The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Does God force men to sin?

Hi Pilgrim,

Man can choose to reject God after being saved by God's kindness. Cf. Rom 11:22, Heb 10:26-29, 2 Pt 2:20-21, 1 Cor 9:27.

Those faint of heart should know that hope, being a theological virtue, has not limitations. We can hope for all things. Cf. 1 Cor 13.

Next, I do not speak of man's sovereignty apart from God, but only of man's partaking in God's sovereignty through God's choice. "He chose us."

Scripture says we have been made "partakers in the divine nature". Cf. 2 Pt 1:4. Some words for this one Nature are "sovereignty" or "power" or "love". "God is love." Cf. 1 Jn 4:8.

EPHESIANS 3:

14For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named,

16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man,

17That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity,

18You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth:

19To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.


Therefore we can be filled with the sovereignty of God. This is why we can intercede for all men though Christ.. Cf. 1 Tim 2:1-2etc. By making us partakers of the Divine Nature, God asks us to help Him draw all things to Himself.

Jn 12:

32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

This is an impossibility since God has eternally determined to save a specific number of people for Himself and infallibly secured their salvation in the sending of Christ Who made full atonement for them. We who believe the Scriptures to be inspired hold that there are no contradictions to be found in them. There are far too many passages which speak of the eternal security of TRUE believers to allow us to entertain such a notion. Let's take each one of these passages you have referenced (without any exegetical comment) to see what they actually teach.

1. Rom 11:22: Paul is speaking of two groups which is more than evident; Jews who were cut off due to their unbelief and Gentiles who at this time God had bestowed His goodness. The entire context is dealing with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church with a warning to them to not be presumptuous of that great blessing. What are we to make of the apodosis, "otherwise thou also shall be cut off"? What is not to be assumed is that any true individual believer can be cut off. Why? Because Paul had already established such in great passionate detail previously in the same letter, cf. 5:1, 8-10; 8:1, 29-39. See also Isa 43:1-3; 54:10; Jer 32:40; Matt 18:12-14; Jh 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 10:27-30; 17:11,12,15; 1Cor 1:7-9; 10:13; 2Cor 4:14, 17; Eph 1:5,13,14; 4:30; Col 3:3,4; 1Thess 5:23,24; 2Tim 4:18; Heb 9:12,15; 10:14; 12:28; 1Pet 1:3-5; 1Jh 2:19,25; 5:4,11-13,20; Jude 1,24,25.
2. Heb 10:26-29: The writer is addressing those who profess faith. This type of warning is found in myriad places in Scripture which warnings emphasize the individual's responsibility to continue in the faith they profess. There is, once again, no warrant to take this text as teaching that a TRUE believer can apostatize for it would contradict the myriad passages (noted above) that clearly teach otherwise. A professing believer is to persevere. One who fails to do so to the end will suffer damnation which therefore shows this person never had true faith.
3. 2Pet 2:20,21: Again, this text does not indicate it is being addressed to a TRUE believer but rather those who had heard the Gospel, had a change of mind/life and then turned back to their old ways, i.e. living in sin. Those who only have an external appearance of salvation do not have any real assurance of eternal life as they eventually show that they had no union with Christ. Cf. Matt 13:1-23; Mk 4:3-20; Lk 8:5-15.
4. 1Cor 9:27: Here Paul is warning those at Corinth specifically and to all who profess faith everywhere that the indolent and self-indulgent professing Christian has no reason to be assured of salvation. One cannot do as the Corinthians were want to do, i.e., they thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very edge of sin, while Paul considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation; fighting the old man (remnants of the sin nature) within. He clearly states this battle in Romans 7:24,25. In short, one cannot expect to own an assurance of salvation when living a life of sin. Assurance is only given to those who fight the good fight against sin within and without.

