Foreknowledge or Predetermination

I know we have visited this topic in different ways but I wanted to concentrate on this aspect of the Calvinist/Arminian 'discussion'.I share in a couple of other website forums and someone quoted Luke 22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! The writer said that it was a valuable verse for putting God's predetermination alongside man's responsibility. I replied and thought my reply might produce some profitable debate here.The word 'determined' in Luke 22:22 is an intriguing one. orizO is the word we get horizon from. It implies the setting of boundaries. The question is did God set the boundaries or did He specifically determine that Judas should betray him? I have a suggestion from that famous 'God hardening Pharaoh’s heart' passage. The reference to 'hardening' could be translated 'strengthening'. I suspect that there would be much more sin except that people's hearts grow faint and they don't have the gall to carry on what they would have liked to do. Could it be that God strengthened Pharaoh so that Pharaoh could carry out his desires, whereas ordinarily a man might have stopped in fear or exhaustion? God thereby supplies Pharaoh with the dynamic but the desire and the choice is Pharaoh's rather than God's predetermining. So Pharaoh remains fully culpable for the action, but God has enabled it to fulfil His wider purposes. There is a possible support for this idea in the current activities of Satan. In Christ everything is sustained (consists). All power is His. He gives and sustains life; this is orthodox teaching so far. Where is Satan getting his energy from? We don't believe in a wind-up cosmos where God has initiated things and is leaving them to run their course. Surely it must be that Satan's dynamic is coming from God? Not the desire or the choice but the dynamic that allows Satan to continue as he does. Has God predetermined that Satan should behave in the way he does? Personally, I think not. Foreknowledge is not the same as predetermination. I may have foreknowledge that my house is going to be broken into, but that does not mean that I have fore-ordained it and predetermined it. So how do I see such prophetic words as in Luke 22:22? I think Christopher Wordsworth expressed it well. "God's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God." (Wordsworth Revelation Intro. p 154.)Well, what do you think?

"God's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God." I'm not much into doctrine and theology but this would be the best way to explain how I believe. I have never really studied any theologies or doctrines. What I have pretty much comes solely from the Lord himself- what He has revealed to me.The only thing I could put into words was that I was a huge believer in 'sovereignty". I have always had the "childlike faith" that He is in charge and that is that. :-) So, what I believe- there's actually a name for it? who knew! :-o ~Chanin

You already know what I think, Philologos! If God had left my will untouched I'd be in Hell by now! I practiced sin and therefore was a slave to it. I did not rationally choose God. I was in the midst of my rebellion when I was suddenly drawn by God. The Kingdom of God came to me and made me aware of the horrible crippling sin in my life. He showed me that I am not good enough and that I am inescapably damned unless I am covered by Christ's robe of righteousness. He then brought me into spiritual life, gave me the Spirit, gifted me, and gave me a hunger for the Word and for righteousness. I'm not basing my beliefs on my experience, but surely my experience agrees with my belief of what Scripture teaches.

There are a number of questions which I feel should be "required pondering" for all Christians when it comes to Gods foreknowledge / Predetermination / predestination etc. Since the primary question from Arminians apposing Calvinism seems to always hover around "Does God elect to reprobation?" It would make sense to at least consider the thought / question and try to arrive at some sort of conclusion since it is a valid topic. My own views on this do fall on the Calvinistic side strongly in so far that I do not feel there is anything "good" or even remotely righteous left in the will of humanity since the fall. If sin is truly damaging to the entire human then we would have to say that sin did effect our capacity to make good judgments using our sinful human will. Therefore since our will is corrupt and sinful how could it be said that a sinful man can reach up to a Holy God? Arminianism seems to have a problem with leaving a Holy, Righteous, Perfect, and Just God in command when it comes to over-riding the sinful, corrupt, totally depraved human will with regards to election. Arminians feel that the Calvinists have a lot to explain when it comes to the reprobates yet they fail to see their theory also has a question along the same lines in that if man of his own free will reaches up to God for salvation and God knows beforehand who will and who will not reach up to Him then why did God create those whom He knew would never be saved? Wouldn't that place it on par with the Calvinistic understanding of election to reprobation? In one way or another both Calvinism and Arminianism have a sort of election to reprobation; Calvinism would say God decides out of His own good pleasure who to reach down to and who to pass-over, nevertheless creating both the saved and the reprobate. Arminianism would say man of his own free will reaches up to God to take that which is freely offered to all men, nevertheless God knows who will and who will not reach up to take the free gift of salvation and yet God created both the saved and the un-saved. So in the end the question would be; who’s will would you rather place your eternity in? Your own corrupt, sinful will or the Holy, Righteous, Perfect, and Just will of God? Did God make Adam and Eve sin in the garden? Did Adam and Eve sin of their own free will? I say Adam and Eve sinned of their own free will according to the sovereign will of God. God is always in total control of His creation, He is never surprised or shocked and never caught off-guard. How could it be both free will and the sovereign will of God? If God does not reach down to save man from our own will then we remain bound to our corrupt free will with no desire to part from it. Apart from God man is totally depraved and corrupt, if God chose to save no one and all went to hell He would still be just since that is our due penalty for sin. It is by the pure unmerited GRACE of God that anyone at all is saved, not anything the dead will of sinful man contributed, controlled or earned.I should add here that though I said "my views on this fall on the Calvinistic side" I would not and do not consider myself to be a "Calvinist" in that they tend to feel they have the answers to questions left unanswered by God in His Holy Word. Here I take the very strong stance of Luther (I am Lutheran, LCMS) and I say it is a mystery as to why God elects some but appears to over-look others. I can not say God elects some to hell as in forcing their hand since the scriptures choose to leave it a mystery. Scripture does make it clear however that God does elect unto salvation those whom He chooses according to His own good pleasure. The key word there being "GOOD". Salvation is purely the unmerited grace of, by, and for the glory and pleasure of a Holy, just, pure and perfect God. -David:-o NOTE I did edit this post for clarity since reading it myself I noticed a few things I did not wish to imply. Proper wording when discussing the Calvinism and Arminianism debate is very important and somewhat hard to obtain. wooooooooooooooo

