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

[Vance]

Check out this link for a slightly fuller explanation of the difference between passive and active Greek verbs (scroll down to the Voice of Verb section)

http://www.preceptau...new_page_40.htm

I looked it over quickly. Sorry, but I didn't see where the verses we are talking about are discussed. It would be helpful if you quoted the parts to which you are referring.

[djholmess]

Why would you NOT assume total agency? What evidence in the real world is there against total agency?

For one because I think the verse we are talking about negates total agency.

I did come across a article about free will a while back, I'll try and find it in case you are intrested. My beliefs don't come from science though, it was just intresting.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "to aid"/"to work FOR one" (not against one's agency).

Why do you think these indicate more forceful action than "to perform"/"to accomplish"/"to achieve"?

The verse says God works IN one not FOR one.

I have already explained why I think this indicates a more forceful one; because of the voice of the greek verb.

For confirmation that it is indeed in this voice check out http://biblos.com/philippians/2-13.htm hover over the Morphology on the right hand side.

From the link I gave you:

Verbs in active voice picture the subject as the one who performs, produces or experiences the action or exercises a certain activity. Active voice represents the action as being accomplished by the subject of the verb. As an aside the Active voice is by far the most common voice in the NT, occurring 20, 697 times compared to 3500 for middle and 3933 for passive.

So God is the one who acomplishes the thing in mind, what is in mind? The willing and doing of Paul's audience in a way that pleases God.

Hence the meaning of the verse is that God works in you to actually acomplish your willing and doing his good pleasure.

This is all the more clear bacause Paul uses the passive or middle voice for the greek work translated 'work' in verse 12, this is the work that corresponds to our working.

The passive voice conveys the idea that the SUBJECT is being ACTED UPON by an OUTSIDE force or power. SUBJECT is the RECIPIENT or the RECEIVER of the verbal action or effect. In English passive voice is usually indicated by the phrase "to be".

he middle voice means that the SUBJECT initiates the action and participates in the results of the action. The middle voice indicates the subject performs an action upon himself or herself

So can you see that from the way in which Paul intentionally switches from the passive or middle (when talking about our working) to the active (for Gods doing) is meant to communicate something about the working of man and the working of God.

Let me be clear about one thing; I do think this verse clearly indicates that God works in his people causing them to will and do. However I do not therefore conclude that this means men cannot 'will' and 'do' themselves. Verse 12 negates this possibility as Paul clearly commands us to do this work.

This is why I am a Compatibilists; I hold that God has created in such a way so that He retains complete sovereign control over all acts and decisions of men allowing Him to do whatever He pleases whilst at the same time giving to man an ability to make creaturely free choices.

I don't understand how in philosophical terms this works but I don't believe I have to understand it in order to accept it. Just like you guys don't understand how intelligences go to Gods with planets and spirit children.

You guys also seem to think that God therefore must ‘force people to do things against their will.’ This is not the case I believe God works in us at the level of our wills – changing our desires so that we desire to do what he wants us to do.

Edited July 24, 2012 by djholmess

[wenglund]

Two clarifying questions;

Do you believe the Spirit inspired the words of the Apostles and Prophets. In other words when, for example, Paul wrote his original (lets not argue about what we have today) copy of Romans did the Spirit inspire his words and grammar in order to communicate a specific idea?

Yes. However, does that mean that the words and grammar will invariably and perfectly convey the inspired meaning? I don't believe so. Why? Well, for one, human language is imprecise. The inspired words and grammar may increase the chances that God's meaning will be conveyed, but they don't insure it. Let's take for example the following statement from Christ in John 6:51: "I am the living ^abread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the ^bbread that I will give is my ^cflesh, which I will ^dgive for the ^elife of the world."

As inspired as this statement was, "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Clearly, the Jews interpreted Christ's statement literally, and as such they may not have understood the inspired meaning, and "when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

Consequently, this saying caused some of the Christ's disciples to murmur and be offended and "From that time many of his ^adisciples went back, and ^bwalked no more with him."