You continue to make assertions without any evidence that such things are taught in Scripture. The phrase, "He chose us" is most always connected to Christ and unto salvation, e.g., "He chose us in Him [Christ]" (Eph 1:4; 2Thess 2:13; Deut 7:6,7; Ps 135:4; Isa 41:8; 42:1; Matt 11:25-27; Jh 10:16; Acts 13:48; Rom 9:23; 2Thess 2:13,14; 1Pet 2:9) There is NOTHING in any of these passages nor in the ones you keep referencing that speaks to believers "partaking in God's sovereignty"! God cannot divest Himself nor share His incommunicable attributes. This sounds more like Mormonism.

Please prove from Scripture that "Nature" is used as a synonym for "sovereignty".

Hi Pilgrim, Thank you. I'm trying to understand what you are saying... If the Scriptures say that "all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) excludes his attribute of sovereignty... Where is that stated? In God, Dan Schultz

There are some attributes of God which are not communicable to man. Surely you don't believe that any man shares God's omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, do you?

I've already stated that God's sovereignty is one of His incommunicable attributes. CovenantInBlood's response is very apropos for 'Omnipotence' is synonymous with sovereignty (authority and power). Thus it is impossible that any creature could share that attribute. All that God has created is subservient and totally dependent upon God and forever shall be.

Secondly, the text says "to (Grk: eis [to the end]) the fulness of God" and not "with the fulness of God"; a significant difference to be sure. A literal translation would be, "in order that you [pl] may be filled up to all the fulness of God."

Thirdly, thus the meaning of this phrase is, the entire moral excellence of God; the fulness and brightness of His spiritual perfections. It is plainly contrary to fact and experience to understand the term of the uncreated essence of God, for such an idea would involve us in a species of pantheism. Positively, Paul prays for strength, for the indwelling of Christ, for the unmovable foundation in love, for a comprehension of the size and vastness of the spiritual temple (the body of the believer in which God by the Spirit dwells, and for a knowledge of the love of Christ; and when such blessings are conferred and enjoyed, they are the means of bringing into the heart this Divine fulness. (cf. Col 2:19)

I think this is called dividing up God and adding to Scripture.

Peace in Christ, Patricius

How so? Are you willing to be consistent and suggest that man also possesses Omnipresence, Omniscience, Aseity, Immutability, Simplicity, Invisibility, etc. along with Omnipotence? Does not Scripture attribute to the infinite God certain qualities and attributes which man does not have from the simple fact that man is finite, a created being?

Every one of God's attributes is identical with His being: God's attributes do not differ from His essence nor from one another. He is what He has. When we speak about creatures, we distinguish variously between what they are and what they have; e.g., a human being remains a human being even though he has lost the image of God and has become a sinner. But when we speak about God, we must maintain that each of His attributes is identical with His being. God is all light, all mind, all wisdom, all logos, all spirit, etc.

I notice that you don't cite any Scripture in your argument that we should divide the nature of God and contradict the Scriprure."

"I pray...that you may be filled with the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, unto all the fulness of God." Eph 3:19.

"3) Even God Himself is void of a "free will", i.e., God Almighty cannot choose to will nor do that which is contrary to His thrice holy nature."

Pilgrim,

You make this point earlier on, and I wanted to ask you about it, now that it seems your previous discussion appears ended.

I think you are correct, in that God cannot do that which is contrary to his nature.

But I think God has free will. God has limitations, if you want to call them those (you might as well say a perpetually healthy man is limited in that he can't be sick), but can't you have free and still be limited in some way?

Mike

Mike,

What is needed, as most always, is to define terms. "Free-will" is a term that was brought to the table by Pelagians, semi-Pelagians and Arminians against what the Church has believed from day one. Just to give you a reference point on the antiquity of all this, Augustine and the Church of his day refuted and denounced the Pelagians in their denial of the noetic effects of the fall, aka: "Total Depravity". (cf. The Council of Orange) They insisted as do all three of these groups which encompass all religions, sects and cults outside of the historic Church, that man was never without the ability to choose, to some measure, either good or evil. Put another way, they insist that man is capable of choosing that which is contrary to his nature. The Scriptures and Calvinism in complete agreement teach that man is a "free-agent", i.e., he can make choices. But those choices are limited according to a man's nature. Thus, a sinner who is 'dead in trespasses and sins', i.e., a natural man who has inherited the corruption of nature due to Adam's transgression (1/2 of Original Sin; the other half being the imputed guilt), has no ability to choose that which is good, to love God, to turn from his sin and love righteousness. In this sense, fallen man can ONLY choose that which is evil because he loves sin.