nobody wroteYou already know what I think, Philologos! If God had left my will untouched I'd be in Hell by now! I practiced sin and therefore was a slave to it.nobody,BTW I actually knew somebody whose proper name was 'nobody'. He was a Zimbabwean who worked on a farm where I spent some time teaching in a Bible School. I actually have a picture of "nobody receiving his wages" :-D anyway, I am going to be little mischievous now. There have been so many books written about the bondage/freedom of the will but I have a question, "can you give me a biblical definition of the will and some scriptures to back it up?"

your quote I do not feel there is anything "good" or even remotely righteous left in the will of humanity since the fallDavidPlease see my note to nobody. You are cordially invited to join the party. :-P

It is a simple argument that many make showing that man's will- or capacity to choose- always follows his nature. Just as God always acts in accordance with His nature, we do likewise. It is not hard work to find scriptural support for the idea that man's nature has been absolutely turned to pure evil from the fall. Unless we are given a new nature we run towards hell like the lemmings towards the water.Proverbs 16 9A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. Luke 1218So he said, "I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry."' 20But God said to him, "Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?'These show that although we can will to do certain things we cannot actually carry them out. Our will is bound in that we can't bring to fruition whatever we would like to.Genesis 65Then the LORD[2] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.Romans 310As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."[2] 13"Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit";[3] "The poison of asps is under their lips";[4] 14"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."[5] 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17And the way of peace they have not known."[6] 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[7] Jeremiah 1323Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. These are self-explanatoryJohn 842Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."If God's election doesn't causally precede man's reponse then Jesus sure said many things strangely. He told people that their choices were the outcome of their election or lack thereof, not vice versa. If the Arminian view of everyone having sufficient grace to respond is true then the explanation of Jesus concerning His parables was rather odd. It was not given for some not to see and it is given for others to see. According to the Arminian all should see equally well and then just make a choice one way or the other. Jesus didn't do it that way.

Hi nobodyI'm just going to concentrate on the first paragraph.It is a simple argument that many make showing that man's will- or capacity to choose- always follows his nature. Just as God always acts in accordance with His nature, we do likewise. It is not hard work to find scriptural support for the idea that man's nature has been absolutely turned to pure evil from the fall. Unless we are given a new nature we run towards hell like the lemmings towards the water.I think I am probably one of the strongest believers in congenital sin on this forum so you don't have to convince me of the Sin. You refer to 'capacity to choose'. What is involved and what are the constituent parts of that 'capacity'? I'm genuinely looking for some scriptural guidelines here. I presume we are talking about capacity to make 'moral' choices, between things 'right and wrong'?Where does that take place in me? Please don't say 'in your will'. ;-) If I spoke of man's heart, mind, soul, spirit, body, imagination, conscience... these are all scriptural terms and I would know what someone meant who used them. but 'the will'?? Where is this thing and why doesn't the Bible talk about it?

