Christian Readers discussion

What role does free will play in salvation if any? What support does absolute bondage have scripturally? Are there verses that suggest that this interpretation is wrong?

I will start off by saying that I play a medial role between absolute free will and absolute bondage of the will. Having to choose between the two is sort of like saying that if a person isn't dead he is totally healthy. The truth is there are lots of states in between total health and death. I think free will is impaired but not lost after the fall.

The two kinds of verses that suggest that free will exists for human beings come in the form of human and divine perspectives, but both kinds imply free will; and they are difficult to refute. I give a few examples, but there are more.

First verse:
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Second verse:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

These two verses are hard to reconcile with Calvinism. If God is sovereign in the Calvinistic sense and He wants all to be saved, then He should be able to make them all be saved, or force them to receive His irresistible grace. Calvinists should probably believe in universal salvation in order to make these verses work. Because it is almost impossible to reconcile these verses with forced election/reprobation.

Third verse:
Matthew 23:37-38:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

As above, here it is clear that Jesus is saying that He wanted to gather them but they were not willing. Once again, this is hard to reconcile with strict Calvinism. Clearly, God would do things that are being rejected by people who have free will. It is really the only way to interpret the above verses as far as I can tell.

Just some thoughts to consider:

Lucifer was a powerful spiritual being who did not have the flesh to deal with. He was holy, pure, and was favored of God. How could a being that knew no evil and walked in the very presence of God Almighty fall away? He had free will.
Adam and Eve were created holy and pure and in the image of God. They had glorified bodies of flesh and knew no evil. They walked with God in fellowship daily. How could they have fallen? They had free will. Is it conceivable to think that when God makes a new heaven and a new earth, He will allow humanity to enter His new kingdom possessing the most destructive force in the universe—free will? The same will that caused heaven to experience its first war, resulting in the expulsion of one-third of the angelic hosts. In addition, because of our will, God pronounced a judgment of condemnation and death upon all of humanity, and He placed a curse upon creation. “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22, KJV). Many Bible scholars assert that the reasons for natural disasters can be traced to this passage, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain.”
God’s created beings have shown—even under the best of circumstances—that a will other than the heavenly Father’s can only have cataclysmic consequences—death and destruction. God has one final test for free will. About six thousand years (six days on God’s cosmic calendar) has transpired from the time Adam and Eve left the garden and until today. Remember, a thousand years is but one day to the Lord. After the seven years of tribulation (eleven minutes on God’s timetable), Christ will reign and rule on earth for a thousand years; wrapping up seven thousand years humanity has possessed free will on this planet. At the end of Christ’s reign, many people will exercise their will and join forces with the newly released Satan to try to defeat the Lamb of God. This battle will end quickly and then eternity begins. God needed the entire week (seven thousand years) to show humanity the undisputable evidence that free will can never enter into His new kingdom, for it continually strives against that which is holy and pure.

"I Will" is the shortest definition for sin.

Thomas wrote: "Just some thoughts to consider:

Lucifer was a powerful spiritual being who did not have the flesh to deal with. He was holy, pure, and was favored of God. How could a being that knew no evil and walked in the very presence of God Almighty fall away? He had free will."

So far we are in agreement.

Thomas wrote: Is it conceivable to think that when God makes a new heaven and a new earth, He will allow humanity to enter His new kingdom possessing the most destructive force in the universe—free will? The same will that caused heaven to experience its first war, resulting in the expulsion of one-third of the angelic hosts.

Here is the problem that I see in your point. You are saying, or at least implying, that God made a mistake in giving free will. A mistake He must now correct. Why didn't He just force us to do His will in the first place? Seems like this idea necessitates that God regrets what He does and must correct His mistakes. The mistake is man's, not God's. Free will is a good thing and man misuses it. I follow this up below.

Thomas wrote: God’s created beings have shown—even under the best of circumstances—that a will other than the heavenly Father’s can only have cataclysmic consequences—death and destruction.

I agree that we need to surrender to God's will but the idea that God must take away free will in order to do that necessitates that He made a mistake by giving free will in the first place. That is out of the question. He gave me the choice to be self willed or surrender to His will. I choose His will. I have made my choice and I choose no other. In all of eternity, I choose to do God's will. Period.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to love me, would that inspire love in you? What if I had the ability to force you to love me some other way, do you think that would qualify as real love?

God gave free will on purpose, He didn't make a mistake. He didn't want a creation of automatons; He wanted a creation that loved Him without coercion. Anything less is beneath God.

Erick wrote: "I will start off by saying that I play a medial role between absolute free will and absolute bondage of the will. Having to choose between the two is sort of like saying that if a person isn't dead..."

OK Erick. Perhaps I should marry your sister, then we could have long discussions at Christmas and vacation.

I Timothy 2:3-4

Indeed, Calvinists have an issue with this verse. From I Timothy 2:1-2, the context is about praying for others. Yes, you should pray that God would send workers into His harvest. But the harvest is His to choose. The problem is not with God, but man’s inability to choose God. For some reason, God chooses just a few, like the small nation of Israel, and the twelve disciples to be with Him. God is not pleased that the unrighteous perish, but He does not “make a new creation” of all men and women. I’ll score you one point, but I think I get the next two points.

II Peter 3:9

In context, the Scripture above links repentance with a sustained culture, not Spiritual salvation. Repentance keeps the culture from perishing, just as a lack of repentance in Noah’s day led to the global flood where the people perished (see II Pet. 3:6). Repentance is something that man can do. Salvation is something only God can do. Repentance is one of the works that prove saving faith (see Jam. 2:20). Therefore, God is righteous to judge both the saved and the unsaved, because they have the ability to change their mind, which affects their behavior. This is the area of responsibility. However, this does not deny there are times when the Spirit of God can control an individual to perform acts that are controlled by God (see Gen. 6:22; Acts 2:4). Still, the global flood destroyed the unrepentant. They perished.

