Has The Church'S View Of Grace/Works Changed?

[djholmess]

Agreed. Both include obedience as a factor in salvation, and Article 3 goes further and provides the specifics--one of the advantages of continued revelation.

I think we have made some good progress here. We've gone from saved by grace only, to saved by grace and faith, to saved grace and faith and repentance--or rather saved by grace and obedience to the principles or commandments of faith and repentance. We are half way through the 4th Article of Faith--i.e. the first principles of the gospel.

Let's see if we can now work our way through the second half--i.e. the first ordinances of the gospel, and thereby reconciling further the specifics of 3rd and 4th Articles of Faith with the vague and general statement in Heb. 5:9:

We LDS believe this New Testament passage:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1Pet. 3:21)

In other words, we believe that obedience to the ordinance of baptism is a factor in our salvation. This makes sense to us because even though Christ, through his grace, has provided us with the purifying water/blood with which we may be cleansed of our past sins, we may avail ourselves of that purifying water/blood by obediently following Christ into the waters of baptism and immersing ourselves therein, by the hand of those having authority, and in the name of he Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As with Christ, we have a baptism to be baptized with, and how else are we "straightened" until that baptism is accomplished? (see Luke 12:50)

To us, obedience to the ordinance of baptism not only entails the salvific factor of having our sins buried in Christ's blood, but it also entails being raised up out of the water a new man, having been born of him of the water--without which we could not enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Through baptism we take upon us Christ's name, making him our father and the person whom we obey. It is also the gate to enter onto the way of Christ which leaded to him, culminating in the resurrection, of which baptism is a symbol thereof. (I can provide NT passages in support of each of these points as well if you wish).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry Wade but I don't think we have made the progress you think.

1) I would say repentance, just like faith, is a gift of Gods grace...leading me to happly say a person is saved by grace alone

2) We are not agreeded on the 'by' in article 3. Whilst we could agree that obidience to Jesus is something a believer does we still have opposite reasons as to why this obidience is done.

I believe that only those who have been regenerated, justified and indwelt by the Holy Spirit are the ones capable of obeying Christ. Therefore this obidience isn't done with any thought of still needing Gods grace for salvation, they already have the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance of eternal life in heaven with God.

[CASteinman]

So it reads like this;

As for you, you planned evil for me. --but God planned It UNTO good, in order to do what has happened this day...

Are you a King James Bible Only person? The word "unto" is not taken from the Hebrew. It is a grammatical insertion by the King James people. You are making a big deal out of a word that does not appear in the Hebrew and is not implied there.

The Hebrew is more literally this: " And you - you planned/thought/intended/meditated evil on/toward me and Elohim planned/thought/intended/meditated good."

You are straining at a gnat to find something that is not there. This passage simply means that their plans were thwarted by God. It does not mean that they could not make a choice, that it could not have turned out bad for Joseph if he had not taken advantage of opportunities God gave him or if he had become faithless. It does not mean that anyone was forced into some action. It does not in any way support the notion that God was directing and controlling everything that happened. The key word is chashab which is not "controlled", "made happen", "directed" or anything of the like. It does not even insist that an action be taken. It is more internal and thoughtful. In fact, it almost specifically rejects actual action in favor of just thinking about it.

[djholmess]

Are you a King James Bible Only person? The word "unto" is not taken from the Hebrew. It is a grammatical insertion by the King James people. You are making a big deal out of a word that does not appear in the Hebrew and is not implied there.

The Hebrew is more literally this: " And you - you planned/thought/intended/meditated evil on/toward me and Elohim planned/thought/intended/meditated good."

Why do you keep leaving out the 'it' every time you try to summarise the verse?

NIV

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

ASV

And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

ESV

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

NAS

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

The 'it' in the english scentence is meant to show that the action of God, His meaning/intending, is directed towards a specific object namely the evil of the brothers.

All I've been saying is that this verse clearly shows that in the same event/action - the selling of Joseph into slavery, (as the context from verse 15 clearly shows) both men; Joseph's brothers, and God can BOTH intend the same action. The borthers plan/intention was for evil but at the same time God planned/intended good.

