I totally agree. Nothing that God knows has any effect on our freedom to choose. But IF God (or anyone else) knows that you are going to eat a pear tomorrow, then you are going to eat a pear tomorrow. Therefore it is now true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. If it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow, you cannot refrain from eating a pear tomorrow. For if you DO refrain from eating a pear tomorrow, then this contradicts the statement that it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. Thus no one could NOW know that you will eat a pear tomorrow.
The same argument holds if it is assumed that someone knows that you WON’T eat a pear tomorrow. Thus the statement that you will eat a pear tomorrow is neither true nor false NOW. Thus no one can know whether or not you will eat a pear tomorrow. If the truth value of a statement is known NOW, then the statement must be either true or false NOW. If the statement is neither true nor false now, then there is nothing to know.
Revelation 3:20 does not teach that man can hear or open the door without God’s help. Just because God gives a command does not mean we have the ability to do it without his help. The Old Covenant is an illustration of that. God gave many commands and we royally failed the test. Revelation 3:20 needs to considered with other Scriptures that explain further about the condition of man’s heart. There are numerous Scriptures that are easily understood to teach that grace is needed to help a person to repent, Romans 2:4 for example. I am asking if anyone knows a Scripture with the didactic message that we can repent without the help of the Holy Spirit? That would then help show how Romans 2:4 might allow for free will. Otherwise Romans 2:4 does not allow for free will.
Jeff, My interpretation of John 5:26 differs from yours because I believe that Jesus was the One and Only True God in person. We are the sons, and when we choose to walk with God, we are sons of God. So in this verse, God is giving us authority over our own lives.
Sure I likewise believe Jesus is the God / Man and we are sons of God with him. Though we are not THE Son of God who has life within himself on his own. God is self-existent. We cannot even exist initially without God, nor can we become Christians without the Holy Spirit. We become Christians, we become sons and daughters at the moment THE Son puts his life within us. Isn’t John 5:21 talking about how we become Christians?
Jesus gave commands, too, in “the sermon on the mount,” Matthew 5, 6, and 7. Some of them are harder to obey than the 10 commandments.
However, some people HAVE fulfilled by their own choice, any moral imperative that you can name. The apostle Paul called these instructions “The law of Christ.” The enabling grace of God, made available by the supreme sacrifice of Christ, makes it easier to do the will of God, and results in a greater consistency.
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)
How do we appropriate this enabling grace? We appropriate it through faith. Jesus died to provide this enabling grace, and by trusting Him to do so, it becomes a reality in our lives.
Many think “δικαιοσυνη,” The Greek word translated as “justification” to mean “being counted as righteous,” whether we are righteous or not. But the word often means “being made righteous.”
Working together [with Him], we entreat you not to accept the grace of God to no purpose. (2 Cor 6:1)
If we try to accept God’s grace in our lives without allowing it to purify us, to render us righteous, then we are accepting it to no purpose.
We must coöperate with God’s enabling grace. We alone cannot achieve consistent righteousness. And God alone will not cause us to be righteous. He respects our ablity to choose too much for that. We must coöperate with God’s enabling grace.
This coöperation with God is known as “synergy.” This English word comes from the Greek word “working together.” (συνεργουντες)
A particular group of denominations push “monergy.” This is the idea God did all the work concerning our righteousness, that we have no part in it at all. No wonder so many fall away, thinking that what they choose to do has no bearing on their standing with God.
However, I think the apostle Paul had it right. Concerning deliverance from wrongdoing, we need to work together with God, and so not accept the grace of God to no purpose.
But IF God (or anyone else) knows that you are going to eat a pear tomorrow, then you are going to eat a pear tomorrow. Therefore it is now true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. If it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow, you cannot refrain from eating a pear tomorrow.
But i don’t think it’s a matter of refraining. If i will choose to eat a pear tomorrow and God only knows but in no way influences the choice then the passive knowledge of an event is not the cause of the event.
I’m not sure about nature of time , whether the future can be known or not by God but if he is only an observer, why would that impact free will.
I was forced to watch the Bachlorette the other night because my wife loves it. Kaitlyn had to choose between Shawn and Nick and i knew she chose Shawn. (bad choice). Did the fact i knew who she picked impact her free will? If God knows the future it’s like us watching a television show that already occurred, the players didn’t know i as the viewer knew the outcome and from their perspective, they had free will. I knew they couldn’t make another choice but they didn’t know that at the time of decision and they freely choose.
I still can’t quite grasp the logic of saying that, because X knows that I will do Z tomorrow, that my choice will not be a free choice. To me at the time of my choosing Z, it certainly will be free. My choice is not influenced by someone else’s knowledge.
