Scripture of the Week - Who Is Drawn?

From class:

Verse: In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps (Proverbs 16:9, New International Version).

Translation: He leads the way and shines light on the path of life.

Application: We can bend hearts and minds with our own will and intentions, but we are made in His image. He paves the way, as our design is divine.

The readings this week, the 19th Week in Ordinal Time (I refuse to use "Ordinary Time" but that's a topic for another discussion) were:

1 Kgs 19:4-8

Eph 4:30—5:2

and the Gospel was:

Jn 6:41-51

Part of the Gospel reading goes: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day." I tied that to the Scripture of the Week (my professor provides passages each week) as we, men (and women) make choices in life, one may choose to follow Christ while another chooses not to, but only those who are drawn can come to the Father. That used to trouble me a bit until I ran into John 12:32 - "When I am lifted up. I will draw all men unto Me." This brings us back to John 3:16 "For God so loved the world (not just a part of it) that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." In short, and tying it back to this week's Scripture, while man(kind) chooses - God has laid out the path, the groundwork, and all we need to do is heed His Word - and it is left to the free choice of men to follow or reject Christ.

BeggersAll - Catholicism and Semi-Pelagianism per Sproul

In a blog comment at BeggarsAll, Ken Temple states:

R. C. Sproul demonstrates the contradiction in Roman Catholic Theology, when it claims it agrees with Augustine against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians (Provincial Synod of Orange in 529 AD), but later re-affirms Semi-Pelagianism by the decrees of Trent (1545-1563) and then, later, arguably, it approves of even Pelagianism by the condemnation of the Jansenists (roughly, 1638-1713) and the modern Roman Catholic Catechism of 1994.  Sproul calls it an "ambiguity".  Indeed, it is more than that; it is a real contradiction.  It also shows the Roman Catholic Church to be fallible; thus bringing down the whole system of its claim to be infallible.

Embedded Ken has a video with Dr. RC Sproul wherein Sproul makes the statement that the Catholic Church has theological hemophilia, and if you scratch her, she bleeds to death.  That is, since the Catholic Church claims to be infallible, if one can demonstrate a contradiction in infallible teachings - then infallibility is destroyed - "she bleeds to death."  In the video Sproul deals with the matter of Free Will and Original Sin.  

Sproul starts by explaining (briefly) what Pelagianism is and how St. Augustine opposed it.  He also explains what Jansenism is, and how the Catholic Church opposed it.  For a bit more clarity, let's explain those a bit more here:

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism
Jansenism was a Christian theological movement, primarily in France, that emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity ofdivine grace, and predestination. 

St. Augustine opposed Pelagianism in this respect:

These men are such opponents of the grace of God . . . that without it, as they believe, man can do all the commandments of God. They confess in this way there is given to us divine knowledge whereby ignorance is dispelled, but they deny that love is given to us whereby we may lead a religious life: so that whereas knowledge, which, without love puffeth up, is the gift of God, love itself, which edifieth so that knowledge should not puff up, is not the gift of God. They empty of their meaning the prayers which the Church makes: whether for the unbelieving and those that refused the doctrine of God, that they may return to God; or for the faithful, that faith may be increased in them and that they may persevere therein. They even go so far as to say that the life of the righteous in this world has no sin, and thus the Church of Christ in this mortal state is so perfected as to be altogether “without spot or wrinkle. ” As if it were not the Church of Christ throughout the world which cries to God, “Forgive us our trespasses.” They also deny that infants, born according to Adam after the flesh, contract by their first [sc. Natural] birth the infection of the ancient death. So they assert that they are born without any bond of original sin: with the result, of course, that there is in them nothing that has to be released at their Second [or New] Birth. The reason why they are baptized is that by their New Birth they be adopted and admitted into the kingdom of God, carried from good to better—not, by that renewal, delivered from any evil of ancient entail. For even if they are not baptized, they promise them eternal life and bliss of a sort, though not within the kingdom of God. Adam also himself, they say, even if he had not sinned, would have undergone bodily death; though, if he so died, it would have been due not to the deserts of his guilt, but to the conditions of his nature. Several other things are charged against them. But these are especially the points on which it may be understood how all, or nearly all, the rest depend. http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_on_pelagianism.htm

So in summary, St. Augustine supports that in order for men to fulfill the commandments of God they must have His grace in them; that love (grace) is the gift of God; that the Church of Christ does have blemishes and cries out to God "Forgive us our trespasses;" that Original Sin does exist and we must be regenerated through baptism; and that the sin of Adam indeed brought about his death.  These things the Pelagians denied - and these things the Catholic Church taught and continues to teach (to this day!).