I believe that the words and the grammar used in the parables that Christ spoke were inspired. However, as the Savior explained, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall ^ahear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." (Mt 13:13-14)

I take this to mean that Christ's words were inspired in such a way that his meaning would be hid from those whose "heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their ^beyes they have ^cclosed..." (ibid. v 15). Even "many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (v. 17)

Yet, of his disciples he said, "blessed are your ^aeyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear." (v. 16)

The imprecision of language encompasses more than just the literal/figurative problem. Each word in a given sentence can have multiple connotations, and when combined may be arrayed in an exponential number of permutations. Granted, the grammar and common colloquialism help us to narrow the field of meanings so as to increase the chances of accurate communication, though it doesn't insure it.

This is complicated further by divergence of language and cultures over time.

In your view can the Spirit give people different interpretations of the same verse?

I believe so...particularly various ancient prophetic verses where in the language of the Jews, there may be a number of intended layers of meaning. For example, the first several verses in Ezekial 37 may on one level be understood as foretelling the gathering of Isreal, and on another level as depicting how the resurrection will take place, etc.

This notion of layered meanings becomes most pronounced within Kabbalah and Midrashim, and while we in the restored gospel of Christ may not take things as far and in the same way as these Jewish schools of esotericism, we find much good and truth hidden behind the obvious wording of various scriptures.

To recap, while we LDS believe the Bible and other scripture to be the word of God, because of the involvement of the fallible human mind and human language at various points during divine communication (receiving, conceptualizing, writing, translating, interpreting, etc.), we view the scriptures as fallible, but sufficient, along with the Holy Spirit and prophets and inspired teachers, for God's purposes for us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I wasn't asking you to judge anyone else, I meant that is this something you think the spirit actually does. Lots of people can read a single sentence and think it means different things and even think their understanding is from the Spirit.

But to make that judgment I would have to know what the Spirit is actually communicating to them and since I can't know that because that is their experience and not mine, I cannot make a judgment about it. You are essentially asking me without me seeing the colours when they are shown to them if people are seeing same or different colours based on what colours they choose to represent what they see. The colour is turned off and then they are told to choose the precise colour to match it from a huge range of colours. Most of the colours are in the same range, but few are exactly the same shade as there were many choices with minute differences (kind of like what happens when you get new glasses). So if I am presented with a variety of these answers, how can I tell if first, they were all presented with the same colour simply based on what is shown especially since they have been able to compare with each other their choices. Perhaps someone was shown a completely different colour, a sharp green instead of a dull orange but since everyone else was showing orange shades, he chose one as well. And let us assume they were all as accurate as they could be even though they might have been influence to lean toward a different shade by seeing others' choices, yet they weren't intentionally doing so. So I am presented with multiple shades of similar colours. Do I assume this is because they were all told the exact same thing and just interpreted the colour wrong? This is certainly an appropriate analogy since we don't believe any scriptural author was inerrant. If I see a colour that is way off from the rest, do I assume that there is something wrong with the man's sight, that he is colour blind or that he was shown a completely different colour for some reason. There are forms of blindness when it comes toscripture/spiritual interpretation due to assumptions and ignorance of those receiving inspiration such that they are not currently open up to all that the Spirit is willing to teach them. Do I assume that the minute differences between most of the shades is a result of human error or a result that they were shown slightly different colours? How would I tell?

All I can tell is the colour of what I have been shown so that is the only thing I will choose to make a judgment about.

Edited July 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Hold on a minute, your conclusions do not follow at all, let's put the words in

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

For it is God which 'is operative' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good plaesure.

For is is God which 'works' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure.

For it is God which 'puts forth power' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure.

The object of Gods operations/work/power is your will and your doing. How can you possibly comes to a conclusion that this is only limited to enticing when all the descriptors talk about God actively using his power to cause your Willing and Doing.

Further look at the form of each Greek word, your 'work' is in the middle or passive sense yet Gods 'working' is in the active sense. This is directly opposite to your intrepretation where man gets the free agency and God is regulated to only enticing. If Paul wanted to say what you think he says he would have switched which word was active and which was passive.

What you seem to have trouble with is how God works. It is not by coercion but by persuasion.

[ERayR]

Regarding 1 I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

2-4; I am not presuming my (haven't read Calvin on any of the verses we have talked about) interpretation is correct, I am trying to establish the correct interpretation of what Paul actually meant to communicate within the context, grammar and words of his writings.

5; I am not presuming they take precedence I am assuming that because the Bible is the inspired word of God it will present consistent teaching.

But you are presuming just that and refusing to even discuss any other interpretation.

[Vance]

For one because I think the verse we are talking about negates total agency.

