncertainty about this mood. Someone knowing his Greek quite well, fluent in Spanish, make the point that in the Spanish language this “is obsolete, and was subsequently discarded through ordinary people’s sense of logic.” So it makes me suspect the practicality of the one who translated the NT into Greek in the first place. Just like any field of knowledge, people can complicate unnecessarily anything because there are so caught up in all the details of it.

Was the NT written in Hebrew originally? Some claim that. We also need to acknowledge the fact that the Greek NT manuscripts(over 4000 which were copies of copies of copies of copies…) used for the translation were copies from after 700 AD. That 600 years after the Pentecost phenomena. Already, it is not far fetch to suppose that already some doctrinal errors was in the people’s pre-conceived thinking. Also, Its inevitable to do some errors during all the copying that was done. Errors was sought to be eliminated via comparing manuscripts. However, to be realistic, some errors must of remained in the manuscript used for today’s translations including the KJV. However, we’re talking about the NT above. I hear that the OT is more reliable because of the Masoretic dependability. I’m not saying this to cast shade of the inspiration nature of Scriptures and I believe God knew this and that’s why God repeated His truth enough in different books that we can still find it. Thus, often we need to draw a conclusion on the bulk of the evidences that God provided throughout His word and test all doctrines against the foundation by which the Law of Moses provides.

I view your point quite weak because the Aorist subjunctive is a much debated, uncertain and unpractical linguistic tense and mood which could be a linguistic vanity of a translator. However the word helkuo stands on its own merits of its meaning and it does challenge by itself the conventional Christians false Doctrines.

Originally Posted By: NJK
My scholarly approach when faced with a subjunctive is to ask where is the ‘(probable) uncertainty.’ So in this case in John 6:44, where God to do the “dragging”, is it that:
a. God may or may not do the dragging
b. the targeted people may or may not be drag

I think that Jesus knew that the Father would do His part, so I see choice (b) as the area of uncertainty.

I see a (c.) and I have listed as a (d.) the plain text as it reads. If I would put time in thinking, I’m sure I can come up with some other possibilities in your list, so your deduction doesn’t work.

c. you may or may not be dragged to me(Jesus) in this age.
There is 3 other ages to come that I know of (1) the Millenium (2) after the Millenium (3) after the Judgment of the Great White throne.

D. to me the subjunctiveness you are seeking for is found where I underline in the text “No one can come to Me(Jesus) unless the Father drags Him”. As plain as that. I see this same meaning is express in the other translations too. Below I have listed 4:

KJV : “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.” Jhn 6:44.

NIV : “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:44.

Young “no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;” Jhn 6:44.

NLT : “For people can't come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them from the dead..” Jhn 6:44.

Considering the Context of John 6:44

I find the context is where John 6:44 eliminates any argument of exactly what this text says is meant to say. Here’s a bullet of the context:

- People Make Jesus King : The people were looking for Jesus to make him king(v.15) after Jesus had fed the 5000(v.10). These people wanted a king after their own flesh that could solve all their present temporal problems(v.26).
- People seeking Physical Bread : So Jesus addresses their present spiritual problems “Verily, verily, …you seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled” Jhn 6:26
- Jesus is the Spiritual Bread : Jesus tells them what they need is “the true bread from heaven” v.32 “that he that cometh to me to me shall never hunger” v. 35
- People Saw, but didn’t Believe : Then Jesus state the current fact that despite they saw the miracle and sees Him they still didn’t believe him Jhn 6:36 “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not.”
- Jesus tells them the reason why they couldn’t believe: John 6:37 ”All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
- Comparing v.37 with v.44 are same statements: Both of these verses talk about who can “come to Jesus”, and both says that it is done via the Father. These are statements that gives the reason for their unbelief. Basically V.37 says “All the Father giveth me shall come to me”, in v. 44 gives a little more detail by stating “No one can come to me, unless the Father drags him”

God is The Lord(Sovereign) our God
Both v.36 & v.44 states the basic principle that first the Father does the work to bring people to Jesus. This work is the preperation of the minds through the trials the Father has tailored for each individuals. All our trials has the same objective, it is to bring us to the realization that God is The Lord our God. There are nearly 200 texts in the Bible stating the purpose of these trials which is written similarly to this fashion “ye shall know that I am the Lord your God” . Our sanity depends on us knowing our place in our relationship with God and not to elevate ourself beyond reality and steal God’s glory. Basically we are to come to realize that we are nothing but dust – highly organized dust. With this understanding we would humbly speak as Abraham did in Gen 18:27 “And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which [am but] dust and ashes:” .

How our Minds got Corrupted

The fall of Lucifer was due that he elevated himself(Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: ”) which is how his mind got corrupted. This principle of the origin of sin is stated in Rom 1:21 “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. “ We continually elevate ourself too and we are ignorant of how God works in us. Ep 4:18 “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” ).

Whosoever shall Exalt Himself shall be Abased

God needs to bring us back to our proper place and teach us the truth on how things really works(Hos 2:8-13)) and come to know to what extend that God is Sovereign by which He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” Ep1:11. Only then we will regain our reason just like he did with King Nebuchednazzar. We are all guilty of the same sin of King Nebuchednazzar’s in taking God’s glory(Dn 4:30). Jesus said “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased” Mat 23:12 There’s many other texts stating this as in Is 2:12 “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.

We need to stop putting ourself above God and acknowledge that God’s Sovereignty includes dragging someone to Christ against their “natural man” ‘will’.

God’s Sovereign work include Opening our Spiritual Ears

We know that “faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17). Just because we naturally can hear sounds and can make up its meaning very intelligently, doesn’t mean that you really understood(spiritually heard). It is merely a carnal or “natural” mind persuasion to the validity of a particular fact or view. Intellectual persuasion is not the same as faith nor can it produce it.

The people fed in John 6:36, and the Jewish leaders in John 8:43 both couldn’t hear(understand) Jesus speech. Jesus said the reason was “… because ye cannot hear my word.” Jhn 8:43 So since we know that their natural or physical ears did hear Jesus speak, therefore Jesus must be referring to a spiritual ear that was closed.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” 1Cr 2:14

This closed spiritual ear is what unable us to believe(Jhn 6:36). And it is due to the fact that the Father hasn’t given them to Jesus yet (Jhn 6:37) by the means of “dragging”(John 6:44).

Then how can we have our spiritual ears open?

(1) God first shows mercy on whom He wants(Rom 9:15)
(2) God “drags” that person to Jesus, (John 6:44)
(3) then Jesus speaks the word of God in your mind(Prov 8)
(4) And you hear(in Hebrew -shama’ H8085 - hear or obey is the same word. They make no distinction between the two.)

So the ability to hear depends First on the Father when He exercise His Sovereignty over man’s will to bring them to Jesus, and only then Jesus voice can be heard. The “dragging” are the trials we go through that soften our heart which prepares our minds to hear Jesus voice when it is time. So it depends 100% on the Father’s will to open/prepare someone’s spiritual ears or not. Let’s see if we have other scriptures that supports that:

-Moses acknowledge this fact to the Israelites before they entered the promise land : Deut 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you and heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 5. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness…”.

-God states this fact to Isaiah to tell Israel before their destruction : Is 6:9 “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.”

-Isaiah confirmed this in his prayer by putting the liability on God for making them err : Is 63:17 “ O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

-Paul confirms this by restating Is 6:9 in his own words : Acts 28:26 “Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Then if as you say, these people have no freewill but what God commands, then why the uncertainty? Even if this is been seen as a probable, it manifestly is ‘uncertain’ because these targeted people may not allow themselves to be dragged. Indeed God is going to “target” some people for this dragging and not clearly everyone, therefore the question indeed is why is it still uncertain that these chosen/targeted people may not be drawn? I can only see because they have free will and therefore can choose to be dragged or not.


There is no uncertainty with God. God is All powerful. ”With God all things are possible” Mt 19:26 His word “shall not return unto me void”(Is 55:11). Plus God never misses the target!

Originally Posted By: NJK
Not in John 12:32* the word “drag” is used again. This time in the most certain of moods (indicative) and in the future sense. Now does mean that Jesus will “certainly” force everyone to believe in Him, and even if they do not want to?

No one will be force but rather God will influence(woe) us and will subdued everyone to His Power as written in Scriptures. Here are the following reason why everyone will respond to God :

1- We are created in His image : This means that are cells and whole being are design to respond to him and to know his voice. The only part of our body that is not in harmony with God, is our mind. This is what needs to be rewired.

2- Our desires becomes the same as the one we are married to : Gen 3:16. It will take time for God to woe us back, and when all is done, we will respond like a typical woman respond to her husban(Hos 2:16,23).

For more information about force is not God’s way, see previous post #132621 under the tiltle Sovereignty & FreeWill & Force & Sevanthood” and #132516 title “Does God Rule by Force or by Influence”. .

Originally Posted By: NJK
I have never seen so, as it should have occurred, at least by the resurrection.
Could you give me support where it says that in the Bible?

Originally Posted By: NJK
Does this instead mean this will surely occur by the end of time?

You are implying this and I have in the past before I came to study about this. There’s many gaps in the Bible concerning the futur after Jesus 2nd coming that we tend to fill them with speculations. The truth is found in understanding the Jubilee Laws which is the most important Type of the plan of salvation. We SDAs have not been studying these and that’s why we are as ignorant as other denominations concerning these question. EGW and AT Jones where coming to realize the importance of studying the Laws of Moses. These are the only foundation(the Types) that God provided for us to know the Truth about His plan of Salvation and what is there to come.

Originally Posted By: egw
Now, if never before we should see that where there is a type there is also an antitype, and that WHERE THERE IS NO TYPE, THERE IS NO TRUTH. 1TG 46:15




Originally Posted By: NJK
If so then that “all” (Greek “pas”) did not mean “all” as billions of people died in most evident wicked states. So I can only see that even if a ‘dragging of God/Jesus’ occurs the dragged ones still have a choice.


According to the definition of the word Pas it means “all, any, every, the whole”. All means all and would include all people that were ever born on earth. When God said all, he means all.

“And so all Israel shall be saved as it is written “ Rom 11:26; Is 59:20

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1Ti 2:4


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132736
04/17/11 01:04 AM
04/17/11 01:04 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Elle, I appreciate your expanded response however I see that it is important to start with and have a proper exegetical foundation, or else we will be only stating personal opinions. Therefore I will first only focus on these foundational exegetical aspects, and that first vers of John 6:44.

Unfortunately I can only “afford” succinct answers here:

-You’ll need to provide a link to and/or the text of that linguistic forum statement. That person’s comparison to what has occurred in Spanish with the subjunctive mood is not at all determinative of what might have occurred in New Testament Greek. Case in point, the subjunctive is still used in many modern languages, such as French. I have not checked, as it is still not determinative to 1st century NT Greek, but it may still be used in modern Greek.

-All of the published NT Greek grammars that I have consulted do not say anything about a loss of meaning for the subjunctive. They only suggest that the optative mood, the mood of possibility may have come to be included within the subjunctive. So there is no debate about the subjunctive mood. (The aorist tense is inconsequential to the mood)

-Also argument of “dead/deponent” grammatical forms are entirely and purely subjective, because one cannot ask the author if they meant to have a actual meaning in its use or a empty one. My question is always, why go through the trouble of composing that form if that’s not what you meant. It is like me saying: “I may run in the Olympics” when I actually meant, knowing as a certain fact that: “I am going to run in the Olympics”. I only use subjunctive if there is some sort of uncertainty involved.

-The argument that NT Greek manuscripts date from the 7th century on is false. I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Greek Bible (27th Edition0 (UBS 4) and it lists in the back the hundreds of principal MSS that they used for their work, and most of them are dated before the 7th century, going as far back as the 2nd century A.D.

-You do realize that I can make the same completely unsubstantiated ‘mal-translation’ argument for the text which you claim prove your view. I.e., the Church switched the meaning of those text to say what you are implying.

-And if that ‘mal-translation’ was really done to MSS then why did it not occur for the verses you claim that support your view. Why is it only the ‘probable case’ for e.g., John 6:44?? That sound way too subjectively convenient for me.

-only the book of Hebrews and Matthew have ever been said to have had an Aramaic (and not Hebrew) origin. The rest of the books were intended for Gentile audiences, including John’s works (i.e., in that probable order: 3 Letters, Revelation, Gospel) which are all probably the latest written works in the NT.

-the fact that Greek and not Latin was used, with the Greek Empire having been defeated over 200 years before, shows that Greek was the entrenched language in the Roman empire then, even for Jews, and especially for Gentile Christian. Hence why the NT is written in that language. Indeed Luke, Paul, John, Mark (transcribing Peter), were either Gentiles themselves or writing pointedly to Gentile audiences and these did not either speak or understand Aramaic.

-the word translated “unless” is from Greek particle “me” (not, lest) #3361 and not the Greek subordinating conjunction for conditional clauses “ean” (if) #1437.

-conditional clauses are normatively introduced by the “if not” = #1437 & #3361, but the two terms are distinct.

-John 12:24 & Acts 8:31 are examples that the subjunctive does not always have to be used in a conditional statement. In fact it is when the main action is sure to (indispensably) occur that the subjunctive is not used. E.g., ‘fallen grain (though not necessarily dead)’ John 12:24 & ‘a guided blind man’ Acts 8:31.

-If the “dragging” case in John 6:44 was something that God would “certainly” be able to do, then I exegetically see that this theological notion would have been expressed similarly
as in John 3:27, 6:65 where the Father must first “give/grant” something so that ‘it might availably become the case with a man’. Hence, the subjunctive there is on the stative verb focusing on man (eimi - “to be”) and not on what God has to do (give/grant). So the uncertainty is whether or not this state of being given/granted will become the case.

-In the case of “dragging” in John 6:44, as this will depend on whether or not the acted upon subject will “believe”, and that pointedly, the Spiritual Expressions of Christ (cf. John 6:63, 64), which, when they are deciphered meant this would be done by obedience of them in faith (John 6:47-66) thus indeed ‘eating and drinking them’, then the uncertainty is similarly pointedly on if that verbal action would be accomplished. It is not saying as in John 3:37; 6:65 that the “dragging” action itself is certain. Again, as I see it, and more analysis from a large corpus of text may confirm this, that goes back to the issue of not if God is going to do this, but is this action will be successful.

-John 12:32 speaks only to the 31 A.D. crucifixion event. It is only by sermonic license and not proper exegesis that it can be said to be speaking of a future event. “Drag all” there clearly does not have the ‘only eschatological/future age meaning’ that you are eisegetically imposing on it. It meant merely a drawing of the attention of all, with these drawn ones still have the free choice believe or not as Jesus clearly points out in John 3:16.

I think these passages, especially John 12:32 is crucial to your view as it is a theological expression of Christ and exegetically clearly implies free will, as do other statements in the Bible.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132739
04/17/11 03:19 PM
04/17/11 03:19 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Hi NJK,

Once again, thank you for your respond and your time.
Originally Posted By: NJK
-The argument that NT Greek manuscripts date from the 7th century on is false. I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Greek Bible (27th Edition0 (UBS 4) and it lists in the back the hundreds of principal MSS that they used for their work, and most of them are dated before the 7th century, going as far back as the 2nd century A.D.

I should have been more accurate in my statement, the information I provided stated that all the current modern English translation we have today including the KJV used manuscript which are made from those 4000 copies of copies of copies…. Greek Manuscripts. My source did state that the name of 2 or 3 manuscripts(don’t remember exactly) that dated in the 2nd century however I believe they are not originals and those are not the Manuscript sources the translators used for the english translations which I don’t know why they prefer the others.

Concerning the info on Subjunctive Aorist, I was surfing in all kinds of places to find that info, but the forum link is the following : http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=797348

Originally Posted By: NJK
-conditional clauses are normatively introduced by the “if not” = #1437 & #3361, but the two terms are distinct.
Oh, I was aware of the word ‘unless’ was not an ideal English translation of the ‘If’ #1437. I didn’t raise it up because I perceived it as a non issue and didn’t want to complicate things. So I underline the standard ‘unless’ translated word as it is more easily readable in my example.
The ean by which occurs 333 times and eantiep by which occurs 3 times, these has been translated in the KJV in 12 different English words. I don’t see any “if not” in the KJV translation, there is “if” (200 times) but no “if not”. The Concordant here has translated it as “if ever” for the ean written form from the manuscript.

Originally Posted By: NJK
-If the “dragging” case in John 6:44 was something that God would “certainly” be able to do, then I exegetically see that this theological notion would have been expressed similarly
as in John 3:27, 6:65 where the Father must first “give/grant” something so that ‘it might availably become the case with a man’. Hence, the subjunctive there is on the stative verb focusing on man (eimi - “to be”) and not on what God has to do (give/grant). So the uncertainty is whether or not this state of being given/granted will become the case.

“John answered and said, A man can receive nothing; except it be given him from heaven” John 3:27 and the similar text stated in 6:65 ; I See them all stating the same principle as 6:44 and 6:37 and it can be read as plainly as it was written.

For the example of John 3:27,
...- it is not saying that -- some man from the earth is going to received something, and other’s are not.
...- Nor does the text say -- that all the man from the earth is going to received something.
...- It is stating a principle how things work that -- a man cannot receive nothing unless given from heaven.

The same applies for 6:44( and 6:65; 6:36),
...- the text is not saying that only some men are being “dragged”
...- nor that -- all men are being “dragged”.
...- It is stating the principle that – a man can only come to Christ ”unless”(or "if ever") the Father “drags” him.

By your deduction in over simplifying it to 2 possibilities of the subjunctive mood on 6:44 you’ve concluded that this text implies whether they chose it or not when I have listed you 2 others possibilities which would negate your point. To properly derive to the meaning of these texts we need to look at the context they came from and consider other scriptures. And that’s what I have done. However, you only stick on the mood and base your deduction by which you used 2 possible options to come to your bias when actually there are other possible options.

To me your deduction based on a mood is weak especially when context is ignored and other scriptures too. I do understand that it is not to your best interest as you have invested lots of time in building your doctrinal conclusions on the typical assumption that individual have a freewill. So the cost is too great for you. You are not alone and most assume that we have the freewill and it is such a common assumption we don’t even see the necessity to even consider this as a valid question. I wouldn’t of consider it myself if the Lord wouldn’t of brought me there in the first place. Have you even ever really asked yourself sincerely if man had a freewill or not and studied it seriously with your heart?

Regardless of your cost, I personally believe that forums are not the place to be convicted. Real conviction can only come from personally studying the subject with the Lord. If a person don’t engage in the study, well the Father didn’t want it to happen right now. So I’m not expecting anyone to even bother studying this question seriously for themselves.

Originally Posted By: NJK
I think these passages, especially John 12:32 is crucial to your view as it is a theological expression of Christ and exegetically clearly implies free will, as do other statements in the Bible.

Oh no, I’ve been studying this question for over a year now and have collected a mass of texts. The word helkuo including John 12:32 is only a new discovery and it was an opportunity to bring it out so to have some feedbacks. I do like to discuss in the forum things I currently am studying, so since I wanted to revise my notes on this, and saw your invitation, I couldn’t resist.

NJK, I personally don’t want to go back and forth on one thing too long. I have expressed my thoughts and so did you. We can move on to the other points, if you like too. However, feel free to express anything else you want to stress about the subjunctive mood before we move on. I’ll give you the last words.

Oh, BTW, What’s MSS?


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132741
04/18/11 01:43 AM
04/18/11 01:43 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I appreciate your efforts and desire to arrive at concrete truth here, however, and as I have told you before in other discussions, I also see here several obstacles to having an objective discussion on this topic:

-proper exegesis is a deal maker/breaker for me, and you are not taken in all of the key exegetical contributions here.

-That forum rightly says that there is no future subjunctive, as my written Greek textbooks also emphasize. That is because the subjective is not focusing on an uncertain of whether something will take place in the future, but if the action itself will be done. So e.g., if I say: ‘I may run in the Olympics’ I am not uncertain of whether the Olympics will take place in the future to allow me to run in them, but if, as their happening is a “given”, I will run or not.

-by your view on Manuscripts, we cannot depend on anything written on the Bible since we don’t have an original copy. So what then is the standard here, your view on what is genuine or not??

-I also find your refusal to include EGW on this issue to be unbiblical. I think she makes several key, theologically independent, statements which help to arrive at the proper meaning here, and that does not include any “free will” belief expressions. EGW prophetic gift has been attested and thus is contributively indispensable to Biblical exegesis for me.

-Regardless of when you discover John 12:32 or not, it is still intrinsically, exegetically foundational to this topic. And to me, free will is clearly involved here.

-Taking all of the clear experiential episodes of the Bible into consideration for this topic, I do not see a prima facie case that man does not have free will nor that God is acting to force people to eternal condemnation. If that was the case, the He would be greatly wasting time, since he could have created Adam and Eve to be forced to remain faithful. Frankly speaking, your view does not begin to make any Theological, Biblical, Exegetical (i.e., your interpretation of individual texts), Prophetic, nor Logical sense to me.

Therefore, for all of these reasons, I do not see that the continuance of this discussion as being beneficial and it indeed will be too “costly” for me, not in ideological terms, but in terms of the needed tangible, various resources needed to continue it. I will however take it up later when/if I readily have the various needed resources to do so. Hope you understand!

-MSS is an abbreviated term for Manuscript(s).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132750
04/18/11 11:32 AM
04/18/11 11:32 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
As foundationally crucial/determinative.... In your view Elle, why is it Biblically important that people today, especially Christians, ‘understand and believe’ that: ‘we do not have free will, but instead are being irresistibly forced by God to either be good/obedient/faithful or evil/rebellious/faithless?


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132871
04/23/11 08:59 PM
04/23/11 08:59 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Thank you NJK for your kind question and considering my thoughts.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As foundationally crucial/determinative.... In your view Elle, why is it Biblically important that people today, especially Christians, ‘understand and believe’ that: ‘we do not have free will, but instead are being irresistibly forced by God to either be good/obedient/faithful or evil/rebellious/faithless?

Having no Freewill doesn’t mean God Forces us
Before addressing your question, may I address your persistent underlined “force” word. I have explained this several times with biblical support why it is not forced in the following titles and posts#

[1] God Sovereignty in Influence, #132448
[2] Does God Rule by Force or by Influence #132516,
[3] Sovereignty & FreeWill & Force & Sevanthood. #132621.
[4] The Turning of the Farmer’s Ox #132383 ,
[5] Does the Bull Turn Himself? 132622
[6] The Conversion is like a Seed Sprouting #132516,
[7] Why does it take Time to Mature Man? #132621,

There are so many Biblical reasons why the understanding that we have no freewill is important. This concept changes your whole perspective on your outlook of the plan of salvation and does make God Sovereign over all things. Of course what’s important is to have a Biblical perspective which is in harmony with the Laws of Moses and the Prophets. I will state and expand on the most important one and finish this post by providing a list of the others with Biblical support below.

Acknowledging we have no Freewill reverse the Fall of Lucifer and Man

Thinking that we have the inherent abilities is the heart of Lucifer’s fall. This led into the belief that we can govern ourself as gods which he promoted at the tree of knowledge to man(Gn 3:5-6).

How Lucifer fell & Vanity of the Mind

Eze 28:17 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness".

Lucifer’s heart was LIFTED UP because of his amazement of his beauty/capabilities. We are wonderfully created and what we think, and what we say, and what we do, appears to come from us. God works secretly within us, and everything we will and do comes from God even our reasoning abilities comes from Him(Dn 4:34,36).

Scriptures doesn’t say here that Lucifer made the "CHOICE" to be Vain. It was a phenomenon that resulted as a product of considering his brightness by which his reasoning got corrupted and darkened his mind and brought on Vanity.

Satan “ hast corrupted” his “ wisdom by reason of his brightness" Ez 28:17 Let’s paraphrase this. Satan became “vain in” his “imaginations” by reason of his brightness which he started to believed this “brightness” came from him as stated in Rom 1:21.

Rom 1:21 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became VAIN in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened"

We know that we do not control most biological processes that happens in our body(eg cell divisions, healing, digestion, growth, hormonal cycling(reproductive, day/night, etc..). Today, most people including most Christians say it is an inherent automatic with biofeedbacks mechanism that the body knows what to do. They do not glorify God as God and do not understand that nothing in this universe is on automatic and all is govern by God at all time. This denial of God’s personal involment in all things, including our thoughts and reasoning, is what darkens our minds, and consequentially we put our trust in the suppose “inherent” qualities that is within ourselves or created objects that is around us.

Rom 1:22,25 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… who changed the truth of God into a lie”

Eph 4:17 “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk , in the vanity3153 of their mind,
18. Having the understanding DARKENED, being alienated from the life of God through the IGNORANCE that is IN them, because of the BLINDNESS of their heart :
Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.


Our Inherent Qualities : Darkness and Impotence

Notice v.18 this vanity (1)darkens our understanding, (2)alienates us fron the life of God, (3)brings on an ignorance that is IN them. One thing we do inherently possess is ignorance. Without God continually enlightening us, we are inherently totally in darkness. That’s why the Bible says that God is light. This is true in regard to our intelligence and only God can bring us light/understanding in our minds.

Plus inherently we cannot do anything without God which includes, leading our thoughts and reasoning in the correct path. That’s why scriptures say it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do(see Does the Bull Turn Himself? #132622).

Faith -- Freewill -- Salvation

This freewill concept is a product of this vanity thinking and it’s very egocentric and is a fabrication of our imagination. The most destructive results of this vanity-- in believing in one’s own abilities-- brings on that we lose our faith in God. You cannot have faith in both. That’s why God will bring us back to the dust and humble us through tribulations so we can regain our senses as God did with King Nebuchednezzar in Dn 4.

In having faith in our suppose inherent thinking abilities leads on the assumption that we have a will, by which we then put above God’s Sovereignty by concluding God cannot do anything unless we agree(or allow him). It is a very arrogant behavior towards God besides being ridiculous. To come to agree, we need to know the truth before hand to properly evaluate and come to an educated analysis. However, to know the truth, we first need to have our minds open to be able to hear and only God can do that(Deut 29:4; Is 6:9,10; Jhn 8:43). Should we also give God that permission beforehand too? Let’s assume that a “natural man” can hear of his own will. Then how on earth are we going understand what we hear, if we cannot even understand the spiritual things?(1Cor 12:14; Rom 8:5-7; 2Pet 2:12; Jud 1:10; Dn 12:10) To begin with the “natural man” is not even drawn to God(Rom 3:11) and won’t even consider what God has to say because from the start we think it is totally foolishness(1Cor 1:18, 23; 2:14). So the premises that we first need to agree or “allow God” makes absolutely no sense as it is impossible for a “natural man” to come to God and be able to understand the things of God.

Man Agreement or a Respond

However, it is true that a “spiritual man” will agree/respond to all of God’s will, but it is not a by-product of our intelligence and our understanding by which requires our inputs before God does anything, but rather a phenomenon of an establish marriage like relationship based on trust. God has describe his relationship with his people as a marriage. So therefore the law of desires written in Gn 3:16 applies. The wife’s heart desires becomes her husband’s desires . This is how the law of trust and desires works by which God details it further in Hosea 2 on how he will bring us into this type of marriage relationship.

In addition, there is the fact that we are made in His image and our most fundamental being is made to respond to His voice and resonate His will. It is like a flute design to resonate beautiful sounds when the right pressure of air flow is blown into it as the melody is played by the musician at His will. God is the one that knows how to blow His Spirit into us by making those notes according to our design. Our intellect is just an additional layer of functionality he has created us with. Just like anything else in this universe, it needs to be blown into to produce the desired sound/thoughts. The flute cannot blow itself, nor our intellectual faculties is able to produce any soundness without God’s small still voice blown between our ears and His influencial hand in our life.

We are free beings in the sence that we are easily moved by His Spirit at God’s will and not pre-programmed. But never the reasoning faculties were design to govern ourselves, nor to give God permission to run the show. We are His creatures and His servants and always will be as so like anything else that is created to serve God. He did endow us with higher reasoning abilities than any other creation on earth so we can dominate the earth and to subdue all things therein, but in doing so by having God’s presence abiding in our soul and therefore being an extension of His will and mind and not our own.

Freewill and Trials to bring us to Maturity

God in His Wisdom allowed this “freewill” allusion by which he will use it to bring us to maturity(Rom 8:18-23; Job 34:11; Is 26:9; Hab 1:12; Hos 2). It is through trials(Deut 28 & 29; Lev 26) that He humbles us and will show us Himself as God the Almighty(Sovereign -- El Shaddai). As our understanding of His Sovereign works increases, the less free our “will” will seem to be.

List of Biblical reasons why it is important to increase in realizing that we have no “freewill”. I’m sure there’s more that you can see.

1- So we can “know that God is the Lord our God” (Over 200 Biblical texts—a good exercise to read them to get a sense of what God is telling us when He makes that statement.)

2- So we can know that God is Sovereign over all things including us (Gn 14:19,22; 1Ch 29:11-17; Is 55:11; Rom 9:15,16,18; Dt 29:4; Job 41:11-14; etc…)

3- So we come to realize that all power comes from God(Jn 3:27; Mat 28:18; Jh 17:2; 1Co 15:25,27; Jn 19:11; Col 1:18; 1Co 11:3; Heb 1:3) by which this implies that we have no inherent powers and there’s nothing in this universe that is set on automatic (MH 417.1) including our thoughts/understanding(see#18)

4- So we can come to realized that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ep 1:11)

5- So we can acknowledge that God created evil (Is 45:7) and gives the power for their actions, allows what evil to bring(Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:15,16, 23; Jer 35:17; 39:16; 40:2; Eze 6:11), and even takes full responsibility for all evils by saying he has done all these things.(Job 42:11; 1Kg 9:9; 17:20; 2Ch 34:28; Neh 13:18; Jer 32:23,42; 42:10; 44:2; Eze 14:22; Deu 32:39; Is 45:7; Ams 3:6; Is 19:22; etc…)

6- So we can learn that it is God that wounds us and then heals us.(Ps 68:20; Job 5:18; 1Sm 2:6; Has 6:1; Deu 32:39; Jer 30:17; etc..)

7- So we come to realized that “every good gift and perfect gift is from above” (Jm 1:17; Jn 3:27; 1Co 4:6-7; Heb 5:4) including any good thoughts, reasoning, and “decision”.

8- So we can know that God moves us from within by the means of His Spirit abiding(tabernacles) in us always(1Jo 3:24; 1Pet 1:23; 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 2:27; etc..)

9- So we can know that it is God that gives “an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear” (Deut 29:4; Is 6:9,10; Jhn 8:43; Acts 28:26, 27; Ep 4:18; 2Thes 2:11,12)

10- So we can give God all the Glory and stop stealing it(Rom 1:21, 22, 25)

11- So that we don’t take any credit for our conversion or for following God and acknowledge that it is 100% the work of God (Jer 31:18,19; Jn 6:37; 44; Jn 12:32; Phil 2:13; Eph 1:11; etc… )

12- So we can know that we are saved through grace and not by our will(decisions) nor by our works(Eph 2:8; Rom 9:15-16; Rom 11:29, 31; etc…)

13- So we come to realized that “without me(Jesus) we can do nothing” (Jhn 15:5)

14- So we can come to realized that God does indeed “worketh in us Both to Will and to Do” . (Phil 2:13).

15- So that we know that being born again doesn’t come from the will of man (Jn 1:11-13; Jn 3:5,6,8; 1Jo 5:18; Jm 1:17; 1Pe 1:23)

16- So we can know that God is Agape, and it is Agape that moves all things (1Jn 4:7-8;16;19; 5:11-12, 18; 1Co 11:3; Col 1:18) and not by intellectual persuasion(Jer 10:23; Ps 37:23; Prov 20:24; Prov 16:1).