You already said in a previous post something similar to “My choice is not influenced by someone else’s knowledge” and I fully agreed with you. I still fully agree. My argument in no way indicates that someone’s knowledge influences choice. The point of my argument was to show that the choice of a free-will agent CANNOT BE KNOWN in advance. I did this by showing that if the choice IS known in advance, then it is not really a choice, and the agent does not have free will.
I claim that the statement “Dave will raise his hand at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015.” has no truth value. That is, the sentence in NOW neither true nor false. It will become true or false at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015 when Dave makes his decision. Only statements which are either true or false, can be known to be true (or false). If it is neither true nor false, then there is nothing to know.
Indeed, in the study of logic, a “logical statement” is either true of false. I claim that sentences about the future are not “logical statements” though they may be written in statement form. Here are two examples:
“Jack will go to Winnipeg tomorrow.” This sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is “Jack intends to go to Winnipeg tomorrow,” and of course THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.
“The Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game.” Again this sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is “I predict that the Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game.” And THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.
Then what of these statements, are they logical? Were they true in the moment they were said?
Matthew 26:34, "Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.’ "
I would contend that Peter’s fall was not only foreknown, but predetermined by the influences of our sovereign God. Or how about this statement…
Philippians 2:10, "So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,’ "
The reason I am 100% confident that all mankind will be brought to obedient submission and worship of Christ is because God wills it to be. The reason I am a universalist is because God’s promise, will, and purpose cannot be thwarted.
I can hardly believe that you would trust your eternal destiny to your own ability to keep a promise or to reform yourself! Do we depend upon God or ourselves?
If Peter’s fall was predetermined, then Peter had no choice but to fall. Also the ideas that his fall was predetermined implies that God caused him to deny his Master. That makes God the author of sin. I have too high a regard for God’s character to accept that. But to answer your question, no the sentence was not true the moment it was said. Jesus made a prediction. Jesus knew Peter’s character; He knew Peter’s impulsiveness; He knew Peter was likely to cave under pressure. But you ask, how could He predict that it would be three times? Matthew wrote his memoir of Christ many years after the event occurred. I suggest that Matthew knew Peter had denied Christ three times, and so he “remembered” that Jesus said he would deny Him three times. But Jesus may not have said “three times.” Notice that Mark, who probably got his information from Peter, said, "And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” (Mark 14:30). So how many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied Him? Once? Or twice? Either Matthew or Mark had to be mistaken. So it may be that they thought they remembered that our Lord said “deny me three times” when He may not have said so. Then why did both of them say that Jesus said “three times”? Again, I think they thought they remembered Him saying “three times” because Peter actually did deny Him three times.
I regard the sentence as true because God intends that it will happen, and so He will continue to work on everyone to influence them to be reconciled to Him. He will do whatever it takes to see that that happens. However, God doesn’t directly cause each person to submit to the authority of Christ and become His disciple. Rather He influences each person and will continue to do so until they submit. Each person will of his own free will choose to submit or continue to rebel. But God will never give up on the rebels. He will provide love, discomfort, or whatever influence has its effect. He will do His very best for each individual until all repent and bow the knee.
Whatever gave you the idea that I do? I have consistently said that God will not do it unilaterally, and that we cannot do it unilaterally. Monergism won’t work. Rather as Paul said, “Working together with Him (synergism), I entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1) If we coöperate with the divine grace of God it won’t be in vain. With God’s grace, we will succeed!
I hear you saying that you and God together accomplish your salvation. Sorry can’t go there. For some reason you are avoiding the praise due Christ in Romans 11:36.
Jeff, when you use the term ‘salvation’ - are you referring to the initial act of saving faith, or are you also including sanctification and growth as a Christian?
Jeff, Paul is not talking about salvation in Rom 11:36; he is talking about material things:
Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:35,36)
Nobody can give a material gift to God. It’s no use in trying to give Him a lamb (in sacrifice) or money or anything else, because absolutely every created thing had its origin in Him, even though they were created through His Son.
I agree that we cannot exist without God, but according to Genesis 2:7 God put life into man in the beginning when He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. I also believe that God gave us (His sons) life in ourselves for the following reasons.
Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to it’s kind, whose seed is in itself on the earth.”, and it was so.
Genesis 5:1 In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
If everything on the earth has the seed of it’s kind in itself, then this includes man. We have the seed of God in us.
We are also capable of love, compassion, forgiveness etc.