I disagree, and the verses I have already provided say otherwise and even you agree that we have agency. Either we have it or we don't.

My beliefs don't come from science though, it was just intresting.

I didn't ask for science, I asked for real world evidence. I find it interesting that you can't/won't/didn't provide any. I am not surprised, because I don't think there is any.

The verse says God works IN one not FOR one.

You are totally disregarding the definition provide by Strong's. Here it is again.

1) to be operative, be at work, put forth power

a) to work for one, aid one

2) to effect

3) to display one's activity, show one's self operative

The definition of the word refutes your argument.

I see your "active voice"/"passive voice" as a smoke screen to cover up the ACTUAL meanings of the words being used.

Let me be clear about one thing; I do think this verse clearly indicates that God works in his people causing them to will and do. However I do not therefore conclude that this means men cannot 'will' and 'do' themselves. Verse 12 negates this possibility as Paul clearly commands us to do this work.

And you are back to accepting a contradiction.

You guys also seem to think that God therefore must ‘force people to do things against their will.’

Either man has agency or he doesn't. Either he is free to act or he is acted upon. You can't have it both ways.

This is not the case I believe God works in us at the level of our wills – changing our desires so that we desire to do what he wants us to do.

And I believe God works in us through invitation and enticement. And we have agency to chose.

2 Nephi 2:27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Moro 7:12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

I don't find anything in the Bible that conflicts with these verses.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Vance

[ERayR]

Your verses mean exactly what they say they mean just as I have been saying all along; man has the ability to make choices and he is held accountable for those choices.

[ERayR]

Your verses mean exactly what they say they mean just as I have been saying all along; man has the ability to make choices and he is held accountable for those choices.

[Calm]

I find that Calvinists are often the most earnest people in striving for good, despite the fundamental aspect of their religion involved in predestination and the utter and total sovereignty of God.

Perhaps because they expect (if they believe they are among the elect) to experience the workings of God on their soul (if I understand them correctly), they look for such and are more sensitive to such and therefore are more open to the Spirit's direction in guiding them to change their lives, help others and such.

[Kevin Barney]

There is a misunderstanding here about the forms of the verbs in vv. 12 and 13. The verb translated "work out" in v. 12 is katergazesthe, from the lexical form (the form you would look up in a lexicon) katergazomai. It is true that this is middle or passive in form; it is not true that the verb is actually middle or passive in voice. Rather, it is a middle or passive deponent verb. A deponent verb is active in meaning with a form taken from a different voice. (For the basic linguistics underlying such verbs, see the Wikipedia article s.v. deponent verbs.) So when you look that verb up in the lexicon, despite its middle or passive form you will see that it is given active definitions: to perform, accomplish, achieve, or in this case, to work out.

It is true that the verb used twice of God is a simple active, and is related to the verb in v. 12, as both derive from the root *erg- having to do with work. But although they are related they are separate verbs; you will find this one in the lexicon under energeO. The variant forms of these two verbs are irrelevant; both have active force.

It is not my intent to get into the fuller argument over these verses; I siimply wanted to clarify that the forms of these verbs are probably not a relevant consideration to that argument.

[CASteinman]

You guys also seem to think that God therefore must ‘force people to do things against their will.’ This is not the case I believe God works in us at the level of our wills – changing our desires so that we desire to do what he wants us to do.

If this is irresistible then our will is actually his will. Its not a matter of force exactly.. more like puppetry. And when we act, whether to good or evil, it is because He wanted it. All evil is according to His will. All Good is according to His will. Everything that happens is exactly as he wants it to be, no matter how gruesome or delightful.

If, on the other hand, his will is resistible, then perchance Calvin got things wrong and TULIP is in error.

[ERayR]

If this is irresistible then our will is actually his will. Its not a matter of force exactly.. more like puppetry. And when we act, whether to good or evil, it is because He wanted it. All evil is according to His will. All Good is according to His will. Everything that happens is exactly as he wants it to be, no matter how gruesome or delightful.

If, on the other hand, his will is resistible, then perchance Calvin got things wrong and TULIP is in error.

If that was the case then God would be responsible for all the evil. I can't bu that one.

[djholmess]

I disagree, and the verses I have already provided say otherwise and even you agree that we have agency. Either we have it or we don't.

You are totally disregarding the definition provide by Strong's. Here it is again.