17- So we can know that our “natural” intelligence, which is only flesh(Prov 16:2; 21:2) cannot understand nor discern spiritual things (1Co 2:14; Rom 8:5-7; )

18- So we can know that any understanding comes from God (Prov 16:1;Job 33:14-17; Job 32:8; Job 28:12-14)

19- So we don’t elevate ourselves above another thinking we have some type of “inherit” virtue (e.g. “we seek truth”) that makes us deemed to be elected or to be saved (Rom 3:9-18, 8:20-23; 9:11-26, 11:1-36)

20- So we can realize that it is God that puts the desire in us to seek truth to begin with because God has made us vessels of honor for His purpose in this plan.(Rom 9:11,21,23)

21- So we can acknowledge that the wicked were made vessels of dishonor to also serve an important purpose in His plan(Rom 9:11,17,21-33; Rom 11; Lev 27:28,29;)

22- So we don’t judge others (Rom 14:10-13; Jm 4:11-12)

23- So we can stop blaming the Devil for all evils or others for they’re inability to hear, and accept our current situation as God’s will so to bring us into maturity of belief.

24- So we don’t think we’re better than another(Rom 3:9-18;) and can esteem others better than ourselves. (Phil 2:3)

25- So we can give “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for Kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peacefable life in all godliness and honesty” (1Tim 2:1-3)

26- So we can recognize that all authorities and powers are ordained by God and we can better submit to them. (Rom 13:1-2; Titus 3:1; 1Pe 2:13-16)

27- So we can honor all men (1Pet 2:17; Rom 12:10; 1Pet 5:5)

28- So we can walk humbly(1Pet 5:5; Mic 6:8) like Abraham did and truly believe that we are but dust and ashes(Gen 18:27) or a lump of clay(Rom 9:21) between God’s hand that is totally dependent on His will.

29- So we can forgive others that do us wrong(Mat 6:12; Luk 11:4) as Christ did to those who crucified him(Lk 23:34; Jer 31:34; Ps 103:14)

30- So we can “know that all things worketh for good” (Rom 8:28)

31- So we can learn to trust God and not ourselves(Rom 11:33-36; Is 41:21-29; etc..)

32- So we can realize that God created man with a blank mind that required time to have His Laws written in our mind. In the process, the creatures(the Angels and Man) were subjected by the vanity of our mind(Rom 8:20) unwillingly.

33- So we can realize this long inculcating, correcting, and chastizing(judgment) process that God has ordained from the beginning(Hab 1:12) comes from God so we can be more accepting of the tribulations that arises permitting us to grow so to have His laws written in our hearts(mind) (Jer 31:33; Eze 11:19-20; 36:26,27; Zep 3:9; 2Cor 3:3; Heb 8:10 ) forever.

34- So we realize that it is through the laws of afflictions that come as a result of God’s judgments(Lev 26; Deut 28 &29) that we actually learn righteousness by which we do not learn it through grace. (Is 26:9-10). When God grants grace and does not afflict those who have sinned they continue in their sin, even in the very presence of God.

35- So we can be amazed that God’s judgments and His ways past finding out! (Rom 11:33) who worked on all, who know how to bring people to Jesus(John 6:37; 6:65) by the means of “dragging”(helkuo, John 6:44) in His time and His ways.

36- So we can be releaved that our nor others salvation doesn’t depend on our will but on whom God shows mercy. Rom 9:15

37- So we can be assure that God know how to correct His children’s (Pro 3:12; Ps 94:10; Hab 1:12; Mic 4:3) and His word will be fulfilled (Is 55:11) “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”. (1Tim 2:4)

38- So we can come to understand the importance in learning and teaching God’s Laws given to Moses which is the expression of His mind and heart. So we can have them written in our heart and in the heart of others, so we can come to know and recognize God’s small still voice and can differentiate it from the voice of our reasoning.

39- So that we can understand that Trust(Belief/faith) in God, and distrust in self is what predispose us to hear God’s small still voice by which worketh to will and to do in us the great wonders of God(Heb 11).

40- So our outlook of this world, sin, our being, how God works, and His plan of salvation can take a drastic turn and be able to speak with a similar spirit as “Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” John 9:3


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132876
04/24/11 11:04 AM
04/24/11 11:04 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I’ve read your post and the prior references you cited again, but, sincerely Elle, your view continues to be completely Theologically|Biblically|Spiritually|Exegetically incongruous and self-contradictory to me. I could pick it apart point by point, and may in the future, however I currently do not have the resource of time to do this. Your attempt to make “force” be merely “influence” is an example of a futile attempt to justify your view. E.g., a policeman does not have to use deadly force with every person he pulls over. Just flicking on their lights and then making a few commands usually accomplishes precisely what he wants to do in compliance with the Law. In a similar way God using “influence” vs. “force” would just be Him using a lessor decree of reasonable force. I say “would be” because I do not see that you’ve shown that your view that God uses any type of constraining force to make people fall in line with His will is in any way Biblical.

The “elephant in the room” element in your view is how come millions of people, even those who God had supposedly ‘allotted much time to become mature through his corrective means, dies as complete heathens. What happened here, God misjudged the time needed, or the “level of force’ to use??? Clearly the only issue here is that these people freely decided to spurn these corrections and maintain their rebellious state.

God does humble the proud, however he does not do so, so that they will then believe in him. They have the free choice to either accept this as a correction from God or continue living a life without acknowledging God. However, and only when GC significant, God will not let them again have the former power and influence that had priorly achieved.

So I still do not see that your view has Biblical support. And the many texts that you are citing are factually proof texts. Not in that they do not address the issue in some part, as most proof text do, but because they do not imply the conclusion that you want them to have. Indeed most of the texts you cite where God is shown to be in control of a person’s life are in regards to those who have chosen to be ruled by God and not to everyone in general. The “Farmer’s Ox” is an example of this as this praying person had asked God to once again guide his life, just like the farmer guides his bulls so that they could do a productive work (Jer 31:18b).

The main issue here is not that man’s believe of freewill is causing all this wrong in the world, because a belief in something that is false does not make it so, but that they do have the freewill to obey or rebel against the will of God, however utterly futile this GC will prove this to be.

My beliefs in God’s sovereignty is that He has the power to overrule anything, and has, and will continue to do so, whenever something or some action by man causes the playing field in this GC to become unfair towards those who have chosen to do God’s will. And interestingly enough, when the wayward actions of His own professed people come to endanger His potential great work, as Ancient Israel repeatedly did when they acted more corruptly than the surrounding pagan nations around them.

If you can logically and Biblically explain why billions of people have died unsaved under this supposed “maturing plan of God” then you’ll begin to defend your view as Theologically viable. Hopefully your view is not that they will all be saved any way. Clearly to me, what happened here is that they died as a result of their persisted free choices. And by the way, God disciplined Nebuchanezzar, as he would his own people, because he was acting against great knowledge of God as seen in Dan 2 & 3. That however does not mean that God will do so with every heathen person. Most of these will suffer the natural results of their life which in most cases will be natural death and then the Second Death. It is only when their actions becomes high handed and threatening that God steps in to “level things”. Case in point, Nebuchanezzar who had previously publicly proclaimed throughout his kingdom that there was not greater God than the God of the Israelites (Dan 2:47ff; 3:28-30; 4:1-3) until he let his pride try to regain that acknowledgement and belief (Dan 4:25b, 26) and in doing so was knowingly shaming the name of God amongst those heathens. Whereas before those earlier revelations, he would have done so out of pure ignorance, as literally tens of thousands of other earthly rulers have done so, simply in worshipping other Gods or even themselves, he was now doing it against clear evidence to the contrary. So I here, as with many other examples that you have advanced, see that you are making an over generalization from specific examples in the Bible and indeed when all the exegetical points in a passage are also taken into consideration, they do not lead to the over applications that you are making.

So in summary, my view is that we all have free will and through this we can frustrate and delay God’s will since He needs people to have faith in him so that he can act in their favor to help them win this GC, even if, as it was the case with E.g., Moses, Ezekiel and Jesus, if He can genuinely find one man who will allow themselves to be an intercessor and/or bear the sins of others so that this favoring work can proceed. For him to do this against people’s will and/or without a genuine intercessor/sin-bearer would give the Devil the same opportunity to force people to do evil, and great overwhelming evil at that. And then this GC will become a full blown, active, physical angelic conflict, and since God and the Heavenly host would easily win this fight, as they had in Heaven at the beginning of this GC, then this is actually being done at Satan’s benefit. So, as with all other aspects of this GC, God’s methods always prove to be the fairest and the best for all parties implicated/involved, i.e., the Godhead, Angels, Unfallen Beings, Fallen Man Satan and Fallen Angels.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #132908
04/25/11 03:02 PM
04/25/11 03:02 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Originally Posted By: Elle
Acknowledging we have no Freewill reverse the Fall of Lucifer and Man

Thinking that we have the inherent abilities is the heart of Lucifer’s fall. This led into the belief that we can govern ourself as gods which he promoted at the tree of knowledge to man(Gn 3:5-6).
If I'm understanding correctly you to say we have no free will, it does sound from what you say that Lucifer had free will.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #132912
04/25/11 03:54 PM
04/25/11 03:54 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Elle
Acknowledging we have no Freewill reverse the Fall of Lucifer and Man

Thinking that we have the inherent abilities is the heart of Lucifer’s fall. This led into the belief that we can govern ourself as gods which he promoted at the tree of knowledge to man(Gn 3:5-6).
If I'm understanding correctly you to say we have no free will, it does sound from what you say that Lucifer had free will.

Hi Kland, I appreciate your interest in this topic. I think you read too quickly or not entirely what I posted for you are saying something I've never said. Read the section under the title How Lucifer fell & Vanity of the Mind in post #132871. Hope that will clarify things.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132926
04/25/11 08:18 PM
04/25/11 08:18 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Yes, that was from what I concluded my comment. I realize you didn't intend to say such, but that's what it came across and comes across to me. Unless you are saying God caused Lucifer to have pride? Which I don't think you are saying either.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #132927
04/25/11 08:19 PM
04/25/11 08:19 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Maybe, give an example of free will.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132929
04/25/11 08:56 PM
04/25/11 08:56 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Elle
Acknowledging we have no Freewill reverse the Fall of Lucifer and Man

Thinking that we have the inherent abilities is the heart of Lucifer’s fall. This led into the belief that we can govern ourself as gods which he promoted at the tree of knowledge to man(Gn 3:5-6).
If I'm understanding correctly you to say we have no free will, it does sound from what you say that Lucifer had free will.

Hi Kland, I appreciate your interest in this topic. I think you read too quickly or not entirely what I posted for you are saying something I've never said. Read the section under the title How Lucifer fell & Vanity of the Mind in post #132871. Hope that will clarify things.


Sorry Kland, I’m the one who didn’t read your post properly. I now see your point and I’m glad you’ve expressed it. That might help to make a clear distinction if I can find the proper words.

Just because we have the ability to think and reason, doesn’t equate we have freewill, nor does it mean we are capable or design to govern ourself. If we acknowledge that all things come from God including our thoughts and our will; then God is indeed Sovereign over all including over our own minds, then the reality is there is no freewill.

However, if you believe that “you” are the one that govern your own mind and thoughts and can come to reason and some understanding on your own; then you believe that you have inherent abilities that is independent from God and can come to your own decisions by your own abilities of your own mind. Therefore God is not the Sovereign God over your mind and has design man to govern his own thoughts and make his own choices.

Sadly, most Christian do believe that they can govern their own mind(heart), because God did subject us to our corrupt mind(heart)(Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 2Ch 30:7; Ps 81:12; Act7:42) at the fall. However, it still doesn’t prove that we can govern our own mind, nor that we have a freewill just because God, in His wisdom, let us learn reality through this subjection of our vanity (Rom 8:20) so we can come to learn righteousness(Is 29:6; Hab 1:12) through the judgments of God.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #132930
04/25/11 09:40 PM
04/25/11 09:40 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Yes, that was from what I concluded my comment. I realize you didn't intend to say such, but that's what it came across and comes across to me. Unless you are saying God caused Lucifer to have pride? Which I don't think you are saying either.


Ok, I re-read that section and I just can't see where it might come across as Lucifer has some freewill. Could you give me exactly the sentence(s) where it gave you that impression. I do acknowledge that I'm not skilled in writing and can see that it is possible. So I would appreciate you could show me where.

Originally Posted By: Kland
Maybe, give an example of free will.


OK. Let’s do define what is freewill.


Maybe we can take as an example our freewill in regards to our salvation. Most Christian believes that we are the one that choose to follow Jesus and come to Jesus by our own freewill. However, is this biblically correct? It doesn’t matter what we think, what’s important is what is the truth in all of this.


Here’s are some quotes I got from another SDA forum in a freewill discussion that I partook. These are words from SDAs defining their perception of their freewill in regards to salvation :

1. God has given the "choice" to serve him to every being in His vast universe. This was what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. Eve "chose" to listen to and then believe satan over God. Then Adam "chose" to suffer the fate of doing so with Eve.


2. "Unfortunately, most individuals choose to follow their carnal nature, instead of denying themselves for the greater good of others.


3. "They(the disciples) already had a love for the truth, and a hatred for the injustice of the superstitions, and traditions and the authority of men."


4. Meaning they either choose God or their own sinful ways


5. I personally believe that everyone gets on the right path, at some point. But most of them don't stay on for very long. That is not God's choice. It's their choice.


6. It's a whole lifetime of choices, that makes us who we are. The more you choose to sew to the spirit, the stronger your faith will be to endure temptation.


7. The iniquity came from Lucifer. It started with him, because of his decisions, not Gods:


8. If we don't make the choice, and are not willing to do the works, then we will be lost.


9. Every action has too parts. Choice and action.


10. The bible is very clear that there is NO EXCUSE for sin and that God will in nowise clear the guilty.


11. That question is: "Which authority will we obey?" That is the bottom line. This is the choice free moral agents are faced with. The smart choice is to obey the source of all wisdom


12. The individual's final choice of whether they will obey God or not, lies with the individual and the individual alone."


13. You choose now who you will serve God or satan? Its still your choice my friends."


14. God created we human beings with a free will, He does not force any to accept the gift of salvation. ….They are lost because they chose not to be saved.


15. The Bible says that Christ, if He is lifted up will "draw" all men to Himself. All will be drawn, but all will not be saved because many "despise" the gift freely given.


16. We "accept" the free gift and become "reconciled" to Him. He always initiates salvation.


17. So we choose to accept or reject God's grace.


18. It's a very sobering time, we live in. We have to make the right choices.


19. He said before the foundations of the world were laid he knew his elect. That does not mean that he hand picked them out of a list of people. It simply means that he knew who would choose to serve him. Just because he knows who will obey does not mean that he in anyway affects who will choose him. Eventhough he knows that people will not obey he still allows them to make that choice.


20. People set their own destinies, by the choices they make, and the paths they choose to follow.


21. God has granted each one of us a free will and we therefore choose whether we accept Christ, whether we stay with Christ and whether we die in Christ - whether we listen to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit. So, God's intention is that all should be saved - all humans are predestined to salvation in that sense - it is just down to us to make the decisions.


22. He chose us, all of us, to be saved - if we desire it.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132933
04/25/11 10:35 PM
04/25/11 10:35 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Elle, it seems to me that without free will, we cannot love. How would we be able to love without free will?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #132943
04/26/11 09:32 AM
04/26/11 09:32 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: Tom
Elle, it seems to me that without free will, we cannot love. How would we be able to love without free will?


Hi Tom, I appreciate you bring your perspective to this important question of freewill.

First, your question assumes we have some inherent ability to love. Do you believe that man has an inherent ability to Love? Could you quote me from the Bible, how it defines love and what is man's true ability to produce this?


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132947
04/26/11 12:39 PM
04/26/11 12:39 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle, you showed what others thought was free will. Is that what you believe such as, choosing to serve God or choosing their own sinful ways?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #132954
04/26/11 04:03 PM
04/26/11 04:03 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Elle, you showed what others thought was free will. Is that what you believe such as, choosing to serve God or choosing their own sinful ways?

??????


Kland you ask me for an example of freewill. I gaved you what people like yourself believe. I gaved you 22 example statement of freewill. I never said that I believe these are true. ???


I’m not following you? I hope we’re not going to go through what we went through the last time we had a discussion together!?! If you have something to say, please just be straight forward and as clear as possible.


Here is the quotes of our conversation.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Kland
Maybe, give an example of free will.


OK. Let’s do define what is freewill.

Maybe we can take as an example our freewill in regards to our salvation. Most Christian believes that we are the one that choose to follow Jesus and come to Jesus by our own freewill. However, is this biblically correct? It doesn’t matter what we think, what’s important is what is the truth in all of this.

Here’s are some quotes I got from another SDA forum in a freewill discussion that I partook. These are words from SDAs defining their perception of their freewill in regards to salvation :

1. God has given the "choice" to serve him to every being in His vast universe. This was what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. Eve "chose" to listen to and then believe satan over God. Then Adam "chose" to suffer the fate of doing so with Eve.


2. "Unfortunately, most individuals choose to follow their carnal nature, instead of denying themselves for the greater good of others.


3. "They(the disciples) already had a love for the truth, and a hatred for the injustice of the superstitions, and traditions and the authority of men."


4. Meaning they either choose God or their own sinful ways


5. I personally believe that everyone gets on the right path, at some point. But most of them don't stay on for very long. That is not God's choice. It's their choice.


6. It's a whole lifetime of choices, that makes us who we are. The more you choose to sew to the spirit, the stronger your faith will be to endure temptation.


7. The iniquity came from Lucifer. It started with him, because of his decisions, not Gods:


8. If we don't make the choice, and are not willing to do the works, then we will be lost.


9. Every action has too parts. Choice and action.


10. The bible is very clear that there is NO EXCUSE for sin and that God will in nowise clear the guilty.


11. That question is: "Which authority will we obey?" That is the bottom line. This is the choice free moral agents are faced with. The smart choice is to obey the source of all wisdom


12. The individual's final choice of whether they will obey God or not, lies with the individual and the individual alone."


13. You choose now who you will serve God or satan? Its still your choice my friends."


14. God created we human beings with a free will, He does not force any to accept the gift of salvation. ….They are lost because they chose not to be saved.


15. The Bible says that Christ, if He is lifted up will "draw" all men to Himself. All will be drawn, but all will not be saved because many "despise" the gift freely given.


16. We "accept" the free gift and become "reconciled" to Him. He always initiates salvation.


17. So we choose to accept or reject God's grace.


18. It's a very sobering time, we live in. We have to make the right choices.


19. He said before the foundations of the world were laid he knew his elect. That does not mean that he hand picked them out of a list of people. It simply means that he knew who would choose to serve him. Just because he knows who will obey does not mean that he in anyway affects who will choose him. Eventhough he knows that people will not obey he still allows them to make that choice.


20. People set their own destinies, by the choices they make, and the paths they choose to follow.


21. God has granted each one of us a free will and we therefore choose whether we accept Christ, whether we stay with Christ and whether we die in Christ - whether we listen to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit. So, God's intention is that all should be saved - all humans are predestined to salvation in that sense - it is just down to us to make the decisions.


22. He chose us, all of us, to be saved - if we desire it.


Now are any of my examples statement any good? Can you define what you believe freewill is for us?

Also could you please reply to my question bolded and underline below:
Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: kland
Yes, that was from what I concluded my comment. I realize you didn't intend to say such, but that's what it came across and comes across to me. Unless you are saying God caused Lucifer to have pride? Which I don't think you are saying either.


Ok, I re-read that section and I just can't see where it might come across as Lucifer has some freewill. Could you give me exactly the sentence(s) where it gave you that impression. I do acknowledge that I'm not skilled in writing and can see that it is possible. So I would appreciate you could show me where.



Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #132957
04/26/11 08:43 PM
04/26/11 08:43 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Elle
T:Elle, it seems to me that without free will, we cannot love. How would we be able to love without free will?

E:Hi Tom, I appreciate you bring your perspective to this important question of freewill.

First, your question assumes we have some inherent ability to love. Do you believe that man has an inherent ability to Love? Could you quote me from the Bible, how it defines love and what is man's true ability to produce this?


If you're talking about agape, I don't believe man has an inherent ability to do that, but that agape comes from God as a gift. However, ordinary love, like a man loves a woman (or vice versa), or loving one's parents or one's children, I think it's obvious we have the ability to do that. I don't think we need to prove that from Scripture. Or do you disagree?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #132958
04/26/11 08:47 PM
04/26/11 08:47 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Elle
Kland you ask me for an example of freewill. I gaved you what people like yourself believe. I gaved you 22 example statement of freewill. I never said that I believe these are true. ???


I’m not following you? I hope we’re not going to go through what we went through the last time we had a discussion together!?! If you have something to say, please just be straight forward and as clear as possible.


Elle, I was a little confused by your response as well. I think you misunderstood his question, which I'm not blaming you for; it's very easy to happen. What kland was asking was for you to define what you think free will is, but rather than a technical definition, he wanted you to give an example. He wanted to know what *you* think free will is, and to give an example. Obviously you didn't understand he was asking for your own opinion on this, so that's where the misunderstanding took place.

Kland can correct me if I got this wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what was happening here.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #132984
04/27/11 02:09 PM
04/27/11 02:09 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Tom, that is correct. I am familiar with what I believe free will is, and what some others believe free will is, but do not know what Elle's definition of free will is. That's why I asked her to give an example. Intending for her to give an example which demonstrates what she thinks free will is.



Elle, let me be more straight forward and clear, if I can.

I would like to know what free will means to you. If we have different definitions of what free will is, it would be non-conducive for a coherent conversation. Could you give an example of what free will means to you. Include only what you believe is true and leave out what you don't believe.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133078
04/30/11 03:14 PM
04/30/11 03:14 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: Elle
T:Elle, it seems to me that without free will, we cannot love. How would we be able to love without free will?

E:First, your question assumes we have some inherent ability to love. Do you believe that man has an inherent ability to Love? Could you quote me from the Bible, how it defines love and what is man's true ability to produce this?


T: If you're talking about agape, I don't believe man has an inherent ability to do that, but that agape comes from God as a gift.


I’m glad you view that Agape is a gift. The Bible says God is Agape(1Jo 4:8,16). So Love(Agape) is really a person. It is not a feeling like this world has defined it by which everyone is accustomed to relate to it. Just because they have some biological processes that make their brain feel “love”, they easily assume it is something they possess and can produce at will. That is “if” the other party is loveable. Because of course they can “love” and many view themselves as a very “loving” person and the reason they don’t “love” at times, well it’s because of the other persons or some incidence. How silly we often are!

I believe there’s only one love and is Agape. All the other “love” we might feel or experience that the Greek language defined these in 3 different words, are only different expression of love that comes out of a man depending to the object(wife, brother, or children). However, all these different expressions all originated from God’s Spirit dwelling in you. So if a man “loves” his wife, the “love” expressed to his wife is an extension of God(Agape) dwelling in you. The same phenomena when that man “loves” his children and this expressed is again an extension of God(Agape) dwelling in you.

Originally Posted By: 1Jn 4
“1 John 4
4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God .

4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.”

There are much “love” that is expressed today that was not originated from God, and therefore is not genuine. So just because you are feeling some feelings of “Love” for your wife or your children, it doesn’t mean you manufactured all this “love” all by yourself. Nor does it mean that the feeling your mind is processing as “love” for a woman is actually real Love. It could be just a pure hormonal process with a touch of “imagination”. How many in this world experienced “love” for an individual by which within a few years or even months down the road, this “love” is totally vanish. I’m sure I don’t need to expand on that well known phenomenon.

It is easy to “love” when all goes well and your wife and your children benefit your own personal interest and pride. However, when things goes not well by which the list of possibilities is quite long; then you can end up losing all these nice little feelings of “love” you once experienced. Then you find yourself wanting to dispose of your wife if you could. History has shown twice that a very moral society like the Israelites has lost their “natural love” to the extent of eating their own children when starving. History shows clearly the heart of man’s natural ability to love another. Current marriage statistics including the SDAs shows the reality of our ability to love our spouse. Abortion rates and public school rates shows our own ability to love our children.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, ordinary love, like a man loves a woman (or vice versa), or loving one's parents or one's children, I think it's obvious we have the ability to do that. I don't think we need to prove that from Scripture. Or do you disagree?


With what is all around us and what history shows us; yes, I definitely do disagree with you Tom. And yes, it’s always good to check in scriptures despite if we would of both agreed.

I am currently studying this question(freewill offerings) in scriptures you brought up(well indirectly). I think it is a very good question Tom and I appreciate it. If you want to join me in opening your heart to know what the Lord think of all of this, and the reality of our ability to love according to Scriptures; please do let me know your findings. I am very interested in it.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133080
04/30/11 07:27 PM
04/30/11 07:27 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
I'll just comment on this part for now.

Quote:
T:However, ordinary love, like a man loves a woman (or vice versa), or loving one's parents or one's children, I think it's obvious we have the ability to do that. I don't think we need to prove that from Scripture. Or do you disagree?

E:With what is all around us and what history shows us; yes, I definitely do disagree with you Tom. And yes, it’s always good to check in scriptures despite if we would of both agreed.


You're disagreeing that it's obvious that human beings have the ability to love? Really?

It seems to me that all that is around us, and what history shows, supports the idea that it's obvious that human beings have the ability to love.

I'll comment more later.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133081
04/30/11 07:53 PM
04/30/11 07:53 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
The Bible says that “God is....” many different things/actions/characteristics/feelings. That does not make them “persons”.

Love is just as much/equal a ‘Spiritual “gift” from God’ as: “joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22, 23). And these only become a completed gift when the potential receiver chooses to be swayed by this blowing Divine influence of God and “exercise” these Divine, Spiritual options (vs. their exact opposites) in a pertinent situation. Indeed I don’t see “love” as a feeling or Person, but a decision.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133083
04/30/11 08:26 PM
04/30/11 08:26 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Regarding love, my thinking is that God created beings to love and to be loved, which required free will. Free will opens the possibility of love being rejected. Another way of stating this is that love entails risk, which is an unfortunate experience that most of us go through at one time or another.

In our world, God's love was rejected, which led to the mess that we have. All the evil there is in the world is the result of man's choosing his own way over God's way, which he is able to do, because of free will.

The Great Controversy is an examination of God's part in what has happened, which will show that God has been consistently acting in harmony with the principles of agape, principles embodied by Jesus Christ.

This is a short synopsis of my thinking.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133087
04/30/11 09:28 PM
04/30/11 09:28 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Even the ultimate “loving” act of Christ (cf. e.g., John 3:16; 15:13), still required a “decision”, and a most resolute, counterintuitive one at that (Luke 12:49, 50; cf. Matt 26:36-46|DA 689.2-693.1).

Christ indeed ‘‘decided to’ (DA 693.1) “accepts His baptism of blood” (DA 690.3)’.

Last edited by NJK Project; 04/30/11 10:04 PM.

“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133125
05/02/11 01:21 PM
05/02/11 01:21 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle,

I understand what Tom's idea of free will means because it seems to agree with mine. However, I would like to know what free will means to you. Would you be able to either define it or give an example of what free will means to you?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #133139
05/02/11 11:09 PM
05/02/11 11:09 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Sorry for not replying yet Kland. I'm just a little overwhelmed with many priorities. Will try to get to you and the others this Sabbath.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133348
05/07/11 10:44 PM
05/07/11 10:44 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Tom I appreciate much that you laid down as clearly as you could a short synopsis of your thinking. Thx, it helps a lot. I hope you don’t mind me going through it for the purpose of reflecting/studying and checking its validity according to Scriptures.

Does a Heap of Dust have the inherent ability to Love?
Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding love, my thinking is that God created beings to love and to be loved, which required free will.

I agree that we are created to be loved, but I disagree that we have inherent ability to love. Do you agree with me that we are but dust? For sure God highly organized the dust(atoms) to a very sophisticated being, but reality is we are still just a heap of dust. Would you say that a heap of dust can love? I’m sure you wouldn’t say so. So what makes you say that organized dust can more so?

Freewill allows Love to be Rejected?
Originally Posted By: Tom
Free will opens the possibility of love being rejected.

This Freewill logic implies that God’s Words through the Spirit of Christ has no power on man and man abilities to reject His Words when heard in our minds is greater than the power of His Words itself. This is a total contradiction of what we say in regards to His creative power. We say that God’s Word is bidding and whatever He speaks it happens.

By having 90% of mankind burning in the Hell fire is basically also saying that God’s Love is impotent and has no influence and is not stronger than “evil”. Hasn’t God created us in His image? Shouldn’t we be capable to recognize***(see note below) and respond to His Love? What does this has to say about God’s workmanship? Quite a failure I would say and there’s not much glory at having 10% saved or less at the end of the GC.

***Note: When I say we should be capable to recognize God’s voice, I mean here the basic elements, not the carnal mind. The carnal mind/logic/reasoning think God is foolish, but our basic cells and even the genes do recognize and respond to God’s voice/Love. The normal cells are selfless and do demonstrate God’s character in all their activities and working together selflessly for other cells and for the sake of the body. They are truly in harmony between them and with God. It is the mind(heart) of man that is corrupt -- not in harmony with their body and with God and is demonstrating selfishness characteristics.

Freewill Logic and Risky Love
Originally Posted By: Tom
Another way of stating this is that love entails risk, which is an unfortunate experience that most of us go through at one time or another.

Love entails “risks”? So, are you implying that God didn’t know that so many were going “to decide to reject His Love” and it was a risk He took when He created them?

But if you do believe that God knows the end from the beginning as the Bible indicates, then God surely did put His creatures in a high risky unfortunate experience. It makes me think of something like Russian roulette by giving them a gun(freewill) however, in this scenario you tell them which chamber have a bullet inside and they chose it and deliberately reject God’s love = suicide. Would you give birth to children knowing that 9 out of 10 are going to shoot themselves and suffer greatly before doing so? If God knew that 9 out of 10 are going to die terrible death and have a hard life, then it does portray God very irresponsible and cruel.

Freewill Logic attempt to Make Sense with Mass Annihilation

I understand that this logic attempts to make some sense out of this Hell doctrine and its mass annihilation that has been passed down to us and our forefather for the past 1700+ years. By putting the blame on the creatures, it claims to leave God’s hands clean so He can remain “righteous” in all of this. But sadly this logic still leaves God’s hand quite dirty for :

(1) When God created beings with free will, did He not know that they would start doing evil things?
(2) Is a Creator not responsible for that which He creates?
(3) Why would a good and all-knowing God create either spiritual or physical beings with a poor ability to respond to Him and to His Love?

Freewill Logic, Annihilation, and Justice

Also this logic does not make God righteous for a real Righteous God will bring True JUSTICE. True Divine Justice has two purposes in the Laws of Moses (1) Restitution to the victim (2) Restoration of the offender. Divine Justice is not accomplished until these two purposes are achieved. Annihilation of any creature is a punishment and does not bring any Divine Justice. Annihilation doesn’t bring restitution to the victim but only revenge. Plus definitely there’s no restoration of the offenders through annihilation. It only eliminates those that disagree like a dictatorship (or any man who wants control).

Freewill Logic at the Expense of God’s Sovereignty

Worst is this Freewill logic is at the expense of God’s sovereignty.
(1)It makes God incapable of creating any being without making them with a free will (for what purposes? so to govern themselves? So we can be little gods? Remember, there’s only One God).
(2) It makes God an innocent Bystander in history.
(3)It makes God a helpless impotent god in the sky who has all the power to stop evil, but is too much of a gentleman to do much about it.
(4)It makes God an irresponsible weak ruler.


Freewill Logic vs. Quality End product vs. His Sovereignty and Wisdom and Glory

Also this Freewill logic suggest that it is the only way God could end up with a quality product in the end of time, and that God knew ahead of time that only a tiny percentage of men would "pass the test" and be saved. Of course God did not like this result—that He grieves over it—and yet this All-Wise God could find no other way to achieve His goal of bringing forth children.

The bottom line is that God's sovereignty and wisdom are greatly diminished by this logic. To start it suggest that beings do things according to their own will, independent of God and that God is largely pushed around by His own universe. Also, it suggests that God wasn’t wise enough to make a plan that would save everyone and that He was just incapable.

Plus where is God’s glory in having 1/3 of the angels and 90% of man burning in hell? Doesn’t it paint God as a failure in His creation plan and in His Saving powers? Wouldn’t you say by this high failure end result that God has greatly missed the mark? Not much “glory” in that.