Dear ChaninGod's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God." Dont let this little qoute poison you its not true! Especially if you believe in Gods sovereingty! God is all knowing! He knew you before the foundation of the earth.Liberty of the human will stinks without the Lords intervention! I am certainly glad God did not leave my will untouched. I would only choose evil and there would be no good in me at all!

philologos said: "Please see my note to nobody. You are cordially invited to join the party."Ok, this may be long so work with me here... I feel the single best Biblical representation of the human will is the following:Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make {one} wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.Gen 3:8 ¶ They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"Gen 3:10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."Gen 3:11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave {to be} with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."We see a good example of the human will in Gen 3:8. The will of man when left to it's own has nothing to do with "drawing near to God". Then in Gen 3:9 we see a good example of God doing what we could not do which is finding us. If our will was left to itself then we would continue to hide from God, if God did not come to us we would never be able to bring ourselves to Him. He must come and draw us to Him, we can never let it be said that we draw God near to ourselves. In Gen 3:9 why would God need to look for us when before the sin we did not hide from Him? We hide from Him after sinning. So we can and must assume that something happened to our will so as to make us want to be apart from God.Phil 2:12 ¶ So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;Phil 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for {His} good pleasure.Phil 2:14 ¶ Do all things without grumbling or disputing;Phil 2:15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,In Phil 2:12 we are told to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", then in Phil 2:13 we are informed "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for {His} good pleasure."... At first this could seem to be a contradiction but if you understand that the will apart from the working of God can do nothing pleasing to God, Phil 2:12 becomes a bit more clear. It is only after God is at work in us that our will becomes inclined to His will in our life. Before God called you or I, we only did what we were inclined by our sinful nature to do. After God calls someone He is then at work in us to conform us. Well if He is not conforming our will then what else is there to "conform"? Conform by definition is the bending or shaping of something so as to make it fit or work. If it is out of our own free will while still in sin that we are able to reach up to God and take His hand then that must mean there is still something untouched by sin in us (i.e. our free will)... The clear teaching of scripture alone demands the acknowledgement of total depravity because of sin, therefore sin has touched all of our humanity and nothing good remains.If our free will does play a role in our coming to Christ then we should ask what percentage does our will play in it? Is it 99.9% God and 0.1% man? 0.1% man is the smallest workable percentage allowable by reason so even with that one percent it must mean that there is 0.1% of us which was not touched by sin. If someone who was not Christian were to tell you they were only 99.9% effected by sin what would your reaction be? Well if you hold to mans free will playing any part in salvation you would have to agree with him. Does the Bible say man was "partially" effected by sin?R.C. Sproul had a very good analogy; he said he once heard someone compare salvation to a drowning man and throwing him a life preserver... The only problem is that the Bible does not teach man is in the process of dying or drowning, the Bible teaches we are already dead! How many dead men do you know of that could reach out to accept any form of help at all? Salvation has to be the complete work of a Holy God since man has long since been dead in sin. A man who has died in the emergency room does not ask to be resuscitated. The Doctor always assumes the full, complete, and total responsibility of initiating resuscitation. The patient be resuscitated does absolutely nothing during the process since he has died and is in need of being saved even if it is against the dead mans "free will"...-David*All Scripture quotes were taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Amen brother David.Although I am cautious about being too pragmatic and do not think that truth is determined by results, there may be something interesting about comparing the fruit that these two differing beliefs bring. I can accept the semi-Pelagian beliefs as plausible and Christian, although they seem less biblical to me than Augustinianism. It is what usually comes with the two that really makes me embrace the one and get angry with the other. The fruit of these beliefs is usually a view of God and a view of the church's role on earth. While technically the Arminian has all the same reason to hold God high in wonder, amazement, and reverence it often seems the case that this isn't as true of them as it is of Calvinists. I know I'm generalizing and there are many cases in which this isn't true, but overall I think it is a fair statement based on my experience and reading. It has been historically more the case, from what I have read, that Calvinists endure more generations before their churches start to drift towards apostasy and have to be radically brought back on track.The big issue that gets me going right now is that when Calvinists reach out to unbelievers they do it in a more biblical way. They realize that the dead man must be resurrected. There must be full repentance. We can preach the Gospel, but Jesus is in charge of building His church. We do our part and let Him do His. We do not need to soften the Gospel at all. Those who are drawn will see their condition and leave everything behind for salvation.The Arminianists think they are just altering the course of lives. They will stoop to bringing a 3-ring circus into their service if they think it will pack more people in. They will pitch the NT model of the church in a second for what the modern "Church-Growth Experts" tell them will fill the seats. They don't require repentance for that can come later after they get your name recorded so they can up their number of millions served on the billboard out front. They don't want any radical spirit-filled people in their church because it will make the lawyers and doctors uncomfortable who give a thousand a week. Don't ask people to fast or they might leave. Don't teach them to count the cost because you already deluded them into thinking that grace is cheap. If you can't tell it really gets to me!I guess it will just continue. The Calvinists think the Arminians are letting in too many unconverted and the Arminians think the Calvinists aren't spreading the Gospel. It just seems to me that in Acts we see the apostles taking care of the depth of the teaching while God adds the numbers and establishes the breadth of the ministry.Maybe you all think this is unrelated to the issue being discussed, but I think it all boils down to this issue as the center of these differing views.