The "critical point" according to Dr. Sproul is that he states man still has the ability to choose evil or good, even after the fall.  He goes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and while he does not cite the paragraph, I have it here for you:

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Two things here in answering Dr. Sproul: 
a) The CCC is not an infallible document/book/teaching from the Church - NO catechism is!  
b) Paragraph 1732 is saying that men who are not bound definitively to God can still choose to do good things.  There is nothing wrong with that statement!  It is not saying that such men are doing salvific things, only that they are still free to choose to do good things over doing evil things.  Many "unregenerate" people do many good things - there just is no "good" for them in God's eyes, outside of His grace.

So, even if Paragraph 1732 were in error here (and it is not) it would not be valid ammunition against the Church's teaching (really Christ's teaching, Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18) because NO catechism has ever been promulgated as an infallible document.  Again, there is no contradiction between what St. Augustine said and what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says - if anything, the CCC is saying that when one binds himself to God that his will is no longer "free" - that he is now bound to do good, and the choice to do evil would separate him from the love (grace) of God.  This is consistent Catholic teaching throughout the ages.

I have one more thing for Dr. Sproul and Mr. Temple in this regard...

Part 2 - St. Augustine on Free Will and Foreknowledge

Mr. Hoffstetter responded to my previous posting in the Catholic Debate Forum (use linked text to see the original).  Since there would be too much for a combox response, I'm posting Barry's reply and then my response to it will follow (Barry's posting is shown with yellow background):

On 5/3/2014 12:52 AM, Scott Windsor, Sr. wrote:     > Dear Barry,     > Thank you so much for recommending St. Augustine on this topic! This is     > really wonderful stuff!     >     > http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2014/05/st-augustine-on-free-will-and.html You citing this as though it in anyway contradicts anything I'm saying simply shows that you do not have a clue as to what Augustine is saying.     > sw: (Yes, I've read it before - just thanking you for bringing it to our     > attention again).   Here is another quote directly from Augustine. Maybe St. Ferde will  break it down for us and show what's wrong with it? The following is taken from Augustine's The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love: Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God's Free Grace.     And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God     cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and     wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He     does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice     that He does it not for "He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and     whom He will He hardens." And when the apostle said this, he was     illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just     spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, "who being not yet born,     neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according     to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was     said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." And in reference to     this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: "Jacob have I loved,     but Esau have I hated." But perceiving how what he had said might affect     those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this     grace: "What shall we say then?" he says: "Is there unrighteousness with     God? God forbid." For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit     or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate     the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there     were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of     course God foreknew, he would never have said, "not of works," but, "of     future works," and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or     rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is,     however, after answering, "God forbid;" that is, God forbid that there     should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no     unrighteousness in God's doing this, and says: "For He says to Moses, I     will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on     whom I will have compassion." Now, who but a fool would think that God     was unrighteous, either in inflicting penal justice on those who had     earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy? Then he draws his     conclusion: "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs,     but of God that shows mercy." Thus both the twins were born children of     wrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they were     bound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came through     Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,"     loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved     judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, the former learned from     the case of the latter that the fact of the same punishment not falling     upon himself gave him no room to glory in any merit of his own, but only     in the riches of the divine grace; because "it is not of him that wills,     nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." And indeed the whole     face, and, if I may use the expression, every lineament of the     countenance of Scripture conveys by a very profound analogy this     wholesome warning to every one who looks carefully into it, that he who     glories should glory in the Lord. -- N.E. Barry Hofstetter Opinions in private email do not reflect those of any institution with which I am affiliated     ****       This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.       All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however       permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing       this footer remains attached to the message.       To visit this group on the web, go to:         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/

And now my response to Barry:

    On 5/3/2014 12:52 AM, Scott Windsor, Sr. wrote:
    >> Dear Barry,
    >> Thank you so much for recommending St. Augustine on this topic! This is
    >> really wonderful stuff!
    >>
    >> http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2014/05/st-augustine-on-free-will-and.html
    >
    > BH: You citing this as though it in anyway contradicts anything I'm saying
    > simply shows that you do not have a clue as to what Augustine is saying.

sw: You saying that about what I cited shows you either didn't read it, or enjoy reading St. Augustine out of context.  Keep in mind, Barry, which church calls him both Saint and Doctor.