What led to this Mess : The Rejection of God’s Love or a Puffed up Head?

Originally Posted By: Tom
In our world, God's love was rejected, which led to the mess that we have.

Let’s read what the Bible actually says about the Fall of Lucifer and man more carefully. It was not a question of rejecting God’s love that led to this mess.
Originally Posted By: Ez 28:17
The fall of Lucifer was due that he elevated himself(Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: ”) which is how his mind got corrupted. This principle of the origin of sin is stated in Rom 1:21 “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. “ We continually elevate ourself too and we are ignorant of how God works in us. Ep 4:18 “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” ).


Originally Posted By: Tom
All the evil there is in the world is the result of man's choosing his own way over God's way, which he is able to do, because of free will.

God and Evil
Hmmm…. all the evil there is in the world is because God created evil! I’m starting to see that “evil” is another of these words in our vocabulary that needs redefining according to God’s perspective and not according to man’s limited view.

Here is some of the things the Bible tells us about evil :

1. That God created evil (Is 45:7)
2. That God gives the power to evil creatures for their actions (Dn 8:24; Rev 17:17; Jer 27:6; etc…)
3. That God calls servants the evil creatures(e.g. Satan(Job 41:4), King of Babylon(Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10)) to execute His Judgments(Jer 25:9; Job 41:4;etc… )
4. That God allows what evil to bring(Job 41:4; Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:15,16, 23; Jer 35:17; 39:16; 40:2; Eze 6:11; etc…),
5. That God even takes credit of all evils by saying that he has done all these evil things.(Job 42:11; 1Kg 9:9; 17:20; 2Ch 34:28; Neh 13:18; Jer 32:23,42; 42:10; 44:2; Eze 14:22; Deu 32:39; Is 45:7; Ams 3:6; Is 19:22; etc…)

Do we really have the Ability to choose God’s way?

Concerning man’s choosing his own way versus God’s that you assume brought all this “evil” on us, the Bible tells us the following :

1. Fallen creatures there is none that seeketh after God (Rom 3:11), does not understand God(Rom 8:5-7;1Cor 2:14; 2Pet 2:12; Jud 1:10; Dn 12:10), and think God is foolish(1Cor 2:14; 1:18, 23). So therefore in their “natural” fallen state, it is impossible for man to choose God.

2. God hardened whoever’s heart He desires : Rom 9:18 “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.”

(a) Pharaoh: 7x (Ex 7:13; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8) the Bible says that God hardens Pharaoh heart, versus 3x(Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34) Pharaoh hardens himself.

(b) King Heshbon : God hardened King Heshbon heart for the purpose “to put the dread of thee(the Israelites) and the fear of thee upon the nations.” Deut 2:25 God sent before hand a message of peace and asking permission to go through their land(v.26-29), then God heardens the Kings heart (v.30) for the respond He wants, so He can accomplish His purpose stated in v.25. Det 2:30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.”

(c) The Israelites : Jeremiah acknowledge that it was God that caused the people to err and had hardened their heart : Is 63:17 “ O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

3. God keeps peoples heart/eyes/ears closed at His will and will only open them when they are ready to hear (Deut 29:4; Is 6:9,10; Jhn 8:43; Acts 28:26, 27; Ep 4:18; 2Thes 2:11,12; Rom 11:7-12; 25-33; etc…) and for his own purpose in working His plan of Salvation.

4. Scriptures says plainly that it is God that “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will Eph 1:11. It doesn’t say that things are worked through our own will like you suggest with the freewill logic. Plus it says very specifically that “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). Plus see these other texts which I will quote for convenience sake.
Originally Posted By: Scriptures How God moves Man
Jer 10:23 O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Ps 37:23 A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directed his steps.

Prov 20:24 Man’s going are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?

Prov 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.


The Purpose of the Great Controversy Revised

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Great Controversy is an examination of God's part in what has happened, which will show that God has been consistently acting in harmony with the principles of agape, principles embodied by Jesus Christ.

Tom, I used to share the same view as you concerning the GC. But now, I don’t see the GC as “an examination of God’s part” for the sake to see if God is consistent. For sure God’s works and the way he’s handling this GC is highly examined by all his creatures. Plus God is consistent for He is Agape and His Laws are His character. However, I now view that the GC is primarily for our sake for the following purposes :

1. To write all His Laws into our heart (Jer 31). At creation and largely at birth our heart was/is initially blank, but now the work is even harder because our heart has become corrupt. However, it is not impossible for God--for with God “all is possible”. Right?

2. God in His Wisdom allowed this “freewill” allusion by which he will use it to bring us to maturity(Rom 8:18-23; Job 34:11; Is 26:9; Hab 1:12; Hos 2).

3. To humble His puffed up amazingly perfectly formed creatures. God will bring us back to our proper place while teaching us the truth on how things really works(Hos 2:8-13; Ep 1:11; Phil 2:13; Jer 31:18, 19 ) and come to know to what extend that God is Sovereign by which He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” Ep1:11. Only then we will regain our reason just like He did with King Nebuchednazzar. We are all guilty of the same sin of King Nebuchednazzar’s in taking God’s glory(Dn 4:30). Jesus said “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased” Mat 23:12 There’s many other texts stating this work of God as in Is 2:12 “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.

4. It is through trials(Deut 28 & 29; Lev 26) that He humbles us back to the “dust”. In Biblical terms this humbling back to dust is termed with the word “destroy” (‘abad h6… which also means “to go astray”. This double/single meaning destroy/lost is exactly the same as the greek word appolumi g622). Only when we are destroyed (realize that we are but “dust”) that we can be found and come to see God as He truly is -- the Almighty Sovereign El Shaddai -- and truly repent “in the dust and ashes”.

5. To build in us the Trust(Belief/faith) in Him, and to destroy the trust in self. Only when Christ is lifted up(and our self abased) that we will be able to hear. Trust in Him is what predispose us to hear God’s small still voice and to differentiate it from the voice of our own reasoning. It is always through faith/Trust that any of God’s great wonders and works has ever been accomplished(Heb 11).

6. To restore all creation back to their original glorified heritage according to His grand Law of Jubilee.

7. To bring All things in subjection under Christ so God can be All in All.

PS. Sorry Kland and NJK, I took too much time replying to Tom. I’ll get back to you next week.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133386
05/09/11 08:42 PM
05/09/11 08:42 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
I'll patiently wait for you Elle. But please, please make it much, much more concise than what you did answering Tom. I couldn't follow that. I would be satisfied with a concise and to the point 3-4 line paragraph defining what "free will" means to you.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #133388
05/09/11 09:06 PM
05/09/11 09:06 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
I'll patiently wait for you Elle. But please, please make it much, much more concise than what you did answering Tom. I couldn't follow that. I would be satisfied with a concise and to the point 3-4 line paragraph defining what "free will" means to you.

smile

OK. I'll just cut and copy what I already said instead of saying in a new way the same thing.

"Nothing in this universe is on automatic and all is govern by God at all time. This denial of God’s personal involment in all things, including our thoughts and reasoning, is what darkens our minds, and consequentially we put our trust in the suppose “inherent” qualities that is within ourselves or created objects that is around us", instead of putting our trust in God. (see Ep 1:11, etc...)

I would expand this quote to say that God's involvement includes to work in us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. PHil 2:13. (see also The Turning of the Farmer’s Ox post #132383 , Does the Bull Turn Himself? post #132622, and The Conversion is like a Seed Sprouting post #132516.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133393
05/10/11 12:22 AM
05/10/11 12:22 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Elle
Tom I appreciate much that you laid down as clearly as you could a short synopsis of your thinking. Thx, it helps a lot. I hope you don’t mind me going through it for the purpose of reflecting/studying and checking its validity according to Scriptures.

Does a Heap of Dust have the inherent ability to Love?
Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding love, my thinking is that God created beings to love and to be loved, which required free will.

E:I agree that we are created to be loved, but I disagree that we have inherent ability to love.


Remember the context here is love of man for woman, or love of children. You don't believe people have this ability to love?

Quote:
Do you agree with me that we are but dust?


No. This might be the crux of our disagreement. This would make our behavior just complex chemical reactions.

Quote:
E:For sure God highly organized the dust(atoms) to a very sophisticated being, but reality is we are still just a heap of dust.


No, we're more than simply a heap of dust. We are sentient beings, with the ability to make decisions that originate from ourselves, decisions contrary to God's will.

Quote:
Would you say that a heap of dust can love? I’m sure you wouldn’t say so. So what makes you say that organized dust can more so?


One could argue the other way. It's obvious that human beings can and do love each other. Therefore human beings cannot merely be organized dust, since organized dust cannot love.

Quote:
Freewill allows Love to be Rejected?
Originally Posted By: Tom
Free will opens the possibility of love being rejected.

This Freewill logic implies that God’s Words through the Spirit of Christ has no power on man and man abilities to reject His Words when heard in our minds is greater than the power of His Words itself. This is a total contradiction of what we say in regards to His creative power. We say that God’s Word is bidding and whatever He speaks it happens.


Keep in mind the context is love of children, and man to woman (and vice versa). I don't see that these things happen because of God's word bidding it to happen. Not all humans choose to love. Isaiah speaks to this, in the comparison of God's love as greater than a mother's love.

Quote:
E:By having 90% of mankind burning in the Hell fire is basically also saying that God’s Love is impotent and has no influence and is not stronger than “evil”. Hasn’t God created us in His image? Shouldn’t we be capable to recognize***(see note below) and respond to His Love? What does this has to say about God’s workmanship? Quite a failure I would say and there’s not much glory at having 10% saved or less at the end of the GC.


The context was loving children and man/woman. I don't see how this applies.

Quote:
***Note: When I say we should be capable to recognize God’s voice, I mean here the basic elements, not the carnal mind. The carnal mind/logic/reasoning think God is foolish, but our basic cells and even the genes do recognize and respond to God’s voice/Love. The normal cells are selfless and do demonstrate God’s character in all their activities and working together selflessly for other cells and for the sake of the body. They are truly in harmony between them and with God. It is the mind(heart) of man that is corrupt -- not in harmony with their body and with God and is demonstrating selfishness characteristics.


Same comment.

Quote:
Freewill Logic and Risky Love
Originally Posted By: Tom
Another way of stating this is that love entails risk, which is an unfortunate experience that most of us go through at one time or another.

E:Love entails “risks”? So, are you implying that God didn’t know that so many were going “to decide to reject His Love” and it was a risk He took when He created them?


I think God took a risk in creating us, yes.

Quote:
E:But if you do believe that God knows the end from the beginning as the Bible indicates, then God surely did put His creatures in a high risky unfortunate experience.


Love entails risk.

Quote:
It makes me think of something like Russian roulette by giving them a gun(freewill) however, in this scenario you tell them which chamber have a bullet inside and they chose it and deliberately reject God’s love = suicide. Would you give birth to children knowing that 9 out of 10 are going to shoot themselves and suffer greatly before doing so? If God knew that 9 out of 10 are going to die terrible death and have a hard life, then it does portray God very irresponsible and cruel.


I disagree. According to the SOP, God created millions of worlds. Even with our world in rebellion, this was the only one, so considering the universe as a whole, the risk is very small. Adam and Eve could have chosen to obey, which would have left only the angels. And Lucifer, it's written, almost chose to repent. Then there would have been none.

So there's no cruelty involved here. It's only when we postulate that God was certain that Lucifer would sin (or Adam/Eve) that cruelty comes into play.

Quote:
Freewill Logic attempt to Make Sense with Mass Annihilation

E:I understand that this logic attempts to make some sense out of this Hell doctrine and its mass annihilation that has been passed down to us and our forefather for the past 1700+ years. By putting the blame on the creatures, it claims to leave God’s hands clean so He can remain “righteous” in all of this.


Yes, that's the essence of the Great Controversy, that God is innocent.

Quote:
E:But sadly this logic still leaves God’s hand quite dirty for :

(1) When God created beings with free will, did He not know that they would start doing evil things?


Correct. God did not expect that free will be used to reject Him.

Quote:
E:(2) Is a Creator not responsible for that which He creates?


T:If you choose to have a child, and it becomes evil (but not due to how you raised it), are you responsible for the evil that it does?

Quote:
E:(3) Why would a good and all-knowing God create either spiritual or physical beings with a poor ability to respond to Him and to His Love?


I think your concept of "all-knowing" is more Greek than what's in Scripture.

Quote:
E:Freewill Logic, Annihilation, and Justice

Also this logic does not make God righteous for a real Righteous God will bring True JUSTICE. True Divine Justice has two purposes in the Laws of Moses (1) Restitution to the victim (2) Restoration of the offender. Divine Justice is not accomplished until these two purposes are achieved. Annihilation of any creature is a punishment and does not bring any Divine Justice. Annihilation doesn’t bring restitution to the victim but only revenge. Plus definitely there’s no restoration of the offenders through annihilation. It only eliminates those that disagree like a dictatorship (or any man who wants control).


I think we got off the question in relation to free will involving the ability to love one's children or spouse.

Quote:
E:Freewill Logic at the Expense of God’s Sovereignty

Worst is this Freewill logic is at the expense of God’s sovereignty.
(1)It makes God incapable of creating any being without making them with a free will (for what purposes? so to govern themselves? So we can be little gods? Remember, there’s only One God).


I don't know what your point is here. What I said is that free will is necessary in order to love. God created beings to love and be loved is the reason I gave.

Quote:
(2) It makes God an innocent Bystander in history.


This is half right. God is innocent, but He's not merely a Bystander. Jesus Christ makes that evident.

[qutoe](3)It makes God a helpless impotent god in the sky who has all the power to stop evil, but is too much of a gentleman to do much about it.[/quote]

God has worked, and is working, through Jesus Christ to stop evil, and evil will be defeated. Where are you seeing impotence here?

Quote:
(4)It makes God an irresponsible weak ruler.


I'm not following your logic here. If you have children, and raise them well, and they choose not to do your will, why would it follow that you are an irresponsible, weak ruler?

Quote:
E:Freewill Logic vs. Quality End product vs. His Sovereignty and Wisdom and Glory

Also this Freewill logic suggest that it is the only way God could end up with a quality product in the end of time, and that God knew ahead of time that only a tiny percentage of men would "pass the test" and be saved.


This is looking at things myopically, as if only our world was involved. But there were millions of worlds. Well over 99.99% of all sentient beings will be saved, not the tiny percentage you are asserting.

Quote:
E:Of course God did not like this result—that He grieves over it—and yet this All-Wise God could find no other way to achieve His goal of bringing forth children.

The bottom line is that God's sovereignty and wisdom are greatly diminished by this logic.


Well, your premise is off, to start with, since very few choose to rebel, considering the universe as a whole. It could well have been none, and almost was, as God did everything He could in regards to Lucifer, and Lucifer almost repented.

Quote:
E:To start it suggest that beings do things according to their own will, independent of God and that God is largely pushed around by His own universe.


It's just one little spot, so I think you're overstating the case here. It's certainly better than the alternative of God's being responsible for evil.

Quote:
E:Also, it suggests that God wasn’t wise enough to make a plan that would save everyone and that He was just incapable.


Love doesn't have to do with the wisdom of the lover only, but with the one being loved. If the one being loved chooses not to love back, this does not necessarily speak poorly of the lover.

Quote:
E:Plus where is God’s glory in having 1/3 of the angels and 90% of man burning in hell? Doesn’t it paint God as a failure in His creation plan and in His Saving powers? Wouldn’t you say by this high failure end result that God has greatly missed the mark? Not much “glory” in that.


If only our world were involved, and angels, that might be arguable. But that's not the case. Of the millions of worlds, only one has lost people in it, and the saved of even that one will include a numberless multitude.

What speaks to God's glory is that while He had millions of worlds of faith beings who loved Him, He loved this one insignificant world too much to let it go, and made the ultimate sacrifice to save whosoever would respond.

Quote:
E:What led to this Mess : The Rejection of God’s Love or a Puffed up Head?


Not sure what you're asking here. Certainly the rejection of God's love was involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
In our world, God's love was rejected, which led to the mess that we have.

E:Let’s read what the Bible actually says about the Fall of Lucifer and man more carefully. It was not a question of rejecting God’s love that led to this mess.

Originally Posted By: Ez 28:17
The fall of Lucifer was due that he elevated himself(Eze 28:17 “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: ”) which is how his mind got corrupted. This principle of the origin of sin is stated in Rom 1:21 “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. “ We continually elevate ourself too and we are ignorant of how God works in us. Ep 4:18 “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” ).


Here's another statement on the subject:

Quote:
The law of love being the foundation of the government of God, the happiness of all created beings depended upon their perfect accord with its great principles of righteousness. God desires from all His creatures the service of love—homage that springs from an intelligent appreciation of His character. He takes no pleasure in a forced allegiance, and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service. {GC 493.2}
But there was one that chose to pervert this freedom.


This looks to be echoing what I said, doesn't it? Notice the important of love, and the linking of love to free will. And also that Lucifer choose to misuse this freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom
All the evil there is in the world is the result of man's choosing his own way over God's way, which he is able to do, because of free will.

E:God and Evil
Hmmm…. all the evil there is in the world is because God created evil!


No, none of the evil there is in the world is because God created evil. God did not create evil. I don't understand how you could so misunderstood what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
All the evil there is in the world is the result of man's choosing his own way over God's way, which he is able to do, because of free will.


This is very similar to what Ellen White wrote, that I just quoted.

God did not create evil, but created sentient beings with "freedom of will," one of whom chose to misuse that freedom.

Quote:
E:I’m starting to see that “evil” is another of these words in our vocabulary that needs redefining according to God’s perspective and not according to man’s limited view.


"Evil" is that which is contrary to God's will, which is embodied by the 10 commandments, which articulate the principles of agape.

Quote:
Here is some of the things the Bible tells us about evil :

1. That God created evil (Is 45:7)


In the sense of permitted. God is often represented as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
2. That God gives the power to evil creatures for their actions (Dn 8:24; Rev 17:17; Jer 27:6; etc…)


In the sense of giving them life, you mean?

Quote:
3. That God calls servants the evil creatures(e.g. Satan(Job 41:4), King of Babylon(Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10)) to execute His Judgments(Jer 25:9; Job 41:4;etc… )
4. That God allows what evil to bring(Job 41:4; Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:15,16, 23; Jer 35:17; 39:16; 40:2; Eze 6:11; etc…),
5. That God even takes credit of all evils by saying that he has done all these evil things.(Job 42:11; 1Kg 9:9; 17:20; 2Ch 34:28; Neh 13:18; Jer 32:23,42; 42:10; 44:2; Eze 14:22; Deu 32:39; Is 45:7; Ams 3:6; Is 19:22; etc…)


This is the same principle of God's being represented as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
E:Do we really have the Ability to choose God’s way?


Of course. Many texts bring this out. In Jeremiah 18, for example, God tells us He will change His actions depending upon what we choose to do. Exodus as well, quite a few times, in the early 30's.

Quote:
E:Concerning man’s choosing his own way versus God’s that you assume brought all this “evil” on us, the Bible tells us the following :

1. Fallen creatures there is none that seeketh after God (Rom 3:11), does not understand God(Rom 8:5-7;1Cor 2:14; 2Pet 2:12; Jud 1:10; Dn 12:10), and think God is foolish(1Cor 2:14; 1:18, 23). So therefore in their “natural” fallen state, it is impossible for man to choose God.


This is true. Left solely to one's own devices, fallen man would not choose God.

Quote:
2. God hardened whoever’s heart He desires : Rom 9:18 “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.”

(a) Pharaoh: 7x (Ex 7:13; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8) the Bible says that God hardens Pharaoh heart, versus 3x(Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34) Pharaoh hardens himself.

(b) King Heshbon : God hardened King Heshbon heart for the purpose “to put the dread of thee(the Israelites) and the fear of thee upon the nations.” Deut 2:25 God sent before hand a message of peace and asking permission to go through their land(v.26-29), then God heardens the Kings heart (v.30) for the respond He wants, so He can accomplish His purpose stated in v.25. Det 2:30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.”

(c) The Israelites : Jeremiah acknowledge that it was God that caused the people to err and had hardened their heart : Is 63:17 “ O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.


These are typical Calvinistic arguments. There are typical Arminian counter arguments that could be adduced.

Quote:
E:3. God keeps peoples heart/eyes/ears closed at His will and will only open them when they are ready to hear (Deut 29:4; Is 6:9,10; Jhn 8:43; Acts 28:26, 27; Ep 4:18; 2Thes 2:11,12; Rom 11:7-12; 25-33; etc…) and for his own purpose in working His plan of Salvation.


Doesn't saying God will only open the ears of others when they are ready to hear mean that God gives understanding to people when they want to know the truth?

Quote:
4. Scriptures says plainly that it is God that “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will“ Eph 1:11. It doesn’t say that things are worked through our own will like you suggest with the freewill logic.


This doesn't make sense. That we have free will wouldn't imply that God works all things according to our will. Why would that make sense?

For example, if you have a friend, and that friend has free will, would it follow that you work out all things according to your friend's will?

Quote:
Plus it says very specifically that “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13).


This doesn't say against our will. God works to will and to do of His good pleasure if we our willing. He doesn't overpower us to do so.

Quote:
E:Plus see these other texts which I will quote for convenience sake.
Originally Posted By: Scriptures How God moves Man
Jer 10:23 O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Ps 37:23 A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directed his steps.

Prov 20:24 Man’s going are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?

Prov 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.


I used to be a Calvinist, so I'm familiar with all these texts and arguments. There are counterarguments to these as well.


Quote:
E:The Purpose of the Great Controversy Revised

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Great Controversy is an examination of God's part in what has happened, which will show that God has been consistently acting in harmony with the principles of agape, principles embodied by Jesus Christ.

E:Tom, I used to share the same view as you concerning the GC.


So you were Arminianist, and became Calvinistic, whereas I went the other direction. That's interesting. But I guess you weren't familiar with the Arminian counterarguments(?) (Since you don't mention them).

Quote:
E:But now, I don’t see the GC as “an examination of God’s part” for the sake to see if God is consistent. For sure God’s works and the way he’s handling this GC is highly examined by all his creatures. Plus God is consistent for He is Agape and His Laws are His character. However, I now view that the GC is primarily for our sake for the following purposes :

1. To write all His Laws into our heart (Jer 31). At creation and largely at birth our heart was/is initially blank, but now the work is even harder because our heart has become corrupt. However, it is not impossible for God--for with God “all is possible”. Right?


It's not possible for God to act contrary to His own character.

Quote:
E:2. God in His Wisdom allowed this “freewill” allusion by which he will use it to bring us to maturity(Rom 8:18-23; Job 34:11; Is 26:9; Hab 1:12; Hos 2).


Do you mean "illusion"? What about evil? If God is doing everything independent of anyone else's will, why do it in such a stupid way?

Quote:
E:3. To humble His puffed up amazingly perfectly formed creatures.


If His creatures are simply the way God made them, why did He make them this way? Why not make them not puffed up to start with?

Quote:
E:God will bring us back to our proper place while teaching us the truth on how things really works(Hos 2:8-13; Ep 1:11; Phil 2:13; Jer 31:18, 19 ) and come to know to what extend that God is Sovereign by which He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” Ep1:11. Only then we will regain our reason just like He did with King Nebuchednazzar. We are all guilty of the same sin of King Nebuchednazzar’s in taking God’s glory(Dn 4:30). Jesus said “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased” Mat 23:12 There’s many other texts stating this work of God as in Is 2:12 “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.”


We should already have been in our proper place, if we're simply doing God's will.

Quote:
E:4. It is through trials(Deut 28 & 29; Lev 26) that He humbles us back to the “dust”.


This isn't necessary for the millions of other worlds. Why should we alone have to suffer so?

Quote:
E:In Biblical terms this humbling back to dust is termed with the word “destroy” (‘abad h6… which also means “to go astray”. This double/single meaning destroy/lost is exactly the same as the greek word appolumi g622). Only when we are destroyed (realize that we are but “dust”) that we can be found and come to see God as He truly is -- the Almighty Sovereign El Shaddai -- and truly repent “in the dust and ashes”.


If we view this destruction as being due to God alone, and not due to any choice on our part, it could lead to our viewing God as being responsible for our suffering, and for the evil in the world in general, which might not speak well of God.

Quote:
E:5. To build in us the Trust(Belief/faith) in Him, and to destroy the trust in self. Only when Christ is lifted up(and our self abased) that we will be able to hear. Trust in Him is what predispose us to hear God’s small still voice and to differentiate it from the voice of our own reasoning. It is always through faith/Trust that any of God’s great wonders and works has ever been accomplished(Heb 11).


I agree with this, but view this as happening when our sinfulness is contrasted to God's goodness. If God is not really good, I don't see how this could happen, and I don't see how God could be good if He does evil.

Quote:
E:6. To restore all creation back to their original glorified heritage according to His grand Law of Jubilee.

7. To bring All things in subjection under Christ so God can be All in All.

PS. Sorry Kland and NJK, I took too much time replying to Tom. I’ll get back to you next week.


To summarize a few points:

1.We look to disagree in regards to the future. I think you see it according to the traditional view, where the future is fixed, and God looks forward, like in a crystal ball, to see what will happen. I think the future is more like a web, which is rich in possibilities, and when God looks into the future, He sees all of these possibilities; not just one strand of the web, but the whole web.

2.I think we both see a logical contradiction in an all-knowing, all-powerful, good God and the traditional ideas in regards to foreknowledge, the existence of evil, and the future judgment. We resolve the contradictions we see differently, however, with you going the Calvinistic/Universalist direction, and me in the Arminian/Open Theism direction.

3.In discussing Calvinistic vs. Arminian ideas, I think it would be good to present both sides. This debate is well known, having gone on for several centuries.

4.I had one more point, but I forgot it. If it comes back to me, and I think it's worthwhile, I'll add it.

A couple of quick questions.

A.Do you see that the existence of evil is due to God's will?
B.Do you view God as responsible for the evil that is in the world?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133394
05/10/11 12:27 AM
05/10/11 12:27 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Elle, kland is asking you to explain what "free will" means to you, in your own words. For example, I would answer that question like this: "Free will is the ability to effect an option given two or more viable options to choose from" ("effect" meaning "to bring about"). For example, if I choose "A" then "A" will occur instead of "B," and vice versa.

So what does "free will" mean to you?

Traditionally there are two ways of answering this question in theological discussions. I'll comment further later.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133411
05/10/11 01:29 PM
05/10/11 01:29 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Because otherwise, Elle, it sounded like you just said we don't have free will. The only "free will" we are allowed to choose is not to have free will. Is that what you said?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #133412
05/10/11 02:05 PM
05/10/11 02:05 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Because otherwise, Elle, it sounded like you just said we don't have free will. The only "free will" we are allowed to choose is not to have free will. Is that what you said?


I'm not following you?

We plainly just don't have freewill. We are free beings in the sense that God can move us wherever and whenever He pleases, but God has never endow us or the angels, or any other living creatures with the inherent ability to govern ourself or possess any other abilities as the freewill concept suggest. All comes from above. All needs to be continually be dependant of God to supply all things at all time. That's what makes God -- God. He provides for all, he guides all, he moves all, he fulfills all,-- God is really the All in All.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133414
05/10/11 05:35 PM
05/10/11 05:35 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Elle, what is it you think free will means?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133422
05/10/11 10:35 PM
05/10/11 10:35 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
We plainly just don't have freewill. We are free beings in the sense that God can move us wherever and whenever He pleases, but God has never endow us or the angels, or any other living creatures with the inherent ability to govern ourself or possess any other abilities as the freewill concept suggest. All comes from above. All needs to be continually be dependant of God to supply all things at all time. That's what makes God -- God. He provides for all, he guides all, he moves all, he fulfills all,-- God is really the All in All.


Elle, as I had asked/posed/requested to/from you in Post #132876, (as it also came to my attention in a recent Doug Batchelor sermon comment against “predestination” [31:49-33:47]): Since the Bible clearly states that ‘God is not willing that anyone should perish’ (Matt 18:14; 2 Pet 3:9), then why do so amny, even the vast majority, do die in clearly unsaved, even either explicitly or implictly ‘God cursing’ states (= John 3:16b’s “not believing”). Indeed God’s many judgements against wicked people cement that “lost death state” fact.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #133484
05/13/11 11:29 PM
05/13/11 11:29 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: Tom
Elle, what is it you think free will means?

Freewill can mean many things to different people. All of it I dissagree. Tom why don't you give me your definition.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #133522
05/17/11 12:15 PM
05/17/11 12:15 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Tom
Elle, what is it you think free will means?

Freewill can mean many things to different people. All of it I dissagree. Tom why don't you give me your definition.
I think Tom did give a definition. What we have been asking for you and asking for you to do is give your definition. You say freewill mean many things to different people. But what does it mean to you?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134095
06/03/11 03:06 PM
06/03/11 03:06 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle, have you had a chance to determine what your own definition of free will means to you? I was reminded of this by those who refused to define what "drunk" means while at the same time saying it was wrong.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134147
06/04/11 06:07 PM
06/04/11 06:07 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Elle, have you had a chance to determine what your own definition of free will means to you? I was reminded of this by those who refused to define what "drunk" means while at the same time saying it was wrong.

Well I did answer you in post #132929 which I said the following :
Originally Posted By: elle post #132929
Just because we have the ability to think and reason, doesn’t equate we have freewill, nor does it mean we are capable or design to govern ourself. If we acknowledge that all things come from God including our thoughts and our will; then God is indeed Sovereign over all including over our own minds, then the reality is there is no freewill.
So to define freewill from that statement by stating the adverse would be :

"freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it, and therefore can decide our direction based on an intelligent choice."

Also in post #132930 I have stated quotes of many SDAs their definition of freewill in regards to our salvation which all believed that an individual needs to choose Jesus or die. That's the freewill we all have according to the standard christian understanding which I used to believe in all the above also.

These is what I believe freewill means. I hope this is clearer now. If not then here is what the thefreedictionary.com says :

Freewill : “Done of one's own accord; voluntary.”

Voluntary : “of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled; "man is a voluntary agent"; "participation was voluntary"; "voluntary manslaughter"; "voluntary generosity in times of disaster"; "voluntary social workers"; "a voluntary confession"

1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will:
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward:
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition:
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations:

Choice:
1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose:
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134228
06/07/11 01:49 PM
06/07/11 01:49 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle, I hope you can see how you cause great frustration. We ask you to define freewill.

I concluded you are saying there is no freewill. Which came from #132929. In it, you answered, "Just because we have the ability to think and reason, doesn’t equate we have freewill, nor does it mean we are capable or design to govern ourself." Which sure sounds to me like you just said we don't have free will.

In #132930, you said, "Ok, I re-read that section and I just can't see where it might come across as Lucifer has some freewill" and then proceeded to give other people's definition of freewill, which is not what was asked for. Trying to understand what YOUR definition of freewill was, Tom and I kept trying to get you to tell us. The only answer you sounded like you gave was that we don't have freewill. Which prompted me to say
Originally Posted By: kland
Because otherwise, Elle, it sounded like you just said we don't have free will. The only "free will" we are allowed to choose is not to have free will. Is that what you said?
Which then prompted you to say, "I'm not following you? We plainly just don't have freewill."
Which sure sounds to me like you said we plainly just don't have freewill.
Which caused Tom to say, "Elle, what is it you think free will means?"
Which you answered, "Freewill can mean many things to different people. All of it I dissagree."
But yet now, you say about them, "These is what I believe freewill means." But yet again, you said, "which I used to believe"
Which is VERY frustrating since we are asking what you think of it -- not what someone else thinks of it. Why do you do that?

Which, in this latest post, you have continued doing it by saying, "Also in post #132930 I have stated quotes of many SDAs their definition of freewill..."
And then gave a definition from thefreedictionary.com which I am sure you don't agree with.

What gives?!

The only thing I can determine is that you believe we don't have freewill, that we are robots, that satan is a robot and God caused him to sin, but you find that idea repulsive, or think we do, and therefore refuse to say it out as a plainly, "Yes, Tom. That is what freewill means to me: That we don't."