The book of II Peter was written to the Elect (see II Pet. 1:2) and therefore the phrase, “toward us” narrows the scope to the Elect. The promise of His coming is toward the Elect (see II Pet. 3:4). It is God’s will that all of His elect repent. If it were God’s will that all be saved, all would be saved. Nevertheless, there is heavenly counsel unknown to man (see Deut. 29:29). His desire is for all to repent and save their culture, but not His will for all to enter His kingdom (see I Tim. 2:4). You may desire another house, car, etc., but you do not always use your will to “make it happen” (see Exod. 32:10-14).

Matthew 23:37-38

In context, Jerusalem in the Scripture above was under the old covenant of obedience. The Scripture hints that man can limit God by his choices, but in the context of all Scripture, the case is lost (see Ezek. 36:24). However, He sometimes expresses a wish for that which He does not sovereignly bring to pass. In the Scripture above, the free will of man is proven to be faulty. God gave Israel a place at the top of nations, an honorable religion and a beautiful temple in Jerusalem. Still, the will of man was unable to connect with the will of God.

The natural man in Adam could not serve God and instead choose to kill the prophets with the messages from God. Jesus is acknowledging that the old covenant does not work without faith (see Heb. 8:8). Jesus had to do some more work on their hearts (see Jer. 31:33). The idea that God has given man free will and honors his choices without intervening and without judgment is misleading. The record-keeping ability and integrity of God will be revealed when He judges every word and deed (see Matt. 12:36; Rom. 2:5-6). Everything is connected or disconnected until God puts all things in order. In the flesh, we do have the ability to sin or miss the mark. In the Spirit, we cannot sin. God is Spirit and walking in the Spirit is doing His will. In the natural realm we have limited will. In the Spiritual realm we have no will, because God controls the Spiritual. When God controls us, we can do all things according to His will.

Thanks Erick

You are welcome.

John wrote: OK Erick. Perhaps I should marry your sister, then we could have long discussions at Christmas and vacation."

Sounds good to me, but she would have to choose you of her own free will. ;-)


John wrote: The problem is not with God, but man’s inability to choose God. "


I agree man is to blame. But some people do choose Him. There is no choice without free will. So the idea of choice is negated if one says they are forced to choose.

"John wrote: For some reason, God chooses just a few..."

Is it man's or God's choice? I personally submit that it's both. This is a mystery and I won't claim to know how God has worked this out. But I must maintain the integrity of both. The problem still stands though, if God wants all to be saved, why are only a few elected to be saved? He either wills what He does not want, or does not will, what He does. It's hard to accept this because it makes Him divided. He's working against His own desires. This cannot be. There cannot be disunity in the Godhead.

"John wrote: The book of II Peter was written to the Elect (see II Pet. 1:2) and therefore the phrase, “toward us” narrows the scope to the Elect. The promise of His coming is toward the Elect (see II Pet. 3:4). It is God’s will that all of His elect repent."

It doesn't say "God wills that all repent", but "that none should perish." Repentance is of course futile if some are rejected regardless of repentance. How can He be talking to the elect, as if they are at risk of perishing? He has predestinated them for salvation. They should be safe. How can they be at risk? I don't think your interpretation works. The perishing is definitely in regards to salvation. Peter makes this clear in verse 15: "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him." This ties the verse in with God being longsuffering in verse 9. Your interpretation creates a conundrum: if he is addressing the elect about the risk of perishing, this undermines electoral predestination; if he is speaking to everyone, it undermines reprobative predestination. I'm not sure you can get out of this one easily.

John wrote: He sometimes expresses a wish for that which He does not sovereignly bring to pass..."

I have a problem with this idea, as I indicated above. It makes God divided. Meaning He wants what He cannot have. It makes His will subservient to something else. His action takes on a life of it's own apart from His will. His actions become blind. It makes God guilty of Paul's summation of human frailty i.e. "I do what I do not want and want what I do not do." I cannot believe that God is guilty of the same frailty.

John wrote: In context, Jerusalem in the Scripture above was under the old covenant of obedience.... In the Scripture above, the free will of man is proven to be faulty. "

I agree that after the fall man's will became faulty, but to say that the Jerusalem Jews had no choice but to reject Christ makes them guiltless in the rejection and undoes Jesus' very words of condemnation. It is difficult to explain the Jews that did accept Him under this notion. Jesus is clearly saying that He wanted them to accept Him but they would not accept Him. The punishment for their willful rejection would be the destruction of Jerusalem. If they could not be obedient, they would not be guilty.

John wrote:The natural man in Adam could not serve God and instead choose to kill the prophets with the messages from God. Jesus is acknowledging that the old covenant does not work without faith (see Heb. 8:8). Jesus had to do some more work on their hearts (see Jer. 31:33). The idea that God has given man free will and honors his choices without intervening and without judgment is misleading. "

I agree. I do not believe free will is absolute. It is impaired firstly, and secondly, God has set His own controls on free will. Free will couldn't exist without controls. God is guiding all of this to His own end. In that we can agree. I don't have any real issue with the rest of your points.

Erik wrote: "Here is the problem that I see in your point. You are saying, or at least implying, that God made a mistake in giving free will. A mistake He must now correct. Why didn't He just force us to do His will in the first place? Seems like this idea necessitates that God regrets what He does and must correct His mistakes. The mistake is man's, not God's. Free will is a good thing and man misuses it. I follow this up below."

God made everything in the beginning perfect. Remember, God is a Master Teacher who uses contrast to instruct. Gentiles, certain foods were unclean. Did God make a mistake? No. Was the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil a mistake? No. Why did God place this fruit bearing tree in the garden and then forbid Adam and Eve from eating of its fruit? Did God make a mistake? No. There is a lesson that God wants humanity to learn.

Speaking as the Son of Man (the last Adam) to all of humanity, Jesus was teaching this understanding about humanity’s will when He said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me” (John 6:38, NKJV). Tempted by Satan himself, the first Adam failed. Although, the last Adam (Jesus) won the battle over the will. It is intriguing how Jesus won the battle; He won because He never used His will. This is a major piece of the puzzle. Was Jesus a puppet on a string because He didn't use His will?