Hi DavidThank you for this thorough response. However, I am still looking for a biblical definition of the will. ;-) I sometimes feel as though I am at the zoo and on one of the cages it says 'The Will'. There are various notes posted close at hand which tell me how it operates and what has happened to it, and how free or bound it is. My problem is that I can't see anything in the cage.I know how men behave. I know that by first birth we are dead in trespasses and sins. I know that Sin and Death have reached the whole race. I can think through the implications of different aspects of human-ness. I can study (I think I said this before) the spirit, the soul, the conscience, the imagination, the heart, even the 'reins'. I can examine the results of sin and regeneration on each. But when I try to study the will, biblically, I can't find an animal in the cage.What I am really saying is that I don't think that reference to a 'faculty of the soul whereby I make moral choices' is the way the Bible explains the 'dead in sins and trespasses' and the total contagion of sin in the human race.As a personal discipline I try to force my thinking into biblical language. My point here is, biblically, I have no idea what it meant by the will. Oh, I know how people use the concept but where in the bible is this concept to be found?This is not just an idle curiosity and I am not an iconoclast just for the sake of it. I am perplexed that every Christian thinker I have read (with the possible exception of Oswald Chambers) presupposes the existence of the thing called 'the will'. I can't be the only person who has ever asked this question, can I? All I am asking is for someone to point to some passage(s) of scripture and say "see here is 'the will'"We have the human condition in terrible clarity in the scriptures. I doubt we are going to find the right remedy unless we are making the right diagnosis. So what I want to do is to re-state the whole problem of 'congenital sin' etc in biblical terms.I have this sneaking suspicion that all this concentration on freedom/bondage of the will has taken our eyes off the ball.

nobody said:"I guess it will just continue. The Calvinists think the Arminians are letting in too many unconverted and the Arminians think the Calvinists aren't spreading the Gospel. It just seems to me that in Acts we see the apostles taking care of the depth of the teaching while God adds the numbers and establishes the breadth of the ministry."I obviously am not a Calvinist nor Arminian so if I say the wrong thing here I'll probably catch it from both sides LOL. However, here I go... The main problems I find with Calvinism is double predestination and the idea that all can be known when it comes to understanding how God works in the life of man. I would lean more on the Calvinism side only when compared to Arminianism. The main problem I have with Arminianism is the concept of sinful man reaching up to a Holy God, I can not comprehend that since there is none righteous and righteousness would have to come after making such a righteous choice. I am most comfortable in agreeing with Luther, some things are just not made known to us and we must be content with that unless we say we can not be content with faith. I do believe God elects unto salvation, I do not know any more than that. I think God left a lot of things unknown to us for two main reasons, one; unknown things require faith, two; if we knew all He does and why He does it then we would be tempted to question Him and be lost in philosophy without reason.************************************************************philologos said:"I sometimes feel as though I am at the zoo and on one of the cages it says 'The Will'. There are various notes posted close at hand which tell me how it operates and what has happened to it, and how free or bound it is. My problem is that I can't see anything in the cage."HAHAHA!!! That's a good analogy! But don't you think you're maybe focusing too much on the word "will" itself and not the content the word "will" is containing? Isn't the word "will" nothing more than a word we use to describe the desire(s) and choices of man. Much like "Trinity", the word is not in Scripture yet the definition certainly is.philologos said:"I can study (I think I said this before) the spirit, the soul, the conscience, the imagination, the heart, even the 'reins'. I can examine the results of sin and regeneration on each. But when I try to study the will, biblically, I can't find an animal in the cage."Again, the will is not so much the word itself as it is the process it carries. In other words, the will is a small title for a big production. If I were to say my "uncle died without a will" would you hold the word "will" to the meaning we are currently discussing or would you look at the context in which the word "will" was being used? The word "will" in "uncle died without a will" without doubt carries a different meaning than "according to the will of God". One is stating "requests" and one is stating "demands", however both convey a "will". In the question of the "free will" of man we would have to assume that first; man can make choices based on some sort of reasoning, second; man is presented choice(s), third; man can freely decide between choices presented to him. I don't hold to the 100% libertarian free will of man being able to make a righteous choice when it comes to our salvation. If God did not at some point "invade or space" then we would absolutely have the fruits of our "free will" in the eternal separation from God we are naturally inclined for because of sin.philologos said:"but where in the bible is this concept to be found?"Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make {one} wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (NASB)When you do something you could say you "will it" so in the above verse Eve and Adam did what they willed within the Sovereign will of God. I do not think the Bible teaches the will is a individual section of man, I think it teaches the will is the product or end result of our thought(s) leading to action(s).philologos said:"I have this sneaking suspicion that all this concentration on freedom/bondage of the will has taken our eyes off the ball."I would agree in part. I would disagree in that looking at our nature and current position (i.e. sin) is helpful to understand why we need salvation and seeing what the "will" of man has brought us when compared to the "will" of God. I think it is far too easy to get caught up in human philosophy and leaning too much on our own understanding which will lead to a sense of pride.If I were to define what I believe the word "will" conveys in the bible then I would say it is not a individual "part" of man such as the soul / body, I would say it is the product of our action(s) which were brought about by our thought(s). When we think, we act, which in turn leads us to try and bring about the reality of what we thought by the use of our action(s), all this is trying to "will" something or have it done our way. Just as people refer to the "heart", the actual physical organ "heart" of man does not have a thought capacity or a capacity to love, hate or feel anything. Yet we still attribute all of those to the human physical organ called the heart. I think the same is done with the "will", we are so used to referring to our "thoughtful actions or deeds or desires" as the "will" that we actually begin to think of the will as a individual part of man separate from the heart, mind, soul, spirit whatever... There can after all be no "will" without a mind or heart, can there? -David