You are twisting this verse because;

1) You leave out the 'it' and thus allow yourself to intrepret Gods intention as only regarding to the outcome rather than the means and outcome.

2)You want to intrepret the verse to be saying God used the brothers actions for good rather than that God intended it for good.

Clearly there is no point discussing this any further but thanks for taking the time to explain how you understand the verse.

[CASteinman]

Why do you keep leaving out the 'it' every time you try to summarise the verse?

Because it is not in the Hebrew-- although it is not unreasonable to put it in the English, but it is also not necessary. Either way, it is irrelevant since even in English the "it" refers to the Outcome.

Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

All I've been saying is that this verse clearly shows that in the same event/action - the selling of Joseph into slavery, (as the context from verse 15 clearly shows) both men; Joseph's brothers, and God can BOTH intend the same action. The borthers plan/intention was for evil but at the same time God planned/intended good.

Yes, the brothers intended evil, but God planned something else. This is hardly a proof that God forces people to do things -- or forces things to happen around them as you want to suggest.

You are twisting this verse because;

1) You leave out the 'it' and thus allow yourself to intrepret Gods intention as only regarding to the outcome rather than the means and outcome.

2)You want to intrepret the verse to be saying God used the brothers actions for good rather than that God intended it for good.

Actually you totally misunderstand me. It is not necessary for me to be right about the scripture to be right about the doctrine. You see.. unlike you, I do not accept the Bible as perfect... I do not need to have the scriptures match my views. So it is utterly unnecessary for me to have any such ulterior motives in interpreting scripture. I can find scriptures that absolutely contradict my beliefs -- and I accept that when I find them. Its just that in this case, whether they match mine or not, they do not match yours. And in that regard, this is where you are not able to be honest in the matter because to you -- you MUST find your doctrines in accordance with the Bible. You have a deeply vested interest. Thus your interpretation is far more suspect because -- you need it to be a certain way. I do not.

[ERayR]

Again you are the one twisting the words:

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.

So it reads like this;

As for you, you planned evil for me. --but God planned It UNTO good, in order to do what has happened this day...

The thing that God planned was planned unto good, the 'it' is not the good, the it is the thing that would cause the good, that would be unto good. What caused the good?-it was the selling of Joseph into slavery which began the journey that took him to where he was in a position to save the people.

Or better yet read it like this:

As for you, you planned evil for me. --but God planned turned It UNTO good, in order to do what has happened this day...

[CASteinman]

As for you, you planned evil for me. --but God planned turned It UNTO good, in order to do what has happened this day...

That might be what Joseph had in mind, but it is not really what is recorded. Joseph is clearly expressing faith in God and giving Him credit for the positive things that happened to him despite what his brothers did. But more than that he is also saying that God blessed him so that they and their families could be saved.

djh is seeking to say that this was all planned in advance and that the brothers selling Joseph into Egypt was actually God's plan. By this logic all mean and evil things are exactly what God wants to have happen.

Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

That might be what Joseph had in mind, but it is not really what is recorded. Joseph is clearly expressing faith in God and giving Him credit for the positive things that happened to him despite what his brothers did. But more than that he is also saying that God blessed him so that they and their families could be saved.

djh is seeking to say that this was all planned in advance and that the brothers selling Joseph into Egypt was actually God's plan. By this logic all mean and evil things are exactly what God wants to have happen.

I understand what djh is saying and I find that fatalistic view of life quite depressing.

[KevinG]

I understand what djh is saying and I find that fatalistic view of life quite depressing.

Funny how that view is always taught by the "chosen".

[wenglund]

Sorry Wade but I don't think we have made the progress you think.

1) I would say repentance, just like faith, is a gift of Gods grace...leading me to happly say a person is saved by grace alone

2) We are not agreeded on the 'by' in article 3. Whilst we could agree that obidience to Jesus is something a believer does we still have opposite reasons as to why this obidience is done.