Maybe, just maybe, on second thought, you do indeed believe what other people say about freewill, it's just that while you believe that is what freewill is, you don't believe we have that freewill.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134246
06/07/11 10:16 PM
06/07/11 10:16 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Kland, sorry to frustrate you. I tried to answer your question at each time the best I could, but I'm not following your reasoning. Sorry.

If you want to discuss according to the Bible about whether we have freewill or not, I’m open to that.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134249
06/08/11 01:24 AM
06/08/11 01:24 AM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
From #134147:
Originally Posted By: Elle
"freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it, and therefore can decide our direction based on an intelligent choice."

It seems like a valid definition, though I don't agree with it.

For me, this is all it boils down to: "Can decide our direction." If you can decide, you have freewill, regardless of what information you may or may not have, or wisdom you may or may not have.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #134262
06/08/11 07:36 AM
06/08/11 07:36 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: asygo
From #134147:
Originally Posted By: Elle
"freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it, and therefore can decide our direction based on an intelligent choice."

It seems like a valid definition, though I don't agree with it.

For me, this is all it boils down to: "Can decide our direction." If you can decide, you have freewill, regardless of what information you may or may not have, or wisdom you may or may not have.


So are you saying God created us to be little gods that can self govern ourself?


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134264
06/08/11 09:00 AM
06/08/11 09:00 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
So are you saying God created us to be little gods that can self govern ourself?


That’s precisely the thing about “freewill” Elle, we can, however misguided it ultimately is, govern ourselves. That is what Lucifer’s main argument was in this GC. He was presenting that there was no reason why God’s created beings could live outside of His law and will if they so chose and managed to convince 1/3 of the angels that God had self-interested motives for, effectively commanding such will. And as I more widely understand it, when God made it that man should die if they sinned, thus choosing their own way, by barring access to the Tree of Life, this GC took on a new dimension now involving death. And Satan has variously been seeking to make this worst for man to cause them to hate God and not choose to follow him. So as I see it, this entire GC is only possible because all of God’s created being have freewill, starting with the angels who chose to rebel in Heaven.

And Satan had thought to make men be, or think to be, “little gods”. And the only way for man not to fall for this lie is to freely choose to obey God’s will. Otherwise, for those who choose to not do so, the consequence is eternal death (John 3:16-21).

So though rebelling man is fighting an unwinnable war against the Truth of God and His Perfect and Incontrovertible Ways, they still have the freedom to do so. The option is not God “forcing” men to do His Will. That would actually only prove Satan’s claims against God to have been right, -that He is selfish and self-seeking.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134267
06/08/11 12:39 PM
06/08/11 12:39 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle, I think NJK did a good job in describing why there IS free will. If, as you claim, we don't have free will and if satan doesn't have free will, what caused satan to sin? Did God direct him to sin for some reason?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134269
06/08/11 01:00 PM
06/08/11 01:00 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
NJK, thx for your kind reply. I understand this view, however, it is not in harmony with the Bible. This makes us in contradiction with many texts which cannot be taken as it is simply written that needs us to add a few words so to make it fit to this view.

Originally Posted By: NJK
He was presenting that there was no reason why God’s created beings could live outside of His law and will if they so chose and managed to convince 1/3 of the angels that God had self-interested motives for, effectively commanding such will.
Do you have any Biblical support to back up this thrust of Lucifer’s deception?

I think it is very important to understand the fall of Lucifer and Man for in it reveals the nature of the GC.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134273
06/08/11 01:43 PM
06/08/11 01:43 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK
And Satan had thought to make men be, or think to be, “little gods”. And the only way for man not to fall for this lie is to freely choose to obey God’s will. Otherwise, for those who choose to not do so, the consequence is eternal death (John 3:16-21).

I was intrique by your wording of "eternal death", so I search if there were such wording in the entire Bible or any approximation of these words. There's no such wording, not even "for ever death"! or even any close usage with dead.

This is another of man's foolish "imagination" based on mis-understanding of what constitute life or death. Death needs to be defined according to what the Bible reveals.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134288
06/08/11 08:41 PM
06/08/11 08:41 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
I understand this view, however, it is not in harmony with the Bible.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
He was presenting that there was no reason why God’s created beings could not live outside of His law and will if they so chose and managed to convince 1/3 of the angels that God had self-interested motives for, effectively commanding such will.


Do you have any Biblical support to back up this thrust of Lucifer’s deception?

I think it is very important to understand the fall of Lucifer and Man for in it reveals the nature of the GC.


I exegetically see from the Bible in Isa 14:12-14 & Ezek 28:12-17 that the earth-projected aspirations of the Devil did foundationally inherently include doing away with God’s Law. Summarily said, if one aims to rule over the ‘angels of God’ (= e.g., Isa 14:13 (“stars” = Rev 12:4&9)) and this understandably cannot be achieved by force (i.e., vs. God directly), then the way to go would be to undermine what gives God this authority over these created beings/angels, and that is the obedience to God’s Law, which indeed included only worshipping God.* And of course to not make it seem that you are wanting to merely overthrow God, Satan had to undermine all of the Commandments, hence the inherently derived/implicated claim that these Laws are all not needed for the governing of God’s created beings. Indeed Satan claims apparently may have foundationally been that if this law is really based on Love, then Created Beings should not be commanded what they could or could not do as a demonstration of this Love for God, but that this would come both naturally and if they freely actually wanted to do so.

*As a illustration, if one today wants to make a drastic change in government in the United States, e.g., from a Republican philosophy to a Democrat one, they are certainly not, though the Constitution allows them to, take up arms against the United States Government/Military, but will instead try to convince the people who will vote in the next election that their proposed political views/policies/laws are better than the present ones. (=(GC/God’s) Views, Requirements, Laws).

With that exegetical Biblical basis, I see that the direct revelations that EGW had on this episode are indeed True and also agree with her derived commentary.

Originally Posted By: Elle
This makes us in contradiction with many texts which cannot be taken as it is simply written that needs us to add a few words so to make it fit to this view.


As it is key to understand what the Bible teaches on a subject, it is incontrovertible to include in this determination all of the texts of the Bible that speak on it. That is my approach and as I see that the notion of freewill is clearly stated in the Bible and also, as pointed out earlier, the many texts that seem to indicate no freewill either are not actually saying so when exegetically examined (i.e., including syntax) and/or are in the context of a believer have literally freely and desiringly turned over the reins of their life to God, to do as He sees and knows is best, then I do not see that the Bible is teaching that we do not have freewill. There are indeed to many examples and also Theological, Doctrinal and Prophetic statements to the contrary. All of those have to be duly taken into full and proper consideration to arrive at the accurate understanding on this Teaching.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134289
06/08/11 08:43 PM
06/08/11 08:43 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: And Satan had thought to make men be, or think to be, “little gods”. And the only way for man not to fall for this lie is to freely choose to obey God’s will. Otherwise, for those who choose to not do so, the consequence is eternal death (John 3:16-21).

Elle: I was intrique by your wording of "eternal death", so I search if there were such wording in the entire Bible or any approximation of these words. There's no such wording, not even "for ever death"! or even any close usage with dead.


(1) I added the term “eternal” because all those who die the First Death will be resurrected to die the Second Death which is the one that is “eternal” as understood by the Biblical teaching on the result of the Hell Fire Judgement.

(2) the notion of “eternal” is, in my Biblical understanding, inherently involved in death unless God intervenes to overturn this naturally resulting state. That is why the Bible does not need to explicitly say “eternal death” however, as seen in the John 3:16-21 passage that I had referred to, as well as passages such as John 5:24; Rom 6:23, it is the direct opposite of ‘living eternally’. And if one can live eternally while dead (??!), then they are not actually “dead”. Case in point, those who will live many days in the fires of Hell and then not die, will indeed be alive and not dead. It is only when they have fully paid the penalty for their sins that they will die that Second (and by implication, “Eternal”) Death.

Originally Posted By: Elle
This is another of man's foolish "imagination" based on mis-understanding of what constitute life or death. Death needs to be defined according to what the Bible reveals.


I gather/presume by your denunciation here that you do not have the common understanding of death as SDA’s/the SOP teach. Therefore do state what you see the Bible’s teaching on death is (if different).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134292
06/08/11 09:48 PM
06/08/11 09:48 PM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: asygo
From #134147:
Originally Posted By: Elle
"freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it, and therefore can decide our direction based on an intelligent choice."

It seems like a valid definition, though I don't agree with it.

For me, this is all it boils down to: "Can decide our direction." If you can decide, you have freewill, regardless of what information you may or may not have, or wisdom you may or may not have.


So are you saying God created us to be little gods that can self govern ourself?

I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is merely parroting the Bible.

Quote:
Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Man was made in God's likeness. That likeness involves quite a few characteristics, but choosing is certainly one of them.

Even in our fallen state, we are called upon to make choices, to make decisions.

Quote:
Deuteronomy 30:19
... I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Joshua 24:15
... choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...

Proverbs 12:26
The righteous should choose his friends carefully...

Does that mean we are capable of governing ourselves? No. The Bible is very clear about our inability to be good governors, and our need to submit to God.

However, the fact that we are called upon to submit to God should tell us that it remains with us to choose Him over any other gods that are vying for our loyalty. If we had no choice in the matter, there would be no need to submit.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #134298
06/08/11 10:33 PM
06/08/11 10:33 PM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
"Submission" without the free will to choose whether or not to submit is not true submission, but just a sneaky form of slavery.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134326
06/09/11 07:25 PM
06/09/11 07:25 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
I was intrique by your wording of "eternal death", so I search if there were such wording in the entire Bible or any approximation of these words. There's no such wording, not even "for ever death"! or even any close usage with dead.

Elle, if you look at the notes of the NET Bible about John 11:26, you will see that the Greek says, literally, "will never die forever." In fact, our best Portuguese translation says exactly that.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says about this passage:

Quote:
Shall never die (ou mh apoqanh eiß ton aiwna). Strong double negative ou mh with second aorist active subjunctive of apoqnhskw again (but spiritual death, this time), "shall not die for ever" (eternal death).

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134327
06/09/11 07:30 PM
06/09/11 07:30 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
So are you saying God created us to be little gods that can self govern ourself?

Perhaps a better definition would be that God created us with the ability to choose who will govern us. In fact, after sin, this ability is preserved only through the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If it weren't for this, we would always and forever choose Satan.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134334
06/09/11 10:21 PM
06/09/11 10:21 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Elle
We plainly just don't have freewill. We are free beings in the sense that God can move us wherever and whenever He pleases, but God has never endow us or the angels, or any other living creatures with the inherent ability to govern ourself or possess any other abilities as the freewill concept suggest. All comes from above. All needs to be continually be dependant of God to supply all things at all time. That's what makes God -- God. He provides for all, he guides all, he moves all, he fulfills all,-- God is really the All in All.


Why would God choose to guide things in such a goofy way? Evil, even.

I can understand the existence of the horrific things that happen on this planet if one allows for the existence of evil beings with free will, but how could it be possible to explain these things if *God* is guiding everything? What sort of God would "guide" things like rape, child abuse, torture, divorce, cancer, etc.?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134337
06/09/11 11:09 PM
06/09/11 11:09 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Elle
Freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it, and therefore can decide our direction based on an intelligent choice.


The "therefore" isn't necessary, as far as articulating a definition is concerned, so the definition comes down to:

Quote:
Freewill is having the ability to generate our own wise thoughts and derive proper choices from it.


So this involves two things:

1.Having the ability to generate one's own wise thoughts.
2.Having the ability to derive proper choices from those self-generated wise thoughts.

A more straight-forward definition would be:

1.Having the ability to derive proper choices from one's self-generated thoughts.

I think this isn't a bad definition. I don't see why the requirement for one to be able to self-generate wise thoughts would be necessary; just thoughts which enable one to make proper decisions should be sufficient.

So where is the problem? Is it that we cannot self-generate thoughts? Or is it that we cannot make proper decisions from these thoughts which are self-generated?

Where in Scripture is either of these things suggested? (i.e., that we cannot self-generate thoughts, or that we cannot make proper decisions). Indeed, doesn't the mere fact that there is a judgment pre-suppose that we have the ability to make proper decisions?

I can see the argument being made that we cannot make proper decisions apart without divine assistance, but not that we cannot, even with divine assistance, make proper decisions. If this weren't the case (that even with divine assistance, we cannot make proper decisions), it would seem to again beg the question as to what we would be judged upon.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Tom] #134338
06/09/11 11:10 PM
06/09/11 11:10 PM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Elle
He provides for all, he guides all, he moves all, he fulfills all,-- God is really the All in All.

Quote:
Matthew 23:35
...the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

When Zechariah was murdered, was it God who was guiding them?

Taking a few steps back, why would God command anything if He is the one doing everything anyway? If that was the case, He would have said to Adam, "You should not eat that fruit, but you have no choice in the matter. One of these days, I will make you eat it, then you will die because of it."

This view is not of a God who wants communion, but one who wants toys.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rosangela] #134344
06/09/11 11:59 PM
06/09/11 11:59 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
I was intrique by your wording of "eternal death", so I search if there were such wording in the entire Bible or any approximation of these words. There's no such wording, not even "for ever death"! or even any close usage with dead.

Elle, if you look at the notes of the NET Bible about John 11:26, you will see that the Greek says, literally, "will never die forever." In fact, our best Portuguese translation says exactly that.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says about this passage:

Quote:
Shall never die (ou mh apoqanh eiß ton aiwna). Strong double negative ou mh with second aorist active subjunctive of apoqnhskw again (but spiritual death, this time), "shall not die for ever" (eternal death).


That is a great exegetical point/dig Rosangela. I have never thought to ever exegetically verify that text that many use to support and eternal soul in the NT era, nor thus did it even come t mind here, as it just did not occur to me that such a clear indication as to what extent of death Jesus was referring to here would be so grossly mistranslated, indeed completely non-translated. Indeed none of the major English version (NASB, NKJV, KJV, RSV/NRSV, NIV) have including this key “forever” (or literally “into the age”) in their translation. Simply unbelievable!!! If that’s not doctrinal bias....


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134375
06/11/11 08:52 AM
06/11/11 08:52 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
I was intrique by your wording of "eternal death", so I search if there were such wording in the entire Bible or any approximation of these words. There's no such wording, not even "for ever death"! or even any close usage with dead.

Elle, if you look at the notes of the NET Bible about John 11:26, you will see that the Greek says, literally, "will never die forever." In fact, our best Portuguese translation says exactly that.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says about this passage:

Quote:
Shall never die (ou mh apoqanh eiß ton aiwna). Strong double negative ou mh with second aorist active subjunctive of apoqnhskw again (but spiritual death, this time), "shall not die for ever" (eternal death).


That is a great exegetical point/dig Rosangela. I have never thought to ever exegetically verify that text that many use to support and eternal soul in the NT era, nor thus did it even come t mind here, as it just did not occur to me that such a clear indication as to what extent of death Jesus was referring to here would be so grossly mistranslated, indeed completely non-translated. Indeed none of the major English version (NASB, NKJV, KJV, RSV/NRSV, NIV) have including this key “forever” (or literally “into the age”) in their translation. Simply unbelievable!!! If that’s not doctrinal bias....

??? these still doesn't address the fact of the absence of the literal "eternal death" or similar direct wording in scriptures.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134378
06/11/11 10:56 AM
06/11/11 10:56 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I think/see it clearly does, Jesus’s: “not die forever” is both expressionally and Theologically synonymous to ‘eternal death’.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #134434
06/12/11 01:48 PM
06/12/11 01:48 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: asygo
Quote:
Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Man was made in God's likeness. That likeness involves quite a few characteristics, but choosing is certainly one of them.

A case of cherry picking! With that logic why don’t you include to govern yourself too! That’s a quality of God. What about have un-borrowed life!

It is true that God created man to have ‘dominion’ or to ‘rule’ over the earth; but this never meant to establish your own decision or your own laws. Any king(or whatever rulers) that God ordained on the earth to rule, these kings do not have the freedom of choice, and they need to rule according to God’s choice/establish set of rules and not their own. If a king does not rule according to God’s set rules, God will overrule them and replace them as you can see all through this history to be the case.

Originally Posted By: ASygo
Even in our fallen state, we are called upon to make choices, to make decisions.
In our fallen state, God gaved us up to our vanity/corrupt heart/imagination. This is not freewill, we are ruled by our vanity(Rom 8:20). The Bible is clear you are either slave of sin or slave of Christ. There’s no middle ground. No Freewill.

Originally Posted By: Asygo
Quote:
Deuteronomy 30:19
... I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Joshua 24:15
... choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...

Proverbs 12:26
The righteous should choose his friends carefully...

Does that mean we are capable of governing ourselves? No. The Bible is very clear about our inability to be good governors, and our need to submit to God.
I agree with you that we need to submit to God and we are totally unable to be good governors. The Bible says we are to become governors with Christ.(Rev 20:6) But somehow we understand that as if we make some type of intellectual decision based on an outside written set of rules accordance to God’s law when the truth in the matter it is Christ that lives IN us and He worketh in us both to WILL and to DO.(Phil 2:13) and fulfill God’s Law through us. The two is a total different ball game. As far as I recall from your postings, you believe in Christ-IN-you Asygo but by agreeing with the “freewill” concept makes you contradict yourself.

Deut 30:19 and Jos 24:15 needs to be understood in context of the real Great Controversy(GC) which is shown in carefully studying the fall of Lucifer and the fall of man. As long as we understand the cause of the fall as a “choice” problem, you will view/interpret Deut 30:19 and Jos 24:15 and other scriptures in that light. But Ez 28:17 makes it very clear that Lucifer did not “choose” to rebel and explains the cause of the fall very clearly

Rom 8:20 : The Elevation-of-Self Phenomenon

The fall of Lucifer was due that he elevated himself. Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: ” which is how his mind got corrupted. It was his beauty and his brightness that triggered the fall. It is very hard to distinguish if what we think and what we do really comes from God for God chose to remain in the background and invisible. For a created being who is still young in the faith and have not yet much experiences and still a child in mind is more vulnerable to get taken by the allusion that what he does comes from him and consequently takes the glory of it. Rom 8:20 “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly

The consequence and the result of the origin of sin is stated in Rom 1:21 “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. “ When we take the credit for our “brightness” or of our “beauty” thinking it comes from us, we also elevates ourself too when we are ignorant of how God works in us. Ep 4:18 “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” .

Law of Desires – Gn 3:16; 4:7

Before sin, God used to be the only husbandman of our soul, however after sin, "vanity"(trust in self or trust/worshipping any other form of "dust"-- worshipping creation instead of the Creator) became our illicit lover. The “law of desires” states that whoever is the lover(God or false gods including ourself) of our soul -- he shall rule over you.

Gn 3:16. "and thy desire (h8669 t'shookah, a longing; from root word h7783 shook, to run after or over, i.e. an overflow) shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

Being a woman, I understand this phenomenon as I experienced this too many times in myself. I don't view this text in a negative way as many does that the man will oppress you. I do acknowledge that this happens many time and ever since the fall. I also acknowledge in the context of Gn 3:16 that God was listing "curses" after A&E's fall. I believe these "curses" are blessings as all God's judgments are-- which meet the crime heads on with a restoring inculcating benefits. So Gn 3:16 is woman's(God’s wife) "judgment" or "curse" or "blessings". I don't believe that any of God's judgment adds new principles/law for there's no " shadow of turning" in God and God is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow". I believe what God established at creation was forever. (Ecc 3:14; Ps 148:6). So I believe that God is meeting the crime by emphasizing a principle/law here that is already in place; however this principle/law will now take the savor of hardship under the hard taskmaster name -- sin.

A woman desires/will becomes her husband's desires/will ---it is just the way we are design. I don't know if it's because woman is taken out of man that this is so, but I do know it is there. I understand that there's a lot of rebellious woman, which is the consequential nature of sin by which it distorts the design. But let's not get into that and just focuss on the basic principle here which is -- our desires becomes whomever rule over us.

God has subjected the creation (especially man & the angels) to vanity (Rom 8:20). When we fell God made "vanity"(the imagination of our natural heart) to rule over us --- which shall rule over thee and our desires (will) shall be to thy husband (vanity)). After sin, God is no longer the only husbandman of our soul, and "vanity"(trust in self or trust/worshipping any other form of "dust"-- worshipping creation instead of the Creator) is our illicit lover.


To Master our Desires – Gn 4:7

T'shookah , (desire) is only used 3 times in the Bible and also found in Gn 4:7 Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire. (t'shookah) , and thou rulest over it.' (YLT)

Here again I see it is stating the "law of desire" that when we fall short of the glory of God, sin is crouching at the door and it will rule over us and it’s desires/will are yours. The NIV translation worded the end of Gn 4:7 as "and you must master it. "(NIV). It means that we need to come to master it -- to not let sin rule over us. Here Cain was dealing with an angry spirit because his offering was not accepted by God. This rejection touched his pride. Of course we know we have no hope to master these strong carnal spirit like anger with our own powers and only through Jesus -- this mastery of sin can be overcome. But to have Jesus ruling our heart can only be possible via addressing the root of the sin problem -- by restoring the Trust in God which would counter the fall.

The Fall resulted the Lost of Trust in God which is the root of all Sin

The fall of Lucifer and Man resulted that they gain trust in their own abilities but consequently lost trust in God. This is what God is dealing with in this GC. His target in His plan of salvation is to restore the trust in God by which would counter the root of the fall. And this can only be done by humbling man.

This work of God is expressed by Jesus who said “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased” Mat 23:12 There’s many other texts stating this as in Is 2:12 “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.

The humbling process is by first showing us that all our lovers/gods(including our abilities) are a bunch of “fakes” and do not provide us anything.(Hos 2:8-13). Only by teaching us the hard way(via laws of tribulations Lev 26 and in other laws) the reality of things by which is to know to what extend that God is Sovereign by which He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” Ep1:11. Only by understanding that God is the only God we will regain our reason/sanity and consequently regain our full trust in God.

It was in God’s plan that Man would fall

Scriptures state that Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world” . Man's failure was built into the divine plan from the beginning of times so he can learn that only God can succeed. That the measure of his success is only according to how much of the Holy Spirit operates in his life. But for man(really only a child) to come to know this, God needed to first subjected him “to vanity, not willingly (Rom 8:20)

Vanity is very well described in Eph 4:17-23 and Rom 1. This wise judgment is worded in the Bible as "God give us up" to uncleanness Rom 1:24 "to vile affections" v.26 “to a reprobate mind" v.28; "to desolation" 2Ch 30:7; " unto their own hearts lust; and they walked in their own counsel (reasoning)” Ps 81:12 ; and " to worship the host of heaven" Act7:42.

In doing this, God is letting man learn the hard way and in the long run(by humbling us) to come to realize that all our lovers have absolutely no powers and no inherent abilities -- that there’s only ONE God(one true Husband) and all comes from Him(Jm 1:17; Jn 3:27; 1Co 4:6-7; Heb 5:4).

Learning Righteousness

No matter what man does, he will always fall short of the glory of God. And whatever spirit(or lover) is over him, will rule over him(Gn 3:16) and he will never be able to master it(Gn 4:7); UNLESS Jesus comes to save him and become his Lord(husbandman) who will master all things.

This wise tacktive of God's plan is also worded in Hosea 2 and in Is 26:9 as " ...for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness (Jesus is our Righteousness). 10. Let favour ("grace" in NIV "Kindness" in NLT) be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord."

v.10 says the wicked do not learn righteousness when kindness or grace is shown to them. This I learn with my children. When they do wrong and if I do not correct them(Laws of Tribulation Lev 26 and other laws) and only show them kindness; they will not learn to do right and will continue to do wrong and not respect me. This principle applies also if the child is “ in the land of uprightness”.

The laws of Tribulations are in place for us to learn righteousness --- to learn that we need Jesus. When we come to see that we cannot do anything of our own including mastering sin, and feel our need of a Savior and come to behold Jesus, then the trust in God becomes restored.

It is a gradual process(sanctification) by which most of the time we don't see much fruits. However, as our trust in God increases and the trust in self decreases as we get to know the truth via the judgments/tribulations of God He brings in our life, then God's spirit will be restore in ruling over us and the "law of desires" will continue to be in effect as stated in Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7, as it was under vanity. The only thing that has changed is the husband vs. the illicit lover, not the law.

The choice/will of the only legit husbandman (Spirit of God) becomes our choice/will and it rules over us. Another way the Bible worded this law is we are either slaves of Jesus or slaves of Sin. There's no middle ground like EGW wrote somewhere.


Therefore Choose Life (Deut 30:19)

I view Deut 30:19 " therefore choose life" in the light of the GC explained above. We cannot choose life any more than we can master sin. To choose life or to master sin, both and equally requires Jesus in our heart.

God lays before Israel life and death, and good and evil(Deut 30:15)....just as He did for Adam and Eve, with the tree of knowledge by which God placed right in the midst of the garden and even provided Lucifer to promote it. Adam and Eve were without sin then and their heart perfect, however they were only babes and their mind still fairly blank with little experiences and pre-knowledge of God. We all know that you do not put in front of children in their sight and reach what you do not want them to touch – unless you want them to touch it at the first place.

By God putting the tree right in their sight was because God had planned for them to fall as it is written in Is 45:7 " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

According to the plan of God, Israel were to fail too and that is acknowledge by Moses in the chapter prior Deut 29:4-5 " Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 5. And I have led you 40 years in the wilderness..." . Isaiah also plainly acknowledge that it was God that made Israel err and hardened their heart all those years in Is 63:17 " O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants sake, the tribes of thine inheritance." Paul also talks about this in great lenght in Rom 9-11.

Our Dualism problem with Good and Evil

Moses and Isaiah and Paul understood that it is God that creates evil by creating the circumstances as He did by placing the tree of knowledge in the midst of the garden in front of babes. Evil comes from God like Job acknowledge in Job 2:10 "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." God gaved permission to Satan to bring evil on Job(Job 1:12, 2:6), and God takes credit for it by saying that it is HE that brought all those evils on Job in Job 42:11. Therefore, since God is responsible by creating the circumstances and allowing what evil to comes on Job; he fulfills His own law of repayment (Ex 22:9) by returning double (v.12) of what He has taken from Job. God is the one that repaid Job because He is the one that took all Job's possession away despite the fact it was Satan that actually did the action. Why this? because it was God who created the situation by bringing Job to Satan's attention and bragged about Job. God knew Satan was going to want to make him fall and he knows how to handle Satan to do his bidding.(see Job 41 about the Leviathan=Satan). God used Satan for He wanted to refined Job. Satan is really God's servant equally like when God used Nebuchadnezzar to bring evil on Israel. Nebuchadnezzar was called God's servant in fulfilling God's purpose.

God gives the power for any adversities' actions, and He determines what evil to bring(Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:15,16, 23; Jer 35:17; 39:16; 40:2; Eze 6:11), and even takes full responsibility for all evils by saying he has done all these things.(Job 42:11; 1Kg 9:9; 17:20; 2Ch 34:28; Neh 13:18; Jer 32:23,42; 42:10; 44:2; Eze 14:22; Deu 32:39; Is 45:7; Ams 3:6; Is 19:22; etc…)

The difference between Evil and Sin

However, we cannot reconcile evil with God -- for in our mind God is good and evil is sin and God cannot sin. Many of us attribute all evil coming from Satan and all good coming from God, when the reality is, in the Bible it says that BOTH comes from God. Death, calamities, pestilence are evils which God may bring on a nation for their sin. All judgment for sin is evil from the perspective of the one receiving it until they come to see that these judgments comes from a just God to judge sin and to bring us to learn righteousness.

God sending evil does not make God a SINNER. We need to know the difference between evil and sin according to the Bible. The Hebrew word for "sin" is Khawtaw (H2398) means "to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin ".

AV Jdg 20:16 Among all this people [there were] seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at an hair [breadth], and not miss Khawtaw


Here the meaning is clear that sinning has to do with not missing the target. When the target/goal/standard is the law of God, then to miss the standard is sin. In this sense, Paul tells us in Rom 3:23 “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” So the Glory of God is the target and all men in shooting that goal, have found their "arrows" miss the mark.

God creates evil, but He never fails to achieve His goal. If He did, according to Biblical definition, He would be considered a sinner. So if we understand God's divine plan, which is His goal, which is not wishful thinking, but a target in all history, then we would know the end from the beginning because God will not fail to reach that goal.

Many thinks that God spends time regretting that A&E fell as if God was taken by surprise or others say the possibility existed and there was a backup plan in case it did. In either way it undermined a failure. Was Adam's sin outside the overall divine plan? No, and nothing was a failure nor God taken by any degree by surprise. All is going according to the original plan setup before creation and neither man nor Satan will be able to stop the least part of God's plan for all His creation.

Evil is only sin if it misses the mark. When mankind trusted in self, he was given a mark to hit, a goal to achieve -- the perfect standard. When men do evil to each other, it is a sin, because they fail to achieve the perfection of the glory of God. When God does evil, it is according to His perfect wisdom and it has purpose and His arrows always hits the bull’s-eye.

We may not always understand what is happening to us at the time of tribulation, but we need to come to the same conclusion as Joseph when sold as a slave by his own brothers, and after being imprisoned for years for false accusation. Joseph said to his brothers in Gen 50:19,20 "...Fear not: for [am] I in the place of God? 20. But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive. "

This is the attitude of spiritual maturity. All bitterness and anger has melted away once he saw the greatest purpose of God in all the "evil" done to him. He had ceased to think of good and evil dualistically and saw it singularly both coming from God and having ultimately a good holy purpose.


The good thing about Destruction

All seed needs to die before it can sprout. The evil is here to destroy us(look up the word destroy H6 'abad and G622 appollumi..notice both these words equally means to be lost, like the parable of the lost coin and the lost sheep which were found).

Like it is prophecied in Deut 30:18 " I tell you this day, that you shall surely ('abad ) perish ('abad ) and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it."

In v.18 stated above, God lays clearly " that you shall surely ('abad ) perish ('abad ) when they entered that physical promised land. Why? Because they were set up to fail. Through their failure God instructs us by showing us their mistakes and at the same time God set up the TYPE which the spiritual meanings needs to be pulled out, so we can come to know the prophetic meanings of the antitypes.

At the feast of Pentecost, they couldn’t handle(still too immature) hearing for themselves the voice of God at the foot of Sinai and begged for Moses to hear it for them and tell them secondhand what God told them(Ex 20:19; Deut 5:27). Because of their inability, the law needed to be given on Stone and the remaining on scrolls -- both was an exterior format – which typified the old covenant. This deprived them of the power of God via the Spirit.

They foolishly thought they could obey God’s law by their own abilities when they said " All that the Lord hat spoken we will do” . Ex 19:8; 24:3,7. In Deut 5:28 the Lord responded to what they said by saying " I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee, they have well said all that they have spoken. Why is God pleased with such a silly\ridiculous\unable-to-fulfilled answer? Because they were set up to fail and all was in accordance to His plan. In the following verse, God acknowledges their inability to fulfill their vow by saying v.29 " O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever” . God very well knew what was ahead and this needed to be fulfilled first for them to mature so that later on God would be able to write directly on their heart(Jer 31) his whole laws and having the spirit of God talking directly to them in every step of their lives.

So, I see the command in Deut 30:19 " therefore choose life" in the same light as what God said to Cain in Gen 4:7 when anger was possessing him " sin lieth at the door. and unto thee shall be his desire, and you must master it." We do not have abilities to master the spirit ruling over us, anymore we have the ability to choose life without God. But according to God's plan, we need to first fail with all our attempts which will destroy us to the dust, so then afterward at His timing, God can come and restore us all back to our original estate according to the Law of Jubilee. That is why it is written that it is the Lord that wounds us(destroy us) and then heals us.(Ps 68:20; Job 5:18; 1Sm 2:6; Has 6:1; Deu 32:39; Jer 30:17; etc..)

Destruction is an important step in the plan of salvation. He destroys(bring us or lovers back to dust) all that we put our faith in, so we can realize that we(and all our lovers) are but dust with absolute no inherent powers and that there's no other gods other than God Himself so that we can turn around and behold God and His Majesty. This is how we learn Righteousness through the judgments of God. Then the trust can be restored as written in Hos 2.