Davidyou wrote Again, the will is not so much the word itself as it is the process it carries. In other words, the will is a small title for a big production. If I were to say my "uncle died without a will" would you hold the word "will" to the meaning we are currently discussing or would you look at the context in which the word "will" was being used? The word "will" in "uncle died without a will" without doubt carries a different meaning than "according to the will of God".This touches on one of things that disturbs me in our fixation with 'the human will', namely that as far as I can see the Bible only every uses the phrase in the Last Will and Testament sense. I don't mean as a formal document but as a declaration of intention or the publishing of a decision. The word 'Decree' comes to mind but I think it has been hyjacked by another area of theology and I don't think we can rehabilitate it for my purposes. --------------------------------------------------you also said If I were to define what I believe the word "will" conveys in the bible then I would say it is not a individual "part" of man such as the soul / body, I would say it is the product of our action(s) which were brought about by our thought(s). When we think, we act, which in turn leads us to try and bring about the reality of what we thought by the use of our action(s), all this is trying to "will" something or have it done our way. Suppose we start again with a word that we have to define. Let's make one up; "the schlumpf". Now lets retell our story. Almost all Christians believe we have a schlumpf (if anyone stumbles onto this thread they will call out the men in the white coats :-D) and Christians believe that the schlumpf is where we make moral decisions. They don't think we make decisions about the colour of our socks with the schlumpf, they believe we make those decisions with our mind; they have lots of Bible verses about the mind. They don't believe we makes decisions about who we should love with the schlumpf, they believe we make those decisions with the heart; they have lots of Bible verses about the heart. Sometimes they say the conscience informs the schlumpf but the conscience itself doesn't make the decision; they have lots of verses about the conscience. They believe the schlumpf is part of the way the soul works, and they have lots of Bible verses about the soul. They believe we have a spirit which is the spiritual engine of all that their body or soul does; they have lots of verses about the body and the soul. They have no verses about the schlumpf but they have the most thoroughgoing discussions about it. The whole church is divided up into people who believe it can do something or nothing; but they have no Bible verses about the schlumpf. Some who are willing to give it some thought might say, the schlumpf is not so much the word itself as it is the process it carries. I want to say but where does this schlumpf process take place and what factors affect the process?They believe that amazing things take place in regeneration. They believe that we are given a new heart and new spirit and that their consciences can be sprinkled clean. They believe that the mind can be constantly renewed in a new images. They have Bible verses for all these things. Often they may say the soul is redeemed and God's begins a process of total possession for its blessing; they have Bible verses... They believe they will have a new body; they have Bible verses.I don't know what they think happens to the schlumpf in regenerationa because I'm not sure where they think it is, so I don't know if any of the changes that take place in regeneration affect it in any way. Whole theologies are based on whether the schlumpf is free to make those moral decisions, or not. My problem is that if I stick to biblical concepts and expressions I have no idea what the schlumpf is. David, I am not patronising you in this silly story, just trying to see how we got here, and whether or not there is any way out. I don't mean to offend but I am not ultimately concerned with what Calvin or Finney say about the schlumpf, I want to know what the Book says. I think I can describe the Fall and its consequences and the results of regeneration without a single reference to the will; it shouldn't be difficult, after all the Bible achieves it. I think the 'will-less' description is much clearer but it requires tremendous patience in both teacher and listener, otherwise it is so easy to trigger those 'schlumpf: free/bound reactions. ---------------------------------------------------you also said When you do something you could say you "will it" so in the above verse Eve and Adam did what they willed within the Sovereign will of God. I do not think the Bible teaches the will is a individual section of man, I think it teaches the will is the product or end result of our thought(s) leading to action(s).Well, yes you could, but I think it would be much more natural to say 'I did it', 'I decided to do it' 'I weighed up the alternatives, and I chose it'. 'I found myself so strongly drawn to it that I was taken captive by the idea and could not resist doing it'. ...and to hint at a solution rather than keep telling you my problems, you will find it in the above paragraph, that often repeated word "I". I think that is where the whole issue lies. I think "I" am to blame, "I" am to be held accountable. "I" can be born-again, "I" can be filled with a new Spirit. "I" don't have to live as the person "I" was born. "I" can believe and be changed.that was a long one, my apologies.