    >> sw: (Yes, I've read it before - just thanking you for bringing it to our
    >> attention again).
    >
    > BH: Here is another quote directly from Augustine. Maybe St. Ferde will
    > break it down for us and show what's wrong with it?

sw: Wow, "St. Ferde!"  Congratulations Ferde!  Of course we all strive for sainthood, it's nice to see Barry has recognized this in you.  :-)

    > BH: The following is taken from Augustine's The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope
    > and Love:
    > Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God's Free Grace.

sw:  I'll not requote the citation again, but would add that it's not really "Chapter 98" but "98" refers to a paragraph numbering and this passage is actually found within Chapter 25 which includes paragraphs 98 and 99 from the overall document.  http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm#C25

sw: Now, what we see here is that Barry chooses (again) to make his point out of the context of the whole document.  If we read just a few paragraphs further down we see that what St. Augustine is teaching is that condemnation is "just" for all men due to Adam's fall.  We all have lost the first gift of immortality which was for Adam and Eve to receive, but through Free Will, they lost that gift and lost it for all of us - as we are born into that fallen nature.  God allowed for man's Free Will to go on unchecked until the time of Noah - at which time He "rebooted" mankind.  Still, the promise of the redemption of mankind was made to Adam and Eve.

sw: While mankind was "rebooted" with Noah, man's Free Will was continued to be allowed by God, and is immediately evident in the acts of even Noah's sons.  It would also not be long after Noah's time that man would build the "Tower of Babel" where God again confounds the Free Will of men - dividing them into what would become different nations.  Still, the promise of redemption is with us and going according to God's Will for mankind.  With that in mind, let us read a few paragraphs down from where Barry snipped his quote:

106. Human nature lost the former kind of immortality through the misuse of free will. It is to receive the latter through grace--though it was to have obtained it through merit, if it had not sinned. Not even then, however, could there have been any merit without grace. For although sin had its origin in free will alone, still free will would not have been sufficient to maintain justice, save as divine aid had been afforded man, in the gift of participation in the immutable good. Thus, for example, the power to die when he wills it is in a man's own hands--since there is no one who could not kill himself by not eating (not to mention other means). But the bare will is not sufficient for maintaining life, if the aids of food and other means of preservation are lacking.
Similarly, man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed, unless He who made him had given him aid. But, after the Fall, God's mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the masters.  (Emphasis added)
Source:  Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Charity, Chapter 28, Paragraph 106, St. Augustine.

sw: One can see how, if St. Augustine is taken out of context, a Calvinistic interpretation can be made - which is why I encourage people to READ THE CONTEXT.  In virtually every situation where the Calvinist claims victory, context defeats him, and so is the case again here.

AMDG,
Scott<<<
--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.


    ****
      This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
      All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
      permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
      this footer remains attached to the message.
      To visit this group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/

St. Augustine on Free Will and Foreknowledge

In a discussion on Predestination and Foreknowledge in the Catholic Debate Forum, Barry Hoffstetter, while declining to get further into the discussion asked us to "read (St.) Augustine on the topic."  To which I answer, PLEASE DO!  As much as the Calvinists love to claim St. Augustine - he was not of a Calvinistic (as anachronistic that might be) mindset.  On the contrary, he was quite a Catholic!  Keep in mind, this man was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo.  After his many defenses of the Catholic Church, he was named a DOCTOR of the Catholic Faith!  This simply doesn't happen if one is a denier of the Catholic Faith, like Calvin was.  Now, on to what Barry recommended us to read - and please note how he shatters the argumentation of Cicero...

Chapter 9.—Concerning the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, in Opposition to the Definition of Cicero.

The manner in which Cicero addresses himself to the task of refuting the Stoics, shows that he did not think he could effect anything against them in argument unless he had first demolished divination.  And this he attempts to accomplish by denying that there is any knowledge of future things, and maintains with all his might that there is no such knowledge either in God or man, and that there is no prediction of events.  Thus he both denies the foreknowledge of God, and attempts by vain arguments, and by opposing to himself certain oracles very easy to be refuted, to overthrow all prophecy, even such as is clearer than the light (though even these oracles are not refuted by him).