I believe that only those who have been regenerated, justified and indwelt by the Holy Spirit are the ones capable of obeying Christ. Therefore this obidience isn't done with any thought of still needing Gods grace for salvation, they already have the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance of eternal life in heaven with God.

Perhaps we haven't progressed as far as I thought--I will take your word for it.

Be that as it may, I think the New Testament passages I quoted can reasonably and rightly and consistently be interpreted to mean that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the principle of faith, and by obedience to the principle of repentance, and by obedience to the ordinance of baptism. And, there are other passages that I could quote, and which others here have quoted earlier, which imply that all mankind may also be saved by obedience to the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

You, of course, are free to reasonably interpret the same scriptures differently. To each their own. What matters to me isn't debating whose interpretation is right or wrong--too oft a fruitless enterprise, but living the gospel and letting it work in conforming us into the image of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

You misunderstand Calvinism

Most likely. To me it is a mass of confusion.

In your terms

1) God choses who to lavish with His grace and whom to justly give the punishment they deserve.

2) All those whom he chose to be gracious too he caused them to be born again, awakening saving faith in them.

Ok, but therein is one of the problems I have with it. According to Paul God wants EVERYONE to be saved.

1 Tim 2:4 (God our Saviour) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

So, if God chooses who will be saved and who won't, and if God wants "all men to be saved", then why aren't "all men" "saved"?

3) All those who have saving faith in Jesus are the chosen ones,

This contradicts what you said earlier. It is backwards. It is those that "are the chosen ones" that are imbued with "saving faith in Jesus".

4) There therefore can be many confused Christians who do not undertand Calvinism or reject it who still have saving faith in Christ

No surprise. After all it is a mass of confusion.

So, if I understand you correctly, many of the "saved ones" may fully reject Calvinism. And many of the "unsaved ones" may fully accept Calvinism.

Is that right?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

You, of course, are free to reasonably interpret the same scriptures differently. To each their own. What matters to me isn't debating whose interpretation is right or wrong--too oft a fruitless enterprise, but living the gospel and letting it work in conforming us into the image of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Therein lies our fundamental difference. Not that I think it is my goal in life to debate intrepretations, but that in order to live out the gospel and seek to be conformed into the image of Christ you have to be doing it in the right way. Otherwise our efforts may prove to be in vain.

[djholmess]

Ok, but therein is one of the problems I have with it. According to Paul God wants EVERYONE to be saved.

1 Tim 2:4 (God our Saviour) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

So, if God chooses who will be saved and who won't, and if God wants "all men to be saved", then why aren't "all men" "saved"?

There are two problems with this;

1) Does all men mean every single person ever in existance in the context of 1 Timothy 2:4, I've heard some pretty strong intrepretations that would suggest this is not the case.

2) Even if it does mean God desires ever person to be saved does the verse teach that this is what God is trying to make happen?

In otherwords my simplest and shortest answer would be to say 'yes in a sense God does have a desire that all men be saved but can't he have another desire that is stronger than this one; and can't he act in a way that brings to pass his stronger desire?'

Arguing that 1 Timothy 2:4 contradicts my statements presupposes that God can't desire two different things

I would point to many clear passages where God demonstrates that His greatest desire and purpose in creating and governing this world is to display the glory of his grace. Looking for an explaination of why if God desires all men to be saved but they are not all saved I wouldn't go with:

'man has complete free will and can fustrate Gods desires' because I find no Biblical support for the concept of complete free will or agency

Rather I do see in the Bible that God has other desires and so it seems more Biblically correct to understand why all men aren't saved (even when God desires them to be) because God has a greater desire that means he doesn't save everyone.

This contradicts what you said earlier. It is backwards. It is those that "are the chosen ones" that are imbued with "saving faith in Jesus".

I should have put it like this:

3a) As anyone who has true faith in Christ is one of Gods chosen

3b) Therefore as long as a person has true faith they are saved no matter what they believe about Calvinism

So, if I understand you correctly, many of the "saved ones" may fully reject the Calvinism. And many of the "unsaved ones" may fully accept Calvinism.

Is that right?