Hosea 2 " 2:2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…2:5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. 2:6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. 2:7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. 2:8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. 2:9 Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness. 2:10 And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. 2:12 And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. 2:13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.

2:14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. 2:15 And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name. …2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

2:20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD….2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.”


Also in Eze 25:7 depicts the principle of the need of destruction so the people could come to know that God is the Lord. " Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish ('abad ) out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD."

In Jer 31:28 show that the Lord both destroys and rebuild. Please note that in both these works, the Lord is watching over us. " And it shall come to pass, [that] like as I have watched over them, to pluck up , and to break down , and to throw down , and to destroy ('abad ) , and to afflict ; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant , saith the LORD."


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134464
06/13/11 03:27 PM
06/13/11 03:27 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Originally Posted By: kland
Elle, I think NJK did a good job in describing why there IS free will. If, as you claim, we don't have free will and if satan doesn't have free will, what caused satan to sin? Did God direct him to sin for some reason?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134483
06/14/11 03:00 AM
06/14/11 03:00 AM
asygo  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,585
California, USA
I haven't read your entire post yet, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, a couple of items....

Originally Posted By: Elle
We all know that you do not put in front of children in their sight and reach what you do not want them to touch – unless you want them to touch it at the first place.

I don't know who the "we" is that "knows" this, but it does not include my wife and me. Except in rare cases where mortal danger is involved, we never hide things or place them beyond the reach of our children. If there is a book I do not want them to read, I leave it in the bookshelf with all the other books, and tell them that they should not read it. Then I expect them to leave it alone. We did the same when they were babies and expected them to sit at the table during mealtimes, and not touch things they were told not to touch. Our mealtimes were much cleaner and less stressful than my friends' mealtimes which essentially consisted of parents desperately keeping things out of reach and kids desperately trying to reach them.

This way of doing things has an even better outcome than calmer meals. My kids are trained to "hear my voice" and follow what I say. When they were kids playing in the park, they sometimes ran toward dangerous places (e.g. street), as kids sometimes do. All I had to do was say "Stop" loud enough for them to hear, and they would stop in their tracks, no matter what they were doing or where they were going. It worked great in the park, it works great in the parking lot, it works great when we go hiking. And I feel somewhat secure that when they are old enough, and they want to do something dangerous (e.g. marry someone that is not right for them), I can say "Stop" and they will trust me enough to stop in their tracks and listen to what I have to say.

Furthermore, I hope to continue training them to gain wisdom so that they can see for themselves when something is dangerous and should be avoided. Then I can die and they will still be OK.

But all this depends on two things: they trust that I know what I'm talking about, and I trust they will choose wisely.

However, the common method of "move it beyond their reach if you don't want them to have it" teaches kids, and adults, that if it is within their reach, then it must be ok to have. That's exactly what you say God set up in Eden.

Originally Posted By: Elle
By God putting the tree right in their sight was because God had planned for them to fall as it is written in Is 45:7 " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

There you have it. In your view, God wanted Adam to do something, then told him not to do it. That's also another thing I would never do with my kids.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #134485
06/14/11 11:18 AM
06/14/11 11:18 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: asygo
Originally Posted By: Elle
We all know that you do not put in front of children in their sight and reach what you do not want them to touch – unless you want them to touch it at the first place.

I don't know who the "we" is that "knows" this, but it does not include my wife and me. Except in rare cases where mortal danger is involved, we never hide things or place them beyond the reach of our children. If there is a book I do not want them to read, I leave it in the bookshelf with all the other books, and tell them that they should not read it. Then I expect them to leave it alone. We did the same when they were babies and expected them to sit at the table during mealtimes, and not touch things they were told not to touch. Our mealtimes were much cleaner and less stressful than my friends' mealtimes which essentially consisted of parents desperately keeping things out of reach and kids desperately trying to reach them.

This way of doing things has an even better outcome than calmer meals. My kids are trained to "hear my voice" and follow what I say. When they were kids playing in the park, they sometimes ran toward dangerous places (e.g. street), as kids sometimes do. All I had to do was say "Stop" loud enough for them to hear, and they would stop in their tracks, no matter what they were doing or where they were going. It worked great in the park, it works great in the parking lot, it works great when we go hiking. And I feel somewhat secure that when they are old enough, and they want to do something dangerous (e.g. marry someone that is not right for them), I can say "Stop" and they will trust me enough to stop in their tracks and listen to what I have to say.

Furthermore, I hope to continue training them to gain wisdom so that they can see for themselves when something is dangerous and should be avoided. Then I can die and they will still be OK.

But all this depends on two things: they trust that I know what I'm talking about, and I trust they will choose wisely.

However, the common method of "move it beyond their reach if you don't want them to have it" teaches kids, and adults, that if it is within their reach, then it must be ok to have. That's exactly what you say God set up in Eden.

I agree that we need to teach our children to not touch instead of hiding the objects, however, the objects placed into their reach is proportionate to their level of understanding and development. You do not put a sharp knife in your baby’s playpen as an object in reach. You will be very selective of what you put there. As a father, you know when it is time to put in reach those sharp knives.

Originally Posted By: Asygo
Originally Posted By: Elle
By God putting the tree right in their sight was because God had planned for them to fall as it is written in Is 45:7 " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

There you have it. In your view, God wanted Adam to do something, then told him not to do it. That's also another thing I would never do with my kids.
God knew it was going to happen and it didn’t start with A&E, it started with Lucifer. By creating us with reason and so wonderfully made unperceiving where our thoughts came from and by God being in the background and invisible, God knew that we would come to take His glory. So God made a perfect plan before creating anything and Christ was slain from the beginning in His plan.

Regardless if you would do this to your children or not Asygo, the fact is God did it to His children and according to His own Laws of Liabilities, He is ultimately responsible for sin.

God’s Laws of Liability

Ex 21:28 “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

Ex 21:33 “If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.

These two laws are pretty much the same in it's end result but with different causes.

The Crazy Bull : In heaven, God had a bull that was known to gore and did "kill" 1/3 of the angels of heaven. Instead of penning up the crazy bull, he let him loose in Adam's field (earth). This bull gored his wife, and then Adam. The penalty of this law requires that the bull be stoned (judged by the law) and the owner must be killed. Had Jesus refused he would have sinned because he would have been in violation of this law.

Pit uncovered : God dug a pit by planting the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden. He warned Adam away, but didn't put a cover over the pit. The law required that a hedge or fence be put around this tree to prevent Adam or Eve from eating its fruit. Eve & Adam fell into the pit. The one who dug the pit had to redeem the animal that fell in.

Deut 22:8 "When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof."

House Not Safe : Jesus built this house (world) but he did not provide proper safety with it. It has caused the death of many people. Restitution is required, and the required restitution is redemption.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134488
06/14/11 12:04 PM
06/14/11 12:04 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Wow. It's all God's fault.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134489
06/14/11 12:08 PM
06/14/11 12:08 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Quote:
Regardless if you would do this to your children or not Asygo, the fact is God did it to His children and according to His own Laws of Liabilities, He is ultimately responsible for sin.
I think Asygo is a very good parent! Do you say that God isn't as good as earthly parents?

If God made the laws and then failed by them, why couldn't He just change His laws? If you say He changes not, then would that mean He is basically bad, that His character is flawed? Why not His laws be flawed, then, and in need of changing?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134494
06/14/11 02:13 PM
06/14/11 02:13 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
The GC make so much more since to me to believe, indeed as the Bible actually teaches, that sin is the result of the free choice of God’s created beings, all within a context of God’s love granting this freedom; rather than this alternative view that, (as kland rightly summarily remarked), ‘it’s all God’s deliberate fault’. It’s way too “bipolar” for me. I.e., God wants to eradicate evil but He is the one who is forcing it to occur??!


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134496
06/14/11 02:24 PM
06/14/11 02:24 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
I agree that we need to teach our children to not touch instead of hiding the objects, however, the objects placed into their reach is proportionate to their level of understanding and development. You do not put a sharp knife in your baby’s playpen as an object in reach. You will be very selective of what you put there. As a father, you know when it is time to put in reach those sharp knives.


As I understand it, Adam and Eve were created with fully develop capacities. So they perfectly understood the clear warnings of God to “not eat the fruit” and also the consequences for doing so. So unlike a baby who would not understand what a knife was, and what ‘not touching it means’ Adam and Eve perfectly understood those things. It was just that Eve allowed herself to be deceived and then when Adam saw nothing had happened to her, and fearing to lose her, he also sinned.

And placing a single tree amongst many others, making it virtually out of reach, certainly out of any necessity of eating its fruit, is not synonymous with ‘placing a knife in a cognitively “deficient” baby’s playpen.’


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134581
06/18/11 08:50 AM
06/18/11 08:50 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Elle
I agree that we need to teach our children to not touch instead of hiding the objects, however, the objects placed into their reach is proportionate to their level of understanding and development. You do not put a sharp knife in your baby’s playpen as an object in reach. You will be very selective of what you put there. As a father, you know when it is time to put in reach those sharp knives.
As I understand it, Adam and Eve were created with fully develop capacities. So they perfectly understood the clear warnings of God to “not eat the fruit” and also the consequences for doing so.
Have you ever had children NJK? It takes lots of repetition for a child to learn. A&E where still babes despite the fact they were in “fully develop capacities”. Just because you have a brain that understand “you should not eat… if you do … you will die”; (1)they didn’t understand death, (2)they didn’t understand why God didn't want them to eat it, (3)they didn’t know God very much, (4)they didn’t know much at all for they were both just created. Their mind had no pre-collected experience to bounce all these questions unto.

Originally Posted By: NJK
So unlike a baby who would not understand what a knife was, and what ‘not touching it means’ Adam and Eve perfectly understood those things.
I disagree. How would they know about death, when they never seen it? How would they know about God without knowing much about Him before hand?

Originally Posted By: NJK
And placing a single tree amongst many others, making it virtually out of reach, certainly out of any necessity of eating its fruit, is not synonymous with ‘placing a knife in a cognitively “deficient” baby’s playpen.’

1. How about the fact the tree was the only tree they were not to eat which makes it stand out from all the others.

2.It was placed "in the midst" of the garden... to their reach and their sight, so it would come to their mind all these questions when they passed by it.

3. And that God providing Satan to promote the knife! Look how shinny it is! Don’t you want to touch it?


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134582
06/18/11 09:15 AM
06/18/11 09:15 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
The GC make so much more since to me to believe, indeed as the Bible actually teaches, that sin is the result of the free choice of God’s created beings, all within a context of God’s love granting this freedom; rather than this alternative view that,

Rom 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope"

Originally Posted By: NJK
(as kland rightly summarily remarked), ‘it’s all God’s deliberate fault’. It’s way too “bipolar” for me. I.e., God wants to eradicate evil but He is the one who is forcing it to occur??!

Whose really bipolar here? You put Evil and Good in two opposite spectrum. I have consolidated them according to what the Bible reveals. Evil and Good both comes from God! See Post#134434 read “Dualism problem with Good and Evil

Isaiah 55:8-9 "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

God knows what He's doing when He created Evil and He will not miss the mark!


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134587
06/18/11 12:20 PM
06/18/11 12:20 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
Elle: I agree that we need to teach our children to not touch instead of hiding the objects, however, the objects placed into their reach is proportionate to their level of understanding and development. You do not put a sharp knife in your baby’s playpen as an object in reach. You will be very selective of what you put there. As a father, you know when it is time to put in reach those sharp knives.

NJK: As I understand it, Adam and Eve were created with fully develop capacities. So they perfectly understood the clear warnings of God to “not eat the fruit” and also the consequences for doing so.

Elle: Have you ever had children NJK?


No, but I’ve had to deal with many of them, including first-handly myself at an applicable prior time. And I see, know and understand that some are much more obedient than others. It all a matter of how much they trust their parent. Adam and Eve were most cognitive enough to know to trust the one who had recently created everything, including themselves.

Originally Posted By: Elle
It takes lots of repetition for a child to learn. A&E where still babes despite the fact they were in “fully develop capacities”.


That indeed is my whole point..., (that is, as I am understanding things on purely a cognitive/responsible mature scale), Adam and Eve were not children, even in spirit. And Adam knew/understood enough to name all the animals, presumably within one day, and he had never seen them before. They understood much more on their first day than we’ll ever understand.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Just because you have a brain that understand “you should not eat… if you do … you will die”; (1)they didn’t understand death,


I do not see God telling them something which He knew they could never grasp, and not even explaining it if necessary (which you have not evidence that He did not), and considering this to be a fair test or even “sin” when they would have acted without such proper knowledge. (Rom 14:23). And Satan also mentioned the term death without any explanation. Indeed he pointed refers to it because he knew that he had to attack its “fearfulness” head on in order to sway them to his side. (cf. PP 54.2*) If Eve did not understand, she would have probably asked then: “What exactly is death??” Adam also first took note that Eve had not adversely changed in any detrimental way (i.e., begun to die), indeed including not having dropped dead. As EGW says, he saw that “no sign of death appeared in her” and so “decided to brave the consequences” (PP 56.2). Their future tangible observations of dead only serve to “bring vividly to mind the stern fact that death is the portion of every living thing.” (PP 62.1) and not inform them of what death actually was.

So they both knew what to look for. They just trust the Serpents claims more than God all revolving on this knowledge of what death entails. Again without such a knowledge the test would not have begun to be fair at all.

*(Sorry if you defaulty don’t accept EGW, even anything that she may say on a topic, (and given your view here, I can see why) but I do not see it as Biblical (1 Thess 5:19-21; Acts 17:11), especially in an SDA discussion, to so categorically reject the God’s “Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev 19:10). Indeed I exegetically do not see in regards to this issue that EGW had the accurate/Biblical understanding of “God and the Future”, however, as seen in a related thread (Post #132426ff), I do find/use her direct revelations (i.e., vs. her derived comments which are based upon her understanding of those revelations) to arrive at what the actual Biblical teaching is on this topic. The effective issue here is in regards to such direct SOP revelations is either EGW was merely relating what she had seen in vision or she was lying. I don’t see the latter as an option, especially all in God’s knowledge. An inaccurate understanding of direct revelations leading to inaccurate/incomplete statements is another, and non “sinful” thing, especially within the context of the GC where God is limited to what He can clearly reveal. So He does focus on the fundamental direct revelations.)

Originally Posted By: Elle
(2)they didn’t understand why God didn't want them to eat it,


That’s just your, actually circular, assumption, the Biblical record implies that they fully understood that they would die if they ate of it.

Originally Posted By: Elle
(3)they didn’t know God very much,


On what do you base this claim on?? They met in person with Jesus, perhaps daily. And who knows how long these meetings went on before their fall.

Originally Posted By: Elle
(4)they didn’t know much at all for they were both just created. Their mind had no pre-collected experience to bounce all these questions unto.


Their perfect and fully developed faculties made them easily get up to speed on things. And if they did not know what death meant, they would have asked for an explanation, which they may indeed have, especially as when they were first told about this consequence, they had a full and impartial desire to obey God and do His will. The Devil’s temptation had not instilled any doubt in their mind yet. Indeed even if you have an ‘ignorant children’ view here, you can readily see/know from children that one of their common early question, especially when they have reached a certain cognitive level, that Adam and Eve surely had reached, is: ‘What does [word] means???’ E.g., What does “poison” mean? Indeed especially when they have no idea what it is, even to know that it may be an appealing thing.

Quote:
NJK: So unlike a baby who would not understand what a knife was, and what ‘not touching it means’ Adam and Eve perfectly understood those things.

Elle: I disagree. How would they know about death, when they never seen it? How would they know about God without knowing much about Him before hand?


(Answered above)

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: And placing a single tree amongst many others, making it virtually out of reach, certainly out of any necessity of eating its fruit, is not synonymous with ‘placing a knife in a cognitively “deficient” baby’s playpen.’


Originally Posted By: Elle
1. How about the fact the tree was the only tree they were not to eat which makes it stand out from all the others.

2.It was placed "in the midst" of the garden... to their reach and their sight, so it would come to their mind all these questions when they passed by it.

3. And that God providing Satan to promote the knife! Look how shinny it is! Don’t you want to touch it?


Well, succinctly said here, and even playing devil’s advocate here: it is not a “test”, i.e., a fair one, if you (a) provide the answers at the bottom of the test paper or conversely, (b) test on things that you never assigned and/or taught in class. This was all so “fairly done” for the same reasons that God had allowed Satan to fight “strength for strength” for the occupancy of Heaven at the beginning of this GC.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134588
06/18/11 12:22 PM
06/18/11 12:22 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Quote:
NJK: The GC make so much more since to me to believe, indeed as the Bible actually teaches, that sin is the result of the free choice of God’s created beings, all within a context of God’s love granting this freedom; rather than this alternative view that,

Elle: Rom 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope"


That is speaking of what God allowed to occur with creation, which includes animals, after the Fall. Indeed nature didn’t have to suffer the sin punishment as sinning Adam and Eve, but as Paul is saying here (vs. 21) God did this for the best of Creation. Perhaps God is going to recreate all animals that ever lived. Indeed, as seen in dogs, they have a quite advanced cognitive and relational level. So this ‘unwilling subjection’ will also be beneficial for them, especially if they are to be resurrected. So these verses probably succinctly answer the common/popular question: “Will Fido be in Heaven??”

Quote:
NJK: (as kland rightly summarily remarked), ‘it’s all God’s deliberate fault’. It’s way too “bipolar” for me. I.e., God wants to eradicate evil but He is the one who is forcing it to occur??!

Elle: Whose really bipolar here? You put Evil and Good in two opposite spectrum. I have consolidated them according to what the Bible reveals. Evil and Good both comes from God! See Post#134434 read “Dualism problem with Good and Evil”


It may help you here to understand that the Hebrew word for “evil” can merely mean “adversity/calamity”. (cf. Post #134082). That understood distinction may be seen in the LXX’s use of “kakos” (=‘cacophony’ thus “discordance/harm”) in Isa 45:7 vs. “poneron” (“evil” - e.g., Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22). So God creating “adversities/calamities” to fulfill a purpose, as seen in His acts of judgement, is not actually “evil” as we extremely understand it. It is with judicious cause. However ‘forcing men to sin so that they can suffer evil’ is without any judicious and rational justification. Hence that extreme case would be “bipolar”.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Isaiah 55:8-9 "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

God knows what He's doing when He created Evil and He will not miss the mark!


You still have not/cannot explain why many have died in unsaved state, including at God’s own hand. So He would have quite evidently “missed the mark” here.

Such unanswered countering statements are still standing against your view so you may opt to address them, and that, head on.

Last edited by NJK Project; 06/18/11 01:28 PM. Reason: LXX understanding of "evil"

“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134597
06/18/11 03:38 PM
06/18/11 03:38 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Rom 8:19-21 – Talking about MAN, not Animals

Quote:
NJK: The GC make so much more since to me to believe, indeed as the Bible actually teaches, that sin is the result of the free choice of God’s created beings, all within a context of God’s love granting this freedom; rather than this alternative view that,

Elle: Rom 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope"

NJK : That is speaking of what God allowed to occur with creation, which includes animals, after the Fall. Indeed nature didn’t have to suffer the sin punishment as sinning Adam and Eve, but as Paul is saying here (vs. 21) God did this for the best of Creation. Perhaps God is going to recreate all animals that ever lived. Indeed, as seen in dogs, they have a quite advanced cognitive and relational level. So this ‘unwilling subjection’ will also be beneficial for them, especially if they are to be resurrected. So these verses probably succinctly answer the common/popular question: “Will Fido be in Heaven??”

Rom 8:20 is not mainly referring to the animals nor does v.21 implies this in any means. It mainly implies Man for sure because :

Context : V. 19 & 21 says 19. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…..Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. “ I don’t think fido fitting this category.

God Creating Evil or Adversity

Quote:
NJK: (as kland rightly summarily remarked), ‘it’s all God’s deliberate fault’. It’s way too “bipolar” for me. I.e., God wants to eradicate evil but He is the one who is forcing it to occur??!

Elle: Whose really bipolar here? You put Evil and Good in two opposite spectrum. I have consolidated them according to what the Bible reveals. Evil and Good both comes from God! See Post#134434 read “Dualism problem with Good and Evil”

NJK: It may help you here to understand that the Hebrew word for evil can merely mean “adversity”. (cf. Post #134082). So God creating adversity to fulfill a purpose, as seen in His acts of judgement, is not actually “evil” as we extremely understand it.
Yes I agree that God created EVIL or as you worded it “adversity to fulfill a purpose”. However, the Hebrew word employed here is “ra” meaning bad or evil. It comes from the root word “ra’a” proper meaning is “to spoil” and figuratively means “to make good for nothing”, i.e. bad.

However, I have no problem using your definition for I have the same understanding of that text in Is 45 that God creates adversity. To stay in those lines of thoughts, let’s note that the Hebrew word Satan means “adversary” by which with the presence of the prefix character He translated as “the” --it is literally translated as “Satan”, however that same word with the absence of the prefix is translated also as “adversary” by which could be anyone. Having this in mind and according to your understanding of Is 45 -- would you say that God created Satan? – The Adversary – for the purpose that God can manifest Himself?

Forcing or Not – Is not the Issue

Originally Posted By: NJK
It is with judicious cause. However ‘forcing men to sin so that they can suffer evil’ is without any judicious and rational justification. Hence that extreme case would be “bipolar”.
God created the situation (the adversity) in the garden by putting the tree in the midst, and by providing a tree “promoter”(SATAN). Regardless if you want to view the result of this adversity that God created as ‘forcing or not – it still doesn’t change the fact that – (1) God created the situation, (2) God also Creator of ALL the players and (3)God is Sovereign and (4)in control of the rules and (5) what is allowed or not. (6) Sooooo…..God is ultimately Responsible.

Polarized Good & Evil becomes Unified

It is viewed as an extreme case of “bipolar” when we do not see the end from the beginning. Joseph at his time of captivity and being under the adversities that God brought in his life, at first he probably didn’t see the end from the beginning. But at the end, when He saw God’s big plan and purpose for the adversity so to use him to saved many; then the Evil was no more “bipolarized” from Good in his mind – they were both unified into God’s good plan “that all things work together for good" when he saw the end. So Joseph could say. Gen 50:19,20 "...Fear not: for [am] I in the place of God? 20. But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive. "

Did God Miss the Mark ?

Quote:
Elle : Isaiah 55:8-9 "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

God knows what He's doing when He created Evil and He will not miss the mark!

NJK : You still have not/cannot explain why many have died in unsaved state, including at God’s own hand. So He would have quite evidently “missed the mark” here.
Such unanswered countering statements are still standing against your view so you may opt to address them, and that, head on.


???? I have already answered you this at least 3 times. But for some reason you seem to not register my answer. Just as in the life of Joseph God showed us that He foresaw a plan at the beginning and used Joseph to saved everyone; so it will be in the end of the great Jubilee where all Creation will be restore to it’s original estate. This is depicted in the Law of Jubilee and in the 3 harvests(Barley(Firstfruits), Wheat(Believers/Church), Grapes(unbelievers)). All the Harvests are Harvested, only the chaft is burned….Everyone are saved!!! God does not “miss the mark” as He has promised Rom 11:26 All Israel shall be saved” .

God’s Vow

God made a vow in Is 45 in saying every knee will bow. And the word of the Lord will be fulfilled at the great White throne. Is 45:23-25 " I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

This vow is dependant on God's will and not man's will. It is God that made that vow and his word is sure and true. Every or ALL here or in the NT means EVERY and ALL Mankind. In verse 25 it specifies that ALL will be justified and shall glory. It doesn't say that this passage only means that the dead acknowledge that Jesus is king of king BUT they didn’t repent and would sin afterwards and that’s why they need to be annihilated. This text indicate that these people shall glory makes it clear that these people will be converted after the great white throne judgment. And that’s probably when these people will come unto the knowledge of the truth and be saved 1tim 2:4. Probably, only at that time they will see the end and concluded the same as Joseph once they see that the Evil was meant for Good.

God’s Saves ALL

God said to Abraham, that “ in thy seed (Jesus) shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. (Gen 12:3; 22:18; Acts 3:25; Gal 3:8) Here’s some texts that says directly or indirectly that God will save all (pas) Mankind. Most of these NT text uses the word pas g3956 [i]“including all forms of declension; all, any, every, the whole. Adj meaning “ALL”: including the idea of oneness, a totalily or the whole.”) (Ps 82:8; Acts 3:21; Eph 1:9,10; Col 1:20; Rom 8:19-23; 2Cor 5:19; Rom 5:15-18; 1Cor 15:22-28; Ep 1:3-10; Ph 2:11; 1Tim 4:10; 1 Tim 2:1-6; 1Jn 4:14; John 3:17; 1Jn 2:2; Jn 1:29; 1Jn 3:8; Rev 21:4,5; John 3:35; John 6:39; Jn 12:32; Num 14:21; Hab 1:12; Ps 36:6; Ps 103:6; Ps 148:6; …)


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134602
06/18/11 07:08 PM
06/18/11 07:08 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Here are the answers to your comments, Elle:

Elle: “Rom 8:19-21 – Talking about MAN, not Animals”
Rom 8-19-21 is actually/exegetcally speaking of the benefits that righteous men and women will come to have on all of God’s creation, indeed to reverse the curse that their sinning had brought upon it. This “Creation” is pitted against the “sons /children of God”. That is why Paul has to twice qualifyingly say after his ‘groaning statement’ in vs. 22, that ‘this also applies to humans, and that we, even believers, are also awaiting for this result from our own completed redemption’ (vs. 23). And so is the hope that, due to this permitted restoration of righteousness, everything wil again be made aright, including in nature/creation.

Elle: “God Creating Evil or Adversity”
I had updated my post to also include “calamity” as the definition of the Hebrew ra’. So there is a most accurate distinction between “calamity” and “adversary”.

Also Hebrew was not a perfect and “wordy” language and that is why the LXX does many times provide more accurate words for expression that were understood to be distinct in the Hebrew, however there was not a proper word to express it in that language. (That is why I also believed that God allowed Greek to become the major language of the World, even in Roman times, for the purpose of the accurate expression of the Gospel message.)

And God did freely allow for the development of an “adversary”, though without forcing anything.

Elle: “Forcing or Not – Is not the Issue”
Similarly, God’s placing of a testing tree in Eden is complete distinct from a claim that He forced Adam and Eve to eat from it. They freely chose to do that and therein is the fairness in all of this and the concept of freewill in this GC. Indeed without this tree for them to tangibly concretize a disobedience to God if so chose, there actually is no freewill. They could not chose something that was not there to choose.

And I do see that our difference here is on this issue of forcing Adam and Eve to choose evil vs. them freely choosing to do so.

Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
Joseph’s story. -God allowed what happened to Joseph to take place, i.e., played along with the free choice developments of his brothers, and thus “meant it for good” as one of the thousands of ways he could have succeed in just bringing Joseph to Egypt. And given the free evil disposition of his brothers, the Patriarchs of His Israel, this way was indeed the best one under those circumstances as God could also use it to most strikingly humble his brothers and serve as an object lesson for the nation of Israel.

So God could have easily brought Joseph to Egypt by giving him his famine-overcoming dreams while in Canaan and instructing him to travel to Egypt and relate them to Pharaoh as the solution, however God also had to deal with this evil and jealousy with these brothers, and perhaps also tinge of pride in Joseph.

Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
Perhaps I finally see your answer to your question here as you are directly answering it, i.e., head on. My question now is: Do you believe in some form of post-death second chance or purgatory. I.e. that between the death of a person and God’s final appearance, they will be given a chance to change. Thus, e.g., the Antediluvians; the people in Sodom and Gomorrah; the wicked people living in some nearby cities of Canaan that God ordered to be all killed, etc. all will have a post-death chance to be saved?? Of course then, being resurrected, basing this on “sight” and not “faith” as God’s gracious redemption actually necessitates.

You mention the Jubilee, which I believe will be forced to fully occur because God’s Church has failed in doing the work which would have skipped a full implementation of this type, do you believe that people will be resurrected to live a proper life during this pre-advent (cf. EW 286.1) Jubilee period. My view is that this will only apply to those who are alive then, and all still in faith. The Bible teaches that everyone seals their fate upon their death.

In regards to your claim of Rom 11;26, Paul qualifies “Israel” as only those who come to accept Jesus Christ. (E.g. Rom 9:6-8ff; cf. Gal 3:29 & Rom 2:28, 29)

Elle: “God’s Vow”
God’s vow in Isa 45:23-25 to have all bow before Him in acknowledgement does not mean that they confessing ones, indeed merely out of defeat, will be saved. Satan and evil angels will also bow, however they will not be saved. For those who will bow then, indeed while standing outside of God’s New Jerusalem, it will long have been too late. GC 668.2-671.2ff. Indeed just after that, they seek to continue their work of rebellion as stated in the Bible (Rev 20:7-11). You cannot build a teaching on one verse alone, i.e., you claim for Isa 45:25. (Perhaps you don’t accept the SOP direct revelation of those events, however that does not change those Biblical realities which the SOP serves to guide one to.)

Elle: “God’s Saves ALL”
God’s promise of worldwide (= indeed “all”) blessing through Abraham is not synonymous with those blessed people being Spiritually saved. It just means that God’s Triumphant Israel will have a most positive and beneficial impact on the entire world, yet people will still, as in Eden, be free to choose whether to live by God’s ways or not. However in the light of this realized blessing, they will seal their fate as they will then be acting in the light of great and clear knowledge of God and His righteous, and tangibly beneficial ways.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134656
06/22/11 03:13 PM
06/22/11 03:13 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Originally Posted By: Elle
You put Evil and Good in two opposite spectrum. I have consolidated them according to what the Bible reveals. Evil and Good both comes from God!

Quote:
Everyone are saved!!! God does not “miss the mark” as He has promised Rom 11:26 “All Israel shall be saved” .

That's a relief!
Guess if God is the cause of evil, and the cause of me making bad "choices", and I don't really have a choice in the manner, but still will be saved, I don't have to worry. I can eat, drink, and be happy! No worries, no repentance. Yea! We are only puppets in some sort of charade or a distorted non-experiment.
Enjoy life to the fullest for tomorrow we ... live forever!

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134665
06/23/11 01:02 AM
06/23/11 01:02 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Indeed kland, sound to me like the post-modern fanciful way of thinking: ‘Everybody goes to Heaven in the end.’ Indeed no matter if they repent or not. Jesus obviously didn’t understand this purported “Gospel Truth”. (John 3:16-21)


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134669
06/23/11 09:48 AM
06/23/11 09:48 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Indeed kland, sound to me like the post-modern fanciful way of thinking: ‘Everybody goes to Heaven in the end.’ Indeed no matter if they repent or not. Jesus obviously didn’t understand this purported “Gospel Truth”. (John 3:16-21)

It may be that we have :
a) long misunderstood God’s plan of Salvation
b) under-estimated His ability to bring us all to repentance (all knee shall bow” ),
c) the true meaning of Jesus judgment at His 2nd coming and after the Millenium;
d) and it’s process and progress throughout different ages -- Aion (an Age).

Ac 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution ( or restoration) of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

It is the Ministry of Elijah to restore all things(Mat 17:11) and Ac 3:21 tell us that the restoration of all things was prophesied since the world began. Which means it’s been told to Adam and the generations after. We should find clear referenced about it in the Old Testament especially in the TYPE(e.g. the Law of Jubilee).

We all been taught that Jesus 2nd coming brings complete destruction of all things on the earth and only the “redeemed”(5% to 10%) will be saved. Then after the millennium, the 90% will be resurrected and will be annihilated after God’s judgment. That is not a restoration of all things and it is not what is depicted in the Law of Jubilee, nor according to the Redemption TYPE.

Our view of judgment is a severe punitive bias view based on our carnal perspective and what we are familiar with how the world judicial system deals with criminals. Let’s not forget that Man’s way is not God’s way. And that possibly our view of God’s Judgment is wrong.