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
The seed must be watered in order for it to grow. When we follow God’s word, we produce the fruit of the Spirit.
Deuteronomy 30:14-15 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. See I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.
From this verse I believe we have a choice.
Deuteronomy 10: 12 And now Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep His commandments.
These people were obviously able to love God.
That is really a kind of simplistic, and perhaps erroneous presentation of an alternate viewpoint you do not understand.
The problem with polarized opposites is that they disregard nuances and possibilities with self enforced limitations of perspective… The relationship of the salvation of all and the workings of God’s sovereign will with man’s will is not so complex. God certainly willed the salvation of all…but there remains a question concerning HOW did he will its fulfillment?
it is not so curious to believe that God, who as you assert, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will to a creation destined to be taught the glory of freedom- the freedom of love for God and for one another- the “glorious liberty of the children of God”. For freedom Christ has set you free.
The term “free”, joined to “will” in theological terminology is an unfortunate one, because it implies for some a status of independence from God’s action and intervention that does not exist- but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, because in order to “agree” and to “serve” and to “love” there must be a freedom to choose.
So I believe God is executing the salvation of all by the glory of the revelation of Christ crucified, a universal testimony of His love that is drawing all men unto Him, “If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me”…“The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. This not happening apart from God who is acting in time and in each life- nor is it occurring in a totally dictated machination. God doesnt work like tghat in my view, He is spirit, wind, water, fire.
The end is not, and never was in doubt,** God knowing all along that the superiority of love so transcends the chaos of self that His one great act of love would inexoranly draw all men into it, out of the bondage of futility(choosing self) into the harmony of choosing the love of God in Christ. This one great act of love being the Logos of God from the beginning**… the source from which all was created and the bosom unto which all creation must return as it learns, as it is revealed and unveiled, the glory of laying down ones life, yielding to God who is an infinte river of joy filled love- not by command, but because the lessons of futility and the answer of grace for the one who is instructed…“For this reason I am determined to know nothing else among you but Christ and Him crucified.”
In my opinion, it is not necessary to hold either view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate to embrace the salvation of all. It makes perfect sense from either view, if thoroughly presented.
That may be a kind of simplistic, and perhaps erroneous presentation of an alternate viewpoint you may not understand.
The problem with polarized opposites is that they disregard nuances and possibilities with self enforced limitations of perspective… The relationship of the salvation of all and the workings of God’s sovereign will with man’s will is not all that complex. God certainly willed the salvation of all…but there remains an honest question, due valid discussion, as to HOW He has willed its fulfillment.
It is not so curious to believe that God, who as you agree, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will to a creation destined to be taught the glory of freedom- the freedom of love for God and for one another- the “glorious liberty of the children of God”. For freedom Christ has set you free.
Certainly anything placed in the hands of man is chaotic, but only until the man/woman is placed in the hands of God, at which point the man/woman becomes a child of God, a steward of the ministry of jesus Christ, inheriting all things in Christ, becoming a part of the reconciliation/restoration of all things. The children of God, having been set free, are destined to walk in and become distributors of the “glorious liberty of the children of God”, into which the whole creation is being set free(Romans 8).
The term “free”, joined to “will” in theological terminology is an unfortunate one, because it implies for some a status of independence from God’s action and intervention that does not exist- but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, in order to “agree” and to “serve” and to “love” there must be a freedom to choose.
So I believe God is executing the salvation of all by the glory of the revelation of Christ crucified, a universal testimony of His love that is drawing all men unto Him, “If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me”…“The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. This not happening apart from God who is acting in time and in each life- nor is it occurring in a totally dictated machination. God doesnt work like that in my view, He is spirit, wind, water, fire.
The end is not, and never was in doubt,** God knowing all along that the superiority of love so transcends the chaos of self that His one great act of love would inexoranly draw all men into it, out of the bondage of futility(choosing self) into the harmony and freedom of choosing the love of God in Christ. This one great act of love being the Logos of God from the beginning**… the source from which all was created and the bosom unto which all creation must return as it learns, as it is revealed and unveiled, the glory of laying down ones life, yielding to God who is an infinte river of joy filled love- not by command, but because the lessons of futility and the answer of grace for the one who is instructed…“For this reason I am determined to know nothing else among you but Christ and Him crucified.”
In my opinion, it is not necessary to hold either view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate to embrace the salvation of all. It makes perfect sense from either view, if thoroughly presented.
From this perspective, the overall sovereignty of God is meted out within the choices of a learning creation, taught thru chaos to embrace the harmony of light- sacrificial love, bowing the knee of self to Christ and Him crucified; Embracing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