I hesitate to say a full yes because Calvinsim covers a wide range of topics. So, I would say yes they may reject calvinsim, as long as there is nothing within what they are rejecting that is centeral to the Biblical message of how one is saved; specifically that one is saved by faith alone in Christ for the forgivness of sins and the imputation of righteousness.

However as long as someone has true saving faith they will have been justified by God. So they may reject Calvinism as long as whatever they are rejecting does not

Edited July 23, 2012 by djholmess

[Vance]

Lets look at Romans 2:6-11 then;

⁶ Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

⁷ To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

⁸ But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

⁹ Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

¹⁰ But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

¹¹ For there is no respect of persons with God.

I think an apt summary would be to say God will give to everyman what his deeds deserve, to those who seek for glory and honour he will give eternal life. To those who do not obey the truth he will give wrath.

Ok, so who are these people who will be given eternal life because they were patient in well doing?

Good question. I was hoping that you would address what Jesus said in Matt 25:31-46. What I see here is your interpretation of Paul's teachings that TOTALLY disregards what Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46.

Why does YOUR interpretation of Paul take preeminence over what Jesus clearly taught?

¹¹ For there is no respect of persons with God.

¹² For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

¹³ (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Clearly they cannot be people who sin against the law because it is only the doers of the law that are justified, those who have failed to do it will be judged by it.

So in Pauls context of Romans 1-3 exactly what people obey the law?

Those that REPENT from their sins. To be truly repentant one must be in a state of obedience. As Paul says in Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Those that repent ARE "doers of the that are justified" those that fail to repent will be judged by the law that they continually brake.

In 1:18-23 we see that those who suppress the truth about God revealed in creation, who have failed to honour and thank God and who have replaced him with an image resembling mortal man or birds do not obey the law.

1:21-23

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.

²² Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

²³ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

In 1:26-28 we see that those who practice homosexuality do not fall into this group either

1:26-27

²⁶For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

²⁷ And likewise also the men...

In 1:28-32 we see an even longer list of sins which break the law

1:29-30

fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

³⁰ Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents...

In 2:1-5 we see that anyone who judges others who do anything in that long list also cannot be said to be a doer of the law

2:1

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

You neglected to mention that they also have a "hard(ned) and impenitent heart". In other words, they REFUSE TO REPENT!!!!.

In 2:17-29 the Jew who thought himself one of Gods righteous people in actual fact does not keep the law

2:23-24

²³ Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

²⁴ For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

All these put together then allow Paul to draw his conclusions in 3:9-12

⁹ What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

¹⁰ As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

¹¹ There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

¹² They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Then why did Jesus teach that there were righteous people?

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

So if there is no partiality with God and he will render everyman according to his deeds who can be saved? No one! That is the whole point of Romans 3:20-4:12, salvation must come another way.

Right. It must come through the doctrine of Christ which has the "foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God." (Heb 6:1)

Repentance and Baptism.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why are these verse neglected?

3:20

²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

4:5

to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Yes, if you believe Jesus, you will repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. So, even if you were "ungodly" in the past, if you obey Jesus and repent and are baptised you are then justified. Your faith in Jesus (which requires you to obey him) is rewarded by having your sins washed away (through the blood of the Lamb), you become clean and are declared "righteous".

[Vance]

Therein lies our fundamental difference. Not that I think it is my goal in life to debate intrepretations, but that in order to live out the gospel and seek to be conformed into the image of Christ you have to be doing it in the right way. Otherwise our efforts may prove to be in vain.

Now you are confusing me again. This statement indicates that "seek(ing) to be conformed into the image of Christ" is a personal choice, not a God forced thing.

I would appreciate some consistency here. Does God do it all or do we have some choice in the matter? Is it Calvinism or not?

[wenglund]

Therein lies our fundamental difference. Not that I think it is my goal in life to debate intrepretations, but that in order to live out the gospel and seek to be conformed into the image of Christ you have to be doing it in the right way. Otherwise our efforts may prove to be in vain.