Jesus is indeed coming to judge the world for all judgment has been committed to Him (John 5:27). But judgment is not synonymous with condemnation. The Greek word for judgment Krisis which means decision( by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law)). To judge means to rightly discern who is lying and who is telling the truth once the witnesses has been heard. He is able to bring a proper judgment in the case to restore the lawful order. He may judge the sinner by making him pay restitution, or he may judge the righteous by justifying or acquitting him.

Divine justice is done with a heart of love that pursues the truth. Where there is an offence (sin), love corrects the sinner through the judgment of the law. The sinner’s heart may well be hardened and self-centered; therefore from his view the law is evil, which is a false view that will be corrected with time. So, the purpose of the law is to correct and restore the sinner and to bring restitution to the victim according to the lawful order.

Therefore the judgment that Jesus is bringing upon the earth are meant to restore all things, not to destroy all things. Jesus judgment according to the law will bring knowledge of sin and thus will destroy the sin, not the sinner.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134672
06/23/11 02:01 PM
06/23/11 02:01 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
As usual with you Elle, in your replies, you only involve one side of the issue in your view and thus cause those claimed supporting texts to become unbalanced and go to an extreme that they do not mean. Case in point your “all things” is supposed to mean ‘even people who do not want to be saved.’ Did you not read the next two verses where Peter, anti-typically making the application to Christ, says:

Originally Posted By: Bible Acts 3:23
“And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'” (Acts 3:(22), 23).


That is speaking of the utter destruction of Hell Judgement.

Simply said, your view of the judgement, restoration and Divine Justice are one-sided and eisegetical and thus not according to what is revealed in the Bible or the SOP (Rev 19:10b) [i.e., direct revelations given to EGW], which you greatly err in summarily, defaulty, wholly rejecting.

My experience with SDA’s who so entirely reject the SOP is that they never had a proper understanding of how inspiration works and so when they come across an outright error in the SOP, which do occur, and/or an incomplete (personal) understanding of EGW, (which, when “completed’ by further Biblical study will not, at least Spiritually/Theologically oppose/contradict what EGW had said, but make it more full), they vexatiously just chuck the SOP out the window. That is not Biblical (1 Thess 5:19-21).

The views you are advancing are indeed contrary to the SOP, on top of the Bible’s testimony and it is thus quite easy to both: summarily not accept what you are claiming and also easily see/perceive that you are reading too much/or extremely into texts and making them say what they never (exegetically, -which includes comparative Biblical context) meant.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134683
06/24/11 05:26 PM
06/24/11 05:26 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Elle,

You may want to do a search for "All" and see if "all" always means all.

It's making sense now. When we were discussing whether holy angels were having sex with man, I was asking you who was in the wrong. You were objecting why that needed to be determined. Now it makes sense. If we are all puppets in some sort of charade/drama for who knows whom, then no one is doing wrong. God is playing god and zapping those who he wishes for amusement. Kind of reminds me of a twisted Star Trek show I saw long ago.

But still, I find it hard to understand things such as, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Which doesn't quite sound like God caused Noah or manipulated his strings to find grace, but that through choices Noah made, he found grace.

What's the purpose of the Bible? To show us that we need not worry, that I'm ok, you're ok, we all are going to be saved so eat, drink, and be merry? I always thought it was to warn us to make the right choice of who we are going to serve.


I agree with you in theory that if someone and the Bible disagrees, we should discard her for the Bible. However, I also believe Ellen White to be inspired from God. So, if I should see a disagreement, I conclude there is a problem with me in my understanding rather than with her.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134690
06/24/11 06:58 PM
06/24/11 06:58 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I agree with your take away here kland. It’s the (Biblically) logical implication.

Originally Posted By: kland
Kind of reminds me of a twisted Star Trek show I saw long ago.


Not endorsing or recommending Hollywood in anyway but this view by Elle reminded me of the recent para-religious plotted 2011 movie The Adjustment Bureau which I was shocked to see got it Biblically right, even if through a circuitous/twisted way. To the point that I suspect the writer/director is a Christian and had an “para-evangelistic” agenda. (If one does not have any “spoiler” cares, I’ll mention that “Biblical” denouement/ending.)


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: kland] #134720
06/25/11 05:58 PM
06/25/11 05:58 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: kland
Elle,

You may want to do a search for "All" and see if "all" always means all.

It's making sense now. When we were discussing whether holy angels were having sex with man, I was asking you who was in the wrong. You were objecting why that needed to be determined. Now it makes sense. If we are all puppets in some sort of charade/drama for who knows whom, then no one is doing wrong. God is playing god and zapping those who he wishes for amusement. Kind of reminds me of a twisted Star Trek show I saw long ago.

But still, I find it hard to understand things such as, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Which doesn't quite sound like God caused Noah or manipulated his strings to find grace, but that through choices Noah made, he found grace.

What's the purpose of the Bible? To show us that we need not worry, that I'm ok, you're ok, we all are going to be saved so eat, drink, and be merry? I always thought it was to warn us to make the right choice of who we are going to serve.


I agree with you in theory that if someone and the Bible disagrees, we should discard her for the Bible. However, I also believe Ellen White to be inspired from God. So, if I should see a disagreement, I conclude there is a problem with me in my understanding rather than with her.

Kland, if you want to discuss take time to read what the person is saying. You're twisting things around. Plus you are bringing another discussion here that you are twisting also; so to cast shade on my character. If you want to discuss, please stick to the discussion and not the individual .

I am reporting this post.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134724
06/25/11 07:02 PM
06/25/11 07:02 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Apparently I should know/do better than to seemingly wholly agree with someone else’s summary observations without verifying things in detail for myself first. Sorry for any implied misunderstanding here Elle. I was pointedly referring to what I considered to be independently substantive “takeaways” in kland’s post in regards to issues for this discussion.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134736
06/25/11 10:59 PM
06/25/11 10:59 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Sorry, I missed this post NJK. This is long and I don't have much time more to edit it. Sorry for the pour quality.
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Here are the answers to your comments, Elle:

Elle: “Rom 8:19-21 – Talking about MAN, not Animals”
NJK: Rom 8-19-21 is actually/exegetcally speaking of the benefits that righteous men and women will come to have on all of God’s creation, indeed to reverse the curse that their sinning had brought upon it. This “Creation” is pitted against the “sons /children of God”. That is why Paul has to twice qualifyingly say after his ‘groaning statement’ in vs. 22, that ‘this also applies to humans, and that we, even believers, are also awaiting for this result from our own completed redemption’ (vs. 23). And so is the hope that, due to this permitted restoration of righteousness, everything wil again be made aright, including in nature/creation.


You are not reading the text as it is simply written. To come to what you are saying, you have to add things to the text which is not there to say what you want it to say. V.21 says “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God It’s not talking about fido here and it’s not saying that only those that are saved either. Plus v. 23 says not only they (refering to the the creature mention in v20 and 21), but ourselves also,(the believers), which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (the believers) groan withing ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to with, the redemption of our body.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “God Creating Evil or Adversity”
NJK: I had updated my post to also include “calamity” as the definition of the Hebrew ra’. So there is a most accurate distinction between “calamity” and “adversary”.

Also Hebrew was not a perfect and “wordy” language and that is why the LXX does many times provide more accurate words for expression that were understood to be distinct in the Hebrew, however there was not a proper word to express it in that language. (That is why I also believed that God allowed Greek to become the major language of the World, even in Roman times, for the purpose of the accurate expression of the Gospel message.)

And God did freely allow for the development of an “adversary”, though without forcing anything.


Hmmm… preferring Greek over Hebrew. Not a good sign. So we at least agree here on the word adversary despite you didn’t answer my question concerning if God created “adversity”, then did He create Satan which means “adversary”?

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “Forcing or Not – Is not the Issue”
NJK: Similarly, God’s placing of a testing tree in Eden is complete distinct from a claim that He forced Adam and Eve to eat from it. They freely chose to do that and therein is the fairness in all of this and the concept of freewill in this GC. Indeed without this tree for them to tangibly concretize a disobedience to God if so chose, there actually is no freewill. They could not chose something that was not there to choose.

And I do see that our difference here is on this issue of forcing Adam and Eve to choose evil vs. them freely choosing to do so.


Force: We’ve been over this many times.

And to repeat, the GC has nothing to do with the freewill, It has all to do with Ownership, Because God has created us and is the mover of all things, He is responsible for His creation. A goo God will correct/discipline his wayward children. He does not “destroy” them like the world destroys each other. God Destruction (Greek =apollumi or Hebrew = ‘abad – also means “lost” and Jesus said the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son are found) is the way Christ destroys the old man of sin, to recreate a new one. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? ” Romans 9:21

Like Jesus corrected His disciples emphasis on sin when they questioned who had sinned? The blind man or his parents? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” John 9:3. To me, Jesus is stating the purpose of real emphasis we should have on sin and what is the GC truly revolves around.”

To meet with your weak logic that somehow a tree was necessary -- Did Lucifer had a tree to choose from when he fell? There was none for it was not necessary and the fall of Lucifer is well described in Ez 28:17 which is what Rom 9:20 said “…made subject to vanity, UNWILLINGLY” I have explained Lucifer’s fall phenomenon many times in this thread.


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
NJK: Joseph’s story. -God allowed what happened to Joseph to take place, i.e., played along with the free choice developments of his brothers, and thus “meant it for good” as one of the thousands of ways he could have succeed in just bringing Joseph to Egypt. And given the free evil disposition of his brothers, the Patriarchs of His Israel, this way was indeed the best one under those circumstances as God could also use it to most strikingly humble his brothers and serve as an object lesson for the nation of Israel.

So God could have easily brought Joseph to Egypt by giving him his famine-overcoming dreams while in Canaan and instructing him to travel to Egypt and relate them to Pharaoh as the solution, however God also had to deal with this evil and jealousy with these brothers, and perhaps also tinge of pride in Joseph.


This is all added supposition of yours – adding to the Bible and blinding yourself to the texts where God makes it plain that He CREATED EVIL and done all these evils (or adversary if you want to word it as so). So what happened to Joseph was part of God’s plan and God did not “react” to the situation like you are implying. God is Sovereign and in charge and in control of the main events. So God brought these evils in Joseph’s life so that the works of God should be made manifest in him” The focuss is not SIN that man has commited --- or the EVIL that is upon them…. but that we may behold the Works of God, so that our trust in HIM will be restore; thus the trust in ourself destroyed.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
NJK: Perhaps I finally see your answer to your question here as you are directly answering it, i.e., head on. My question now is: Do you believe in some form of post-death second chance or purgatory. I.e. that between the death of a person and God’s final appearance, they will be given a chance to change. Thus, e.g., the Antediluvians; the people in Sodom and Gomorrah; the wicked people living in some nearby cities of Canaan that God ordered to be all killed, etc. all will have a post-death chance to be saved?? Of course then, being resurrected, basing this on “sight” and not “faith” as God’s gracious redemption actually necessitates.


Like I said, if it’s not in the TYPE there’s no truth. In the TYPE there is a second chance depicted

Second Opportunity/Chance in the LAW of Moses (TYPE)

Num 9:5-11 "9:5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

9:6 And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day:

9:7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?

9:8 And Moses said unto them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.

9:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

9:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD,.

9:11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs."


Here in the TYPE we see that God makes provision for a "second chance". I put "second chance" in a quote for it is not really a second chance but rather it was God's plan from the beginning. But most of Christianity opposes the concept of a "second chance", however, it is written in the Type of such. But since it is rare to find anyone studying the laws of Moses because everyone believes it is nailed to the cross and don't have not much relevance to us today, this text is unknown. Let's label this as a second opportunity for justification. The Passover represents justification which we are justified by the blood/merits of Christ. The blood needed to be smear on the top(head) and the two lintel(arms & hands) of the door. Then the Passover meat and the unleavened bread to be eaten.

This law brings two reasons why a person could not keep or have missed the first opportunity for justification.

(i) Those that were defiled” by touching the dead body of a man: ” In application, our mortal bodies is a "body of death"” (Rom 7:24). Believers are those who “have passed from death to life” ” (1Jn 3:14) and “are clean through the word” ”(John 15:3). The unbelievers are still unclean=defiled by reason of touching their own dead body.

(ii) Those who were in a journey afar off ” (from God): Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he too will have a second opportunity later to keep the Passover.

This provision made by God in the Law are for the majority of mankind, who are yet dead in their sins and their heart are far from God.


Originally Posted By: NJK
You mention the Jubilee, which I believe will be forced to fully occur because God’s Church has failed in doing the work which would have skipped a full implementation of this type, do you believe that people will be resurrected to live a proper life during this pre-advent (cf. EW 286.1) Jubilee period.

According to the Feasts depicted, only the firstfruit(barley) is harvested first and consumed(their body changed into immortality – the hope of glory). Those are they that will be part of the first resurrection. The other two harvests(Wheat=Church and grapes=Wicked) will have to wait for after the 2nd ressurection.

This is what I currently understand of the Jubilee. The soon coming 7th millennium is on the grand scale of the Jubilee. As the 7th year, the land was to be given a rest; so this is applied in the scale of the world as the 7th millennium. During the 7th year(or Millenium on the grander scale) all the slaves were released from their bondage for that sabbatical year. During the 7th Millenium, the firstfruit only lives, the others, their bondage to vanity is temporarily lifted as they are given a millennium rest before they get resurrected. But the real Jubilee in the TYPE happens on the fall of the 49th year, so on the world scale it might be the 49th Millenium. So the way I see it, the restitution sentences given to the guilty at the Great White throne, probably will have 42 Thousand years sold to slavery to pay their debt. Depending on the amount of restitution given by God’s verdict, some will pay it off before the 50th Jubillee is reached, and others will not. However, according to the Law of Jubillee, regardless if it is paid or not, their debt will be fully cancelled once the Jubilee rolls over and they will be restore back to their heritage.

Originally Posted By: NJK
My view is that this will only apply to those who are alive then, and all still in faith. The Bible teaches that everyone seals their fate upon their death.
Yes, it is so. The faith of the Believers or Unbelievers whether they be part of the first resurrection or not is determined upon their death. However, the first resurrection does not equate salvation. There’s no were in scriptures or the Type that requires that man has to be redeemed before the first resurrection.

We are justified and glory(build Chraracter of Christ) either by 1. Faith or by 2. Tribulations(Rom 5:2,3) both through Jesus Christ. Those by faith will benefit of the first ressurection, the others by much tribulations after the 2nd resurrection by which they will learn righteousness later (Is 26:9; Acts 14:22).

Originally Posted By: NJK
In regards to your claim of Rom 11;26, Paul qualifies “Israel” as only those who come to accept Jesus Christ. (E.g. Rom 9:6-8ff; cf. Gal 3:29 & Rom 2:28, 29) .


It is true that there is that dimension where the children of the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. All must be born again and to come to this birth, God first needs to destroy all that we put our faith in(flesh or other things aside from the only true God). Once we are dead, then God can implant the seed(Jesus) in our heart and recreate us new.

Regardless of that constant problem of the Jews relying that their salvation was secure because of heritage, Paul was quoting Is 45:17, 25 and other scriptures in OT. Which is very specific in referring to Israel which God had prophecied that He was going to destroy and disperse them in the whole world in the chapters before. He made a vow in Is 45 that “…shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall [u]glory” By using the work “glory” ” – here it is very definite we are not talking of Christ “give the option of life by dying for all but you need to choose”. It is clear that God’s vow is specifically saying that ALL ISRAEL SHALL GLORY” – meaning will build Christlike character.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “God’s Vow”
NJK: God’s vow in Isa 45:23-25 to have all bow before Him in acknowledgement does not mean that they confessing ones, indeed merely out of defeat, will be saved. Satan and evil angels will also bow, however they will not be saved. For those who will bow then, indeed while standing outside of God’s New Jerusalem, it will long have been too late. GC 668.2-671.2ff. Indeed just after that, they seek to continue their work of rebellion as stated in the Bible (Rev 20:7-11). You cannot build a teaching on one verse alone, i.e., you claim for Isa 45:25. (Perhaps you don’t accept the SOP direct revelation of those events, however that does not change those Biblical realities which the SOP serves to guide one to.) .

Despite you would like everyone to believe, I have not build a teaching on one verse. I have met all your opinions and scriptures you have brought with sound Biblical support plus build on the revelation from the TYPE where the foundation of the plan of salvation is revealed.

Little is said of the rebellion of Rev 20:7-11 and what takes place afterward. All we know sometime afterward that God sat on His Great White throne and judge those part of the 2nd resurrection. We know from scriptures that all sins will be judge, therefore the sins of these people will be judged according to God’s righteous judgment described in the Law of Moses to establish divine order. Some will have a few or many lashing(luk 12:47,48), and others will be thrown in the lake of fire (= Law =sentenced according to the Law of Moses with a restitution to pay up). God will bring divine order through Righteous Judgment. Divine Judgment is not like the world which is a punitive system which is not aim to restore the criminal. Divine Judgment has for objective to restore the criminal and to bring restitution to the victim. That’s when Justice is served and a court case is closed.

So in 1Co 3:15 is another place where it talks about the Great White throne judgment and it is said “If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” God’s law that proceed from His mouth is like a fire. Daniel saw the same scene where the fire came from God’s throne in Dn 7:9 and then it was described as a river in the next v.10. John saw the same scene(or the judgment process) but saw the end of it by which that fire became a lake. In all cases the point is the fire came from God’s throne where judgment proceeds. God’s judgment will be made according to His own Law. The Bible says it is the Law that make us know sin. And that’s how God will make them know their sin after they stand before God throne. There is no detail in the Bible when these people will bow down before God and confess. All we can derive that it is sometime after the Great White throne. It could be at the 50th Jubilee – we do not know, But one thing we know, God will keep His Vow pronounce in Is 45 and will fulfill all feasts that illustrate the plan of salvation in the TYPE.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Elle: “God’s Saves ALL”

NJK: God’s promise of worldwide (= indeed “all”) blessing through Abraham is not synonymous with those blessed people being Spiritually saved. It just means that God’s Triumphant Israel will have a most positive and beneficial impact on the entire world, yet people will still, as in Eden, be free to choose whether to live by God’s ways or not. However in the light of this realized blessing, they will seal their fate as they will then be acting in the light of great and clear knowledge of God and His righteous, and tangibly beneficial ways.
Not according to the TYPE.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134737
06/25/11 11:01 PM
06/25/11 11:01 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Apparently I should know/do better than to seemingly wholly agree with someone else’s summary observations without verifying things in detail for myself first. Sorry for any implied misunderstanding here Elle. I was pointedly referring to what I considered to be independently substantive “takeaways” in kland’s post in regards to issues for this discussion.
I appreciate the appology NJK. Bless you.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134758
06/26/11 05:13 AM
06/26/11 05:13 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Originally Posted By: Elle
You are not reading the text as it is simply written. To come to what you are saying, you have to add things to the text which is not there to say what you want it to say. V.21 says “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God It’s not talking about fido here and it’s not saying that only those that are saved either. Plus v. 23 says not only they (refering to the the creature mention in v20 and 21), but ourselves also,(the believers), which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (the believers) groan withing ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to with, the redemption of our body.


-Obviously Elle, you are preferring the reading of “the creature” vs. the also articular “(the) creation” [of God] (cf. Heb 9:11; Rev 3:14). I don’t see it as valid. I still see this passage as saying that all of God’s creation has been made to suffer the consequences of sin because of the fall of man and that is why they are eagerly awaiting for man to be restored.

In Rom 8:23 I exegetically see Paul as saying that it is not only creation that is affected, but even those who are currently first fruit of the redeemed. I.e., they too have to wait for others to complete this restoration before they could enjoy it. So I still see my view of how this will benefit animals who are part of this “creation” of God to be valid.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Hmmm… preferring Greek over Hebrew. Not a good sign. So we at least agree here on the word adversary despite you didn’t answer my question concerning if God created “adversity”, then did He create Satan which means “adversary”?


My referring to the LXX here is, as stated with cause. And that is, as easily seen in the English rendering of the Hebrew, that the word ra’ does not always have the same connotations throughout the OT. So the LXX differentiating here is valid. It indeed basically meant adversity/calamity and thus was a perfect word for the common work of the Devil which is “evil”. So I don’t see that it has that meaning in its every instance in the OT, indeed as with many other Hebrew words. So the LXX, which was the Bible of the NT Christians, is quite valuable in this regard.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Force: We’ve been over this many times.

And to repeat, the GC has nothing to do with the freewill, It has all to do with Ownership, Because God has created us and is the mover of all things, He is responsible for His creation. A goo God will correct/discipline his wayward children. He does not “destroy” them like the world destroys each other. God Destruction (Greek =apollumi or Hebrew = ‘abad – also means “lost” and Jesus said the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son are found) is the way Christ destroys the old man of sin, to recreate a new one.


-To me, what you are describing as “moving” is still “force.”

-The distinct use of “utterly destroyed” (#1842) in Acts 3:23 as a consequence of rejecting the Messiah is the same as the OT’s “cut off” and does not, indeed is not, to involve any reconciliation/return.

-The “redemptive” examples you cite for the Lost Coin/Sheep and Prodigal sons, all have fulfillment in what Jesus came to establish, namely the “finding” of both “lost” Israelites and a people of God from the Gentiles. Wholesalely applying this everyone who has ever been born is not Biblical to me. One has to freely chose this available salvation. E.g., in the human example, the prodigal son had to decide to return to his father’s house. In the same way, pagans have to decide to return to the ways they actually know are normal/natural in regards to the last six commandments. And like the father in the parable, God then will meet them half way then to lead them to the paths for full restoration. However, as I Biblically see it, it is all a free choice, except, as with Paul in limited “first fruit” circumstances. However even then the free choice to obey or not is still present.

Originally Posted By: Elle
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? ” Romans 9:21


My view reading Rom 9:14-29 is that God does this by indeed optionally exercising His mercy on whoever He choses to. With some people He chooses not to have mercy and thus, in this wrath, uses them and their already sinful ways as ‘vessels of destruction’. On others, who he could use as vessels, He allows Himself to have mercy on them. Still I see that this is all done out of weighed justice. I.e., some people have more redeemable qualities then others. Some sin according to sincere ignorance (e.g., Paul the persecutor). Others do so out of no sincere cause, but outright malevolence (e.g., Pharaoh oppressing Israel for no realistic reason).

Originally Posted By: Elle
Like Jesus corrected His disciples emphasis on sin when they questioned who had sinned? The blind man or his parents? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” John 9:3. To me, Jesus is stating the purpose of real emphasis we should have on sin and what is the GC truly revolves around.”


Here, (a) the disciples needed to understand that this sickness was not incurred as a judgement of God; (b) as I am reading it, Jesus was saying that God, as seen in the story of Job, would only have inflicted/permitted this sickness only in the case the the glory of God would be made manifest in him.

Also in passages like Luke 13:16 & John 10:10 Jesus clearly says that it is Satan who is responsible for (generally) inflicting diseases (i.e., the ones that are not for a glorious end). So that man’s blindness from birth may indeed have been deliberately set up by God for Jesus and it indeed caused a major problems to the Pharisee. This is all similar to the purposeful sickness and death upon Lazarus also done in order to greatly undermine the position of the Jewish leaders. So Jesus may have been pointedly indicated that this man had been made blind from birth for that purpose and that He was indeed to heal him.

Originally Posted By: Elle
To meet with your weak logic that somehow a tree was necessary -- Did Lucifer had a tree to choose from when he fell? There was none for it was not necessary and the fall of Lucifer is well described in Ez 28:17 which is what Rom 9:20 said “…made subject to vanity, UNWILLINGLY” I have explained Lucifer’s fall phenomenon many times in this thread.


The fact that God placed a tree in the Garden was literally as a most prominent choice for man to deal with right from the start. This was done in every other world and they have not sinned. (But you probably don’t believe that SOP fuller revelation which is actually echoed in the Bible e.g., “worlds”, sons of God, etc.)

With “Lucifer”, God probably wanted to avoid this issue of sin at all costs, but Lucifer “discovered” it on his own. And since then, with the raging tiger out of the bag’ God no longer sought to hide it. (This “hiding” by God was a guileful part of Lucifer’s claim to Eve, especially now since God was no longer doing so.) So in order not to keep hidden any existing freedom that man has, God now provide this tangible option of a (voting) tree.

Also God does not suggest sins to his creatures. So Lucifer indeed had to “discover” sin on his own. Similarly God does not suggest the further sinning extremes that man has made sin the fall.

Quote:
Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
NJK: Joseph’s story. -God allowed what happened to Joseph to take place, i.e., played along with the free choice developments of his brothers, and thus “meant it for good” as one of the thousands of ways he could have succeed in just bringing Joseph to Egypt. And given the free evil disposition of his brothers, the Patriarchs of His Israel, this way was indeed the best one under those circumstances as God could also use it to most strikingly humble his brothers and serve as an object lesson for the nation of Israel.

NJK: So God could have easily brought Joseph to Egypt by giving him his famine-overcoming dreams while in Canaan and instructing him to travel to Egypt and relate them to Pharaoh as the solution, however God also had to deal with this evil and jealousy with these brothers, and perhaps also tinge of pride in Joseph.

Elle: This is all added supposition of yours – adding to the Bible and blinding yourself to the texts where God makes it plain that He CREATED EVIL and done all these evils (or adversary if you want to word it as so). So what happened to Joseph was part of God’s plan and God did not “react” to the situation like you are implying. God is Sovereign and in charge and in control of the main events. So God brought these evils in Joseph’s life so that the works of God should be made manifest in him” The focuss is not SIN that man has commited --- or the EVIL that is upon them…. but that we may behold the Works of God, so that our trust in HIM will be restore; thus the trust in yourself destroyed.


As again stated above, I exegetically don’t at all see your “created evil” reading and understanding, so why would/should I interpret things in that way?? This view of Joseph is according to my understanding that God does not do things for spurious or even inexistent reasons, as I see your view believes as a foundation, but because of actually present circumstances. So this explanation of mine reflects my theology here.

In your view God acts to bring about “evil/adversity” for no tangible reason or cause, indeed whimsically (i.e., however He feels that day). I rather see the Biblical view that God has to so act out of just reasons to deal with existent and commit sin. Thus never without just cause. Frankly your view of God is dictatorial and tyrannical, moreover an insane dictator and tyrannical, with, even more dangerously, absolute power. No one in their right minds wants to serve, be under, or “love” such a person, even in our sinful world.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Like I said, if it’s not in the TYPE there’s no truth. In the TYPE there is a second chance depicted

Second Opportunity/Chance in the LAW of Moses (TYPE)

Num 9:5-11 "9:5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

9:6 And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day:

9:7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?

9:8 And Moses said unto them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.

9:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

9:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD,.

9:11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs."


Here in the TYPE we see that God makes provision for a "second chance". I put "second chance" in a quote for it is not really a second chance but rather it was God's plan from the beginning. But most of Christianity opposes the concept of a "second chance", however, it is written in the Type of such. But since it is rare to find anyone studying the laws of Moses because everyone believes it is nailed to the cross and don't have not much relevance to us today, this text is unknown. Let's label this as a second opportunity for justification. The Passover represents justification which we are justified by the blood/merits of Christ. The blood needed to be smear on the top(head) and the two lintel(arms & hands) of the door. Then the Passover meat and the unleavened bread to be eaten.

This law brings two reasons why a person could not keep or have missed the first opportunity for justification.

(i) Those that were defiled” by touching the dead body of a man: ” In application, our mortal bodies is a "body of death"” (Rom 7:24). Believers are those who “have passed from death to life” ” (1Jn 3:14) and “are clean through the word” ”(John 15:3). The unbelievers are still unclean=defiled by reason of touching their own dead body.

(ii) Those who were in a journey afar off ” (from God): Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he too will have a second opportunity later to keep the Passover.

This provision made by God in the Law are for the majority of mankind, who are yet dead in their sins and their heart are far from God.


If your are going to honestly be faithful to your “types” view here, then you should readily see and understand that the Passover is not the final step in salvation, nor a type of the Final Judgement/Fate of man. That is found in the Fall feast of the Day of Atonement and there are no second chances there. All those who kept/celebrated Passover had to successfully go through that Day of Judgement. Making a ‘final’ Passover association here is similar to the truncated Evangelical Gospel where there is no, especially pre-advent, judgement. In fact there also is an unbiblical post “rapture” second chance.

I also see that the Bible teaches that someone who willfully rejects the sacrifice of Christ cannot be saved through a second chance. The reasons cited by God do not involve purposeful actions. Dead bodies had to be immediately dealt with, and a person on a journey may not be able to travel fast enough to make it back in time. In our world we have many, even most situations where people have rejected various manifestations of saving knowledge and light. And so they will be condemned according to that obtainable “salvation.”

Quote:
NJK: You mention the Jubilee, which I believe will be forced to fully occur because God’s Church has failed in doing the work which would have skipped a full implementation of this type, do you believe that people will be resurrected to live a proper life during this pre-advent (cf. EW 286.1) Jubilee period.

Elle: According to the Feasts depicted, only the firstfruit(barley) is harvested first and consumed(their body changed into immortality – the hope of glory). Those are they that will be part of the first resurrection. The other two harvests(Wheat=Church and grapes=Wicked) will have to wait for after the 2nd ressurection.

Elle: This is what I currently understand of the Jubilee. The soon coming 7th millennium is on the grand scale of the Jubilee. As the 7th year, the land was to be given a rest; so this is applied in the scale of the world as the 7th millennium. During the 7th year(or Millenium on the grander scale) all the slaves were released from their bondage for that sabbatical year. During the 7th Millenium, the firstfruit only lives, the others, their bondage to vanity is temporarily lifted as they are given a millennium rest before they get resurrected. But the real Jubilee in the TYPE happens on the fall of the 49th year, so on the world scale it might be the 49th Millenium. So the way I see it, the restitution sentences given to the guilty at the Great White throne, probably will have 42 Thousand years sold to slavery to pay their debt. Depending on the amount of restitution given by God’s verdict, some will pay it off before the 50th Jubillee is reached, and others will not. However, according to the Law of Jubillee, regardless if it is paid or not, their debt will be fully cancelled once the Jubilee rolls over and they will be restore back to their heritage.


I see that the Jubilees only tnagibly applies to those who willfully observe it, as with other feasts of God. Those who freely chose not to will suffer the consequence/punishment (e.g, Zech 14:12-19). Indeed as seen in Israel’s history, God did not force them to observe His Feasts, or keep His Laws and Statutes. So I don’t see him doing this in the “anti-typical” era.

Quote:
NJK: My view is that this will only apply to those who are alive then, and all still in faith. The Bible teaches that everyone seals their fate upon their death.

Elle: Yes, it is so. The faith of the Believers or Unbelievers whether they be part of the first resurrection or not is determined upon their death. However, the first resurrection does not equate salvation. There’s no were in scriptures or the Type that requires that man has to be redeemed before the first resurrection.


I readily see Heb 3:7-4:11 to be “typologically” speaking against this view that there is a second chance after the first one has been squandered. That is for the ones who had had that chance already. Also the reason for this failure and rejection is unbelief and disobedience. So a freedom of the will is also involved here.

Originally Posted By: Elle
We are justified and glory(build Chraracter of Christ) either by 1. Faith or by 2. Tribulations(Rom 5:2,3) both through Jesus Christ. Those by faith will benefit of the first ressurection, the others by much tribulations after the 2nd resurrection by which they will learn righteousness later (Is 26:9; Acts 14:22).


I rather see that Rom 5:1-3 is saying that once we have obtained justification by faith, we then can obtain a perseverance for this faith through permitted tribulations. Clearly your understanding has people being justified by tribulation and not faith in Jesus, and that is not Biblical. Further it is implying a justification by force: I.e., ‘accept Jesus or continue to suffer these tribulations’. While the Biblical development is ‘one is willing to suffer these tribulations because they have already freely chosen to have faith in Jesus.’ That is what is stated in Acts 14:22. I.e., tribulation does not come before genuine faith. And it is also only saying that the path to the Kingdom of God is filled with tribulation that the righteous must go through.

Isa 26:9 - In wider context, e.g., vs. 10, I don’t see this passage as meaning that the inhabitants of the world cannot rebel against this learned righteousness. That is indeed why they have to be still severly dealt with and destroyed (vss. 11-14; 18-21). The SOP rightly applies this passage to the utter end, as indeed, even after the righteousness of God has filled the earth, the wicked will still prefer to do evil (vss. 18-21).