You said: "He gave me the choice to be self willed or surrender to His will. I choose His will. I have made my choice and I choose no other. In all of eternity, I choose to do God's will. Period."

So what is the lesson our Father wants to teach the world? The Father wants all of His created beings to understand that His will is the only one that can sustain life for all eternity.

I hear Christians say that we will retain possession of our will in eternity, because we would be puppets on a string without it. This belief comes from a mind nourished by the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After the first bite from that forbidden fruit, humanity became a puppet, hanging from the strings of a puppet-master called free will. We cut those stings every time we submit our will to do the Father’s will.

A person possessing a will other than God’s is a losing proposition. Jesus was the only human to win the battle over the will. The battle was lost in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve, and Christ won the battle in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Erik, I love your thoughts and how you articulate them.

Continued from my last post:

“Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden?” It was for a lesson to teach about the will of man. Our master teacher likes to teach using contrast. Therefore, God put the first couple in a paradise free from pain and suffering. After Adam and Eve exercised their will, pain and suffering became constant companions for the entire human race. Christians are supposed to make the connection, and then relay the message to the world.

Continued

What is the message Christians need to relay to the world:
“And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40, KJV).

Thomas wrote: There is a lesson that God wants humanity to learn. "

This is hard for me to accept in the context of coercion. A lesson entails something that you learn from and grow from. In other words it necessitates my involvement for it to be a lesson. If my will is removed by God forcefully. There is really no lesson to be learned as far as I can see.

Thomas wrote:Although, the last Adam (Jesus) won the battle over the will. It is intriguing how Jesus won the battle; He won because He never used His will. This is a major piece of the puzzle. Was Jesus a puppet on a string because He didn't use His will?"

We may be getting into semantics but note that you said that "He (Jesus) didn't use His will", not that God removed His will from Him. This is important in my estimation. Jesus freely surrendered His will, God the Father didn't force Jesus to surrender it.

Thomas wrote:So what is the lesson our Father wants to teach the world? The Father wants all of His created beings to understand that His will is the only one that can sustain life for all eternity. "

Agreed, but He wants you to surrender it freely without coercion.

Thomas wrote:I hear Christians say that we will retain possession of our will in eternity, because we would be puppets on a string without it. This belief comes from a mind nourished by the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After the first bite from that forbidden fruit, humanity became a puppet, hanging from the strings of a puppet-master called free will. We cut those stings every time we submit our will to do the Father’s will."

I think you are getting it backwards here. Adam possessed free will before he ate of the tree. This is important. He couldn't have ate from the tree without free will. That is part of the command not to eat of it. If you say he was forced than you are undermining your argument that Adam and Satan had free will. Free will existed before the tree. This is evident. The lesson is absolutely that we need to obey God, but we need to do it freely, not coercively.

Thomas wrote:A person possessing a will other than God’s is a losing proposition. Jesus was the only human to win the battle over the will. The battle was lost in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve, and Christ won the battle in the Garden of Gethsemane. "

I agree partially but I think you are only looking at free will through a negative lens. I don't see it that way.

Thomas wrote: Erik, I love your thoughts and how you articulate them. "

I appreciate that. I want nothing more than to understand God's will and to do it. That also means attempting to be as consistent as I can be. I think we are in agreement on much.

Let me also state that in eternity, while I still believe in free will theoretically (i.e. that you could theoretically disobey God's will), in practice this would be equal to an impossibility because only those dedicated to God's will will be with God in eternity. My free will comes more into play here. I have made my choice and it is decisive here and in eternity. I have chosen to serve the Lord Jesus Christ and that choice has value now and in eternity. I think this is a mysterious relationship, but I believe in it none the less.

"If my will is removed by God forcefully. There is really no lesson to be learned as far as I can see"

God never forces us to do anything, even salvation requires us to learn the lesson from the law - and that is "We are sinners". The law is our Tutor for our instructions. Like the Law that was put in place to show people that they are sinners, the will was left intact and active in the flesh to show why we are sinners. Paul understood this: “For I know that in me [that is, in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil, which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:18–20, KJV).

So can we remove our will? Only God can remove free will, because it requires spiritual surgery – circumcision of the heart. I believe that to remove our will, God requires from the children of the kingdom a realization of its destructiveness and then a volunteered surrender. This gives proof that the lesson was learned. Remember, our Father is a master teacher who has been patiently teaching the human race a pivotal lesson about humanity’s will. The day will come when all believers will eagerly surrender to God their hearts for its circumcision to remove the will.

"I think you are getting it backwards. Adam possessed free will before he ate of the tree"

Adam and Eve as well as the entire angelic hosts possessed free will from the beginning which was why they could exercise it. Here is the first time a will other than God's will was followed: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground that didst lay low the nations! And thou said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:12–14, ASV).

"I agree partially but I think you are only looking at free will through a negative lens"

"Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war” (James 4:1–2, NKJV).

Thomas wrote: Like the Law that was put in place to show people that they are sinners, the will was left intact and active in the flesh to show why we are sinners. "

Thomas wrote: Adam and Eve as well as the entire angelic hosts possessed free will from the beginning which was why they could exercise it. Here is the first time a will other than God's will was followed"

Thomas wrote: So can we remove our will? Only God can remove free will, because it requires spiritual surgery – circumcision of the heart.

Thomas wrote: I believe that to remove our will, God requires from the children of the kingdom a realization of its destructiveness and then a volunteered surrender.

Thomas wrote: The day will come when all believers will eagerly surrender to God their hearts for its circumcision to remove the will.


Part of the problem is our understanding of what free will entails. We need to clarify terms so that you and I can better relate to where we are at in our individual perspectives. The last two above quotes show that we are in agreement but the previous quotes indicate that we are at an impasse when it comes to the minutiae of what "free will" and just plain "will" entail.