philologos said:"Christians believe that the schlumpf is where we make moral decisions. They don't think we make decisions about the colour of our socks with the schlumpf, they believe we make those decisions with our mind; they have lots of Bible verses about the mind. They don't believe we makes decisions about who we should love with the schlumpf, they believe we make those decisions with the heart; they have lots of Bible verses about the heart. Sometimes they say the conscience informs the schlumpf but the conscience itself doesn't make the decision; they have lots of verses about the conscience. They believe the schlumpf is part of the way the soul works, and they have lots of Bible verses about the soul. They believe we have a spirit which is the spiritual engine of all that their body or soul does; they have lots of verses about the body and the soul. They have no verses about the schlumpf but they have the most thoroughgoing discussions about it."I would say you made a very good point here, I think the thing which causes the most confusion about this is that people divide man into a whole list of individual parts and often times try to assign the same function(s) to more than just one part. I think we could go in circles on this topic since it will always come down to the definition of every single word used to define the word we wish to define! LOL In the simplest way I know how I will now try to show my example....Soul = Mind, Heart, PersonalityThe problem here is that people always divide each of the above parts into even more words! They will refer to the Mind, Brain, Soul and Will all in one sentence! What they don't understand is that when you refer to the mind and soul separately within on sentence you are causing a division between the two words. Saying they cannot mean one in the same. I do not think the Bible teaches the mind is some entirely separate individual part of man not related to the soul. I think the Bible uses "all inclusive sweeping statements" for example:Matt 22:37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'Christ is not so much saying "each part individually" as He is saying "With everything you are" no matter what you call it or label it. A ship can be a boat and a boat can be a yacht and a yacht can be a boat and a boat can be a toy in the bath. You can increase and decrease the meaning of a word within a sentence without knowing it or intending to and it will either still contain some resemblance of the authors intent or lower the understanding of the intention to a level not intended. This is why I think Christ just made a broad sweeping statement in Matt 22:37, because if you notice in Luke 10:25 the Lawyer who repeats this commandment to Christ does so like:Luke 10:27 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."He adds "strength" where Jesus did not. I think we waste a lot of time trying to overly-define a word which in turn leads us to divide the word into even more meanings than originally intended. It's like teaching your child what the word "dog" means, every single time he sees a different breed of dog he could logically ask a good question by saying "Is that a dog?" We assign too many breeds to our words and then try to narrow each breed down to make it fit within one single breed.James 1:26 ¶ If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his {own} heart, this man's religion is worthless..The above verse attributes thought to the heart, most people attribute thoughts to the mind, brain, whatever... The human organ the heart does not posses the capacity to think or feel anything. It is a muscle, so the word "heart" as used in scripture is not attributing all these processes to a human organ. Same with the mind and it's relation or non-relation to the physical organ of the brain. So why go further and separate the "will" and try to fit it within a single location when it is not a "single function" of a individual part within a specific location? The Bible tells us to have "the mind of God" does that mean we should need a new brain? The word "mind" must then mean something other than the actual "part", it must mean a want or desire or "will"... ___________________________________________________________________philologos said:"I want to say but where does this schlumpf process take place and what factors affect the process?"The problem is that the schlumpf does not require a certain actual physical location, it isn't a "part" as much as it is a "desire"... When God says He gives you a "new heart" do you demand to see the old one just to be sure? The "will" or "schlumpf" is without location, if the will had a location then it would not be a "will" anymore, it would be a "willer" with the process of "willing".___________________________________________________________________philologos said:"I don't know what they think happens to the schlumpf in regenerationa because I'm not sure where they think it is, so I don't know if any of the changes that take place in regeneration affect it in any way. Whole theologies are based on whether the schlumpf is free to make those moral decisions, or not."I honestly do think you're making it harder than it needs be, you answered your own question. You have your mind and heart which before regeneration do what? They do what YOU reason to do based on YOUR reasoning. The end process of that reasoning once acted upon or conceived is your "will". After regeneration you do what? Do you still desire to only do what you always did? Or do you now desire to do what you would normally have never wanted? What happened??? You now want to do what God desires and you want to do the best for others instead of yourself. You still have times when you want to do what you used to do but there is something there now which wasn't before. What is it? It is the "will" of God, you no longer obey only you without guilt. The things you do that you no longer want to do is "your will", the things you want to do that you find difficult to do is His "will". Matt 26:39 ¶ And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."How can the will of Christ "seem" to be wanting something other than the will of God? Exchange the word "will" with the word "desire", or exchange it with "want". Christ was 100% man and 100% God, yet He never obeyed what we would assume to be the natural instinctive will of man when facing a horrible death which possibly could have been avoidable if He DESIRED. The whole "free will" teaching has caused a HUGE mess I think because if that teaching is held to strictly then Christ did NOT have to have the will of the Father necessarily and could have went a different way.___________________________________________________________________philologos said:"My problem is that if I stick to biblical concepts and expressions I have no idea what the schlumpf is."Ok, here's a question... If you don't know what the will is then what words would you use to describe the things you do which you do not want to do and the things you want to do which you do not do?___________________________________________________________________philologos said:"David, I am not patronising you in this silly story, just trying to see how we got here, and whether or not there is any way out. I don't mean to offend but I am not ultimately concerned with what Calvin or Finney say about the schlumpf, I want to know what the Book says.I would agree! I don't care what Calvin or Finney say either, I'm not a Calvinist just incase you thought I was. I never once thought you were patronizing! This is fun stuff for me!___________________________________________________________________philologos said:"I think I can describe the Fall and its consequences and the results of regeneration without a single reference to the will; it shouldn't be difficult, after all the Bible achieves it. I think the 'will-less' description is much clearer but it requires tremendous patience in both teacher and listener, otherwise it is so easy to trigger those 'schlumpf: free/bound reactions."I would say you're dead-on! I know you don't want man's opinion on this but.... Have you ever read "The Bondage Of The Will" by Martin Luther? Here is a quote of his:"Wherefore, the prescience and Omnipotence of God, are diametrically opposite to our "Free-will." And it must be, that either God is deceived in His prescience and errs in His action, (which is impossible) or we act, and are acted upon, according to His prescience and action.—But by the Omnipotence of God, I mean, not that power by which He does not many things that He could do, but that actual power by which He powerfully works all in all, in which sense the Scripture calls Him Omnipotent. This Omnipotence and prescience of God, I say, utterly abolishes the doctrine of "Free-will." No pretext can here be framed about the obscurity of the Scripture, or the difficulty of the subject-point: the words are most clear, and known to every school-boy; and the point is plain and easy and stands proved by judgment of common sense; so that the series of ages, of times, or of persons, either writing or teaching to the contrary, be it as great as it may, amounts to nothing at all."-DavidPS,I need to put my hands on ice, I haven't typed this much in a looooooooooooong time...