The definition of the word refutes your argument.

I see your "active voice"/"passive voice" as a smoke screen to cover up the ACTUAL meanings of the words being used

Again, your first ascertain is an assumption. Do you believe it is impossible for God to have created our world in such a way that we have free creaturely choice and yet he remains in control over all our choices? If so show me where the Bible says he is incapable of such a thing?

None of the verses you quoted are talking about the relationship between Gods sovereignty and mans ability to chose.

Let's put Strongs meanings into the text then;

For it is God which 'operates, puts forth power' in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'works in you aiding you' both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'is effective' in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'displays his activity' in you both to will and do for his good pleasure

Only number 3 supports your intrepretation that this verse is teaching 'God works by enticing.'. Number 1 would strongly support my intrepretation.

So which meaning does the word convey in this context? This is where the voice of the verb comes in. If the verb was in the passive voice it would mean that God was not the one taking the active role in doing the willing and doing. If the verb was in the passive voice your intrepretation would have very strong support. However it doesn't, because it is in the active voice it means Paul formed the word in Greek to carry the meaning that God is the one who takes the active role in your willing and your doing.

This is reflected in all the parellel translations I quoted for you in my last post. All those translations were done by groups of Greek scholars, many of who would not hold a Calvinistic Compatabilist view of Gods sovereignty and yet they all recognised that the Greek word in this verse DOES NOT communicate the idea of simply 'aiding.'. This is not a smokescreen it is how translation is done.

It seems we are at the point of just repeating our arguments.

Here's another verse for you to think about though-notice it is a verse that has both the concept of man's actions and Gods actions in it. (hence it is actually revelent to how these things fit together)

1 Corinthians 15:10

 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Again in this verse we see this Biblical concept that 1) I laboured abundantly, yet 2) it wasn't I but Gods grace which was with me.

[djholmess]

If this is irresistible then our will is actually his will. Its not a matter of force exactly.. more like puppetry. And when we act, whether to good or evil, it is because He wanted it. All evil is according to His will. All Good is according to His will. Everything that happens is exactly as he wants it to be, no matter how gruesome or delightful.

If, on the other hand, his will is resistible, then perchance Calvin got things wrong and TULIP is in error.

Again (as you seem to like to do) you are misrepresenting Calvinsim. We never say 'our will is actually his will' as I have been saying all along man does have a creaturely ability to chose AND that God works in such a way that he never forces someone to make a choice against their will. Just because you can't understand how that can be does not mean it can't be true.

Again I'll point you to the example of the fact that you guys believe that somehow existence went from intelligences to a cycle of Gods having spirit children who are exalted into Gods who have more spirit children. I could ask; how did the first intelligence gain a spiritual body...how did it gain a physical body to go through mortal probation...who was the God of that planet if the first intelligence was the one on the planet going the process of becoming a God. You guys don't understand how this happened but yet you believe it.

If you want to critique Calvinsim that's fine but there is no need to inaccuratly represent it.

Edited July 25, 2012 by djholmess

[CASteinman]

Again (as you seem to like to do) you are misrepresenting Calvinsim. We never say 'our will is actually his will' as I have been saying all along man does have a creaturely ability to chose AND that God works in such a way that he never forces someone to make a choice against their will.

I have never held the position that you would say this. In fact, I have alluded to the idea that you would not say such things.

But still the issue remains: Is God's will irresistible? I notice you do not answer the question.

Just because you can't understand how that can be does not mean it can't be true.

Pretty much irrelevant.

Again I'll point you to the example of the fact that you guys believe that somehow existence went from intelligences to a cycle of Gods having spirit children who are exalted into Gods who have more spirit children. I could ask; how did the first intelligence gain a spiritual body.

I think that there is a distinct difference between us not having information on something vs you having information that is contradictory and paradoxical.

If you want to critique Calvinsim that's fine but there is no need to inaccuratly represent it.

Well, you are the Calvinist. Why not explain? Start with this: Is God's will resistible or not?

[djholmess]

I think that there is a distinct difference between us not having information on something vs you having information that is contradictory and paradoxical.

Well, you are the Calvinist. Why not explain? Start with this: Is God's will resistible or not?

Again that this is contradiction is your ascertain. I do not believe it is, but I do acknowledge that God has not revealed exactly how He is completely Sovereign and man has the creaturely ability to will and chose. Just like you believe things that I could say are contradictory.