Free will means free uncompelled choice. I can choose to do this or that, or I can choose not to do this or that. Absolute free will should mean that I am not coerced into any particular choice. I make up my mind based on the merits of the choices offered. Coerced will is no longer free. It is compelled to do a particular thing; to make a particular choice without me freely wanting it. Adam had real free will; he had the choice to eat or not to eat before him; and he was not forced to do one or the other. He made the choice to eat. The fact that he had the choice to do either didn't make him eat. Choices are neutral when free. He chose to eat based on the merits that he believed came of the choice. Choice itself was not the problem. It was his allowing himself to be persuaded to make the wrong choice that was the issue. Choice itself didn't compel him; he allowed himself to be persuaded by what he saw as the merits of that choice.

When once Adam fell, the human will suffered as well. Free will became impaired. He now found himself compelled to make the wrong choice from then on. Thus we have Paul's summation of human frailty:
“For I know that in me [that is, in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil, which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me”.
Once again though, free choice is not what compels Paul to sin, it is sin that dwells in him. This is a consequence of the fall. Adam's wrong choice impaired Paul's free will. It coerces him to sin. Free will is neutral. It does not compel to sin. It would not be free if it did. The fallen human will is coerced to sin because of the fall. The coercion isn't absolute. Even non-Christians can say no to some of the evil thoughts that come into their heads but the human will is impaired considerably after the fall; so much so, that there is no way that all of it's corruption can be overcome in human strength. The longer a man lives the more and more the sin of Adam is left to work and bring forth fruits of destruction. It is sin that dwells in the human will, not free will that is the problem. Jesus seeks to remove sin out of the human will so that it can be properly surrendered and obedience be cultivated. Every Christian has to work at the act of surrendering. More and more the old Adam is removed in that act and more and more the new Adam, Jesus Christ, is made manifest.

It helps also to look at Paul's letter to the Romans in the original language. I posted this elsewhere:

In the following, the parentheses are the actual Greek terms that Paul uses for the English word or phrase that comes right before. The meaning is largely lost in English. Thelo is the same as thelema; it means "will" or "to will". "Poio" means to do, while "katergazomai" means:
to perform, accomplish, achieve, to work out i.e. to do that from which something results, bring about, result in, to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing.

The context of this goes back to the Jewish idea of the Yetzer ha'ra or the evil inclination or will. Yetzer means:
"form, frame, purpose...the impulse or inclination with which humans are endowed according to Jewish traditional belief" -Merriam Webster

The Hebrew yetzer is an analogue to Paul's Greek katargazomai which mean to "frame" or "do"; to give action to thought, form to what is formless etc.

Romans 7:14-25:
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do (katergazomai). For what I want (thelo) to do I do not do (prasso), but what I hate I do (poio). 16 And if I do what I do not want (thelo) to do (poio), I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it (katergazomai), but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire (thelo) to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want (thelo) to do (poio), but the evil I do not want to —this I keep on doing (katergazomai). 20 Now if I do what I do not want (thelo) to do, it is no longer I who do it (katergazomai), but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want (thelonti) to do (poio) good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Erik,
I will follow up tomorrow. Enjoying our discussion.

Erick wrote: "You are welcome."

I don’t know, Erick. If Calvinism bothers your conscience, I would suggest leaving it along. One fellow told me that they did not want any Calvinists around his church.

I have read “Whosoever Wills” and “Against Calvinism” and I still feel very comfortable with Calvinism. I call freewill, the junk food for the soul. It has high appeal, but no Spiritual value. The Spiritual world belongs to God and He makes all the choices there. However, men and women have limited freewill in the natural realm. The book of Ecclesiastes exhausts all the freewill choices, and Solomon concluded it was “vanity” as you stated. Solomon said the only value comes from doing the commandments of God. Now man can obey parts of the law of God in the natural realm, such as not stealing, lying, etc. However, man cannot worship God without the Spirit of God. God does not have to force His will, just as Henry Ford (1863-1947) does not have to force the Model A to start. Ford knows how to “make it happen” because he created the Model A. Likewise, God knows how to “make it happen” without force, when sealing the believer with His Holy Spirit. Some may argue using Jonah as an example, forced (you might say) to go to Nineveh, but I see God’s wisdom in all of this.

But our disagreement follows in the line of the five points of Armenian and the counterpoints of Calvinism. We cannot get pass the total depravity of man. You see the choice with man and God. I see the inability of man to make a Spiritual choice. Jesus said, “Without Me, you can do nothing (Spiritual)” and that inheriting the Kingdom was “impossible with man, but not God.” I see this in Scripture and society.

Armenianism dominates Christianity in America and elsewhere. I think they go too far, such as “giving your heart to Jesus”, as if you can add value to Jesus with your heart. Or “being lead to the Lord by the evangelist” which is the function of Holy Spirit. Or “making Jesus the Lord of your life.” The newborn Christians ask, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) and Armenians create doctrines based upon the words of newborn Christians, instead of the Words of Jesus.

This is salvation, Armenian style:

I went to a meeting. . .
I walked forward. . .
I knelt down at an old fashioned altar. . .
I was lead to the Lord by the preacher. . .
I repented. . .
I confessed my sin. . .
I accepted. . .
I gave my heart. . .

This is salvation, Calvinist style:

He came to me. (Luke 19:10; John 3:17,19)
He drew me. (John 6:44)
He said live. (Ezek. 16:6)
He made me alive in Christ. (Eph. 2:5)
He raised me up. (Eph. 2:6)
He saved me by grace, not work, lest I boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
He imparted faith as a gift. (Eph. 2:8)
He chose and accepted me. (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:1)
He gave me a new heart. (II Cor. 5:17)

Calvinism does have a tendency to become lax about praying for salvations and witnessing, while Armenians like to praise and boast of the accomplishments of men and women, although they do not use the words “praise” and “boast”, but this is what they are doing. David Jeremiah stopped his sermon to give the apostle Paul a handclap by the congregation. Meanwhile, I’ve had issues with Presbyterians in various ways.

One fine Christian (Armenian) couple had two sons, one saved, and the other unsaved. The Father said that he treated his sons differently. I believe the unsaved son was not accepted because he did not “give his heart to Jesus”, like the other did (I’m using Armenian phrases). This had a sad ending.