But, in refuting these conjectures of the mathematicians, his argument is triumphant, because truly these are such as destroy and refute themselves.  Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events.  For, to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.  This Cicero himself saw, and therefore attempted to assert the doctrine embodied in the words of Scripture, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”  That, however, he did not do in his own person, for he saw how odious and offensive such an opinion would be; and therefore, in his book on the nature of the gods, he makes Cotta dispute concerning this against the Stoics, and preferred to give his own opinion in favor of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he assigned the defence of the Stoical position, rather than in favor of Cotta, who maintained that no divinity exists.  However, in his book on divination, he in his own person most openly opposes the doctrine of the prescience of future things.  But all this he seems to do in order that he may not grant the doctrine of fate, and by so doing destroy free will.  For he thinks that, the knowledge of future things being once conceded, fate follows as so necessary a consequence that it cannot be denied.

But, let these perplexing debatings and disputations of the philosophers go on as they may, we, in order that we may confess the most high and true God Himself, do confess His will, supreme power, and prescience.  Neither let us be afraid lest, after all, we do not do by will that which we do by will, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew that we would do it.  It was this which Cicero was afraid of, and therefore opposed foreknowledge.  The Stoics also maintained that all things do not come to pass by necessity, although they contended that all things happen according to destiny.  What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things?  Doubtless it was this,—that if all future things have been foreknown, they will happen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if they come to pass in this order, there is a certain order of things foreknown by God; and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of causes, for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficient cause.  But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen.  But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted.  In vain are laws enacted.  In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.  And that consequences so disgraceful, and absurd, and pernicious to humanity may not follow, Cicero chooses to reject the foreknowledge of future things, and shuts up the religious mind to this alternative, to make choice between two things, either that something is in our own power, or that there is foreknowledge,—both of which cannot be true; but if the one is affirmed, the other is thereby denied.  He therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and very skillfully for the good of humanity, of those two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm which he denied the foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free he makes them sacrilegious.  But the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety.  But how so? says Cicero; for the knowledge of future things being granted, there follows a chain of consequences which ends in this, that there can be nothing depending on our own free wills.  And further, if there is anything depending on our wills, we must go backwards by the same steps of reasoning till we arrive at the conclusion that there is no foreknowledge of future things.  For we go backwards through all the steps in the following order:—If there is free will, all things do not happen according to fate; if all things do not happen according to fate, there is not a certain order of causes; and if there is not a certain order of causes, neither is there a certain order of things foreknown by God,—for things cannot come to pass except they are preceded by efficient causes,—but, if there is no fixed and certain order of causes foreknown by God, all things cannot be said to happen according as He foreknew that they would happen.  And further, if it is not true that all things happen just as they have been foreknown by Him, there is not, says he, in God any foreknowledge of future events.

Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it.  But that all things come to pass by fate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by fate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wont to be used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby the position of the stars at the time of each one’s conception or birth, is an unmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion.  But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate, unless, perhaps, we may understand fate to mean that which is spoken, deriving it from fari, to speak; for we cannot deny that it is written in the sacred Scriptures, “God hath spoken once; these two things have I heard, that power belongeth unto God.  Also unto Thee, O God, belongeth mercy:  for Thou wilt render unto every man according to his works.”  Now the expression, “Once hath He spoken,” is to be understood as meaning “immovably,” that is, unchangeably hath He spoken, inasmuch as He knows unchangeably all things which shall be, and all things which He will do.  We might, then, use the word fate in the sense it bears when derived from fari, to speak, had it not already come to be understood in another sense, into which I am unwilling that the hearts of men should unconsciously slide.  But it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among those causes not have been ignorant of our wills.  For even that very concession which Cicero himself makes is enough to refute him in this argument.  For what does it help him to say that nothing takes place without a cause, but that every cause is not fatal, there being a fortuitous cause, a natural cause, and a voluntary cause?  It is sufficient that he confesses that whatever happens must be preceded by a cause.  For we say that those causes which are called fortuitous are not a mere name for the absence of causes, but are only latent, and we attribute them either to the will of the true God, or to that of spirits of some kind or other.  And as to natural causes, we by no means separate them from the will of Him who is the author and framer of all nature.  But now as to voluntary causes.  They are referable either to God, or to angels, or to men, or to animals of whatever description, if indeed those instinctive movements of animals devoid of reason, by which, in accordance with their own nature, they seek or shun various things, are to be called wills.  And when I speak of the wills of angels, I mean either the wills of good angels, whom we call the angels of God, or of the wicked angels, whom we call the angels of the devil, or demons.  Also by the wills of men I mean the wills either of the good or of the wicked.  And from this we conclude that there are no efficient causes of all things which come to pass unless voluntary causes, that is, such as belong to that nature which is the spirit of life.  For the air or wind is called spirit, but, inasmuch as it is a body, it is not the spirit of life.  The spirit of life, therefore, which quickens all things, and is the creator of every body, and of every created spirit, is God Himself, the uncreated spirit.  In His supreme will resides the power which acts on the wills of all created spirits, helping the good, judging the evil, controlling all, granting power to some, not granting it to others.  For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him.  As to bodies, they are more subject to wills:  some to our wills, by which I mean the wills of all living mortal creatures, but more to the wills of men than of beasts.  But all of them are most of all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills also are subject, since they have no power except what He has bestowed upon them.  The cause of things, therefore, which makes but is not made, is God; but all other causes both make and are made.  Such are all created spirits, and especially the rational.  Material causes, therefore, which may rather be said to be made than to make, are not to be reckoned among efficient causes, because they can only do what the wills of spirits do by them.  How, then, does an order of causes which is certain to the foreknowledge of God necessitate that there should be nothing which is dependent on our wills, when our wills themselves have a very important place in the order of causes?  Cicero, then, contends with those who call this order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself by the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on account of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand as meaning what is not true.  But, whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do.  For he either denies that God exists,—which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he has labored to do, in his book De Natura Deorum,—or if he confesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future things, what is that but just “the fool saying in his heart there is no God?”  For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.  Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and would do it.  Wherefore, if I should choose to apply the name of fate to anything at all, I should rather say that fate belongs to the weaker of two parties, will to the stronger, who has the other in his power, than that the freedom of our will is excluded by that order of causes, which, by an unusual application of the word peculiar to themselves, the Stoics call Fate. 