David wrote lots and lots but I will just comment on this bit "Wherefore, the prescience and Omnipotence of God, are diametrically opposite to our "Free-will."I have my own copy of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, and Edwards 'The Freedom of the Will' by which he seems to have meant what Luther meant by the 'Bondage of the Will'.I disagree with the logic of the above quote in that prescience and omnipotence are not necessarily diametrically opposite to our 'free will'. The fact of God's omnipotence does not mean He has to use it all the time, and ominscience is not the same as predetermination.Secondly, if by 'free-will' Luther means 'ability to choose', what can be the purpose of God saying "choose you this day whom you will serve" or "I set before you life and death, choose life" if I have no ability to choose?How can God measure either sin or virtue if we have no ability to choose? I am not denying here the fact that God must initiate every moment of faith; it comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If God does not speak we cannot believe, but I am absolutely sure that if God does speak we can believe, otherwise what does the rebuke 'o ye of little faith' mean? He blames me for disobeying and commends me for obeying. His commendation will not puff me up, I know it was His enabling. Every crown He gives will be cast at His feet. There is a passage of scripture which helped me to understand this a long time ago. [1 Chr 29:14,17]all things come of thee and of thine own have we given theeI know also, my God, that thou triest the heartEverything comes from God, but God will hold me accountable for what I do with it. When God commands all men everywhere to repent, He enables all men everywhere to repent; His word always comes with enabling power. If I don't use the faith that He gives I am doubly blameworthy, for my sins against the light and for my conscious disobedience to His enabling command.