II Timothy 2:3-4 is a good Armenian Scripture, but it is not enough to change my beliefs, and I think the other two Scriptures were properly interpreted. If we could sweep Calvinism off the face of the planet with the Scriptures, I would be holding the broom. Armenians want to sweep it off the planet with reasoning. Lean not upon your own understand, but in all your ways acknowledge Him. I think Calvinism acknowledges Him. Calvinism states the freewill of man is unable to play a role in salvation because the will is in bondage to sin (Rom. 3:10-18) although man can make good and bad choices in the natural or temporal world with his conscience of good and evil.

Erick, Is there any personal concern you have with Calvinism (does it bother you), or is it just doctrinal discussion?

Thomas wrote: "Just some thoughts to consider:

Lucifer was a powerful spiritual being who did not have the flesh to deal with. He was holy, pure, and was favored of God. How could a being that knew no evil and..."

Thomas, I would say in heaven our will be be like Jesus (I John 3:2). Looking at how Jesus acted, will be how we will act, obedient sons and daughters. Meanwhile, Adam and Eve was plan A, not plan B. I think God likes to show His grace by redeeming men and women, but our thinking is messed up so we have to renew our minds with the Word.

John,
Did God create to redeem?

Thomas wrote: "John,
Did God create to redeem?"

A short answer: Yes. A Scripture Eph. 1:4-5: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

John wrote: If Calvinism bothers your conscience, I would suggest leaving it along. One fellow told me that they did not want any Calvinists around his church"

No I am not bothered with it. I haven't been derisive. I haven't even called it junk food ;-). I just disagree with it.

John wrote:I call freewill, the junk food for the soul.

Something I can substantiate with the Bible and 2000 years of church teaching I wouldn't call junk food, just truth. ;-).


John wrote:The Spiritual world belongs to God and He makes all the choices there. However, men and women have limited freewill in the natural realm.

As long as you say limited, I agree.

John wrote:However, man cannot worship God without the Spirit of God. God does not have to force His will...

I agree, that's why He allowed free will. Even with it, His will is still done! It's amazing and miracluous! It's even more amazing than the pedantic micromanaging that Calvin attributed to God.

John wrote: God knows how to “make it happen” without force, when sealing the believer with His Holy Spirit.

Indeed.

John wrote: But our disagreement follows in the line of the five points of Armenian and the counterpoints of Calvinism.

In all truth, Calvin's ideas were new to the church. For 1500 years almost no Christian theologian seriously questioned free will. Even Augustine didn't remove it completely. Free will has always been held in the church. Arminius simply held to church teaching. I don't consider myself a follower of Arminius. I uphold orthodox church teaching.

John wrote: Jesus said, “Without Me, you can do nothing (Spiritual)” and that inheriting the Kingdom was “impossible with man, but not God.”

I agree, but it doesn't negate free will.

John wrote: This is salvation, Armenian style...This is salvation, Calvinist style...”

Both together are the genuinely Christian style I would say.

John wrote: Armenians want to sweep it off the planet with reasoning. ”

If scripture doesn't support it, it either needs to be rejected or modified. I'm ok with modifying it.

John wrote: Calvinism states the freewill of man is unable to play a role in salvation because the will is in bondage to sin (Rom. 3:10-18) although man can make good and bad choices in the natural or temporal world with his conscience of good and evil.”

It cannot earn salvation I agree, but it plays a role in surrendering itself to Jesus Christ who gives salvation. I agree that man has those choices in life.

John wrote: Erick, Is there any personal concern you have with Calvinism (does it bother you), or is it just doctrinal discussion?”

If you are asking whether I have animosity towards Calvinists, certainly not. My biggest issue with Calvin is that in his attempt to remove free will both from humanity and the devil, he ultimately made God responsible for sin and evil directly; this seriously compromises God's Holiness. While I wouldn't have a problem with a doctrine that compromises man, I cannot accept a doctrine that puts God in a direct relationship with evil and sin. I just can't.

Thomas wrote: "Erik,
I will follow up tomorrow. Enjoying our discussion."

Me too. Take your time. :-)

John:

Would our understandings and views be different, concerning spiritual matters, if our reference point was before the fall, before the Garden, before Adam and Eve and instead we built upon the premise that Almighty God created because He wanted to be a Father? . . . period!

Free Will: Self-reliant, self-determined, self-control, autonomous, independence, Self-rule

Let's sum up Humanity's will: selfish

Adam's, Eve's, and Lucifer's choice to activate their will was out of self-ambition. Prior to their rebellious action they had done only the will of the Almighty God. Was their disobedience eating the fruit or was it more severe in that they activated their will.
Let me give you another example of how God teaches.
“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. And Jehovah said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Jehovah commanded Moses” (Numbers 15:32-36, ASV).
What do you think about God’s punishment – death by stoning – for someone who was caught picking up sticks to build a fire on the Sabbath? What was the crime? Was it picking up sticks, building a fire, breaking the law, or was there a deeper spiritual issue about our fate if we rely on our works for righteousness?

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness and the satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread what was wrong with that? So what, there were no Laws prohibiting Jesus from doing that. Is there more to it?

The will is not needed for me to make a choice between cereal or bacon and eggs for breakfast. Personal preference is not linked to the will. If I surrender - give up, give in, relinquish, hand over, forfeit, and concede - my will to the Lord and replace it with HIS will, my individuality will remain. We will still be able to choose and have preferences, but our choices will no longer have selfish agendas behind them. From that which is pure and righteous will we choose, because God has replaced our will with His perfect will. What would it be like in a world in which God’s will reigns supreme? It will be paradise—just as it was back in the Garden of Eden, the place humanity gave up so they could create their own paradise by establishing righteousness by works and maintaining compliance to the Law using their willpower. Great idea.

John,
Here is a link to a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. Calvinism vs Armenian

http://youtu.be/8-ZbEFjm3PQ

Thomas wrote: "When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness and the satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread what was wrong with that? So what, there were no Laws prohibiting Jesus from doing tha..."

Satan was not an orthodox teacher of the law. Jesus does what He was sent to do. The key word is "tempted" implying a departure from good. Thomas, I question the question!