As I understand the ways of God, it is by our being progressively conformed to the image of Christ, and not by debating interpretations, that we confirm the right way and prove our efforts to not have been in vain. In other words, by our fruits ye shall know us--we see if as through a glass darkly. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 23, 2012 by wenglund

[djholmess]

Now you are confusing me again. This statement indicates that "seek(ing) to be conformed into the image of Christ" is a personal choice, not a God forced thing.

I would appreciate some consistency here. Does God do it all or do we have some choice in the matter? Is it Calvinism or not?

If you have been following all the conversations that have been going on - and I understand if you haven't, everyone is asking me different questions.

Calcinists are compatabilists meaning that they believe

1) God is totally sovereign and is in total control over all things even the choices of men.

2)Men do make real choices that do actually cause things and are accountable for their choices

So in otherwords you could take any action of man e.g. my decision over what to eat for dinner today. I really did chose to make indian and the indian being made was a result of my choice to do so. However at the same God was sovereign over my choice to the point where it would not be wrong to also say God intended me to make that choice.

I know that from a human perspective that seems contradictory however I am forced to hold this position due to the teaching of the Bible. I know Gods ways are igher than mine so I accept His teachings even if I don't understand exactly how they work.

If you want to read a article that explains this in more detail try this:

http://www.noble-minded.org/calvinism.html

[Vance]

There are two problems with this;

1) Does all men mean every single person ever in existance in the context of 1 Timothy 2:4, I've heard some pretty strong intrepretations that would suggest this is not the case.

2) Even if it does mean God desires ever person to be saved does the verse teach that this is what God is trying to make happen?

Those are good questions. Does this verse really mean what is says? I guess that is a question that can be asked of ALL verses, right?

My problem is that the usage of the words "saved", "save" "salvation" is NOT consistent in the New Testament. So to me the question really is "saved" from WHAT?

In otherwords my simplest and shortest answer would be to say 'yes in a sense God does have a desire that all men be saved . . .

Ok, that is a reasonable understanding.

. . . but can't he have another desire that is stronger than this one;

???? Either it is His will that all men to be saved or it isn't His will.

Does He get what He wants or not?

and can't he act in a way that brings to pass his stronger desire?'

You are just blowing smoke in an attempt to disregard what this verse clearly and plainly says just because it doesn't fit with your presuppositions.

So, is it ok to disregard any verse that doesn't fit with your presuppositions?

Hear no evil, see no evil??

Arguing that 1 Timothy 2:4 contradicts my statements presupposes that God can't desire two different things

And you are "presupposing" that God CAN desire two CONTRADICTORY things. You are presupposing that there are no other ways to reconcile these verses.

I would point to many clear passages where God demonstrates that His greatest desire and purpose in creating and governing this world is to display the glory of his grace.

And saving EVERYONE somehow precludes "his grace"??????

Seriously?

Looking for an explaination of why if God desires all men to be saved but they are not all saved I wouldn't go with:

'man has complete free will and can fustrate Gods desires' because I find no Biblical support for the concept of complete free will or agency

Really?

How about,

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Deut 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Need I provide more?

Rather I do see in the Bible that God has other desires and so it seems more Biblically correct to understand why all men aren't saved (even when God desires them to be) because God has a greater desire that means he doesn't save everyone.

OR just maybe "saved" doesn't mean exactly what you think it means.

I should have put it like this:

3a) As anyone who has true faith in Christ is one of Gods chosen

There you go again, contradicting your earlier statement. Which comes first?

God's choosing or faith in Christ?

3b) Therefore as long as a person has true faith they are saved no matter what they believe about Calvinism

Still contradictory, see above.

I hesitate to say a full yes because Calvinsim covers a wide range of topics. So, I would say yes they may reject calvinsim, as long as there is nothing within what they are rejecting that is centeral to the Biblical message of how one is saved; specifically that one is saved by faith alone in Christ for the forgivness of sins and the imputation of righteousness.

1) There is only ONE verse in the Bible that contains both the words "faith" and "alone", and it doesn't say what your think it says.

2) I though God chooses who is saved and who isn't, what is this "faith alone in Christ" business?

However as long as someone has true saving faith they will have been justified by God.

Regardless of whether God has chosen them are not?