Hi Ron,You know where I stand too on, this all IMPORTANT issue. :-o You know how I've continued through the raging debate to maintain a RIGID flexibility about the whole matter. :-D So, I'd just like to point out at this CRITICAL juncture; that just as there is no "schlumph" in the Bible; neither is there an "I" in Supralapsayreeun. :-D Clutch :-P

Hi ClutchGood to see you're keeping up with the plot. ;-) If it gets too hot just ask the nurse to wheel you out of the sun. :-P

philologos said:"Secondly, if by 'free-will' Luther means 'ability to choose', what can be the purpose of God saying "choose you this day whom you will serve" or "I set before you life and death, choose life" if I have no ability to choose?"Well sort of, Luther was arguing against the idea of a totally "free will". I'm not sure but it sounds like the questions you have about the "will" would be better directed towards one who holds to Arminianism since they hold to the strict freedom of the will. Or maybe even a Hyper-Calvinist who holds to practically no will. When I read the questions I get the idea you may think I am on the Hyper-Calvinist side when that is not true at all. My exact stance on the predestination and free will is that I believe God elects UNTO salvation but not unto reprobation. I believe Christ died for ALL sins and not a just limited atonement. I do not believe in the 100% freedom of the will.philologos said:"How can God measure either sin or virtue if we have no ability to choose? I am not denying here the fact that God must initiate every moment of faith; it comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If God does not speak we cannot believe, but I am absolutely sure that if God does speak we can believe, otherwise what does the rebuke 'o ye of little faith' mean?"What I was arguing was that man on his OWN is not able to come to God apart from God. The Bible is clear about election unto salvation. I do not believe man can come to God apart from God and initiate the beginning of salvation. Unless God does it, we have no hope. ALL Glory goes to God, nothing righteous is in man. I do not hold to the view where God can change His mind because we do something so good that He questions His originial judgment.philologos said:"Everything comes from God, but God will hold me accountable for what I do with it. When God commands all men everywhere to repent, He enables all men everywhere to repent; His word always comes with enabling power. If I don't use the faith that He gives I am doubly blameworthy, for my sins against the light and for my conscious disobedience to His enabling command."Now here is where we would disagree. I do not think that simply because God makes known to us the "whys" of our sinfulness that' that indicates our own ability to correct that sinfulness. The Ten Commandments are a list of what is wrong with us, could you keep them all even with your faith? By saying we of our own goodness can do anything righteous at all goes directly against Scriptures teaching of "There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE". If I could make one righteous choice (and choosing God apart from God would be a righteous choice) then I would become righteous because I made a righteous choice. God WILL hold you accountable for what you do, but does He hold you accountable for the bad as well? Why would He judge only the righteousness of those He calls "Unrighteous"? It would appear that judgment has been made when saying "there is none righteous" would God second guess His original judgment?-David

This touches on one of things that disturbs me in our fixation with 'the human will', namely that as far as I can see the Bible only every uses the phrase in the Last Will and Testament sense. I don't mean as a formal document but as a declaration of intention or the publishing of a decision.I was always told emphaticaly that the soul IS 1)the mind 2)the will 3)& the emotionsOften wondered about that, these concepts do certainly seem to take root and too often we forget to ask where they came from. Some of the people I have felowshiped with in the past would often say "you are a spirit, you have a soul and you live in a body" If anything the bible calls us "souls" not spirits. Anyway on to the issue of the will...A couple of verses spring to mind immediatly:luke 22:42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.The first willing is 'boulomai' from the same word used in philipians 1:12 (and many other places)"But I would ye should understand, brethren,"described as:1) to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded 2) of willing as an affection, to desire When Jesus used the word "not my will" the greek is thelema. it is used in "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."Also in "thy kingdom come, thy will be done""he that does the will of the father" Obviously isn't someone that excercises a faculty of God's known as "the will" it is those who do the Father's desire. This is the only will that I can see in the bible...a desire or intention. In Ph 1:12 Paul is telling the believers what he would like, what his desire is, what his will is. How do I arrive at a plave of final decision? I don't really know. I could say at times "my spirit is willing, but my flesh is weak" yet at times I may decide to go against the desires of my flesh and perservere, who made that decision? My spirit, my soul, or my body? I dont know how all the pieces fit together but I know that God says that it was I, Stuart, who made the decison. Certainly I was aided by God's grace but it was "I" who ate the fruit, and "I" who chose it, can't blame that woman he gave me. It is "I" whom He asked to repent and it was "I" who bowed the knee and so that His life could come in and replace this sinful "I" that I was. I stand amazed at the love of a creator who could fashion people in his own image with a very real personality that has the ability to think and make choices.People speak of the will as if it were a part of a car engine. Get the will reved up and into gear and off you go. Its as if there were some seperate part of you called "the will". But what then do people mean when they say "I chose to excersise my will to do such and such". chose? with what, your will ?Don't know how much of this makes sense, I am putting it together as I go along, haven't got the willpower to sit down and think it through properly.:-)