Erick wrote: "Calvin is that in his attempt to remove free will both from humanity and the devil, he ultimately made God responsible for sin and evil directly; this seriously compromises God's Holiness."

This is what I mean by Armenianism using reasoning instead of the Scriptures. Our understanding of the relationship between God and Satan (the evil one) is vague. Based upon the first chapters of Job, Satan was allowed to do evil. God did not rebuke Satan at the end of the book, but Job's friends. That another subject, not Spiritual salvation.

Erick wrote: "Something I can substantiate with the Bible and 2000 years of church teaching I wouldn't call junk food, just truth. ;-)."

One of the first free will choices of man, was to eat of the fruit of good and evil. It had high appeal but no Spiritual value. Junk food or worst for man. When church teaching reads meaning out of the Scripture, it's Truth. When they read meaning into the Scripture, it's junk food. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity... Eccl. 1:2 Erick, you are using a broad statement to evade the issue. This is the same reasoning I read in "Whosoever Wills" and "Against Calvinism", so I feel very comfortable with Calvinism concerning the five points.

John wrote:"Satan was not an orthodox teacher of the law. Jesus does what He was sent to do. The key word is "tempted" implying a departure from good. Thomas, I question the question!"

The point of my question: Was it a sin to turn stones into bread or was the real issue as well as Satan's intent was to get Jesus to use his will?

Thomas wrote: "John,
Here is a link to a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. Calvinism vs Armenian "

Actually it was Brown/Bennett. I listened to about 35 minutes. Bennett started the debate implying the choice with God only. Brown started by saying, "the Bible is 100% against your position from Gen.-Rev.". Another general statement by the Armenian view. Then He titles his debate with "God choose us to give us a choice to receive or reject Him and I will not question His sovereignty."

Brown states no one gets credit for salvation, but then Brown states that God saw something in Abraham's conduct that He appreciated which acknowledges credit. Then he states that man is able to choose God, which contradicts the statements from the Bible by Bennett that man is blind, dead and deceived to be able to choose God. So here we go again....

What about the nation of Saudi Arabia? A small Christian population, but no evangelism allowed. In fact, number 1 in the persecution index. The is Calvinism visible to me. God choose a few there, while preventing the majority from hearing (not His sheep).

Free will is junk food for the soul. Free will is a euphoria that car thieves feel in a police bait car. Indeed, car thieves have free will to turn the steering wheel and the stereo dial for a brief period, but car thieves are a detriment to society. Likewise, free will has high natural appeal, but contains no Spiritual value and is a detriment to wholeness. Free will flies under the radar of any usefulness for the Kingdom of God. Free will is a misleading fallacy (see Jer. 23:16-17). Free will disconnects the flow of instructions from God in order to do one’s own will, the essence of sin. In Christianity, free will advocates follow a road that leads to a dead-end, with a broken-hearted Jesus, tears rolling down His cheeks as He helplessly watches (cf. John 6:67-70, 17: 2; II Cor. 13:3). Free will is defined as the power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate. Has God given man free will without restraints? No, the restraints are:

• Holy Spirit
• Angels
• Physical laws of nature
• Law of sin
• Government
• Circumstances
• Our conscience
• Satan

Due to Holy Spirit, a Christian will experience different restraints than an unbeliever (see Acts 16:6). Due to angels, the direction of life can change (see Gen. 22:11-12; Ps. 91:11; Matt 2:13). An angel can give a message that the conscience cannot ignore. Due to the physical laws of nature, man cannot walk on water; walk through walls or float upward without assistance. The law of sin and death restrain man from freely choosing not to sin. Man is in bondage to sin just as the law of gravity pulls man down. Because of the established governments, a citizen of San Francisco, California, will experience different restraints than a citizen of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Circumstances can dictate and override the human will. Circumstance can be an unavoidable path. After 14 years of service, quarterback Peyton Manning was released on March 7, 2012 from the Indianapolis Colts football team. Both Peyton and the owner, Jim Irsay, wanted Peyton to stay. However, the following circumstances did not allow Peyton to stay:

• A NFL salary cap (120.6 million)
• A recovering neck injury (Peyton)
• The Colt’s first round draft pick (2-14 record)
• A young quarterback (Andrew Luck) entering the NFL

Circumstances are walls or boundaries on the landscape of life. When circumstances dictate, the victim may lie to justify his or her prior statements. Others have their resources depleted and do not have a choice to continue. The right to choose becomes extinct. Free will is gone.

The most common restraint is the conscience— “judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them.” The consciousness of good and evil was implanted in the first parents when they disobeyed God (see Gen. 2:7). Perhaps, the first child, Cain, demonstrated a severed conscience and he was unable to deter wrong (see I Tim. 4:2; I John 3:12). This is similar to a rare psychopathic personality— “an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by perception of reality except for the individual’s social and moral obligations. This state is often characterized by the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction or sexual perversion.” Religions, including certain doctrines and traditions within Christianity were established to satisfy the conscience. Within Christianity, the conscience can be purged from dead works, implying that traumatic acts that hinder peace can be forgotten by the individual, similar to shock therapy in the medical world (see Heb. 9:14). Still, God has given man a conscience, not unrestrained free will. The conscience allows God to judge man. Man knows what is right and does not have an excuse. However, the conscience is within the corrupt soul, which craves praise when it does good and silence when it does evil (see Matt. 6:1-2; John 3:19-20).

Satan is a deceptive restrainer. “Scripture represents man as one who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick and dead, but in addition to his other miseries is afflicted with this misery of blindness through the agency of Satan. Therefore man believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered, able, well and alive.” Satan is the enemy and adversary of Christians (see Acts 13:10; I Pet. 1:8). Satan even restrained the apostle Paul from traveling to Thessalonica (see I Thes. 2:18). Concerning evil, Satan prefers to broadcast it like a roaring lion instead of being silent (see I Pet. 5:8).

