- Topic
This debate has been posted several times in other forum post. Do we really have free will or is it predetermined what we will do and say for our entire lives and we only think that we have free will? I read the Word of God like this: He knows everything you are going to do and every decision that you are going to make. Just because God knows what you are going to do and the decisions that you are going to make doesn't mean that you don't have free will. It states that he knows what you are going to do not that he predetermind that you are going to do. He knows the future and he knows the past. This is part of the character of God. If he was really causing you to do his will then all of us would be saved because that is the desire God has for us. This may be my only input on this but please continue to bring your questions in your pursuit of the truth.
Welcome, Sarah. We were only talking about free will but since you brought the TULIP topic up, I am willing to accomodate you. Before I comment on your statement. I would like to give you a website that might help you a bit with this. http://jesussaidfollowme.org/calvinismarminianism.htm This helped me a lot when I first started dealing with the TULIP issue. After you read the website, then we can continue on with the discussion. To make this more easier, can we discuss each points one by one? Thanks! ^_^
Thanks Eli. Give me a few to view the site.
Wait, what's "TULIP"?
Ok. Whenever you are free Eli, lets start with the first point.
Genny, hi. It is the five points of Calvinism.
Just a deeper study when I majored in Theology. Very vast one, Genny.
Whoa, I think Genny is still adjusting to the free will idea, not good introducing her to more. lol. Since both of you are Arminian, if Genny joins, this is two vs. one. Can we separate my topic with Genny and my topic with Sarah? lol.
One thing, Elie, when you said, "You still maintain that some kind of participation from man is still needed to be saved. You still want man to receive some credit for his salvation."
No, man gets no credit for his salvation. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
I had friends once who didn't even want to say that a person "accepted" Jesus' salvation because it still sounded like they had done something to earn it–accepting. They liked to say "trusted in Jesus" instead because it implied less action on the part of the believer. It's simply a change of heart attitude, but that probably still sounds like "participation" and it's not mean to be.
I'm going to read your article now…
Eli dear…. You have got wisdom and I know you got this one. ๐
Eli feel free to take it to a different discussion forum so we don’t confuse things.
genny wrote:
One thing, Elie, when you said, "You still maintain that some kind of participation from man is still needed to be saved. You still want man to receive some credit for his salvation."
No, man gets no credit for his salvation. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
I had friends once who didn't even want to say that a person "accepted" Jesus' salvation because it still sounded like they had done something to earn it–accepting. They liked to say "trusted in Jesus" instead because it implied less action on the part of the believer. It's simply a change of heart attitude, but that probably still sounds like "participation" and it's not mean to be.
I'm going to read your article now…
Hmmm… Maybe I misunderstood your statement… But you did say, "But in order to receive a gift you must accept it, take it, receive it, unwrap it… You don't have to receive the gift." This made me think that it still depends on man's choice whether he is saved or not. Okay, so we agree on the part that man cannot take credit for his salvation. You said that "It's not meant to sound like "participation", so can you explain it further, what did you mean by it?
Also, when you said "It's simply a change of heart attitude". Man had a change of heart, did he change it himself or did God change it for him?
I was just trying to make the analogy with a present. Analogies aren't always perfect. ๐
I got halfway through the article, but things at home are needing attention. I'll be back later…
Well, I ran out of time today for the rest of the article. I'm just thankful I was able to watch that video (albeit in pieces) and get a few posts in this afternoon. I'll try the article again tomorrow.
But I did want to explain the gift analogy a bit more. If you were keeping points, the person giving the gift always gets all the points. The person opening the gift never gets any points just for opening it.
About whether man changed his own heart or if God changed it for him… See if this works for you,
Going back to the gift analogy, it's like getting one of those gifts that is sealed with tape so much that you can't open it without scissors. We have the gift but are unable to open it because we have no scissors (faith). God gives you the scissors too, but you still have to decide whether to use them to open the gift or not.
genny wrote:
Well, I ran out of time today for the rest of the article. I'm just thankful I was able to watch that video (albeit in pieces) and get a few posts in this afternoon. I'll try the article again tomorrow.
But I did want to explain the gift analogy a bit more. If you were keeping points, the person giving the gift always gets all the points. The person opening the gift never gets any points just for opening it.
But you said you have to accept the gift first. So if that is the case, if that gift gives you "salvation" then you would be the one responsible for your salvation. You wouldn't have been save IF you did NOT accept it afterall. You can just be grateful for the one who gave it, but because it was your decision to accept it, it was your decision that saved you. Your "participation" was still needed. Did I get my point across?
About whether man changed his own heart or if God changed it for him… See if this works for you,
Going back to the gift analogy, it's like getting one of those gifts that is sealed with tape so much that you can't open it without scissors. We have the gift but are unable to open it because we have no scissors (faith). God gives you the scissors too, but you still have to decide whether to use them to open the gift or not.