Quote:
NJK: In regards to your claim of Rom 11;26, Paul qualifies “Israel” as only those who come to accept Jesus Christ. (E.g. Rom 9:6-8ff; cf. Gal 3:29 & Rom 2:28, 29) .

Elle: It is true that there is that dimension where the children of the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. All must be born again and to come to this birth, God first needs to destroy all that we put our faith in(flesh or other things aside from the only true God). Once we are dead, then God can implant the seed(Jesus) in our heart and recreate us new.


This is where I see the death knell of your view: What is God waiting for then??? He is not powerful enough to do this faster??? Indeed why 6000 years of billions of sinners. Why didn’t He just do this with Adam and Eve when they first fell??

Originally Posted By: Elle
Regardless of that constant problem of the Jews relying that their salvation was secure because of heritage, Paul was quoting Is 45:17, 25 and other scriptures in OT. Which is very specific in referring to Israel which God had prophecied that He was going to destroy and disperse them in the whole world in the chapters before. He made a vow in Is 45 that “…shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall [u]glory” By using the work “glory” ” – here it is very definite we are not talking of Christ “give the option of life by dying for all but you need to choose”. It is clear that God’s vow is specifically saying that ALL ISRAEL SHALL GLORY” – meaning will build Christlike character.


You are simply reechoing that spurious belief by the Jews that “Israel” refers to all of the descendants of Abraham. Paul’s clear point is that it only applied to those who like Jacob, their name sake was victorious with God. E.g., Esau, Jacob brother, though a descendant of Abraham, was not considered as being “Israel”. Unlike his brother, he had chosen not to strive with God to obtain mercy and the promised blessing.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Despite you would like everyone to believe, I have not build a teaching on one verse. I have met all your opinions and scriptures you have brought with sound Biblical support plus build on the revelation from the TYPE where the foundation of the plan of salvation is revealed.


I had meant, in pointed context, that your claim for Israel in the Isa 45 texts you cite, is to the exclusion of what the rest of the Bible says this Israel really is. Hence the lone text statement, which was not meant generally.

Nonetheless, I really do not see that you have presented an exegetically sound/valid text for your claim. And to be exegetically sound, any passage is not to be interpreted in isolation of other related texts.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Little is said of the rebellion of Rev 20:7-11 and what takes place afterward. All we know sometime afterward that God sat on His Great White throne and judge those part of the 2nd resurrection. We know from scriptures that all sins will be judge, therefore the sins of these people will be judged according to God’s righteous judgment described in the Law of Moses to establish divine order. Some will have a few or many lashing(luk 12:47,48), and others will be thrown in the lake of fire (= Law =sentenced according to the Law of Moses with a restitution to pay up). God will bring divine order through Righteous Judgment. Divine Judgment is not like the world which is a punitive system which is not aim to restore the criminal. Divine Judgment has for objective to restore the criminal and to bring restitution to the victim. That’s when Justice is served and a court case is closed.


I clearly see that what is said in Rev 20:7-10 & 11-15 is clear enough as to what happens to the wicked. No second chance is mentioned or indicated there. Instead arresting punishment and death-a resurrection-condemnatory judgement and another similar and Final Lake of Fire destruction. Luke 12:47, 48 only speaks to the varying lengths of punishment that will be imposed on these wicked people, as also explained in the SOP.

Originally Posted By: Elle
So in 1Co 3:15 is another place where it talks about the Great White throne judgment and it is said “If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” God’s law that proceed from His mouth is like a fire. Daniel saw the same scene where the fire came from God’s throne in Dn 7:9 and then it was described as a river in the next v.10. John saw the same scene(or the judgment process) but saw the end of it by which that fire became a lake. In all cases the point is the fire came from God’s throne where judgment proceeds. God’s judgment will be made according to His own Law. The Bible says it is the Law that make us know sin. And that’s how God will make them know their sin after they stand before God throne. There is no detail in the Bible when these people will bow down before God and confess. All we can derive that it is sometime after the Great White throne. It could be at the 50th Jubilee – we do not know, But one thing we know, God will keep His Vow pronounce in Is 45 and will fulfill all feasts that illustrate the plan of salvation in the TYPE.


I see 1 Cor 3:15 in context as referring only to the “work” done by people in the Church of Christ, the foundation. Paul is saying that any work in the Church that is then properly built or using “worldly” materials will fail the fire testing of God. This judging does not necessarily imply the utter end, as I Theologically understand but, as indeed seen throughout Israel and Church history, periodic judgement days of God to purify His People/Church. In the utter end, it will be too late to have a salvific benefit.

Quote:
Elle: “God’s Saves ALL”

NJK: God’s promise of worldwide (= indeed “all”) blessing through Abraham is not synonymous with those blessed people being Spiritually saved. It just means that God’s Triumphant Israel will have a most positive and beneficial impact on the entire world, yet people will still, as in Eden, be free to choose whether to live by God’s ways or not. However in the light of this realized blessing, they will seal their fate as they will then be acting in the light of great and clear knowledge of God and His righteous, and tangibly beneficial ways.

Elle: Not according to the TYPE.


I see you claim of a “TYPE” to be incorrect in that you claim it is applying to everyone. God’s Feasts and Sabbaths were to be freely observed, by anyone who wanted to do so, even within Israel. God always grant full freedom in matters of love and obedience.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #134828
06/29/11 05:11 AM
06/29/11 05:11 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: Rick H
I came across the building blocks of belief in the Adventist Movement and came across the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism. According to Calvinism:
"Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation."

Thus they stand against the freewill of man being turned to God on its own as seen in the following statement...
"... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that He is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men." (Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon ‘Free Will A Slave’ (1855) referring to Luther's book The Bondage of the Will which is listed with other resources on this topic after this article).

So is Adventism Arminian (Free will) or is there a middle ground?


Adventists are Absolutely NOT absolutely Arminian....
...Adventists being: Christadelphians, WWCOG, Seventh-day Adventists & Jehovah's Witnesses.


Remonstrant Article 1
That God, by an eternal and UNCHANGEABLE purpose IN Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save IN Christ, for Christ’s sake, AND through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also


Jevhovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists & WWCOG Armstrong....
..."ALL" believe Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and Had He.
...Christ's husk would have been consumed by maggots and the world would be LOST eternally.

Had Jesus sinned the "pre-Incarnate Christ" would have been eternally blotted out by Father God....
...After He removed Michael's conferred diety.
...This is the Advent Faith as instructed through God's own Mighty Prophet Sister White.

So NO we are NOT Arminian when we along with our Adventist brothers REJECT the first several sentences....
...In the FIRST article.
...LOL.

Last edited by cephalopod; 06/29/11 05:13 AM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: asygo] #134829
06/29/11 05:21 AM
06/29/11 05:21 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: asygo
Which of the Pioneers were Methodist? Weren't James White and Uriah Smith something else?


To join the "post Miller" Adventist movement Sister White was a part of....
...One had to repudiate the papal Trinity doctrine.
...The pioneer faith of the SDA Church was absolutely anti-Trinitarian.
...It had zero "roots" in the Methodist tradition.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134839
06/30/11 07:37 AM
06/30/11 07:37 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
NJK, Once again, I appreciate all your direct replies to my post. You know we are getting out of Topic and Cephalopod is properly bringing the discussion back on track.

Anyway we had progressed in discussing the GC which we can bring your comments to other topics.

NJK we both interpret texts in the Bible according to a view. Anyone does that and anyone believes they are exegetically correct. What will tell us whose view is correct? Again it will be via seeing if our view is in harmony with the Type.

If you "will" smile we can proceed this discussion at Is the Hell Doctrine in the Type(Laws of Moses)

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Originally Posted By: Elle
You are not reading the text as it is simply written. To come to what you are saying, you have to add things to the text which is not there to say what you want it to say. V.21 says “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God It’s not talking about fido here and it’s not saying that only those that are saved either. Plus v. 23 says not only they (refering to the the creature mention in v20 and 21), but ourselves also,(the believers), which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (the believers) groan withing ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to with, the redemption of our body.


-Obviously Elle, you are preferring the reading of “the creature” vs. the also articular “(the) creation” [of God] (cf. Heb 9:11; Rev 3:14). I don’t see it as valid. I still see this passage as saying that all of God’s creation has been made to suffer the consequences of sin because of the fall of man and that is why they are eagerly awaiting for man to be restored.

In Rom 8:23 I exegetically see Paul as saying that it is not only creation that is affected, but even those who are currently first fruit of the redeemed. I.e., they too have to wait for others to complete this restoration before they could enjoy it. So I still see my view of how this will benefit animals who are part of this “creation” of God to be valid.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Hmmm… preferring Greek over Hebrew. Not a good sign. So we at least agree here on the word adversary despite you didn’t answer my question concerning if God created “adversity”, then did He create Satan which means “adversary”?


My referring to the LXX here is, as stated with cause. And that is, as easily seen in the English rendering of the Hebrew, that the word ra’ does not always have the same connotations throughout the OT. So the LXX differentiating here is valid. It indeed basically meant adversity/calamity and thus was a perfect word for the common work of the Devil which is “evil”. So I don’t see that it has that meaning in its every instance in the OT, indeed as with many other Hebrew words. So the LXX, which was the Bible of the NT Christians, is quite valuable in this regard.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Force: We’ve been over this many times.

And to repeat, the GC has nothing to do with the freewill, It has all to do with Ownership, Because God has created us and is the mover of all things, He is responsible for His creation. A goo God will correct/discipline his wayward children. He does not “destroy” them like the world destroys each other. God Destruction (Greek =apollumi or Hebrew = ‘abad – also means “lost” and Jesus said the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son are found) is the way Christ destroys the old man of sin, to recreate a new one.


-To me, what you are describing as “moving” is still “force.”

-The distinct use of “utterly destroyed” (#1842) in Acts 3:23 as a consequence of rejecting the Messiah is the same as the OT’s “cut off” and does not, indeed is not, to involve any reconciliation/return.

-The “redemptive” examples you cite for the Lost Coin/Sheep and Prodigal sons, all have fulfillment in what Jesus came to establish, namely the “finding” of both “lost” Israelites and a people of God from the Gentiles. Wholesalely applying this everyone who has ever been born is not Biblical to me. One has to freely chose this available salvation. E.g., in the human example, the prodigal son had to decide to return to his father’s house. In the same way, pagans have to decide to return to the ways they actually know are normal/natural in regards to the last six commandments. And like the father in the parable, God then will meet them half way then to lead them to the paths for full restoration. However, as I Biblically see it, it is all a free choice, except, as with Paul in limited “first fruit” circumstances. However even then the free choice to obey or not is still present.

Originally Posted By: Elle
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? ” Romans 9:21


My view reading Rom 9:14-29 is that God does this by indeed optionally exercising His mercy on whoever He choses to. With some people He chooses not to have mercy and thus, in this wrath, uses them and their already sinful ways as ‘vessels of destruction’. On others, who he could use as vessels, He allows Himself to have mercy on them. Still I see that this is all done out of weighed justice. I.e., some people have more redeemable qualities then others. Some sin according to sincere ignorance (e.g., Paul the persecutor). Others do so out of no sincere cause, but outright malevolence (e.g., Pharaoh oppressing Israel for no realistic reason).

Originally Posted By: Elle
Like Jesus corrected His disciples emphasis on sin when they questioned who had sinned? The blind man or his parents? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” John 9:3. To me, Jesus is stating the purpose of real emphasis we should have on sin and what is the GC truly revolves around.”


Here, (a) the disciples needed to understand that this sickness was not incurred as a judgement of God; (b) as I am reading it, Jesus was saying that God, as seen in the story of Job, would only have inflicted/permitted this sickness only in the case the the glory of God would be made manifest in him.

Also in passages like Luke 13:16 & John 10:10 Jesus clearly says that it is Satan who is responsible for (generally) inflicting diseases (i.e., the ones that are not for a glorious end). So that man’s blindness from birth may indeed have been deliberately set up by God for Jesus and it indeed caused a major problems to the Pharisee. This is all similar to the purposeful sickness and death upon Lazarus also done in order to greatly undermine the position of the Jewish leaders. So Jesus may have been pointedly indicated that this man had been made blind from birth for that purpose and that He was indeed to heal him.

Originally Posted By: Elle
To meet with your weak logic that somehow a tree was necessary -- Did Lucifer had a tree to choose from when he fell? There was none for it was not necessary and the fall of Lucifer is well described in Ez 28:17 which is what Rom 9:20 said “…made subject to vanity, UNWILLINGLY” I have explained Lucifer’s fall phenomenon many times in this thread.


The fact that God placed a tree in the Garden was literally as a most prominent choice for man to deal with right from the start. This was done in every other world and they have not sinned. (But you probably don’t believe that SOP fuller revelation which is actually echoed in the Bible e.g., “worlds”, sons of God, etc.)

With “Lucifer”, God probably wanted to avoid this issue of sin at all costs, but Lucifer “discovered” it on his own. And since then, with the raging tiger out of the bag’ God no longer sought to hide it. (This “hiding” by God was a guileful part of Lucifer’s claim to Eve, especially now since God was no longer doing so.) So in order not to keep hidden any existing freedom that man has, God now provide this tangible option of a (voting) tree.

Also God does not suggest sins to his creatures. So Lucifer indeed had to “discover” sin on his own. Similarly God does not suggest the further sinning extremes that man has made sin the fall.

Quote:
Elle: “Did God Miss the Mark ?”
NJK: Joseph’s story. -God allowed what happened to Joseph to take place, i.e., played along with the free choice developments of his brothers, and thus “meant it for good” as one of the thousands of ways he could have succeed in just bringing Joseph to Egypt. And given the free evil disposition of his brothers, the Patriarchs of His Israel, this way was indeed the best one under those circumstances as God could also use it to most strikingly humble his brothers and serve as an object lesson for the nation of Israel.

NJK: So God could have easily brought Joseph to Egypt by giving him his famine-overcoming dreams while in Canaan and instructing him to travel to Egypt and relate them to Pharaoh as the solution, however God also had to deal with this evil and jealousy with these brothers, and perhaps also tinge of pride in Joseph.

Elle: This is all added supposition of yours – adding to the Bible and blinding yourself to the texts where God makes it plain that He CREATED EVIL and done all these evils (or adversary if you want to word it as so). So what happened to Joseph was part of God’s plan and God did not “react” to the situation like you are implying. God is Sovereign and in charge and in control of the main events. So God brought these evils in Joseph’s life so that the works of God should be made manifest in him” The focuss is not SIN that man has commited --- or the EVIL that is upon them…. but that we may behold the Works of God, so that our trust in HIM will be restore; thus the trust in yourself destroyed.


As again stated above, I exegetically don’t at all see your “created evil” reading and understanding, so why would/should I interpret things in that way?? This view of Joseph is according to my understanding that God does not do things for spurious or even inexistent reasons, as I see your view believes as a foundation, but because of actually present circumstances. So this explanation of mine reflects my theology here.

In your view God acts to bring about “evil/adversity” for no tangible reason or cause, indeed whimsically (i.e., however He feels that day). I rather see the Biblical view that God has to so act out of just reasons to deal with existent and commit sin. Thus never without just cause. Frankly your view of God is dictatorial and tyrannical, moreover an insane dictator and tyrannical, with, even more dangerously, absolute power. No one in their right minds wants to serve, be under, or “love” such a person, even in our sinful world.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Like I said, if it’s not in the TYPE there’s no truth. In the TYPE there is a second chance depicted

Second Opportunity/Chance in the LAW of Moses (TYPE)

Num 9:5-11 "9:5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

9:6 And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day:

9:7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?

9:8 And Moses said unto them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.

9:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

9:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD,.

9:11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs."


Here in the TYPE we see that God makes provision for a "second chance". I put "second chance" in a quote for it is not really a second chance but rather it was God's plan from the beginning. But most of Christianity opposes the concept of a "second chance", however, it is written in the Type of such. But since it is rare to find anyone studying the laws of Moses because everyone believes it is nailed to the cross and don't have not much relevance to us today, this text is unknown. Let's label this as a second opportunity for justification. The Passover represents justification which we are justified by the blood/merits of Christ. The blood needed to be smear on the top(head) and the two lintel(arms & hands) of the door. Then the Passover meat and the unleavened bread to be eaten.

This law brings two reasons why a person could not keep or have missed the first opportunity for justification.

(i) Those that were defiled” by touching the dead body of a man: ” In application, our mortal bodies is a "body of death"” (Rom 7:24). Believers are those who “have passed from death to life” ” (1Jn 3:14) and “are clean through the word” ”(John 15:3). The unbelievers are still unclean=defiled by reason of touching their own dead body.

(ii) Those who were in a journey afar off ” (from God): Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he too will have a second opportunity later to keep the Passover.

This provision made by God in the Law are for the majority of mankind, who are yet dead in their sins and their heart are far from God.


If your are going to honestly be faithful to your “types” view here, then you should readily see and understand that the Passover is not the final step in salvation, nor a type of the Final Judgement/Fate of man. That is found in the Fall feast of the Day of Atonement and there are no second chances there. All those who kept/celebrated Passover had to successfully go through that Day of Judgement. Making a ‘final’ Passover association here is similar to the truncated Evangelical Gospel where there is no, especially pre-advent, judgement. In fact there also is an unbiblical post “rapture” second chance.

I also see that the Bible teaches that someone who willfully rejects the sacrifice of Christ cannot be saved through a second chance. The reasons cited by God do not involve purposeful actions. Dead bodies had to be immediately dealt with, and a person on a journey may not be able to travel fast enough to make it back in time. In our world we have many, even most situations where people have rejected various manifestations of saving knowledge and light. And so they will be condemned according to that obtainable “salvation.”

Quote:
NJK: You mention the Jubilee, which I believe will be forced to fully occur because God’s Church has failed in doing the work which would have skipped a full implementation of this type, do you believe that people will be resurrected to live a proper life during this pre-advent (cf. EW 286.1) Jubilee period.

Elle: According to the Feasts depicted, only the firstfruit(barley) is harvested first and consumed(their body changed into immortality – the hope of glory). Those are they that will be part of the first resurrection. The other two harvests(Wheat=Church and grapes=Wicked) will have to wait for after the 2nd ressurection.

Elle: This is what I currently understand of the Jubilee. The soon coming 7th millennium is on the grand scale of the Jubilee. As the 7th year, the land was to be given a rest; so this is applied in the scale of the world as the 7th millennium. During the 7th year(or Millenium on the grander scale) all the slaves were released from their bondage for that sabbatical year. During the 7th Millenium, the firstfruit only lives, the others, their bondage to vanity is temporarily lifted as they are given a millennium rest before they get resurrected. But the real Jubilee in the TYPE happens on the fall of the 49th year, so on the world scale it might be the 49th Millenium. So the way I see it, the restitution sentences given to the guilty at the Great White throne, probably will have 42 Thousand years sold to slavery to pay their debt. Depending on the amount of restitution given by God’s verdict, some will pay it off before the 50th Jubillee is reached, and others will not. However, according to the Law of Jubillee, regardless if it is paid or not, their debt will be fully cancelled once the Jubilee rolls over and they will be restore back to their heritage.


I see that the Jubilees only tnagibly applies to those who willfully observe it, as with other feasts of God. Those who freely chose not to will suffer the consequence/punishment (e.g, Zech 14:12-19). Indeed as seen in Israel’s history, God did not force them to observe His Feasts, or keep His Laws and Statutes. So I don’t see him doing this in the “anti-typical” era.

Quote:
NJK: My view is that this will only apply to those who are alive then, and all still in faith. The Bible teaches that everyone seals their fate upon their death.

Elle: Yes, it is so. The faith of the Believers or Unbelievers whether they be part of the first resurrection or not is determined upon their death. However, the first resurrection does not equate salvation. There’s no were in scriptures or the Type that requires that man has to be redeemed before the first resurrection.


I readily see Heb 3:7-4:11 to be “typologically” speaking against this view that there is a second chance after the first one has been squandered. That is for the ones who had had that chance already. Also the reason for this failure and rejection is unbelief and disobedience. So a freedom of the will is also involved here.

Originally Posted By: Elle
We are justified and glory(build Chraracter of Christ) either by 1. Faith or by 2. Tribulations(Rom 5:2,3) both through Jesus Christ. Those by faith will benefit of the first ressurection, the others by much tribulations after the 2nd resurrection by which they will learn righteousness later (Is 26:9; Acts 14:22).


I rather see that Rom 5:1-3 is saying that once we have obtained justification by faith, we then can obtain a perseverance for this faith through permitted tribulations. Clearly your understanding has people being justified by tribulation and not faith in Jesus, and that is not Biblical. Further it is implying a justification by force: I.e., ‘accept Jesus or continue to suffer these tribulations’. While the Biblical development is ‘one is willing to suffer these tribulations because they have already freely chosen to have faith in Jesus.’ That is what is stated in Acts 14:22. I.e., tribulation does not come before genuine faith. And it is also only saying that the path to the Kingdom of God is filled with tribulation that the righteous must go through.

Isa 26:9 - In wider context, e.g., vs. 10, I don’t see this passage as meaning that the inhabitants of the world cannot rebel against this learned righteousness. That is indeed why they have to be still severly dealt with and destroyed (vss. 11-14; 18-21). The SOP rightly applies this passage to the utter end, as indeed, even after the righteousness of God has filled the earth, the wicked will still prefer to do evil (vss. 18-21).

Quote:
NJK: In regards to your claim of Rom 11;26, Paul qualifies “Israel” as only those who come to accept Jesus Christ. (E.g. Rom 9:6-8ff; cf. Gal 3:29 & Rom 2:28, 29) .

Elle: It is true that there is that dimension where the children of the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. All must be born again and to come to this birth, God first needs to destroy all that we put our faith in(flesh or other things aside from the only true God). Once we are dead, then God can implant the seed(Jesus) in our heart and recreate us new.


This is where I see the death knell of your view: What is God waiting for then??? He is not powerful enough to do this faster??? Indeed why 6000 years of billions of sinners. Why didn’t He just do this with Adam and Eve when they first fell??

Originally Posted By: Elle
Regardless of that constant problem of the Jews relying that their salvation was secure because of heritage, Paul was quoting Is 45:17, 25 and other scriptures in OT. Which is very specific in referring to Israel which God had prophecied that He was going to destroy and disperse them in the whole world in the chapters before. He made a vow in Is 45 that “…shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall [u]glory” By using the work “glory” ” – here it is very definite we are not talking of Christ “give the option of life by dying for all but you need to choose”. It is clear that God’s vow is specifically saying that ALL ISRAEL SHALL GLORY” – meaning will build Christlike character.


You are simply reechoing that spurious belief by the Jews that “Israel” refers to all of the descendants of Abraham. Paul’s clear point is that it only applied to those who like Jacob, their name sake was victorious with God. E.g., Esau, Jacob brother, though a descendant of Abraham, was not considered as being “Israel”. Unlike his brother, he had chosen not to strive with God to obtain mercy and the promised blessing.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Despite you would like everyone to believe, I have not build a teaching on one verse. I have met all your opinions and scriptures you have brought with sound Biblical support plus build on the revelation from the TYPE where the foundation of the plan of salvation is revealed.


I had meant, in pointed context, that your claim for Israel in the Isa 45 texts you cite, is to the exclusion of what the rest of the Bible says this Israel really is. Hence the lone text statement, which was not meant generally.

Nonetheless, I really do not see that you have presented an exegetically sound/valid text for your claim. And to be exegetically sound, any passage is not to be interpreted in isolation of other related texts.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Little is said of the rebellion of Rev 20:7-11 and what takes place afterward. All we know sometime afterward that God sat on His Great White throne and judge those part of the 2nd resurrection. We know from scriptures that all sins will be judge, therefore the sins of these people will be judged according to God’s righteous judgment described in the Law of Moses to establish divine order. Some will have a few or many lashing(luk 12:47,48), and others will be thrown in the lake of fire (= Law =sentenced according to the Law of Moses with a restitution to pay up). God will bring divine order through Righteous Judgment. Divine Judgment is not like the world which is a punitive system which is not aim to restore the criminal. Divine Judgment has for objective to restore the criminal and to bring restitution to the victim. That’s when Justice is served and a court case is closed.


I clearly see that what is said in Rev 20:7-10 & 11-15 is clear enough as to what happens to the wicked. No second chance is mentioned or indicated there. Instead arresting punishment and death-a resurrection-condemnatory judgement and another similar and Final Lake of Fire destruction. Luke 12:47, 48 only speaks to the varying lengths of punishment that will be imposed on these wicked people, as also explained in the SOP.

Originally Posted By: Elle
So in 1Co 3:15 is another place where it talks about the Great White throne judgment and it is said “If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” God’s law that proceed from His mouth is like a fire. Daniel saw the same scene where the fire came from God’s throne in Dn 7:9 and then it was described as a river in the next v.10. John saw the same scene(or the judgment process) but saw the end of it by which that fire became a lake. In all cases the point is the fire came from God’s throne where judgment proceeds. God’s judgment will be made according to His own Law. The Bible says it is the Law that make us know sin. And that’s how God will make them know their sin after they stand before God throne. There is no detail in the Bible when these people will bow down before God and confess. All we can derive that it is sometime after the Great White throne. It could be at the 50th Jubilee – we do not know, But one thing we know, God will keep His Vow pronounce in Is 45 and will fulfill all feasts that illustrate the plan of salvation in the TYPE.


I see 1 Cor 3:15 in context as referring only to the “work” done by people in the Church of Christ, the foundation. Paul is saying that any work in the Church that is then properly built or using “worldly” materials will fail the fire testing of God. This judging does not necessarily imply the utter end, as I Theologically understand but, as indeed seen throughout Israel and Church history, periodic judgement days of God to purify His People/Church. In the utter end, it will be too late to have a salvific benefit.

Quote:
Elle: “God’s Saves ALL”

NJK: God’s promise of worldwide (= indeed “all”) blessing through Abraham is not synonymous with those blessed people being Spiritually saved. It just means that God’s Triumphant Israel will have a most positive and beneficial impact on the entire world, yet people will still, as in Eden, be free to choose whether to live by God’s ways or not. However in the light of this realized blessing, they will seal their fate as they will then be acting in the light of great and clear knowledge of God and His righteous, and tangibly beneficial ways.

Elle: Not according to the TYPE.


I see you claim of a “TYPE” to be incorrect in that you claim it is applying to everyone. God’s Feasts and Sabbaths were to be freely observed, by anyone who wanted to do so, even within Israel. God always grant full freedom in matters of love and obedience.


Blessings
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134845
06/30/11 06:25 PM
06/30/11 06:25 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
You know we are getting out of Topic and Cephalopod is properly bringing the discussion back on track.


Our discussion here was pointedly on Free Will, so I see that is it quite on topic. Establishing the Biblical validity of Arminian’s view is fundamental to this discussion. If it is proven to not be valid, as you are endeavoring to show, then the topic would become: “Why SDA’s absolutely should not be Arminian.”

Originally Posted By: Elle
Anyway we had progressed in discussing the GC which we can bring your comments to other topics.


This discussion inevitably comes to involve the GC, especially for an SDA. And truthfully, without the contribution of the SOP, we would be in complete darkness, or at best, a dense fog, as other non-SDA Christians on this GC topic. Apart from John 1 & 2 and (assumedly) parts of Rev 12 and (hopefully) Ezek 28:12-14 & Isa 14:12-14; and some statement by Jesus (Luke 10:18; 22:31), there really is nothing much in the Bible that is explicit of this ongoing behind the scenes tangible war. Indeed without the SOP, such an ongoing tangible battle cannot be honestly assumed and claimed.

Originally Posted By: Elle
NJK we both interpret texts in the Bible according to a view. Anyone does that and anyone believes they are exegetically correct.


The actual fact is that proper, exhaustive and deep Biblical exegesis will only lead to one truth (i.e., what the author actually only had in mind when making a statement. So it is incontrovertible that such a precise undertaking be engaged and seen through to its end.

Originally Posted By: Elle
What will tell us whose view is correct? Again it will be via seeing if our view is in harmony with the Type.


That “Type” requirement in itself is a hermeneutical supposition on you part for which, as I said in that other discussion, (Post #134293 - which you have not answered), I do not see a Biblical basis/requirement for it. If there is no Biblical basis for your limitation here then there is no point trying to determine what is (doctrinal) Truth (solely) by it.

God is not limited to the Law of Moses. He is fully free to “a new thing” (i.e., respond in a way He has never had before), as, and whenever, He sees fit. (E.g., the Flood). As I theologically understand it, that harmonizes perfectly with the fact that the future is not known and sinful man can conceive an evil and/or go to a level of extreme wickedness that God did not think they would do, and so must then intervene to most fittingly deal with the situation (also e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah). The people who went on to build the tower of Babel thought they had figured God out and “limited” His possible judgement to only a flood and thus built a tower to be able to escape this as they continued to live in their sins. Well God here “did something new” to still bring about, an even quite hampering lasting, judgement on them.

The “Prophets” are just as much a part of his binding revelation, and even greater than the law, because it is only by a truly prophetic word (i.e., a further thus saith the Lord) that a previous Law (of Moses) can be said to be superceded. That is what happened with Jesus and Paul and why we no longer sacrifice animals or do other ceremonial laws in the law of Moses.

Originally Posted By: Elle
If you "will" we can proceed this discussion at Is the Hell Doctrine in the Type(Laws of Moses)


As I showed from the Bible in Post #134293, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a “type” of God’s destruction on the wicked (i.e., the Second Death punishment). And if you must see a Law of Moses precedence, that builds upon the instances during the “days” of Moses when God stepped in an effectuated judgement Himself by burning people alive with fire.

And, you may not see so, but according to your view on free will, if you actually really believe it as you claim, I have absolutely no choice of “will” in this matter. If I do so, that is only because God is making me do so. If I don’t then that is also because God is also making me not do so. So, according to your view, what I personally choose/will here is completely futile, and isn’t just to think that I could do so ‘complete heresy’ as you variously have decried throughout this thread!?? It’s, especially as you see it, all or absolutely nothing in this matter of one’s will. And just stating “will” this in quotes does/should not affect anything. You should have rather said: “if God wills...” Just implying that I have a/the choice here, in my view completely sinks your claimed view here. If I chose not to continue to engage in that discussion (I was/am actually waiting for your response to my Post in #134293, thinking you were going to answer it when had the time), then really you should be understanding it to mean that God does not want me to continue to challenge your view (as I (personally) “plan” and “want” to). And like the Free Will issue in Heaven, that leads to the question that “Lucifer” posed: “What is God afraid of by letting His created being operate outside of His “will”! As I see it, you just cannot escape the reality of free will.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134854
07/01/11 12:02 AM
07/01/11 12:02 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
That it's within ones own power to loose their salvation has been codified by God's Sock Puppet...
...So it's strange classification is being sought on this.

Sister White was explicit that creature god Christ could very well have lost "HIS" salvation...
...And if creature god Christ was tempted as we are tempted.
...We could ALSO loose our salvation just like creature god could have lost His.
...Which defaults into the antithesis of Arminianism being false.
...Which does not indicate Arminianism is absolutely true.

Arminianism teaches that "God Himself" came to save us and impossible that Christ could have failed....
...Dear Sister White has codified such teachings as blasphemy, with her teaching Diety COULDN'T DIE.
...So for us the matter should be settled without question.

We are not better than creature god who risked EVERYTHING to save us....
...And that right there PROVES calvinism is FALSE, even worse than the papal system.

If we LOOSE our relationship to the Father we will loose our gift of salvation....
...Just like "IF" creature god would have sinned He would have lost His conferred diety.
...The only difference would be that there would be no "second death by fire" had creature god failed.
...The flesh would have simply been consumed by maggots and cease to exist.




Last edited by cephalopod; 07/01/11 12:06 AM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134859
07/01/11 03:40 AM
07/01/11 03:40 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
[Apparently this earlier posting was not previously successfull]

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And, you may not see so, but according to your view on free will, if you actually really believe it as you claim, I have absolutely no choice of “will” in this matter.