Whenever someone does not accept these restraints, all sorts of ungodly behavior can manifest itself such as anger and rage, resulting in this untoward generation (see Acts 2:30). Contrast love, which does not insist on its own, but bears, believes, hopes and endures (see I Cor. 13:5,7).

Thomas wrote: "The point of my question: Was it a sin to turn stones into bread or was the real issue as well as Satan's intent was to get Jesus to use his will?."

I try not to answer hypothetical questions. Jesus gave an answer. The Bible says he "tempted" Jesus, so the will was involved. Jesus had a human will so that He could represent man on the cross.

John wrote: "What about the nation of Saudi Arabia? A small Christian population, but no evangelism allowed. The is Calvinism visible to me. God choose a few there, while preventing the majority from hearing (not His sheep)."

Why do we bother with the great commission?

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation" 1 Mark 16:15-16 (ASV)

Thomas wrote: "The will is not needed for me to make a choice between cereal or bacon and eggs for breakfast. Personal preference is not linked to the will. If I surrender - give up, give in, relinquish, hand ove..."

The word "surrender" is popular in free will Christian circles, but lacks a doctrinal basis in New Testament thought. The closest to this thought is "yielding to the Spirit."

John wrote: "The word "surrender" is popular in free will Christian circles, but lacks a doctrinal basis in New Testament thought. The closest to this thought is "yielding to the Spirit."

The following excerpt from “The Ultimate Intentions” by DeVern F. Fromke, says: “If you, like many, have been accustomed to using the microscopic method of Bible study, which scrutinizes every detail and phrase in order to understand the will and purpose of God, may God help you to shift gears!” (15). Mr. Fromke further comments that “It is my conviction that we have too long been involved with a method which centers attention on immediate details without reference first to the larger scope of God’s purpose” (15).

Scholarship has its place in research but too much can lead us far from the truth. We forget that truth comes from a spiritual source for only the spiritual can discern the spiritual.

I appreciate your knowledge and don't mean to make light of your comment, but I have been in discussions before when the person with the opposing view claims that a word used is wrong or that the Greek or Hebrew translation means something entirely different. Around and around we go chasing our tails.

Thomas wrote: "John wrote: "The word "surrender" is popular in free will Christian circles, but lacks a doctrinal basis in New Testament thought. The closest to this thought is "yielding to the Spirit." ..."

OK, Thomas. I've heard that word "surrender" a lot, just don't know how to apply it as a Christian? I though you might give me an explanation. To me, it either you haven't done the will of God or you have done it. It seems to apply to someone always fighting the will of God like it's a hard task. Doesn't fit my view of discipleship. Jesus said to continue in the Word, which sound like the microscopic method to me. Mr. Fromke is too general for me. What is he talking about? I did not forget that Truth comes from a Spiritual source. Too much philosophy for me.

John wrote: This is what I mean by Armenianism using reasoning instead of the Scriptures. Our understanding of the relationship between God and Satan (the evil one) is vague. Based upon the first chapters of Job, Satan was allowed to do evil. God did not rebuke Satan at the end of the book, but Job's friends. That another subject, not Spiritual salvation

I did use scripture though. You didn't answer my objections to your interpretation of it. I would much rather rely on scripture than Calvin. I think you are relying more on Calvin than scripture as it is. Calvin didn't just say God allowed Satan but that Satan was doing God's will directly. Look at the link I gave.

John wrote:One of the first free will choices of man, was to eat of the fruit of good and evil. It had high appeal but no Spiritual value. Junk food or worst for man. When church teaching reads meaning out of the Scripture, it's Truth.

You are making an illogical deduction. I pointed out the problems with this above. You are saying that free will impels man to sin. That is actually absurd. If it's free it can't compel -it would no longer be free if it did. I don't know why you can't see the problem with this idea you have on free will. I think you rely more on Calvin than scripture. Scripture doesn't support Calvin (I gave scripture that you haven't addressed adequately) and church history doesn't support Calvin.

John wrote:Erick, you are using a broad statement to evade the issue. This is the same reasoning I read in "Whosoever Wills" and "Against Calvinism", so I feel very comfortable with Calvinism concerning the five points.

I'm not. The case for supporting it is scripturally weak and it poses many problems; not least of which it compromises God's Holiness, while saying that it protects His sovereignty. That's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation.

John wrote: Free will is junk food for the soul. Free will is a euphoria that car thieves feel in a police bait car.

Like I said above your thinking here is fallacious. You are saying free will always gives way to evil. That's absurd. It would no longer be free if it did. The choice would only be evil. There really would be no choice and no freedom. I don't know why you can't see the problem here. See my response to Thomas on the trees of the garden that were given to freely eat from. Only one of which was evil.

John wrote: Circumstances can dictate and override the human will. Circumstance can be an unavoidable path.

Sure. That doesn't negate that the will is free in some circumstances. This argument can be used against you too though. By saying that some things are unavoidable, it opens the possibility that evil can come through necessity. That undoes the idea that free will is necessary for evil. This undermines your point. If evil comes through necessity than free will being part of it is undone. Really constrained will is evil, not free will.

John wrote: “Scripture represents man as one who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick and dead, but in addition to his other miseries is afflicted with this misery of blindness through the agency of Satan.

As I said above, this undermines your previous argument. You are saying that man is constrained to do evil, but above you say that his free choice is evil. That is paradoxical. If he's constrained he isn't free, if he's free he isn't constrained. If he is constrained he is falsely judged.

John wrote:Whenever someone does not accept these restraints, all sorts of ungodly behavior can manifest itself such as anger and rage, resulting in this untoward generation (see Acts 2:30).

This can't work with your above statement. If he is constrained in captivity, he can't remove his restraints. If he can remove his restraints he isn't really constrained.

Thomas wrote: "Free Will: Self-reliant, self-determined, self-control, autonomous, independence, Self-rule"

Like I said above and like I am saying to John, this idea is fallacious. If free will compels it isn't free. I don't know why neither of you are really examining the paradox here. If it is free it can't constrain someone to do evil. It is not free will anymore. It is constrained will.