Source:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.9.html

It is the opinion of this writer that Barry chooses not to engage the discussion because he knows it is a debate he cannot win.

God Changed His Mind?

In many confrontations with Calvinists they will argue the "Sovereignty of God" and that God does not "make up His mind" based on the actions of men - arguing that this would put the Will of God "hostage" to the will of Man.  Let the objective reader then consider Jonah 3: 

⁸ But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. ⁹ Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”
 ¹⁰ When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (NASB)

⁸And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands.
⁹Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish?
¹⁰And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.  (DRB)

⁸But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
 ⁹Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
 ¹⁰And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

⁸ People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence.
⁹ Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.”
¹⁰ When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened.  (NLB)

Was God "held hostage" -OR- is it according to His Sovereignty that He GAVE mankind the ability to choose and to repent and that IF man does repent, He is able to "change His mind?"

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Free Will and Calvinism

What is the first thing a man must give up when he yields to God?  He surrenders his own will for the Will of God! 

We live in a life governed by our nature, this is true, but our life is not without choices.  When I get up in the morning, one of the first things I must do is use the restroom and I am not "free" to do otherwise - or am I?  Well "nature" says I have to relieve myself, but "nature" does not dictate where!  We are so conditioned (and rightly so!) to use the "proper facilities," but I could "choose" to use the sink, the tub - or step outside to the flower garden, but I choose the toilet.  Or, like a baby or an incontinent adult, I may have no real "choice" in when or where.  The point is, we are given the ability to reason and make choices based upon the reasoning we choose to use.  We are then rightly judged based upon those choices.  We all begin as babies, physically and spiritually; but there comes a time when we must put aside childish things.

Society is the "judge" when it comes to the example above.  Society would frown upon us using a sink, the tub or even the flower garden; and would judge us accordingly.  Now, on a bit higher level - when we are young and unable to reason, all we think about is our self.  As we interact with others we "learn" how to share and please others - at least some of us do.  Some do not "learn" these social interaction skills, perhaps never taught these skills by their parents, and continue to "learn" how to please themselves.  Such is where bullies come from - a child who never learned to yield his/her own will in concern/caring for or about others.

Likewise, moving to the spiritual realm it is not much different!  Left to our own devices, we would seek the hedonist path of pleasing our self.  We must be taught about God in order to know, love and serve Him.  The more we learn about God brings us to choices in our lives where we choose to either give up our will to His, or reject His Will and pursue self satisfaction in life.  Each of us makes such choices all the time! 

Just being raised in a "good home" does not mean every child in that home will make "good choices," or the choices which his/her parents would have liked to see them make.  Children are influenced by parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, bullies, teachers, pastors and even physical/genetic things.  Now "naturally" they would have no control over a physical or genetic trait which may affect their will, but for most of us - the influences are not so "natural."  We can choose to be influenced by good or bad people in our lives.  Sometimes a "bad" person can have a "good" influence too. 

