tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post6110031916010198311..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 2 – The Total Depravity of ManRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-43259002882873412002015-01-28T13:16:23.680-05:002015-01-28T13:16:23.680-05:00Steven J,
It's difficult to reconcile the con...Steven J,<br /><br />It's difficult to reconcile the concept of “free will” with God's sovereignty. How can God be sovereign if I can choose to disobey Him? I believe the answer lies in what some people have identified as God's “perfect will” and His “permissive will.” Obviously, God does not want me to sin. However, I still sin. If I decided to commit some particular sin (say going to a men's club to see women dancing), surely it is in God's power to stop me. I could drop dead in the parking lot even before entering. The fact that I can enter at all is only because He has allowed it to happen. In other words, it is only by His “permissive will.” <br /><br />God already knows the choices we will make. He also knows the consequences. A person might be completely opposed to God but cannot help but do His will. I've often used the example of Judas, the Pharisees, and Pilate. They all might have believed they were destroying Jesus, but it had already been determined before the creation of the world that Jesus would give His life on the cross. They acted according to their own free will but only succeeded in accomplishing the very thing God had already ordained would be done.<br /><br />Another example is from Genesis concerning Joseph and his brothers. God showed Joseph in a dream that his brothers would one day bow down to him. In a fit of jealously, his brothers beat him, threw him in a pit, and then sold him into slavery. After his many years in Egypt, Joseph became a ruler and the very thing God had showed him in a dream came to pass – his brothers bowed down to him. What the brothers meant for evil was used by God to accomplish His will. Their free will could not thwart the plans of God.<br /><br />I used to play chess. I was pretty good, actually. It was funny during some games when I could see the checkmate coming in 4 or 5 moves but my opponent kept playing without seeing it. In his mind, he thought he was still playing the game but I already knew it was over. I was just waiting for it to play out. That must be how our lives seem to God.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-64761960377785218272015-01-25T20:03:42.333-05:002015-01-25T20:03:42.333-05:00It seems to me that the doctrine of unconditional ...It seems to me that the doctrine of unconditional election (since "predestination" by itself might refer to corporate predestination: God has willed irrevocably and unilaterally that the church will be saved, without necessarily choosing who will comprise the church) rests on two problems.<br /><br />The first is that the Bible, in various places, declares that God chooses who will be saved, that God desires none to perish, and that not all will be saved. This seems like a classic "pick any two" (or at least, emphasize two and downplay the third) situation: pick the first and third, you get Calvinism, pick the second and third, you get Arminianism, pick the first and second, you get universalism). Pick all three and you get a splitting headache.<br /><br />The second is the relationship between free will and cause and effect. What, as Michael Gazzaniga asks, do we want free will to be free <i>from</i>? Or, as Daniel C. Dennett puts it, is a free will so libertarian that it is not even constrained by our own desires and beliefs "a type of free will worth wanting?" Both argue (against classical "libertarian" free will supporters) for "compatibilism," the view that our will, although determined by our history and nature, is free as long as it is not constrained by mental illness or coercion. Note that this is also the position, as I understand it, of John Calvin (Luther rejected both libertarianism and compatibilism with regard to the will); as some early Calvinists put it, we are free to choose as we please, but we are not free to choose what to be pleased by.<br /><br />Thus it is in principle possible to have free will but to be unable to make certain choices (because they are contrary to one's nature, innate desires, and core beliefs). The contrary, libertarian view (note: this is distinct from the "libertarian" view in politics and economics, though there is some overlap among adherents of the two) might seem more free, but implies that you could someday end up making "free" choices that don't follow in any ways from one's own nature and deepest wishes -- you might "freely" decide to do the opposite of everything you'd ever freely valued.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com