Thomas wrote:Adam's, Eve's, and Lucifer's choice to activate their will was out of self-ambition. Prior to their rebellious action they had done only the will of the Almighty God. Was their disobedience eating the fruit or was it more severe in that they activated their will.

You are mistaken. God allowed them to eat freely from any tree in the garden (Gen. 2:16). God gave them free will to exercise and that WAS HIS WILL. The idea that free will always constrains to to do evil is fallacious and isn't scriptural.

Thomas wrote:The will is not needed for me to make a choice between cereal or bacon and eggs for breakfast. Personal preference is not linked to the will.

That is fallacious. Without will you couldn't do either. You couldn't do anything at all in fact. Once again this indicates that free choice, which is free will, doesn't have to choose between only good and evil. It can be exercised in other modes. Free will can be exercised in choices between different good (or at least neutral) things. Just like God gave them freedom in regards to the trees Adam and Eve ate from. Only one choice was evil for them. The rest were good. Their choices also included the tree of knowledge. Your attempt to make a distinction between preference and choice isn't born out by scripture. God's allowance to Adam and Eve to eat freely of all the trees only one of which was evil shows that they are the same.

Thomas wrote:If I surrender - give up, give in, relinquish, hand over, forfeit, and concede - my will to the Lord and replace it with HIS will, my individuality will remain. We will still be able to choose and have preferences, but our choices will no longer have selfish agendas behind them. From that which is pure and righteous will we choose, because God has replaced our will with His perfect will.

This is all still free will. You are creating opposition dogmatically where it doesn't exist. Free will is a part of choice of preference as well. Real free will is exactly that, preference that is not constrained.

You are both saying free will is evil but can only provide examples of constrained will being evil. I don't know if I can continue with this if this is the only way you can show that free will is evil. I think I am going to keep repeating myself that free will can't be constrained and still be free. If it only does evil it is constrained, not free. Please examine the obvious problem here.

" If free will compels it isn't free"

The word Free is where the confusion is. A will that is free and independent from God's will is how I define free will or humanity's will.

" God allowed them to eat freely from any tree in the garden (Gen. 2:16)."

With one exception the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I assume you meant to say this?

Do born again Christians sin daily even though they have been washed in the Blood?

Thomas wrote: "Do born again Christians sin daily even though they have been washed in the Blood?""

Every Christian is in need of grace every day.

Yes, that is the scripture. It indicates 1) that free will doesn't have only choices between good and evil and 2) free will was a command of God; and 3) free will doesn't constrain to only eating of the tree of knowledge i.e. doing evil.

Free will wasn't independent of God. He gave it.

Whether free will has become the new religion, a stronghold that exalts itself above the knowledge of God, idolatry, blindness or heresy, I do not know. In certain circles, it has gone unchallenged. People like it and accept it. As a disciple of the Lord, I do not need to understand free will.

Erick wrote: "Thomas wrote: Like the Law that was put in place to show people that they are sinners, the will was left intact and active in the flesh to show why we are sinners. "

Thomas wrote: Adam and Eve as ..."

All of you talk as if Adam and Eve were historical. Has it ever occurred to you that the creation story is religious myth?

John wrote: "Whether free will has become the new religion, a stronghold that exalts itself above the knowledge of God, idolatry, blindness or heresy, I do not know. In certain circles, it has gone unchallenged..."

Even though I could take offense at your comments, I won't. I have more than proven my point and it couldn't be refuted. Calvinism attacks God's Holiness. That's serious business in my book.

I will leave it to God to decide what doctrine honors and dishonors Him.

I leave you to your POV.

Marion wrote:All of you talk as if Adam and Eve were historical. Has it ever occurred to you that the creation story is religious myth? "

Did it ever occur to you that you are posting in the wrong place? Either stay on topic, or post your propaganda somewhere else.

Erick wrote: "You are both saying free will is evil but can only provide examples of constrained will being evil. I don't know if I can continue with this if this is the only way you can show that free will is e..."

You sound human here, Erick. I was getting the option you are a debating machine. On my side, it appears you create straw men so you can appear noble and righteous by pushing them over. I don't see any value in my continued debate on this subject. I interpret Scripture. That's all I do.

I continue to seek those who love to discuss Scripture. However, the flesh always interferes. If am truly dedicated to finding truth it will show by my willingness to set aside my pride (knowledge puffs up a man) and seriously listen to an opposing view because it is possible I may be wrong.

Here is my conclusion of the very interesting thread:

God gave humanity a will. Was it evil, No. God and His Son has taught that the only will that will keep us throughout eternity is God's will. Jesus came doing the will of His Father - not His. This is significant.

Why would God give mankind something that He doesn't what us to use? Has God ever done this before? Yes, The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why did God place this tree in the garden and then forbid man from eating from it? For a lesson. Was the tree evil? No, mankind's rebellious action was evil. Why did mankind receive the Law and ordinances when God knew we could not obey them? For a lesson. You can take this logic to the animal sacrifices that could not take away sin so why do them? A lesson.

Free will is not the same as choices or personal preferences. Example: God's will was for Adam to name all the animals. It was Adam's choice to call them what he wanted. If our choices and preferences are linked to the will then when we surrender our will to do God's will we will become robots.

We are to surrender our will to the Lord. How can you not learn this lesson from the Bible? Okay, it is clear, but we still need access to our will. Why if you are to never use it? Circumcision, it is not of the letter it is of the heart. Why did God give men a foreskin if it was to be cut off and discarded? A lesson. What is being removed from the heart that is not needed? Some say sin. No, the heart is where the will resides. The tree of knowledge, our will, the Law, the foreskin, were given by God not sin. Sin is a symptom. The ultimate sacrifice of humanity is his will. GOD IS A FATHER and A MASTER TEACHER.

Marion,

After reading your profile I can say that you are a great example of what happens when Christians intellectualize the spiritual. You need to read some books by a man that has a lot in common with you. Bart D. Ehrman is an author, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, and a graduate of Moody Bible College, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Mr Ehrman turned agnostic but doesn't claim to be a Christian agnostic - that is a oxymoron.