Please make up your mind.

So they may reject Calvinism as long as whatever they are rejecting does not

Must have missed something there.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

If you have been following all the conversations that have been going on - and I understand if you haven't, everyone is asking me different questions.

Calcinists are compatabilists meaning that they believe

1) God is totally sovereign and is in total control over all things even the choices of men.

2)Men do make real choices that do actually cause things and are accountable for their choices

Do you not see the TOTAL CONTRADICTION between those two statements?

Either God makes the choices for us or we do. It can NOT be both.

So in otherwords you could take any action of man e.g. my decision over what to eat for dinner today. I really did chose to make indian and the indian being made was a result of my choice to do so.

Ok, so you DO have agency over yourself. Good, I agree.

However at the same God was sovereign over my choice to the point where it would not be wrong to also say God intended me to make that choice.

Ok, so you DO NOT have agency over yourself.

Thus you contradict yourself.

I know that from a human perspective that seems contradictory . . .

Seems? It is contradictory.

. . . however I am forced to hold this position due to the teaching of the Bible.

No, the Bible doesn't teach that. It is simply Calvins limited and erroneous interpretation that teaches that.

I know Gods ways are igher than mine so I accept His teachings even if I don't understand exactly how they work.

Actually, you are not accepting God's teachings, you are accepting Calvin's teachings.

There is a big difference.

If you want to read a article that explains this in more detail try this:

http://www.noble-min.../calvinism.html

I would rather just study the Bible, thank you.

[Calm]

Looking for an explaination of why if God desires all men to be saved but they are not all saved I wouldn't go with:

'man has complete free will and can fustrate Gods desires' because I find no Biblical support for the concept of complete free will or agency

And thus you end up having to deal with contradictions in what God says because of the underlying assumption you are imposing that God intentionally places His own Will above all others....in fact in essence no one else has a will because the source of their will is God (which makes very confusing Christ's comment about "not as I will, but as you will" especially with the Trinitarian view of what the Will of Christ would be in relation to the Father's Will...at least as I understand it which may be incorrect.)

However, if one accepts that man's will can exist independently of God and that God is willing to respect man's choices even when they are evil (that respect including applying justice to the consequences of their actions if they do not repent and seek ˙is Mercy), the contradiction disappears...which says something significant about that assumption, imo.

Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

Seems? It is contradictory.

I would rather just study the Bible, thank you.

It is only contradictory if you come to the Bible with the assumption that he cannot create a world where He has sovereign control over everything and yet also gives his creatures a measure of freedom in their choices.

If you don't have such an assumption then my position naturally comes out of reading the entire Bible. That article would have given you some examples of where it comes from.

I guess because of our differing views of God you may not see God as capable of doing this.

[djholmess]

And thus you end up having to deal with contradictions in what God says because of the underlying assumption you are imposing that God intentionally places His own Will above all others....in fact in essence no one else has a will because the source of their will is God (which makes very confusing Christ's comment about "not as I will, but as you will" especially with the Trinitarian view of what the Will of Christ would be in relation to the Father's Will...at least as I understand it which may be incorrect.)

However, if one accepts that man's will can exist independently of God and that God is willing to respect man's choices even when they are evil (that respect including applying justice to the consequences of their actions if they do not repent and seek ˙is Mercy), the contradiction disappears...which says something significant about that assumption, imo.

If mans will is independent of God when did it come into existence? Was it part of your eternal intelligence? If not when and how did you come to a point where you had a will?

[ERayR]

It is only contradictory if you come to the Bible with the assumption that he cannot create a world where He has sovereign control over everything and yet also gives his creatures a measure of freedom in their choices.

If you don't have such an assumption then my position naturally comes out of reading the entire Bible. That article would have given you some examples of where it comes from.

I guess because of our differing views of God you may not see God as capable of doing this.

Your view has to many assumptions that end up in a Gordian knot.

[djholmess]

Your view has to many assumptions that end up in a Gordian knot.

Like?

[ERayR]

Like?

Like;

1-God has total control and nothing happens without his approval

2-Man has agency and can make decisions