....Indeed my simple thinking and adamant believing that I have freewill would, according to your view be coming from God. And that cannot (circularly) be 'so that He can humble me, because, again according to your view, I would not have those thoughts and beliefs if it was not both God's will and express doing. Where can one start having a "valid" discussion in this closed circular loop!! Furthermore why have any discussion with anyone about what they may unbiblically think. Isn't it all God's will. You should really just let everything play out and not expend your time on seeking to convince someone (indeed "against God's will") especially as it will all work out in the end and everyone will be saved. These are not “facetious” comments but merely the actual implications of what you claim to believe on this issue.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134860
07/01/11 04:05 AM
07/01/11 04:05 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Originally Posted By: Cephalopod
That it's within ones own power to loose their salvation has been codified by God's Sock Puppet...
...So it's strange classification is being sought on this.

Sister White was explicit that creature god Christ could very well have lost "HIS" salvation...
...And if creature god Christ was tempted as we are tempted.
...We could ALSO loose our salvation just like creature god could have lost His.
...Which defaults into the antithesis of Arminianism being false.
...Which does not indicate Arminianism is absolutely true.

Arminianism teaches that "God Himself" came to save us and impossible that Christ could have failed....
...Dear Sister White has codified such teachings as blasphemy, with her teaching Diety COULDN'T DIE.
...So for us the matter should be settled without question.

We are not better than creature god who risked EVERYTHING to save us....
...And that right there PROVES calvinism is FALSE, even worse than the papal system.

If we LOOSE our relationship to the Father we will loose our gift of salvation....
...Just like "IF" creature god would have sinned He would have lost His conferred diety.
...The only difference would be that there would be no "second death by fire" had creature god failed.
...The flesh would have simply been consumed by maggots and cease to exist.


You’ve referred to several corroborating points which are addressed/discussed in other threads. I do not necessarily agree with all of them (e.g., the “level/substance” of the Deity of Jesus, and also that, (even if EGW has stated so), it could not (nor did not) die*), however I get your main gist which manifestly is: “If Jesus could have “chosen” to sin, then we also have this “choice”. As regrettable as it “defaulty/wholesalely” is, I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.


*Succinctly said here, my (albeit, working thesis) view is that, and as an utter surprise to Jesus (cf. Matt 27:46), when God placed the sins of the world upon Jesus, His Diety was “stained” and thus became mortal and was indeed sacrifice as the full ransom price for man. It is there that I see that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Divine nature of Jesus to fully pay the Second Death (Hell Fire’s mental and physical torment) price. As I see it His Human nature only paid the First Death penalty. And had this not so “fully” been done involving the Divine Nature, including if Jesus had actually failed in His mission, then a Plan B involving only a First Death substitution element in the sacrifice of spotless lambs would have only paid for that First Death price and even then redeemed man would have to suffer the Second Death torment for their sins before being permitted to live on eternally. So I see that Jesus’s Total (I.e., Human and Divine Nature) “Valid Payment” averted any such Plan B options and paid the due penalty and punishment for a redeemed sinner in full.... But that is really a discussion for another thread.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134863
07/01/11 06:32 AM
07/01/11 06:32 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK

You’ve referred to several corroborating points which are addressed/discussed in other threads. I do not necessarily agree with all of them (e.g., the “level/substance” of the Deity of Jesus, and also that, (even if EGW has stated so), it could not (nor did not) die*),


We both agree ( if I'm not mistaken ) that Christ's diety was only his in a "conferred" sense....
...I.E. "on loan" as an investiture provided he remained 'loyal to his loyality'.

If Sister White said it that's it, the total end of it...
...Her works are either of the enemy OR God Himself.
...There is no half-way in this matter.

Originally Posted By: NJK

I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.


Does Ellie not believe that SOP was in reality God's Own Sock Puppet....
...God's own hand was controlling Sister White's mouth.
...And w/out her the Bible is so much fish wrap.
...Just look at what those w/out Sister White have done.
...They have all been identified as apostate and part of the beast power.

Originally Posted By: NJK

*Succinctly said here, my (albeit, working thesis) view is that, and as an utter surprise to Jesus (cf. Matt 27:46), when God placed the sins of the world upon Jesus, His Diety was “stained” and thus became mortal and was indeed sacrifice as the full ransom price for man. It is there that I see that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Divine nature of Jesus to fully pay the Second Death (Hell Fire’s mental and physical torment) price. As I see it His Human nature only paid the First Death penalty. And had this not so “fully” been done involving the Divine Nature, including if Jesus had actually failed in His mission, then a Plan B involving only a First Death substitution element in the sacrifice of spotless lambs would have only paid for that First Death price and even then redeemed man would have to suffer the Second Death torment for their sins before being permitted to live on eternally. So I see that Jesus’s Total (I.e., Human and Divine Nature) “Valid Payment” averted any such Plan B options and paid the due penalty and punishment for a redeemed sinner in full.... But that is really a discussion for another thread.


I would agree that his "conferred diety" was stained and it was a total shock...
...SOP says he thought Ultimate God had turned His back on him.
...And he felt it was eternally over.

The papal army suggests that Jesus was quoting the 22nd Psalm...
...Which incepts with "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me".
...And terminates with.

"They SHALL come, and SHALL declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE hath done this".

The part of your quote I highlighted is interesting...
...I'll have to get back with you on that NJK.





Last edited by cephalopod; 07/01/11 07:05 AM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134866
07/01/11 05:43 PM
07/01/11 05:43 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,445
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
....Indeed my simple thinking and adamant believing that I have freewill would, according to your view be coming from God. And that cannot (circularly) be 'so that He can humble me, because, again according to your view, I would not have those thoughts and beliefs if it was not both God's will and express doing. Where can one start having a "valid" discussion in this closed circular loop!! Furthermore why have any discussion with anyone about what they may unbiblically think. Isn't it all God's will. You should really just let everything play out and not expend your time on seeking to convince someone (indeed "against God's will") especially as it will all work out in the end and everyone will be saved. These are not “facetious” comments but merely the actual implications of what you claim to believe on this issue.

I think you said that well. Maybe what I was attempting to say, but I have to admit, this seems clear and rather concise.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134871
07/01/11 07:28 PM
07/01/11 07:28 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
We both agree ( if I'm not mistaken ) that Christ's diety was only his in a "conferred" sense....
...I.E. "on loan" as an investiture provided he remained 'loyal to his loyality'.


In my view, I would say that Deity was Christ’s own and upon his incarnation it was just given to him in the conception process and joined the Mary-provided human nature. I agree that it was “conditional” in that, indeed if Jesus had sinned, He would have lost it, on top of course of losing the possibility of living eternally.

I see that EGW’s statements that:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 530.3
In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.


speak to Him outrightly owning that Divine Nature, especially in His pre-incarnate Life. It was only for tangible incarnation process reasons that it had to be “(re)-injected”/transferred for His earthly conception.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
If Sister White said it that's it, the total end of it...
...Her works are either of the enemy OR God Himself.
...There is no half-way in this matter.


I understand that this is your view of EGW/SOP, for the many reasons already given to you, I do not see it to be so. My view is that the Bible (the “Greater Light”) has final authority over what EGW has written/said (the “lesser Light”) which I further see to fall into the two “Biblical” (= 1 Cor 7:6; 25; 2 Cor 8:7-10) categories of “statements in harmony with one’s knowledge [= (expert) opinion]” (‘syn-gnome’ - Strong’s #4774) and “statements of (Divine) authority/commandment” (see e.g., 1Tim 1:1; Titus 1:3; Rom 16:24, 25). It is those ‘statements according to one’s knowledge’ that can be challenged when either more knowledge obtained or a “commandment” of God is explicitly pronounced upon it. And in many ways this has occurred, and continues to do so with the substantive level/“quality” of “Biblical knowledge” that EGW and/or others in her day had compared to the validly more advanced and precise Biblical exegesis today. Even EGW corrected her prior statements when she obtain more/further knowledge.

Quote:
NJK: I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.

Cephalopod: Does Ellie not believe that SOP was in reality God's Own Sock Puppet....
...God's own hand was controlling Sister White's mouth.
...And w/out her the Bible is so much fish wrap.


From what I have read from Elle, I don’t think she shares this underlying view. I also do not at all.

(You may want to look at the example in this post of how EGW produced her writing. If your “Sock Puppet” theory/view/claim is true then God is responsible for all of those post-initial writing and/or revelation, substantive deficiencies, mistakes and omissions. I am not ready to claim that ‘God makes mistakes’. To me the human aspect is always present in Divine-Human interactions/communications. [You can post any response you may have to this point, in that pertinent thread.)

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...Just look at what those w/out Sister White have done.
...They have all been identified as apostate and part of the beast power.


I agree here that (a) ‘without such prophetic visions and light, God’s people are literally on their own and thus quite vulnerable to failure’ (Pro 29:18; cf. 2 Chr 20:20).

In a GYC 2005 sermon on the SOP [09:25-12:14], the EGW Estate’s Cindy Tutsch makes an interesting reckoning of this fact by a comparison made with what other “Millerites/Adventists” have done since 1844 compared to SDA. And keep in mind that most of these “Adventists” are observing the popular Sunday day of worship and also do not believe in the SOP. So there is no reason why they are not more “popular” to the main group of Christians, interestingly enough, as SDA’s relatively actually are, with most of those joining the Church coming from Sunday Keeping, no SOP, Churches. I see the main reason is that those adventists have never been able to shed so valid “light” upon their 1844 disappointment/“mistake”, whereas SDA were, ultimately Biblically able to do (i.e., following ORL Crosier’s October 23, 1844 Heavenly Sanctuary impression) and all of this was confirmed by the Light given to EGW.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I would agree that his "conferred diety" was stained and it was a total shock...
...SOP says he thought Ultimate God had turned His back on him.
...And he felt it was eternally over.


God did not “deliberately” (i.e., for a fickle reason) turn his back on Him, however that was just an inevitable necessity when the sins of the world were placed on Christ and also when God poured out His wrath on this. (Isa 53:10a). And this indeed “shock” is seen in the fact that Jesus had previously confidently (and confidence buildingly = John 8:30) said, speaking of His death:

Originally Posted By: Bible John 8:28, 29 (NASB)
When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."


So clearly, when this event actually transpired, He truly felt that God had ‘left Him alone’. And adding to the “shock”, He was actually doing all of this according to God’s will and plan. So why indeed did it suddenly seem that ‘God had left/abandoned Him.’

Added to the genuine belief of this here, Christ’s said this in a “loud voice” and not only did the opposing priests, with some of them probably being the one who were opposing Him in John 8, clearly heard this, but others also, probably here leading many to disbelieve in Him. Indeed just recall that He had previously said that this would be God’s will and that God would not leave Him alone, now saying and expressing feelings of the exact opposite is quite rationally/logically faith shattering. Clearly, the last thing on Jesus’ mind and intent was to cause any fragile people/believers to stumble and lose faith (cf. Mark 9:42). So this clearly was what He truly felt and this was therefore based upon a concrete reality that sudden, and not before experience God-void had suddenly occurred in Him. This is where I see that His Divinity was fully sacrificed as a due payment for the Second Death Penalty. And to be tempted in all points like we are (Heb 4:15), indeed in fairness to us, God did not tell Him in advance, at all that this would occur, thus testing His faith to the uttermost then, as the simple thought then of giving up would have been sin, as it would moreoverly have shown that Jesus had only been so faithful in God because from His Birth He was told He was most special and later God had given Him special revelations of His Divinity (e.g., Luke 3:22). SO here He was to remain faithful, like we are expected to in our sudden tragic trials, without any notion of special relationship to, or even feeling of favor or grace from, God.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
The papal army suggests that Jesus was quoting the 22nd Psalm...
...Which incepts with "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me".



I also do not agree with a common view here that Jesus was merely quoting Psa 22. However I do see that Jesus was so full of the Scriptures, that in this hour of genuine and utter despair and feeling of Divine abandonment, that He trustingly still clung to God, holding Him at His word and thus say this statement as the most appropriate/“Biblical” thing to say in such a situation. I.e., He was earnest prayerfully asking ‘Is this (Biblical) Psa 22 episode what is happening here’; and since so, indeed, “Why”?? I see that it is the common expression of people of faith, when in such despairing situations to similarly and almost automatically, quote a most appropriate Scripture. So that is what Jesus found most appropriate for His situation and He (loudly) expressed it with its full, candid and genuine meaning.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...And terminates with.

"They SHALL come, and SHALL declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE hath done this".


I have also heard, and that from an SDA Preacher, that this last portion was quoted by Jesus when He “punctuatingly” said: “It is Finished”. (i.e., “Done” = “Finished”), however I do not see any exegetical support for this claim at all. This concluding statement in Psa 22 is just speaking of the expected Deliverance, as expressed by David in vss 19-30, that God would bring to this present oppressing/persecutive/assaulting situation.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134941
07/03/11 11:06 PM
07/03/11 11:06 PM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK

In my view, I would say that Deity was Christ’s own and upon his incarnation it was just given to him in the conception process and joined the Mary-provided human nature. I agree that it was “conditional” in that, indeed if Jesus had sinned, He would have lost it, on top of course of losing the possibility of living eternally.

I see that EGW’s statements that:


Ellen White
IN Christ IS life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.

Originally Posted By: NJK

speak to Him outrightly owning that Divine Nature, especially in His pre-incarnate Life. It was only for tangible incarnation process reasons that it had to be “(re)-injected”/transferred for His earthly conception


As Sister White cleary said

Sister White
Christ's humanity could NOT be separated from His divinity.” Signs of the Times, 14th April 1898, ‘Christ and the law’)

Sister White
Nature sympathized with the suffering of its Author. The heaving earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that IT WAS the Son of God WHO died.” ( 2nd Vol. Testimonies page 211, ‘The sufferings of Christ’)

Sister White
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient TO His Father's will. Manuscript 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. "Christian Education in Our Schools", September 1, 1903, see also Selected Messages book 3, page 141, chapter 19, ‘The incarnation'

The ONLY reason Michael had infinite power was BECAUSE he was perfectly obedient....
...To His Father's ( aka Ultimate God's ) will.

That familiar verse just jumps out at this time...
..."For God so love the world that He sent His only begotten "Son".
...If the Son was the Son prior to coming to earth then the Son's diety was conferred absolutely.
...Just like SOP and the Pioneers said it was.
...Michaels diety was NOT intrinsic to Michael's nature.
...Which is why Sister White so boldly states that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Diety to sink and die.

Sister White however just as boldly said it was VERY possible for Michael to SINK and DIE....
...And addiing to that it was possible for the pre-Incarnate Son to eternally cease to exist.

It's for those reasons ( and a whole bunch more ) that Ultimate God ( The Father ) is spoken of in the following texts....
...And NOT the Son who had his diety contingent on his being a good Son.

Psalm 102,12
But thou, O LORD, shall endure for EVER; and thy remembrance unto all generations.

Isaiah 40,28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding

And of course many many more. The point being that only God is absolutely eternal...
...Michael could have FAILED to endure forever by not properly vindicating God's holy law.
...Therefore since it's impossible for diety to die but possible for God's Son to die.
...The diety "IN" Christ was absolutely the Father's who could have pulled it away as easy as an adult taking candy from a kid.



Originally Posted By: NJK

I understand that this is your view of EGW/SOP, for the many reasons already given to you, I do not see it to be so. My view is that the Bible (the “Greater Light”) has final authority over what EGW has written/said (the “lesser Light”) which I further see to fall into the two “Biblical” (= 1 Cor 7:6; 25; 2 Cor 8:7-10) categories of “statements in harmony with one’s knowledge [= (expert) opinion]” (‘syn-gnome’ - Strong’s #4774) and “statements of (Divine) authority/commandment” (see e.g., 1Tim 1:1; Titus 1:3; Rom 16:24, 25). It is those ‘statements according to one’s knowledge’ that can be challenged when either more knowledge obtained or a “commandment” of God is explicitly pronounced upon it. And in many ways this has occurred, and continues to do so with the substantive level/“quality” of “Biblical knowledge” that EGW and/or others in her day had compared to the validly more advanced and precise Biblical exegesis today. Even EGW corrected her prior statements when she obtain more/further knowledge


If we can take what the Bible says to be true we are instructed by the SOP....
...To pay EVEN MORE attention to what God says through SOP.

Sister White, Testimonies Vol 4, p 147
In ancient time God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly the He instructs them NOW concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue. But will they profit by His teachings? Will they receive His reproofs and heed His warnings? God will accept no partial obedience; He will sanction no compromise with self.

The teachings from Sister White are not really from Sister White...
...They are God's holy Word and we are not now in ancient time.


Originally Posted By: NJK

From what I have read from Elle, I don’t think she shares this underlying view. I also do not at all.

(You may want to look at the example in this post of how EGW produced her writing. If your “Sock Puppet” theory/view/claim is true then God is responsible for all of those post-initial writing and/or revelation, substantive deficiencies, mistakes and omissions. I am not ready to claim that ‘God makes mistakes’. To me the human aspect is always present in Divine-Human interactions/communications. [You can post any response you may have to this point, in that pertinent thread.)


Yes, I'm certain Sister White was in reality nothing more than a Sock Puppet controlled directly by God....
...God does not make mistakes and it's clear that many things that have been altered in Sister Whites texts.
...Were done so because they were believed to be mistakes.
...Not that they were in reality mistakes.


"The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of His people. Painful though it has been to me, I have faithfully set before the offenders their faults and the means of remedying them, according to the dictates of the Spirit of God."[Ellen White, Testimonies, (1876) vol. 4, p.14.]


Sister White, Testimonies page 691
I am only an instrument in the Lord�s hands to do the work He has set for me to do. The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart.

Sister White was a mere "instrument" which God's hand was within, controlling the writing hand and mouth...
...Of the Puppet itself.



Originally Posted By: NJK

I agree here that (a) ‘without such prophetic visions and light, God’s people are literally on their own and thus quite vulnerable to failure’ (Pro 29:18; cf. 2 Chr 20:20).

In a GYC 2005 sermon on the SOP [09:25-12:14], the EGW Estate’s Cindy Tutsch makes an interesting reckoning of this fact by a comparison made with what other “Millerites/Adventists” have done since 1844 compared to SDA. And keep in mind that most of these “Adventists” are observing the popular Sunday day of worship and also do not believe in the SOP. So there is no reason why they are not more “popular” to the main group of Christians, interestingly enough, as SDA’s relatively actually are, with most of those joining the Church coming from Sunday Keeping, no SOP, Churches. I see the main reason is that those adventists have never been able to shed so valid “light” upon their 1844 disappointment/“mistake”, whereas SDA were, ultimately Biblically able to do (i.e., following ORL Crosier’s October 23, 1844 Heavenly Sanctuary impression) and all of this was confirmed by the Light given to EGW.


Those other groups simply joined the already existing "fallen churches" by rejecting God's Sock Puppet...
...Sister White was explicit about that in 1847 and I think ( will have to confirm ) even prior to that.


I'll be back later NJK - I'm still reading up on your blog attempting to get my mind around it.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134945
07/04/11 12:50 AM
07/04/11 12:50 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Cephalopod, I appreciate your desire and effort to discuss the nature of Christ, however I personally cannot afford to engage in a discussion on this topic at this time. (It is also actually not relevant at all to this thread’s discussion.) I’ll however say the following few points on what your posted:

-When studying out this topic, as with any topic all texts on the matter, in both the Bible and the SOP have to be taken into full and proper (i.e., exegetical) consideration. I see that you may not have generally considered/included passages such as: Isa 9:6 and DA 469.4-470.2 (=Exod 3:14), which clearly indicate that Jesus outrightly owned an Eternal Diety.

-The texts and arguments you used to claim that a pre-incarnate Jesus only had a Divinity be remaining faithful actually are speaking of the post-incarnate Christ. E.g, the Ms 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. ("Christian Education in Our Schools," September 1, 1903.) {8MR 38.5} which is speaking of the John 15:10 statement which was in regards to ‘Christ’s Earthly Life’.

-Speaking of God as Eternal in some verses does not preclude, as shown above, this being said of the Son who was of the same substance as the Father (John 1:1-4; Phil 2:6-8)

John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.

-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.

4T 147.4 - This statement is actually speaking to how God now communicates directly to all and any recipient believer and not just EGW. And also How God is more earnest in this, indeed which is why he has opened this divine communication avenue to any and all. God wants to wrap things up. So this is not saying anything proprietarily special in regards to EGW herself.

-EGW herself edited all or part of that sample manuscript and, at the very least, approved all that was added as corrections and were also all published in her time. So nothing was done here without her knowledge nor against her will. She herself saw and believed that they were mistakes in her initial draft from things God had impressed her to write either specifically or more generally.

-4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).

-As far as I see it, retracing a denominations historical path, those Adventist groups remained their own distinct denominations, although they did in spirit “join” the “fallen churches”. The point I was making was that the did not grow and flourish as those Adventist who went on to form the SDA Church.

I have not noticed a matching visit to my blog that fits your various criteria (e.g., location and blog post visited in a while (i.e., since June 27), so if you had printed that page to read/study it offline, I would recommend, as much as possible reading from the online post as I occasionally make key amendments to my posts and also for access to related post.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134949
07/04/11 09:20 AM
07/04/11 09:20 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Cephalopod, I appreciate your desire and effort to discuss the nature of Christ, however I personally cannot afford to engage in a discussion on this topic at this time. (It is also actually not relevant at all to this thread’s discussion.) I’ll however say the following few points on what your posted:

-When studying out this topic, as with any topic all texts on the matter, in both the Bible and the SOP have to be taken into full and proper (i.e., exegetical) consideration. I see that you may not have generally considered/included passages such as: Isa 9:6 and DA 469.4-470.2 (=Exod 3:14), which clearly indicate that Jesus outrightly owned an Eternal Diety.


Provided he remained loyal to his loyality just as SOP stated...
...He could have chosen to sin in heaven as easily as he could have on earth in human flesh.

Originally Posted By: NJK

-The texts and arguments you used to claim that a pre-incarnate Jesus only had a Divinity be remaining faithful actually are speaking of the post-incarnate Christ. E.g, the Ms 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. ("Christian Education in Our Schools," September 1, 1903.) {8MR 38.5} which is speaking of the John 15:10 statement which was in regards to ‘Christ’s Earthly Life’.

-Speaking of God as Eternal in some verses does not preclude, as shown above, this being said of the Son who was of the same substance as the Father (John 1:1-4; Phil 2:6-8)


Had Christ "sinned" it was the identity of the pre-Incarnate Michael that would have ceased to exist...
...The human flesh of Michael was just a husk - no big deal.
...Sister White was explicit that whatever it was that was Michael prior to Incarnation.
...Was what Risked it's "Future" eternal existence.

Originally Posted By: NJK

John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.


I meant to say 1 John 4:9....
...Which does say "SENT".

Originally Posted By: NJK

-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.


A Divine Being that's Devine due to conferred deity being given to them....
...Sister White said it would be impossible for Diety to sink and die.
...But absolutely possible for Michael the archangel to sink and die.


Originally Posted By: NJK

4T 147.4 - This statement is actually speaking to how God now communicates directly to all and any recipient believer and not just EGW. And also How God is more earnest in this, indeed which is why he has opened this divine communication avenue to any and all. God wants to wrap things up. So this is not saying anything proprietarily special in regards to EGW herself.


In ancient times God spoke through the apostles and prophets ( the Bible )....
...In Sister White's times God spoke to the people via Sister White.
...Who had more visions than ALL the people mentioned in the so called Bible put together.
...That's a fact many in the SDA church are now trying to push under the carpet.




Originally Posted By: NJK

-EGW herself edited all or part of that sample manuscript and, at the very least, approved all that was added as corrections and were also all published in her time. So nothing was done here without her knowledge nor against her will. She herself saw and believed that they were mistakes in her initial draft from things God had impressed her to write either specifically or more generally.


Her actual writings were inspired, the human agencies pushing "corrected paper-work to Sister White were not....
...And I don't think Sister White signing off on things was absolutely inspired either.
...Which is why I've taken pains to get 1st edition works of Sister White.


Originally Posted By: NJK

-4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).


Well, I see we just won't be agreeing on this part....
...I see Sister White as an actual Sock Puppet with God's hand up in her.
...Controlling just when the mouth opens and what comes out of that mouth.

When I first heard this way of thinking of it I was shocked and disturbed.....
...However when the person produced a sock puppet and started reading the SOP, I GOT it.


Originally Posted By: NJK

-As far as I see it, retracing a denominations historical path, those Adventist groups remained their own distinct denominations, although they did in spirit “join” the “fallen churches”. The point I was making was that the did not grow and flourish as those Adventist who went on to form the SDA Church.

I have not noticed a matching visit to my blog that fits your various criteria (e.g., location and blog post visited in a while (i.e., since June 27), so if you had printed that page to read/study it offline, I would recommend, as much as possible reading from the online post as I occasionally make key amendments to my posts and also for access to related post.


The JW's have done pretty well I'd say, at least the actual headquarters has nearly a billion in liquid cash...
...With around 16 million members with approx 8 million being active members.
..That's not that bad I'd say.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134950
07/04/11 11:38 AM
07/04/11 11:38 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Provided he remained loyal to his loyality just as SOP stated...
...He could have chosen to sin in heaven as easily as he could have on earth in human flesh.


I rather still see that (a) Christ Divinity then was still underived and unborrowed, thus outrightly His and (b) the SOP does not makes this conditionality statement for the pre-Incarnate Jesus.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Had Christ "sinned" it was the identity of the pre-Incarnate Michael that would have ceased to exist...
...The human flesh of Michael was just a husk - no big deal.
...Sister White was explicit that whatever it was that was Michael prior to Incarnation.
...Was what Risked it's "Future" eternal existence.


Who says Michael had “human flesh”. As I understand it, though He may have had a concrete physical form (cf. EW 77.1 & 54.2)), it was still of the same Divine substance as the Father’s. That’s what He entirely eternally sacrificed on the Cross and now, at best, has the form of a Mighty Angel, an upgrade from His post resurrection, Human-only, Incarnate form.

Quote:
NJK: John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.

cephalopod: I meant to say 1 John 4:9....
...Which does say "SENT".


It does but that “Sent” is the same as in the one in John 3:l7 mentioned above, thus also distinctly meaning “commissioned”. It focuses more on the mandate than on the action. Nothing here involving Christ’s nature, but rather what Jesus was supposed to accomplish while on earth as He repeatedly indicated (e.g, John 5:19, 20; 8:28; Heb 10:7, 9)

Originally Posted By: NJK

-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
A Divine Being that's Devine due to conferred deity being given to them....
...Sister White said it would be impossible for Diety to sink and die.
...But absolutely possible for Michael the archangel to sink and die.


You patently wrongly conflately state what EGW actually said with what you think she said. I personally do not see any explicit, nor even implicit, SOP support for your posited/purported ‘Michael vs. Deity’ claim here, nor also, as already stated, your related “conferred”, actually, to me, mere hypothesis, at best.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
In ancient times God spoke through the apostles and prophets ( the Bible )....
...In Sister White's times God spoke to the people via Sister White.
...Who had more visions than ALL the people mentioned in the so called Bible put together.
...That's a fact many in the SDA church are now trying to push under the carpet.


You can (re)read my understanding on why EGW needed to have more visions in this previous response (Post #130939) to this claim of yours, (as well as other restated ones).

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Her actual writings were inspired, the human agencies pushing "corrected paper-work to Sister White were not....


She was the one who had asked them to review and (suggestively) provide any deemed improvements, which they did and she then chose whether to go by them or not. She also made many of those later edits herself. And as those came after her first draft and were indeed corrections in many cases and/or additions for what should have been said, it still sinks your “Sock Puppet” verbal inspiration view as this implies that God was both erroneous and deficient the first time around. You seem quite willing to sacrifice a lot to uphold your view of EGW. I.e., the “Word of God” and now, effectively the inerrant God Himself. That’s not Biblical to say the least.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...And I don't think Sister White signing off on things was absolutely inspired either.


What are you saying here... EGW was not under the guidance of God’s Spirit when selecting what is best for her writings??! That goes against what she says for such third party contribution selective matters, as she did when selecting things from other non-SDA authors.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...Which is why I've taken pains to get 1st edition works of Sister White.


You are therefore keyly missing out onher many significant improvements (Pro 20:6) E.g., as explained in here, Jesus did not say in John 20:17 - “Do not touch me” as she first believed, but more along the lines of her later (in DA) “Do not detain me”.

Quote:
NJK: -4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).

Cephalopod: Well, I see we just won't be agreeing on this part....
...I see Sister White as an actual Sock Puppet with God's hand up in her.
...Controlling just when the mouth opens and what comes out of that mouth.


I understand your view. I just don’t moreoverly see the Truthfulness in this needed “stuttering”/mispeaking/mistaken process by God.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
When I first heard this way of thinking of it I was shocked and disturbed.....
...However when the person produced a sock puppet and started reading the SOP, I GOT it.


I am not following your denouement here.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
The JW's have done pretty well I'd say, at least the actual headquarters has nearly a billion in liquid cash...
...With around 16 million members with approx 8 million being active members.
..That's not that bad I'd say.


First of all, in passing, from what I historically read about JW’s, with their actually distinct 1870 founding by Charles Russell, they do not technically qualify as an original “Adventist” group, per se. he was only influenced in 1869 by an Adventist Church (not SDA) preacher, who himself had been influenced by William Miller.

Nonetheless, their membership growth is quite noteworthy however in terms of total Ecclesiastical and Institutional Growth, they do not compare to the SDA Church, in fact only the Catholic Church does, and member-per-member, the SDA Church actually blows out the Catholic Church in terms of institutions. I.e., if the SDA Church had 1.2 Billion members, they would have many times more institutions that the Catholic Church presently has.

I also am not seeing what you find so remarkable about JW’s ‘having nearly a billion in liquid cash at the headquarters’. I assume you mean the Highest level of their Church structure. For one thing, the SDA Church takes in over $2.7 Billion in tithes and offerings (which is given by members in some “liquid cash” form) alone each year. And given the Bible model of the SDA Church where this money is not hoarded but used to fund the Churches institutions, most of this money is not held at the conference levels (i.e., banks and not the office headquarters themselves), though, as I understand it, a part of it is invested in the stock market. What a Church does with its money towards tangibly fulfilling Christ’s Gospel Commission is more determinative than how much money they have saved up.

The JW’s Personal Evangelism active membership criteria/distinction is interesting and noteworthy. If this was done in the SDA Church perhaps the active membership would only be that famous ‘one in 20' SOP statement. (ChS 41 (1893). {LDE 172.1}) In fact, the weekly Church attending membership is, if I recall exactly only ca. 50% of the total baptized membership. If the Church was really serious about at least Personal Evangelism (=true membership), then the books would more accurately reflect the real strength of this Israel vs. the current, effectively, propagandizing figures.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #135072
07/09/11 10:23 PM
07/09/11 10:23 PM
Daryl  Offline

Site Administrator
23000+ Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,126
Nova Scotia, Canada
bump

As this thread is nearing the 7 day active topics list limit, I am bumping this.


In His Love, Mercy & Grace,

Daryl smile

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

http://www.christians-discuss.com/forum/index.php
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Daryl] #135923
09/05/11 04:19 AM
09/05/11 04:19 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Opp's, what happened to NJKproject?

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #191963
03/05/20 09:37 AM
03/05/20 09:37 AM
Rick H  Offline OP
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,171
Florida, USA
The bottom line is that man must still choose, God cannot force him. This is where the Holy Spirit must come, and like the wind, guide man and bring him to God

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Rick H] #191980
03/06/20 08:43 PM
03/06/20 08:43 PM
Daryl  Offline

Site Administrator
23000+ Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,126
Nova Scotia, Canada
Originally Posted by Rick H
The bottom line is that man must still choose, God cannot force him. This is where the Holy Spirit must come, and like the wind, guide man and bring him to God

Amen to that!


In His Love, Mercy & Grace,

Daryl smile

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

http://www.christians-discuss.com/forum/index.php
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14