So, God being thrice holy in His very nature is incapable of sinning, i.e., transgressing his own holy law. Therefore, God doesn't have a "free-will"; the ability to choose that which is contrary to His nature.

IF you are wanting to discuss this matter further, I would suggest that you start a new thread as it is a bit off topic... "Does God force men to sin?"

I notice that you continue to produce responses without substance.

1. That's a rather peculiar thing to charge me with given you don't accept the full authority of Scripture.

2. My response was one of reasonable logic to your premise to show it is nothing more than a tergiversation.

3. My question still stands and it would be helpful if you would simply answer it. And, if you would so desire, you could cite Scripture along with official pronouncements from Popes and/or the Magisterium and/or official Catholic documents.

QUESTION:
Are you willing to be consistent and suggest that man also possesses Omnipresence, Omniscience, Aseity, Immutability, Simplicity, Invisibility, etc. along with Omnipotence?

"Thus, a sinner who is 'dead in trespasses and sins', i.e., a natural man who has inherited the corruption of nature due to Adam's transgression (1/2 of Original Sin; the other half being the imputed guilt), has no ability to choose that which is good, to love God, to turn from his sin and love righteousness."

Is someone dead to sin unable to sin?

Mike

PS. Didn't Socrates address this in _Phaedrus_ w.r.t. chariot analogy? Free will is a philosophical concept - philosophy isn't constrained to the narrow world of Calvin and his intellectual adversaries.

Oh, and free will is in my Bible; what do you think a free will offering is?

No, one who is 'dead to sin' is able to sin and does. However, this is a decidedly different matter than one who is 'dead IN sin', cf: Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13; Rom 7:7-25. Being dead TO sin is a matter of sanctification vs. being dead IN sin is a matter of one's spiritual state, aka: unregenerate, natural, fallen, etc. In regeneration, as stated elsewhere, a new nature is created; a new disposition, spiritual life which determines the will (choices). Only in glorification is a person's nature wholly eradicated of any sinful tendencies. I would highly commend to you Thomas Boston's notable work, Human Nature in its Four-Fold State.

In the field of hermeneutics, this is classically known as a "Psycho-statistical-mean".

Again, I have already taken the time to point out that the phrase, "free-will" is a theological term foisted by all those outside of the Reformed camp to mean the ability of fallen men to choose that which is contrary to their nature. It has absolutely no reference nor relevance to a "free will offering". The proposal is so absurd I have to take your statement as comedic.

Some people wrote and spoke about free will prior to the Reformation, Pilgrim. It was not a theological term - it was a philosophical term.

I know many Calvinists tend to gravitate away from anything or anyone prior to the 16th century, aside from Augustine, but if you take a little tour of free will you'll probably have some good reading ahead of you. The dialogues of Plato are fascinating - I'm sure Calvin studied them closely when he earned his degree in Philosophy at the University of Paris.

Yes, you do appear to be in some kind of camp. But don't be afraid to explore the land around it. And to develop the analogy (I assume you're not actually in a real 'Reformed camp', though you never know these days), you may find the cities around you are older than your camp. In other words, free will wasn't foisted upon the Reformed tradition.

Quite the opposite, predestination was foisted upon the free will tradition. To be fair, I think it was a matter of the determinist position finding new friends in religion and politics.

Now, I know, Augustine wrote about what we call predestination in the 4th century. But you have to wonder why no one else, as far as I can tell, wrote about it until the 16th.

We've compared Calvin to CS Lewis. I'd like to draw an even clearer comparison between Augustine and Chrysostom. Chrysostom advocated free will.

Do you know much about Chrysostom? I'll provide some background if you need it, but suffice to say he believed in free will, and preached as much.

I'm sorry, but what is so comedic about taking scripture seriously? There was a free will offering. Why did they call it that?

Mike