I think you have just inserted something that should not have been there, the last part commits a fallacious argument, can we delete that? The argument should focus on the "scissors" because the problem stated was if you could open the gift or not. So it should be that if God did not give you the scissors, you would never have the ability to open the gift. So the scissors *faith* did not come from you, it came from God (I agree with this one). This means that you don't have anything to do with opening the gift. It was your actions, but your actions wouldn't produce anything good if the "scissors" was not given to you.
You mad at me, dear Eli?
What? No Sarah, I'm not. What gave you the idea? I'm sorry I thought that I would discuss with you only in the TULIP forum and discuss with genny in this forum so I won't get confuse. So sorry if I seem to snob you or something. That was not my intention.
Ok dear friend. Just checking.
Elievalkyrie wrote:
But you said you have to accept the gift first. So if that is the case, if that gift gives you "salvation" then you would be the one responsible for your salvation. You wouldn't have been save IF you did NOT accept it afterall. You can just be grateful for the one who gave it, but because it was your decision to accept it, it was your decision that saved you. Your "participation" was still needed. Did I get my point across?
I told you it was an imperfect analogy. ๐ It's just to get the idea. When someone gives you a gift, and you receive it, do you ever give yourself any credit for the gift? (I hope not.) But what good would it do you if you didn't take the gift home with you, or never opened the box? So in effect it does take some basic level of participation from you, but not in the way that gives you any kind of credit at all for receiving the gift.
I think you have just inserted something that should not have been there, the last part commits a fallacious argument, can we delete that? The argument should focus on the "scissors" because the problem stated was if you could open the gift or not. So it should be that if God did not give you the scissors, you would never have the ability to open the gift. So the scissors *faith* did not come from you, it came from God (I agree with this one). This means that you don't have anything to do with opening the gift. It was your actions, but your actions wouldn't produce anything good if the "scissors" was not given to you.
What fallacious argument was it?
But that's right. You cannot open the gift without scissors, and the scissors come from God. But in the real life gift analogy, the friend gives you the gift with too much tape so you can't open it (and we have to imagine you don't have access to your own scissors), and the friend knows you will need scissors, so she gives you the scissors too. You still have to use the scissors to open the gift or we go right back to the previous scenario of what good is the gift if you don't take it home or don't open it. It is possible to tell your friend "thank you for the beautifully wrapped present!" and set the gift and scissors on the table, and continue on without ever opening it.
genny wrote:
I told you it was an imperfect analogy. ๐ It's just to get the idea. When someone gives you a gift, and you receive it, do you ever give yourself any credit for the gift? (I hope not.) But what good would it do you if you didn't take the gift home with you, or never opened the box? So in effect it does take some basic level of participation from you, but not in the way that gives you any kind of credit at all for receiving the gift.
The question here is: are you REALLY able to reject the gift? If it was God's will to give it to you, is man powerful enough to NOT accept it? You know what makes it an imperfect analogy? The fact that you make God less sovereign when you state that it is by man's decision whether to accept the gift or not. This situation puts God at the backseat, making man the controller of his own destiny and that is why I can't accept it. Your view implies that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ (Man choose to accept the gift). I just can't lower God in that way. The bible says that EVERYTHING is predestined, which I will emphasize different from what you call "foreknowledge". You cannot deny the fact that everything is already planned according to God's good will, not man's but God alone. Obviously, we both cannot be right. So how do we reconcile this two different view of ours?
What fallacious argument was it?
But that's right. You cannot open the gift without scissors, and the scissors come from God. But in the real life gift analogy, the friend gives you the gift with too much tape so you can't open it (and we have to imagine you don't have access to your own scissors), and the friend knows you will need scissors, so she gives you the scissors too. You still have to use the scissors to open the gift or we go right back to the previous scenario of what good is the gift if you don't take it home or don't open it. It is possible to tell your friend "thank you for the beautifully wrapped present!" and set the gift and scissors on the table, and continue on without ever opening it.
You are again going back to Man, not the friend (God). In the real world, God is not a "FRIEND" only. He made you, you are His creator. It is in my opinion that Man do NOT have the power to resist God, you may think you do because it seems that way. I could only say that IF you did resist God, it was already on God's plan that you would not receive it. Just like Pharaoh vs. Moses in the bible, Pharaoh acted on his own but God hardened his heart. But does that make the situation horrible? Do you think God was unfair because He hardened Pharaoh's heart? You can see in the bible that Pharaoh kept changing his mind about letting Moses go because it IS what God wanted. This is not unfair, because only God is good and His plans will always result to good. What is "good" for you may not be the real "good" because you "good-thinking" is limited, you would only focus on yourself but God is able to make EVERYTHING good in the end. Glorification is only wrong when you are giving glory to man, giving glory to God is right way because it is only He that deserves to be glorified. You saying that it is by your own will that you "accept" the scissors gives glory to yourself. I hope I made sense here.
I found an interesting site and hope you read this one when you have the time Genny. thanks! ^__^
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.