Is Gods will resistible, you said before you know Calvinism intimately.

Irrestible Grace is specifically speaking about Gods gracious work of bringing one of his elect to faith. So when God wants to graciously awaken faith in one of His elect can His intention to do so be resisted? No.

[Calm]

Do you believe it is impossible for God to have created our world in such a way that we have free creaturely choice and yet he remains in control over all our choices? If so show me where the Bible says he is incapable of such a thing?

Not the Bible, but LDS scriptures teach that God is a God of order and not confusion:

D&C 132:8

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

of confusion.

OTOH there is

Matthew 19:26

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible

.

Do you believe God can create a rock so big he can't move it? We see the concepts of having free will yet God have sovereign control over all our choices as being that kind of logical contradiction.

[Calm]

If you want to critique Calvinsim that's fine but there is no need to inaccuratly represent it.

I don't think anyone here wants to misrepresent Calvinism. However what others and I are posting are what we see as the implications of the conditions Calvinism applies to the topic of free will and sovereignty. I will try and make a little clearer how we are attempting to understand your position and where it stops making sense to us.

It is one thing not to know how something is done or to just lack information to fill in the gaps. We most certainly don't know how Christ was resurrected yet we all agree that this happen. And you are right, we admit we lack knowledge of the first beginnings if there were first beginnings.

But this is a very different category of discussion then challenging the logic of a statement. Perhaps there is some information out there that applied to the situation could make the situation appear logical, but by the very definitions of free will and sovereignty, it appears to us that a logical contradiction is imposed, those influences cannot both fully exist together in one individual, something must be come less, either the free will is illusionary or God though sovereign, holds back and does not impose his Will and allows for actual freedom among his creatures.

We understand that such a thing can occur because it must occur by your doctrine so it becomes a mystery, one of many in some Christian faiths. Having mysteries is not inherently evil or wrong and not even just lazy or sloppy. It is a rational way to approach what is for us irrational It is an expression of faith and therefore can be beautiful and courageous and lead one to the Lord....if it is a true mystery and not just a manmade construction, something all believers must work hard to avoid.

Our faith approach to the problem is difference and therefore we do not have to resort to a mystery to accept a contradiction as not a contradiction. Our way seems better to us, but it is only better if we are right in our understanding. Having perfect logic is useless if our premises are wrong.

Edited July 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

Do you believe God can create a rock so big he can't move it? We see the concepts of having free will yet God have sovereign control over all our choices as being that kind of logical contradiction.

Hhmmm...ok, I see where you are coming from.

I guess I would then want to know specifically how you define 'free will,' if you were to define it something like 'man has complete free agency' then I would firstly agree with you that your above statement is indeed a logical contradiction but secondaly I would ask you to establish that your concept of free will accuratly reflects what the Bible represents as mans ability to chose.

I have yet to come across a verse that implies man has complete free will and freedom to make choices apart from God. Therefore as I define 'free choice' or 'creaturely choice' I do not see any logical contradiction in saying; God has given to all men the ability to make free choices and yet God has sovereign control over evrything that will ever happen including their choices. Rather I see it as a revelation of God, accurate as far as it goes, mysterious in that we are never told how exactly both of these fit together.

The two verses you have seen me discussing int his thread would be some of the ones that I would point too where the Bible does give insight into the how these two things fit together.

As some people have been doing here they have been multiplying verses that make refernce to man making choices.

Equally I could multiply verses that talk about the sovereignity and freedom of God e.g. Isaiah 46:9-10

⁹ Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

¹⁰ Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

But none of these verses specifically address the relationship between mans choice and God's frredom to do anything he pleases.

[CASteinman]

Again that this is contradiction is your ascertain. I do not believe it is, but I do acknowledge that God has not revealed exactly how He is completely Sovereign and man has the creaturely ability to will and chose. Just like you believe things that I could say are contradictory.

What do you think I believe that is contradictory?

Is Gods will resistible, you said before you know Calvinism intimately.

Irrestible Grace is specifically speaking about Gods gracious work of bringing one of his elect to faith. So when God wants to graciously awaken faith in one of His elect can His intention to do so be resisted? No.

I did not say I know it "intimately", but I do know about the grace thing.

When God wants ANYTHING, can man resist His Will?