In my own experience, it took me standing up to a bully which dramatically changed the way I was treated by just about everyone else.  That's a long story, but the point is I CHOSE to stop being picked on, I took a chance (which could have resulted in me getting beat up), grabbed that bully by his shirt collar, slammed him up against a wall and said, "LEAVE ME ALONE!"  Instead of fighting me, he yielded - and from that day forward I was no longer picked on by any of the bullies at my school.  What if I had "chose" to not stand up against that bully?  I'm confident that my entire life would be quite different than it is today.

On a similar note, my family moved in the middle of my sophomore year of high school.  At the new school the first group of people I started "hanging" with was what most parents would call "the wrong crowd."  I saw myself actually becoming "one of them," but my mother had instilled upon me a true love for God and what is right - so one day I prayed, "God please get me out of this group of people I have been associating with."  That weekend, my best "friend's" dad died and his mom packed up and moved to another part of town moving him to another school.  Suddenly my contact with "the wrong crowd" was gone.  I seized upon this as a new start - and I found new friends, leaving that culture behind forever.  I can only imagine if I had not willed to get out of that culture and remained in it.  I've seen others in my family affected by their choice to not get out of that culture and how it has ruined their lives and relationship with God too.

I hope you're seeing the point I'm making.  Our lives are governed by our choices.  God, in His sovereignty, GIVES us the ability to make these choices because we are made in His image and likeness.  Determinists, primarily Calvinists, will argue that no one can choose God unless God first chooses and draws them.  They will cite a few verses from Scripture which seem to bolster their position - while ignoring the main thrust of Scripture.  So let me deal with these points.

First off, the "main thrust of Scripture" and especially the Gospel, is that God is LOVE and He wants us to know, love and serve Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength (Mark 12:30; Matt 22:37).  Jesus Himself refers to this as the "first," or "foremost," or "greatest" commandment.  When Jesus was asked what one must DO to inherit eternal life, well the story goes:

And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"  And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28 NASB).

According to Jesus Himself, salvation is based in LOVE.  And what IS love?

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.  Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.  When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love (1 Cor. 13 NASB, emphasis mine).

When you love your wife, you aren't giving her something she already has, you are giving of yourself.  The same is true of love given to God, we give of ourselves and likewise when He loves us, He is giving of Himself for God is love.

Back to the Determinist stating God must first draw one in order for them to respond to Him and love Him.  This is truth!  John 6:44 tells us that no man can come to Jesus unless he is first drawn to Him; so when does this drawing occur?  Plainly stated by the same Gospel writer in John 12:32, when He is lifted up ALL MEN will be drawn to Him!  The Determinist who equivocates the drawing with the coming errs here, for the two are wholly separate actions!  Not ALL who are drawn WILL come to Him!  As Matthew 22:14 tells us, "Many are called, but few are chosen."  There is a difference between those called/drawn and those who actually heed the call and come to Him.  Along with the context of Matthew 22:14 we see that even some who heed the call and go in to the Wedding Feast, if you do not put on the Wedding Garment (which was traditionally given by the Wedding Host, so there is no excuse not to be wearing it), even if you "show up" you are not guaranteed a spot in Heaven, for the one who showed up without the Wedding Garment was cast out into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth! 

The point is clear... if "many are called, but few are chosen," then it is not God who fails - for that would be impossible - but man who fails to heed the calling AND properly prepare himself for the Wedding Feast.

The Determinist may cry out, "but St. Paul says we're predestined, even before our birth - even before the creation of the universe!"  However, we must point out to the Determinist that this predestining is not done in a vacuum!  In the "Golden Chain of Redemption" (which includes the statement of predestination) they tend to overlook and/or minimize the first "link" in that "chain."  Let us look at it:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 NASB).

The first "link" in that chain is God's FOREKNOWLEDGE.  God is not limited by our linear view of time - He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and therefore He KNOWS us, even before we're born.  He KNOWS what decisions we will make in this linear path of time - and based upon this FOREKNOWLEDGE ("for those whom He foreknew...") He also predestined.  Predestination cannot, therefore, be viewed outside of His foreknowledge of us.
 
Strive then to know, love and serve God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength - for that is what He wills for us to do.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Free Will Debate

I have begun a debate on the subject of Free Will with a Calvinist who goes by the name of Micah Antony.   Opening Statements have been posted.

Feel free to add comments here or on BattleACTS.







http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/freewill_debate