[djholmess]

I did not say I know it "intimately", but I do know about the grace thing.

When God wants ANYTHING, can man resist His Will?

Depends what you mean by want. If you mean if God has a plan of how he wants history to unfold then there is no way man can stop His eternal plan from happening.

If you mean some fo the things God has revealed about how he wants his people to live e.g. 'do not commit murder' then in this sense yes, people resist Gods revealed will that man should not murder all the time.

Calvinists see a distinction in the Bible between Gods 'revealed will;' what he commands men to do on a moral level and his 'hidden will;' the unfolding events of history God has decreed from before creation - hidden in the sense that God rarely tells us what these events are.

[djholmess]

What do you think I believe that is contradictory?

As I recall you have said a number of times my beliefs that 1) 'men have free choice' and 2) 'God is totally sovereign' are contradictory.

Like I said to Calmoriah by your definition of 'free will' I would agree that the two statements are contradictory. However I do not define free will in those terms and so do not see them as contradictory but rather mysterious when it comes to exactly how they both work.

In other words I believe God has created man in such a way that he has the ability to make real choices and yet not have these real choices diminish his sovereignty. How does this work? - God has not revealed how. Is it true? - I believe God has revealed it to be true.

[Vance]

Again, your first ascertain is an assumption.

My "first ascertain"???

You mean my statement " Either we have it (agency) or we don't."?

That is an "assumption"?

Agency is just like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not. How is this an "assumption"?

Do you believe it is impossible for God to have created our world in such a way that we have free creaturely choice and yet he remains in control over all our choices?

That is a logical contradiction. So, NO! I don't believe that is possible.

If so show me where the Bible says he is incapable of such a thing?

The Bible describes things that are "impossible" for God to do.

Is God capable of lying? The Bible says it is "impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18 also see Num 23:19). It also says that He is a "God of truth" (Deut 32:4, Ps 31:5, Isa 65:16).

And clearly there are logical conundrums that paint Him into a box of being incapable for certain things. Can he create a rock so large that He is incapable of moving it? "Yes" or "no" will do.

So clearly, there are some things that God is incapable of doing.

None of the verses you quoted are talking about the relationship between Gods sovereignty and mans ability to chose.

They clearly teach that man has agency. So either man has agency as the Bible teaches of he does not as Calvinism teaches. It is impossible to be both. The dichotomy of having it or not is real and powerful.

Let's put Strongs meanings into the text then;

For it is God which 'operates, puts forth power' in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'works in you aiding you' both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'is effective' in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure

For it is God which 'displays his activity' in you both to will and do for his good pleasure

Only number 3 supports your intrepretation that this verse is teaching 'God works by enticing.'. Number 1 would strongly support my intrepretation.

Actually, ALL of them are consistent with my interpretation. And #2 is the one that refutes your position. God can't "aid" you against your will. Doing something against your will doesn't help you in your efforts. His "aid" must be in the direction of your will. But He will only "aid" you when your desires and efforts, of your own free will, align with His will.

This is where the voice of the verb comes in.

I think Kevin Barney already addressed the issue of "voice". See post #311.

Plus we also have the issue of the law of witnesses. It requires TWO or more witnesses to establish doctrine (see Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1). You have only provide a single verse from Paul which you claim establishes your doctrine. And unfortunately for you, we have Peter who claims that Paul's witness can be easy to misunderstand.

So, with that said, can you provide another witness besides Paul?

It seems we are at the point of just repeating our arguments.

Yes, it does seem that that is the situation. But I would like to see you provide a second witness. After all, we want this discussion to be Biblically compliant.

Here's another verse for you to think about though-notice it is a verse that has both the concept of man's actions and Gods actions in it. (hence it is actually revelent to how these things fit together)

1 Corinthians 15:10

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Another confusing statement from Paul. But even this doesn't support your doctrine. Clearly ANYTHING we have and are (beyond what we were before God "found" us) is due to the GRACE of God. And that fact still doesn't preclude His violating our agency.

Jacob 4:7 Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.

Edited to add this verse which should clear things up.

Mosiah 2:21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

Lest there be any confusion. The agency to choose ones actions (or reactions as the case may be) doesn't, in any way, mean that we get to choose the consequences of our actions/choices.

We may choose to play in the street, but we don't get to choose the consequences of playing in the street.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance