Man's Free Will

[email]

I believe your article on God's Sovereignty misses and misunderstands the core point. I have no problem that the Sovereign God has created man with a "free will" to fulfil His ultimate purpose for mankind. For example, it is because of my "free will" that I am writing you this e-mail and God did not rule this from the eternity past. However, I believe that the Sovereign God did foreknew that I would write this e-mail to you on 3rd August 2001 at this precise time.

However the core issue is that of salvation of man. The Bible is abundantly clear that man's "free will" is totally impotent when understanding his great spiritual need for salvation and coming to Christ. The scriptures like John 6:37-40, John 6:44, Romans 8:29-30, II Timothy1:9 and many others leave absolutely no room for man's "free will". All the "whosoever" scriptures in the Bible must be understood in the light of the clear scripture like John 6:44. Our salvation is 100% the work of God from start to finish, and it has to be like this otherwise our salvation is not of grace but of works or at best works + grace.

I have never heard a Christian who believes in man's "free will" is able to explain adequately the scripture John 6:37 and John 6:44.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out" "No one can to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him: and I will raise him up at the last day"

I should be interested to know how you understand the above scripture with your understanding of man's "free will"

[m273p15c]

let me praise you for your desire to study the Bible and better understand God's Word. "As iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17), so will our study be a blessing for both of us, as long as we sincerely and honestly seek the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10-12). I pray that both of us will come to a better understanding of the truth, and that we may both exemplify Christ's attitude in our interactions together. Also, I appreciate your frankness in your note. I pray that we may both be able to speak clearly and frankly, not taking offense, assuming that the other has our best interests at heart (I Corinthians 13:7).

Now to your questions at hand. Regarding the sovereignty of God, according to the Calvinistic system of theology, foreordination and foreknowledge our mutually inclusive. If God knows something will happen, then He must have determined it. This was Calvin's foundation. He often quoted passages referring to God knowing everything about us, even the number of hairs on our head, to prove God's foreknowledge and necessary foreordination. Maybe more like your beliefs, I understand that God does indeed foreknow everything; however, I understand that God has allowed man's free-will to shape and mold this future. One may question how can God know all things if He has not enforced every detail. The answer, which I believe Calvin missed, is that God is not like man, trapped in time, traveling along side of us, seeing future things that have not yet occurred; rather, He is an eternal being that foreknows our future, because to Him it is past. It has already happened for Him. He exists outside of time, transcending the limitations by which we are bound. Time has no meaning to Him (II Peter 3:8). He has foreseen all events before time even began (Hebrews 4:3). Christ sacrifice was foreseen by God and the resulting salvation promised to us before time began (Titus 1:2). I must confess that the Hebrews and Titus passages are referring to God's works, but I believe that it logically follows our works were mutually foreseen and understood, else God's prophecies based on man's behaviors could not have been certain. This also follows from God's omnipotent and omniscient nature, which teach that He is all-powerful and all-knowing (Psalm 139). There is certainly some room for speculation and opinion in this latter development of exactly how God knows all things while not foreordaining all things. This is only one Scripturally based, plausible explanation. Others exist. However, I believe that we must necessarily accept one of these conclusion by faith as it logically follows the alternative "free-will" explanation to Calvin's questions.

However, as you noted this is not the core point. It is fundamental to examine as all of Calvinism is built upon this point: God is absolutely Sovereign. The core point cannot be adequately examined, if its foundation is not first tested. Now, let's move into the question that is of greater concern to us, "What is the role of man's will in salvation?" A closely related question is, "Who is responsible for man's salvation and condemnation?".

You stated, and I quote for the purpose of setting a goal to study, "The Bible is abundantly clear that man's 'free will' is totally impotent when understanding his great spiritual need for salvation and coming to Christ. The scriptures like John 6:37-40, John 6:44, Romans 8:29-30, II Timothy 1:9 and many others leave absolutely no room for man's 'free will'. All the 'whosever' scriptures in the Bible must be understood in the light of the clear scripture like John 6:44. Our salvation is 100% the work of God from start to finish, and it has to be like this otherwise our salvation is not of grace but of works or at best works + grace."

In response, first of all, please consider the parable of the sower. Four different types of grounds, representing four different types of hearts of men, were sown with seed, representing the word of God. In Luke's account of the parable, Jesus notes the following results:

5 "A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6 "Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. 7 "And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. 8 "But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold." When He had said these things He cried, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

In His explanation, he states:

11 " Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 "Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 "But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 "Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

Notice that the good ground are those who hear with a noble and good heart. Obviously they are not sinless beings, else they would have no need of the gospel; however, they were interested and seeking noble and good things, such that the scripture says they "heard the word with a noble and good heart" (Romans 2:6-10). Now, if man is so depraved that he cannot even realize his need for God, how can he possible listen with a good and sincere heart?

Anticipating a possible reply, one inclined to Calvinism may believe that this heart was prepared by the Holy Spirit. How else could one listen with a heart that is already "good"? First of all please note that if this is true, then this passage clearly separates the working of the Holy Spirit from that of the gospel. The seed fell on good ground, and then the seed took root. This good heart, if prepared by the Spirit, was in this condition before it received the message. If Calvinism be true, and the heart is made good by the Holy Spirit before the gospel is heard, then where is the working of God? In the Spirit, or in the Word? It seems to me that at this point Calvinism is in direct conflict with the Bible, because Paul says the "gospel is the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16). If this heart was made good by the Spirit, which the sinner cannot resist, then how can Paul say that God's power resided in the gospel unto salvation? How can this be answered unless the word of God has power to influence a heart that has stumbled, sinned, and fallen, but with regret looks for good and noble things?

Please also briefly consider the other types of ground that received the word. The thorny and shallow ground both received the seed and a plant grew there; however, it was not sustained by the soil. How could the Holy Spirit have power to begin a regeneration but not complete it? Along these lines, Jesus said of the residents of Jerusalem:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:30)

Jesus was willing for these people to be saved, but yet they were not. According to Calvinism, upon God's selection and will for one to be saved, no man can resist this God's will and not be saved. How is it then that Jesus was willing, but yet these people were not saved? Could these men have been more powerful than God? Could Jesus' will not been in harmony with the Father's? Could Jesus' have willed and sought that which was against the Father's will? Clearly, Jesus never sought that, because Jesus' will was always second to the Father's (Matthew 26:39). Also, no creature can overpower the Creator, and none cannot act where the Creator has not given it power to do so (Isaiah 29:13-16). Therefore, how was it that these people were able to resist both the Father's and the Son's will that they should be saved?

The parable of the sower shows that soul of man is capable of and does may the gospel willingly. Jesus statement shows that men may also reject God's will through their own stubborn choosing, as also evidenced by the hardened ground from the parable of the sower. Moreover, these seem to be the clear passages. How many passages can be produced which extend God's invitation or warn of God's wrath to people with no mention of a predetermined selection? How many times do we read of the simple plea to come and the simple warning to turn? Which passages are to be taken in context of which? Which passage drives the interpretation of the other? Clearly, the clear and unmistakable passages must drive the interpretation of the ambiguous. Those that can be interpreted to have multiple meanings must be understood in the light of those that can have only one meaning.

It is my understanding that the above verses cannot be understood any other way. They allow no room for a Calvinistic theology or any other view that denies any role to the will of man in accepting salvation. Now, this is my current understanding. I must confess that I do not know the limits of my own ignorance. You may see clearly the mote hanging from my eye on this point. If I missed something, you would be my friend to "sharpen" my understanding on these points. Although I have come to a conclusion, I am always open to rethinking my conclusions. Any answers to these questions that I have been unable to answer from a Calvinistic view point, would be welcomed.

With this line of reasoning in place, let us consider whether the passages from John, and the others fall into the singular-interpretation category or into the category of ambiguous and multiple, possible interpretations. Now it should be noted that by referring to "ambiguity", it is not meant that God's Word is vague or cannot be specifically understood; however, the immediate context of any passage may not specifically address our issue, and consequently, it may have an ambiguous implication upon our topic, which was not its immediate and specific concern. Now, let's examine the scriptures that you raised.

37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

It is my understanding that a Calvinistic theology would interpret these verse to explicitly state that God has given the elect into Jesus hand. They are drawn to Jesus by God. No mention is made of any effort or action of the individual; therefore, it must be assumed that the individual is passive.

Now of course, in my wording of this understanding, the fallacy becomes apparent. There is no mention of a personal, individual election. There is no mention of an irresistible drawing, much less one that is separate from God's Word, effected by the Holy Spirit. Although they will not be cast out, there is no mention that the saint may not opt out. But, are these things necessarily implied? Please notice that there is no mention of how the "given" were chosen. There is no mention of their reaction, in fact, there is no mention of their will or actions at all. Therefore, it can only be by assumption or the necessary and logical force of other passages that we understand these things. Consequently, John 6:37-44 are not passages that "clearly" teach the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination, unconditional election, and irresistible grace. They are passages that may sound like that, depending for what the reader is hoping to find. The profoundness of what is NOT said is important to reconciling these passages.

Upon studying Romans 8:29-30, we find a similar fallacy in interpreting these verses in favor of Calvinism. Although the verses certainly referencing foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, and glorifying, in this order, these verses do not reference how this is actually accomplished. These verses say nothing of an individual predestination that says God foreknew you and I to be saved and therefore saved us, whether we wanted it or not. Again, these verses were not written to address how the predestination was accomplished, much less its basis for election. We cannot read this into the verse. Just because the words "predestination", "foreknew", and "called" were used, we cannot attach our assumptions of how this executed. These verses clearly teach the existence of these things, but we must look elsewhere for the basis.

....

People write and discuss Bible topics for various reasons. We know that all false teaching and doctrines are error and untruth. Consequently, they are lies, and they're ultimate origin is one that is of the Devil (John 8:39-47). Recognizing that the Devil is the evil source behind all false teaching, I conjecture that two primary, destructive dangers are masked behind any and all false teaching. One is pride. Many people write, discuss, and propone dogmas to promote their own recognition. Many people cannot let go of erring traditions, innocently contracted, because of prideful inability to recognize one's error. Pride is the cause and symptom of many sins.

The other category is to relieve the guilt of and excuse the responsibility of sin. I really think this is the main reason behind most false doctrine's persistence. It allows man to sin with immunity, or so it may seem. Now, I say this for two reasons. One, although I believe Calvin never foresaw the consequence, his theology allows men to sin with no real guilt or fear of responsibility (More on this later). Second, I have no desire to convert you to my beliefs, as they are mine; however, I do have the utmost desire that we both bind ourselves to truth and its fate and promise, whatever that may be and wherever that may take us. So, I try to put myself in your shoes, in an effort to be fair and honest.

As I try to consider how I would feel and react if the roles were reversed, I think I would be feeling two things. One, I would feel some burden and need to answer these questions. However, I think I might be dominated by a second reaction. A reaction that I have often seen because of my lack of clarity and the newness to some aspects of these ideas. For example, I might would wonder, "How can any doctrine be true that depends on man's will to save himself. Man has no power to save himself, and what about grace? Does the Bible not say that we are saved by grace? How can a doctrine be true that proposes works have any part in our salvation?" Maybe this gets yet closer to the heart of your concerns. Please forgive my conjecture and intrusion, but I seek only a better understanding.

There is a doctrine that teaches man earns his salvation. It depends on man's perfect keeping of God's law. It is called "justice". However, I cannot personally lay claim to this principle as being the basis of my salvation, since I am in no way justly deserving of salvation. God owes me only damnation, not glory with Him for eternity. Of course, this is not a doctrine, but a truth. However, one people did believe that they could receive redemption by debt - the Jews. Many of these people believed that God owed them salvation by virtue of their birthright and keeping of the Old Law. However, they neglected the facts that their birthright was bestowed and not owed. Also they neglected that they had forsaken their birthright by not keeping their end of the covenant perfectly. They failed in their attempt to demand salvation. Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews seems to have been written to combat these and other ideas relating to the keeping of the expired Old Law.

Some modern creeds also lay a profound significance upon "works" earning salvation. However, I don't think any really believe it, although they may practice it.

Now concerning my beliefs and understanding: My salvation is entirely justified by grace, but yet my works are not separated from the outcome. The problem to a proper understanding on this point is answering the question of "salvation by grace versus works". However, in truth, they are not opposing solutions but cooperative links in God's chain which leads to salvation. If they are truly opposing, such that the outcome is by one or the other, then how can both of God's following statements be true?

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? ... you see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:14-24) Please read all of these verses to get the full context.

These passages must be reconciled, else God lied in one of these verses. Now, it is not a difficult thing to reconcile, and our only hesitancy will be our investment in the past, although the smallest investment in a good future is better than all the investment in a bad past. So, how can both of these be true? Let us look at a few more passage to help us understand.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." Galatians 5:6 - see similar I Thessalonians 1:3

"who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions" Hebrews 11:33

"And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear" I Peter 1:17

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." II Corinthians 5:10

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth." II Peter 1:10-12

Now these may seem like a lot, but there is a nugget of gold in each of these verses. The first 2 quotes show that true faith is expected to "work". But, the third one reveals a fact important to our reconciliation effort. We'll be judged by our works! Our works will be the basis of our final judgment. How is it that grace and works will both be the basis of judgment and justification? The answer is most easily seen in the consideration of a popularly despised work, baptism. Now does a man "earn" salvation by being immersed in water? Absolutely not! There is no way that the temporal, singular, act of baptism could ever warrant, earn, or deserve the far greater reward of an eternal, ongoing, state of salvation. However, God requires it (I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38). The reconciliation is found in the understanding of the distinction between works of merit and conditional works. This is the key! All the works in the world will never merit salvation, but yet God is free to put conditions upon his grace, and does. This is the answer to your question. We do not earn our salvation, but yet it does not happen without our effort (Philippians 2:12; II Peter 1:10-12).

Salvation is 100% of grace, as you quoted from II Timothy 1:9. It is clearly God's work. We could never save ourselves. However, this fact does not necessarily eliminate the condition of our acceptance and diligence. Neither will ever merit our salvation, but yet they may both be conditions upon our gracious gift. If it concerns one that any strings are attached, then please consider that God also requires belief and confession (Mark 16:15-16; Romans 10:9 - note the key words, "IF" and "Whosoever"). These no more merit salvation than any other works, but yet we all agree that God requires them.

Why do some passages mention grace and not works, while others place emphasis on works? The answer is in recalling our point about ambiguous points. We often pull verses out of context, trying to determining their import to our question at hand, when it does not specifically address our concern. Some passages were written to people who became lazy, depending on grace to save them, neglecting good works (James 2:15-16). Consequently, James reminds these brethren that their faith was dead without works, and to get busy! Other Christians became prideful of their good works and began to think too highly of themselves. This warranted the reminder that perfect lawkeeping is a dead-end (Romans 9:31-10:3; Galatians 2:21-22), and that they were saved by grace (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8).

A great injustice and self-harm is inflicted by focusing only on one set of passages, ignoring the implications of the other. I understand that we are saved by grace and judged by our works. The humble, trusting, faithful heart is rewarded, despite his sins. This heart is evidenced and therefore "justified" by its works, although grace is the actual "merit basis" of the salvation. In this way, I understand these two great Bible themes to be reconciled.

So, how does this answer your question? If man does not have free will, then works have nothing to do with his salvation. Yet, the importance placed by these passages upon works, necessarily negates free will. The earlier analysis also positively confirms this here, negatively derived conclusion. Also, one cannot consistently hold to "free-will" without allowing room for conditional works. Calvin recognized this by stating that everything is foreordained, and there is no truly "free-will", necessitating that grace was independent of any works, even conditional works. Either we are free in things regarding salvation or nothing at all.

I imagine that you have many other questions concerning the impact of these ideas upon the framework established by Calvin, and believed by many Christians today. If you do, then I encourage to read the full series on Calvinism on our web-site (http://www.insearchoftruth.org). I tried to do a much more concise, but yet fair treatment of all the related issues. I would be glad to further discuss any questions related to these articles or this note.

As a closing question, what are the implications of Calvinism upon God's nature. Can any doctrine be true that eliminates the justness of God? (See Romans 3:26). I believe this to be the fundamental error behind Calvinism. Much like Job and his friends, we jump to conclusions about things we cannot see or confirm, often resting ultimately on a conclusion that violates the very nature of God. If our logic produces an irrational and impossible conclusion, we must review our assumptions, hence the great amount of time spent on the sovereignty of God.

I apologize for it's length, but I choose to err on the side of completeness rather than brevity, when trying to gauge and match a response to a questioner's interest.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and the fruit of your study. May God bless you in your search for truth.

[m273p15c]

Thank you for your email. I have much appreciated the time you have taken to answer my points in detail. I do feel very strongly about this subject. Let me first tell you a little bit about myself.

I am 59 years old, a Civil Engineer but an ordinary Christian. I was brought up as a Muslim, but I became a Christian at an age of 26 years, this is nearly 33 years ago. I firmly believed in man's freewill for the first 26 years of my Christian life. Approximately 7 years I went through a deep crisis, when was led to understand the great truth about God's sovereignty. This was when I saw and understood very clearly from the Bible that my understanding of man's freewill was extremely defective and unbiblical.

I am rejecting man's free will in salvation not because of the teaching of Calvin. In fact, I did not know who was Calvin until very recently. All the biblical verses which you have quoted in favour of man's free will give me no problem, and I shall be giving you my understanding of them in due course. As I feel strongly that the teaching of man's free will is a great hindrance to one's spiritual life, I have been preparing a web site against the doctrine for some days. I am sending you my first draft attached with this email. Please excuse any strong language, and please don't take anything I have written personally. I believe, I am fighting not against any human being but against rulers of darkness.

I should be pleased to receive your comments.

The grace of our Lord be with you.

(See attached file: freewill.htm)

As I have taken the time to study your thoughts, I cannot help but be struck at the amount of time and energy you have spent in meditation and preparation. I appreciate your efforts and hope only to compliment these efforts. I am convinced that if we are both in search of truth, then we will both find God's way (John 7:17).

In response to your efforts, and in effort to promote our mutual study of God's Word, a paragraph-by-paragraph response has been formed and included in your original document. But, before I begin, I would like to point out a few points, that I believe, are key to understanding my response.

First, it seems to me a "straw-man" construction of a "free-will" based position is argued against. I do not personally hold to this "straw-man" view, and I cannot think of any one or denomination who would. Consequently, it seems to me that the resulting viewpoint, originally proposed, has corollary misconceptions. Both are included below.

I hope not to offer these thoughts arrogantly, because I recognize, this only constitutes one man's understanding. I am very much open to discussing these points and gratefully appreciate any help that you can offer.

Thirdly, the original web-page is included below with my comments included in a green or red color. Your original comments are quoted and indented.

I would point out that some of the most essential points are included in the introduction and conclusion to both our remarks.

Although much of the material is spent rebutting the provided comments, and requires an alternative, for the sake of clarity and brevity, positive comments outlining an alternative are often not included. Many such comments and passages are included on the web-site. Please consult the several articles regarding Calvinism on our web-site. I feel it would be fair to ask that you at least glance over these articles in preparing a response, as I have relegated much material to the web-site:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org

I know that you have not adopted "Calvinism", but your base assumptions are so similar to his, and your conclusions are nearly identical. Consequently, most if not all of my comments expressed under this heading also apply to the discussion below.

Before I begin with this outline, I would offer a few personal thoughts: I have done my best to be objective in this discussion. I have also made my best effort not to offend, as it is not something I would appreciate it. However, sometimes truth can be poignant, and sometimes I get carried away in my passion. My request is that you will patiently endure such inconsiderations and weakness, focus on its veracity, and account my zeal as sincere love for both our souls, as it is in truth. I do not seek to patronize, but I pray for your forgiveness and understanding in this regard.

May God bless us in our quest for truth, righteousness, His glory, and love for man.

Fundamental Fallacies

In general, it seemed that most of the verses were interpreted using an assumed framework. These verses were often ambiguous in their implications to the question at hand, and a few actually contradicted the original point. An effort was made to point out the ambiguity where present and the contradictions where evident. Of course, I may have responded based on my assumptions, and I depend on you to help me realize these. Besides this general comment, the following general themes were realized.

The following points make up a "straw-man" viewpoint, which to me seems to be the basis of the original web-page:

1. Man 100% meritoriously earns his salvation through works by his own freewill
2. Man discovers and achieves salvation apart from God's will and, or awareness.
3. Man cannot become morally depraved, much less be born as such.
4. God in no way predestined or foreknew who would be saved.

Because of the basis of the original work on this "straw-man", many of the original arguments are misdirected. This channels much of the original work down a path, marked with the following misconceptions, correlated to the "straw-man":

1. Either only God works or man works, but not both. It is grace versus works, with no possibility of grace and works - conditional works.
2. If man is able to recognize his plight when presented with the gospel, then His intelligence rivals that of Who created him and extended salvation unto Him.
3. If man ever becomes morally depraved, then he must become so instantly and irreversibly. The heart becomes hardened to the extent that only the direct working of the Spirit on the heart can undo the damage.
4. The only possible basis for God's predestination of man unto salvation is limited to election by named individual, apart from anything relating to the individual.

An alternative to the "straw-man" and the originally proposed viewpoint is outlined as follows:

1. A third alternative: God works and man works. God's work is primary, necessary, gracious, and justifying. Man's work is reactionary, conditional, required by God, grateful, and evidentiary. There is no "either-or" dilemma but a complimentary harmony.
2. Although man may recognize something is amiss by his conscience or the consequences of sin, he could have never formulated or executed the plan that God revealed. Without God's direction, man's intelligence would have vainly floundered in misery, but with God's revelation, man may initially appreciate some basic aspects of this mystery and accept the rest in faith. Ever growing, man continues to learn from God, he but may only fully understand the mystery when in eternity with God.
3. Moral depravity is real and gravely dangerous; however, it only happens after repeatedly sinning, stubbornly ignoring and searing the conscience. The rate of this process depends on the will of the person. When completed, it is irreversible, because nothing is left that wants it to be reversed. Until completed, it may be undone and reversed by exposure to the gospel, which is delivered, empowered, and sustained by the Holy Spirit.
4. There are multiple, possible bases of predestination and foreknowledge towards salvation. The Bible doctrine of predestination is according to a type, class, or body of people. This body is defined as those "in Christ", and entry into it depends on one's willingness to be added to this body. Only a certain type will respond to the call. The message, messenger, and, consequently, type of person to respond, were determined before time began - predestined and foreknown.

Now, let us examine the original document with comments, culminating to our conclusions.

Man's freewill in salvation - a satanic lie

Can a natural sinful man through his own freewill choose life and come to Christ? The proponents of man's freewill say - Yes. However, the Bible says definitely - NO. Man's salvation is entirely through God's will not man's will.

John 1:13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This classic "not-but" grammatical construction emphasizes the role of God in our spiritual rebirth. It does not eliminate the one, any more than it makes the other all-encompassing. This structure merely compares the relative importance and significance of the two items. Other examples of this construction, which show that this extreme interpretation is not valid, are found in John 6:27; John 12:44; I Corinthians 1:17; and I Timothy 2:9-10. If this verse is to be interpreted to mean that the rebirth is entirely devoid of man's will, then John 12:44 contradicts itself with the conclusion that our faith is entirely devoid of belief in Jesus. If this construction must only be understood in absolutes, then it must be understood this way in all occurrences. The necessary absurd conclusions show this required absolute interpretation to be inaccurate. If the language of the "not-but" construction in John 12:44 is understood by all as elliptical, then why is the same construction purported to have only one possible, absolute meaning in John 1:13? Could it not be elliptical too? Will not the context explain the meaning?

Truly, God has provided, outlined, and directed our opportunities unto salvation, but this verse does not eliminate "entirely" or absolutely the role of man's will in salvation. Please notice that in the immediate context of the prior verse, those who had this "right" were selected on the basis of those who "received" and "believed" Christ. Is God forcing, or is man accepting in this verse? Who is the subject and author of the action? The language of the context tells us:

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:11-12)

Philipians 2:13. for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure

It is an assumption to add the word "entirely". I also agree and hope for the fact that God is working within me. However, does this verse say anything of God working within the Christian apart from God's Word or apart from the Christian's will and acceptance? It is an assumption to limit the means of the working to only direct methods, since it is not in the context.

Romans 9:18.Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Again, an assumed interpretation is used as the framework for understanding this verse. Does this verse mention that God's choice is apart from man's actions? Does it mention an election of named individuals before time began and separate from their choices? Does God select individuals apart from their choices, or because of their choices and desires?

What is the basis for one person's hardening of heart, while another receives mercy? Hear the Scripture:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" Romans 1:28

"God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble." I Peter 5:5

Perhaps the most quoted scripture in the Christian churches in John 3:16. and perhaps the least quoted scripture among those that believe in free will is John 6:44. Does it make sense to over emphasise one scripture at the expense of another. If we believe in the whole Bible, then John 3:16 is as much true as John 6:44. Taken together, the only conclusion one can derived is that 'whoever believes' in John 3:16 has to be the one whom God the Father first draws him to Christ through the will of of God only.

This seems to be a violation of simple hermeneutics, that is, a consistent common-sense interpretation of language. Truly, God cannot lie; therefore, all Scriptures must be in harmony and agree (Titus 1); however, if the vast recordings of "warnings and pleas to whoever will listen" far outnumbers the handful of passage, which are ambiguous at best, then harmony demands a conclusion in favor of the clear message that "whoever believes ... will be saved." We cannot use our assumed framework as a basis for interpreting all other passages.

John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 6:44. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

How is one "drawn"? Is it against his or her freewill? Does this verse answer either of these questions? If it does not, then how is the above conclusions supported? Are they not based in assumption?

Man is drawn through God's Word, revealed by the Holy Spirit (II Thessalonians 2:14; James 1:18). How much understanding is required to recognize the end of the goals of this world? Even in this life, one may easily see the ruin that comes from the selfish fulfillment of one's lusts. The message of Christ's love, sacrifice, and resurrection and the appeal of "glory and virtue" are a few of the primary, gospel themes that call us to Him (I Peter 5:10; II Peter 1:3). It takes little intelligence to recognize the appeal of the gospel; so little, that the proud and educated often do not humble themselves because of its simplicity and unappealing stumblingblocks (I Corinthians 1:26-29). The depth of the gospel is appreciated over time, fully in eternity.

Adam and Eve were created with a freewill. They were free to obey God or free to disobey God. However once they disobeyed and sinned, God drove Adam and Eve out of His presence and He cut off from them and their descendants the way back to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I agree with the above conclusion. However, there seems to be an inconsistency in this logic. What would have happened if Adam and Eve never sinned? If God is absolutely sovereign, especially in the salvation of men and angels, how could His plan truly been subject to the will of Adam and Eve? It seems to me that is inconsistent and illogical to assert that Adam and Eve had freewill, but God maintained His absolute sovereignty.

The natural man since the fall of Adam is not free to return to God. The man's freewill has got corrupted and defiled. He is free to act only in one direction - away from God. Man is free to sin but he is not free to come to Christ. The man's freewill makes him choose death but not life. Man is a slave to sin and slave to Satan. Man's free will is depraved and is in bondage. The natural man is spiritually dead. The heart of a natural man is desperately wicked, and by himself without a direct intervention from God through His sovereign grace, man is not able to work up any desire in his heart to come to Christ and choose life.

Regarding the above paragraph, I ask for the verses that demand these conclusions. It could be that I have overlooked such verses; however, the verses below again are interpreted based on an assumed framework and appear at my first look to offer no proof of the above claims.

Jeremiah 17:9. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Was man born this way, or does he become this way by a series of sinful choices - as his heart departs from the Lord? (Jeremiah 17:5; Romans 1:18-32; I Peter 5:5)

Romans 8:7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

How does one receive this carnal mind? Does God give it to Him, or does man earn it as a consequence of his repeated, stubborn sinful choices? (Romans 1:18-32; I Peter 5:5)

Romans 3:
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

One must be careful not to make a verse say what he wants it to say. If this verse is an all-inclusive condemnation, then it demands Universalism - the ultimate damnation of all! Obviously, some have understood and saught God, or else the Psalmist, from whom Paul quoted in Romans, could not have consistently penned, "With my whole heart I have sought You; Oh, let me not wander from Your commandments!" Psalm 119:10. Again, the proposed conclusion only appears when one's mind is restricted by his assumed framework. Without that context, this context only teaches our guilty state and need for mercy. The question that must be answered remains, "How does one become depraved? By foolishly choosing to push away God, or by God pushing away man, regardless of his actions? (Psalm 14:1-6; Romans 1:18-32; I Peter 5:5)

Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin.

Again, why is this true? Does God bring each man into this world already evil, or does He bring them in innocent and upright, which they corrupt by choosing evil? (Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 1:18-32; I Peter 5:5)

Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Again, an assumed interpretation is placed on this verse, which even the translators of the NIV assumed in abandoning their unbiased job of translator and taking up the role of commentator. Because one translation went so far as to bias their translation, I would like to spend more time on this verse.

Only the NIV translates this as "sinful state". All other significant translations have the same translation (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NAU, RSV, YLT, and many others!), as what you recognized above in your quote from the KJV. Regarding, the assumed interpretation, please notice the following two points:

1. The verse relates to the means of the conception and "shapening". It says nothing about the final shape or his actual state.
2. The context is charged with high emotion from David's sorrow for his sin. His guilt is exaggerated in hyperbolic expression. Notice a similar hyperbolic, but literally impossible, expression in Psalm 58:3. Do you know any babies that can talk when they are born, much less tell lies?

Romans 7:18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

I must confess that this verse seems to contradict your point. In fact, almost this entire chapter refutes the point of inherited depravity. The verse teaches that in this state one is capable of "willing to do good". Also, the entire last portion of the chapter is describing a struggle. How can there be a struggle, when man is 100% evil? There is no struggle where evil has triumphed. If Paul was in this context "carnal, sold under sin", how could he say:

"For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. ..."

"For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Romans 7:15-16, 22-25

These verses expressly state that man, although losing the struggle under the dominion of his sin, can and does recognize his wickedness, and often desires something better. I do not see how this helps the case for depravity.

Matthew 19:17. ...No one is good but One, that is, God...

Again, this does not explain how man became wicked. If the application is unbound by time, then Adam was never good and never had freewill, and we have no hopes of ever being with God as our sin, or un-goodness will continue to separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2). If the application is limited in time, then we are back to our question of how man ceased to be good? Man did not start sinful (Genesis 1:31; Ecclesiastes 7:29). Did God make all men evil because of one man's sin, or did all men sin and thereby become evil? (Romans 5:12)

John 8:44. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do...

Again, the interpretation is assumed. Do people become "of the Devil" by their alignment with the Devil, or did God align people with the Devil, regardless of their choice? (John 8:39-47; Romans 1:18-32; I Peter 5:5)

Jesus Christ says quite plainly in the gospel of John that we are not free, but we are slaves of sin, and unless the Truth (Jesus Christ) makes us free, we shall die in our sins.

It is agreed that we each become slaves of sin, but who sold us into slavery? If Adam, then God unfairly condemns us for which we were not responsible (Ezekiel 18:1-32; see especially vs. 20-25). If God, then He is responsible for our sin, which is inconsistent with His revealed nature (Psalm 98:9). The only alternative is that we were each created upright and innocent, just like Adam, and we each disobeyed, just like Adam.

John 8:24. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
32. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
34. Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
35. "And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Again, I know not how to disagree with this, because this passage refutes the doctrines of inherited depravity, direct working of the Spirit, and unconditional election. From verse 24, we learn that a person dies in his or her sins, "you will die in your sins". These are not Adam's or God's sins, but our personal sins. Can depravity be inherited without the sin? What kind of God would allow that miscarriage of justice? From verse 32 we learn that the knowledge of the truth makes us free. How can the Spirit directly set us free, when we are clearly set free indirectly through the Word? From verse 34, we learn that one can become a slave to sin, but how? Is he born a slave to sin? Do his parents sin, and he inherit their responsibilities? No, but "whoever commits sin is a slave of sin". Of course, once enslaved we rely on the Savior's mercy.

It is a great satanic lie which has been purported on the Christian world that a natural man through his freewill is able to come to Christ and choose life. The Bible says quite the opposite. Man's salvation is not dependent on man's will but it is entirely, one hundred percent dependent on God's sovereign will. See John 1:13 above. Jesus Christ further and absolutely nails down this erroneous concept of man's free will. It is impossible for any man to come to Christ through man's own free will. It is only the will of God the Father that matters and which rules. In the final analysis, only God the Father decides who should come to Christ.

At this point, the comments are becoming redundant: Any conclusions based on an assumed foundation rather than Scripture can only be as solid as their premise!

However, there seems to be one important comment worth noting. Just as it is an erroneous assumption that God's mercy and workings are exclusive of man's will and acceptance, it is equally erroneous to assume that man's efforts must be mutually exclusive of God's efforts. Just because sinful man wants mercy does not mean that God must extend mercy - by definition; however, just because sinful man desires salvation and is willing to work towards it does not mean that God cannot extend mercy, or place conditions on its gracious bestowment. The same assumption is erroneously being applied, but this time from God's perspective, rather than man's.

John 6:
37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
44. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
65. And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

Same assumption again: Has God sought out, drawn, and delivered a type of person or a person apart from their actions? These verses above do not answer and can only be understood in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

I was a Muslim and now I am a Christian. No body can convince me that I have become a Christian and have accepted Christ as my Savior and Lord through my own free will. I know that it would have been impossible for me to come to Christ through my own free will. My free will was actually hindering me to come to Christ as humanly speaking it just does not make sense to sacrifice so much to become a Christian. I thank and praise God now that God the Father drew me to His Son according to His will and His sovereign purpose for me. I am a son of God according to His will and His good pleasure and all the praise and glory goes to Him and none to me.

Dear friend, this is quite a scary thing you have confessed. Although I am sure not intentional, please consider the basis of your conviction, which you are expressing. I speak in frankness only because of the perceived need and out of love.

1. First, you have admitted that your mind is closed ("no body can convince"). How can you or I claim that we are humbly, honestly seeking truth and in the same breath say that "no body can convince me"? If you show me wrong by Scripture, I will gladly repent and gratefully call you "friend", although I consider us already friends in our mutual search for truth. Please do not let your heart be closed to this plea (Proverbs 18:13).
2. Second, you have admitted that one of the rudimentary bases of your conclusion is personal experience. Real faith can only be based on God's Word. The only truth we can learn about God from the natural world is His great power and divinity (Romans 1:18-20); however, we can not even discern His approval or disapproval from the events surrounding us (Ecclesiastes 9:1-3). Without His revelation, the gospel would remain a mystery (Ephesians 3:3-5). It seems you placing more confidence in your interpretation of things rather than God's revelation. Is this consistent with your plea of God's sovereignty?
3. Third, you also admitted in your separate note that you spent more time in your life thus far believing freewill than your current position. In fact, you stated that you were converted from Muslim to a "freewill" based understanding of man's responsibilities to God. If your conversion from Islam was a sign, of what was it a sign?

I am certain that these reasons, which you gave, are not the most convincing arguments in your mind. You and God are the only judges of how much this plays into your decision making process. I would urge you to recognize that these reasons are not based in Scripture and should have no value at all. I know they are not your linch-pins, but they should be no pins at all!

Ephesians 1:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

God the Father draws His elect to Christ in His own time according to His will and His purpose. He does this by granting them repentance and giving them the gift of faith. This is entirely due God's grace and has nothing to do with man's freewill or his good works.

Again, how is this predestination accomplished? Are we chosen by name, as individuals, before time began, and apart from any of our actions? Or, are we chosen as a class of people, as a group of humble truthseekers, who are willing to subject themselves to Christ's headship, and become part of His body? Paul's only commentary in Ephesians was that we were "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world". As you have already pointed out (1:5), who are we to argue with the basis of His choosing? If the humble, lovers of truth and righteousness are saved, while the proud and rebellious cannot be saved, who are we to say that the arrogant and unthankful should be saved? Except from the mention of the basis being "in Christ" according to His "good pleasure", the basis is not otherwise defined in this passage. Also, what is "good" about His pleasure if it unfairly condemns the unresponsible to eternal punishment for crimes that either they did not commit or God forced them to commit? This passage seems to be ambiguous, at best.

Romans 2:
4. Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Ephesians 2:
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

A truly born again Christian has the Christ's saving faith working in his life, and he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Such a Christian abides in Christ and Christ's words abide in him. This union with Christ bears much fruit and glorifies the Father. Such a Christian now works the works of faith (Christ's faith in him) as opposed to man's works when he was an unbeliever. Such a Christian is now free and truly free. But free from what and free to do what?

Christ says that an unbeliever is a slave of sin, and he is not free. On the other hand a true believer has been set free form sin. A believer is no longer a slave of sin, in fact he has been freed from sin to become a slave of righteousness.

God certainly works in our lives, in fact man must struggle to resist and despise God's desire for him to be saved (Acts 17:26-29). Although difficult and hard, it can be done (Acts 9:5). The Spirit also certainly works in our life (John 7:37-39), teaching us to become good like God, through God's Word (Ephesians 3:3-5; II John 1:1-2; Psalm 119:97-105), but recognizing these facts is a far cry from stating that they happen directly without our acquiescence. Also, the same misunderstanding regarding conditional works and meritorious works, which was discussed earlier, is here again erroneously applied. Just because God places conditions on His grace, does not mean these conditions earn salvation. Only the "straw-man" thinks being immersed in water merits, or earns forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Romans 6:
18. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
22. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

The true freedom consists of changing form a slave of sin to a slave of righteousness. The choice is whether to be a slave of sin or slave of righteousness., but slaves we will be. But man is incapable of making this choice thorough his own free will because a natural man is spiritually dead and he is a slave to sin.

First, from the context of the passage, the Roman Christians were continuing to live sinful lives, even though had been "raised to walk in newness of life". Notice the introduction to this problem in verses 1-2 and the separate pleas in verses 2-14 and verses 15-23. If man is incapable of making such choices, then who makes them? Why does this Person choose that sin continue? And, then why does He plea with man to stop (6:12-13)? The inconsistencies make such a proposition an illogical interpretation that violates the very context of the passage.

Second, how does the Bible say such a person becomes a slave? Where does it say that they are forced into a slavery under sin or righteousness? The only commentary on the process from this context reads,

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

"But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered." Romans 6:16-17

One becomes a slave to whomever they present themselves as obedient subjects (Romans 6:16). We were not forced, but it is to whomever we present ourselves as slaves that unto whom we become slaves. It seems as though this context suggest a willing choice to indentured slavery rather than a forced bondage.

Third, Paul is making a heavenly plea based on an argument according to human terms (slavery), just as a parable is an earthly illustration of divine truths (6:19). Similarly, it has the same limitation: The analogy cannot be pressed on all points, especially points not reinforced by inspired men, without violently forcing the analogy to express an untruth that was not the intention of the original illustrator. We must be careful not to press the analogy beyond the context. Outside of the opposing references to our willing enslavement, where is there any reference to God electing us apart from our choice? Reading our interpretation into the Scripture instead of gleaning an interpretation from the Scripture is the challenge of all Bible students and truthseekers.

Before a sinner (whoever) could believe in Christ, he is first drawn to Christ by God the Father (John 6:44). God draws to Christ only those whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformed in the image of His Son. (Romans 2:29) God's goodness then leads the sinner to repentance (Romans 2:4), the sinner is then given the gift of faith, this is Christ's faith working in the sinner, (Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2). Whom God calls, He also justifies, and whom God justifies these He also glorifies (glorified). (Romans 2:30). Oh, how beautiful is the truth of our salvation. Everything fits so beautifully and all the glory goes to God and none to man.

May I leave out one statement, and then reoffer this concluding paragraph?

Before a sinner (whoever) could believe in Christ, he is first drawn to Christ by God the Father (John 6:44). God draws to Christ only those whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformed in the image of His Son. (Romans 2:29) God's goodness then leads the sinner to repentance (Romans 2:4). Whom God calls, He also justifies, and whom God justifies these He also glorifies (glorified). (Romans 2:30). Oh, how beautiful is the truth of our salvation. Everything fits so beautifully and all the glory goes to God and none to man.

With this paragraph I have no disagreement. The missing statement I will explain below, but consider the remaining paragraph for a moment. Where in this paragraph, or the verses quoted, do we find reference to a foreknowing, predestination, leading, drawing, justifying, or glorifying apart from man's will? Could God have not done all these things by foreseeing and calling a type of person, with a certain kind of will? Why does it have to be the individual apart from his will? Why do we assume that God does all these things apart from man's will? Could God not have called a humble type of person? The point being that these verses do not say what is so eagerly sought! If a passage has multiple interpretations, then all must be rejected, which do not harmonize with the rest of Scripture. If one interpretation makes God to be unfair, unjust, and unrighteous, conflicting with other Scriptures about God's nature, why is it still accepted? Whatever the reason, it cannot be of "faith" or "divine" because it has no origin in the Bible or a faith based in the Bible.

"The Faith" does not always refer to our personal faith, but it sometimes refers to a system of belief, our religion, our faith. Notice that in Romans 14:1, Paul refers to someone who is weak in "the faith". He or she is not weak in their faith, that is, they are not weak in their conviction, but they are weak in understanding of the "the faith" (Jude 3 - "the faith once delivered"). In fact, verse 2 shows that they were very strong in their conviction, by abstaining from eating of meats, which everyone else enjoyed. In Hebrews 12:2, it is my understanding that this is the meaning. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith in that He established, executed, and completed the means and system by which we are saved. He authored it by "enduring the cross", and He finished it through His overcoming victory, including His resurrection and ascension, culminating in His sitting down "at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2). The context lends itself to the interpretation, but on the other hand, from the context, where do we see reference to Christ instilling His personal faith into us - much less, without our acceptance?

Ephesians 2:8 refers to our salvation being not of ourselves but a gift of God. The modifying phrases listed in the completing portion of verse 8, continuing through verse 9, are listed together, clarifying the salvation spoken of earlier in verse 8. If the entire list refers to our faith, not of ourselves being a gift, then similarly works are unrelated to faith (2:9), clearly violating James 2:14-26. Consequently, the phrases "not of yourselves, it is a gift of God" must refer to and modify our "salvation," which the phrase "through faith" also modifies. Therefore, these verses offer no support to the belief that our faith is generated and instilled directly by God. We do indirectly owe Him our faith, since it is our response to His Word preached, which He sent and enabled to this end (Romans 10:17).

Conclusion

I believe the erroneous doctrine of man's free has done and is doing enormous damage to a Christian spiritual life. I have no doubt that it is a great satanic lie and totally unbiblical.

The doctrine of man's 'free will' dethrones God from His sovereignty, it steals God's glory from Him and limits His grace, and ultimately it makes man in control of his salvation and pours insult to Christ's completed work of the cross. The doctrine of man's free will robs a Christian from the assurance of his salvation, it makes a Christian weak and unsure and fearful of losing his salvation, it is a doctrine of self-dependent and not God dependent.

First, of all the representation given is not accurate, but reflects the"straw-man" position. The Bible doctrine of "free will" works in harmony with God's efforts to save man, not against it. Secondly, which is more insulting, a doctrine that charges God with unjust behavior, or the fact that God can create a creature with free will and teach him righteousness?

In man's fallen nature, a man reasons that the doctrine of man's free will makes God fair, but this is man's wisdom and is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 1:20).

This seems inconsistent: Using logic, an appeal is made to abandon logic and reason. If free will was totally based on man' reasoning, conflicting with Bible teaching, then you would have a point. However, if the doctrine of free will is based on Bible passages conflicting human traditions and desires, then the above statement becomes an argument based in assumption. Either way the above appeal seeks to elicit a defensive response, granting the thing sought to be proven. The passage above characterizes truth, but it offers no help on illuminating the answer to our question at hand.

I know that a free willer will immediately raise objections and quote his favourite scriptures like John 3:16, 1 John 2:2. 2 Peter 3:9, The parable of the sower etc. However, all such scriptures make more sense within God's sovereign will and not man's free will, but I have no time or space to explain them in detail here. Suffice it to say that it is the failure to accept and believe the three basic truths of the Bible (as given below) that give rise to much unsound theology including the erroneous doctrine of man's free will.

Considering that each of these above Calvinistic points have been answered, it would be fair to expect a response to the "free willer's" questions. Also, please consider examining closely the points that have been outlined on the web-site below:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... #calvinism

They represent in brief, one person's understanding of the Bible doctrine of freewill. Also, they represent my personal beliefs more accurately than the "straw-man's" views that have been thus far portrayed.

These three basic truths are:

1. God is absolutely sovereign , but man is responsible for his sins. This is a divine paradox and cannot be understood or reconciled by our limited human mind, but it must be accepted and believed. From Genesis to Revelation, this truth is emphasised in almost every page of the bible.
2. No one is good but One God. (Matthew 19:17). This simple statement by Jesus is of profound theological importance. Only God is good, very good but man is bad, very bad.
3. Man's salvation is 100% the work of God, the work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God starts the work of salvation and He also finishes. (Philipians 1:6). All the glory goes to God and none to man.

This seems to be the crux of the matter. I am glad that we agree that these ultimately determine the conclusion. Although I believe examining all of the earlier passages in detail are profitable towards a better understanding and confirming the central conclusion, it is inefficient and ineffective to eliminate a tree by pulling it down one leaf at a time. Typically, one who seeks to remove a tree from the landscape does so by laying the axe to the root. Now, let us examine the root, as you have outlined:

1. A paradox is defined as:
   
   "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true" Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
   
   But a contradiction is defined as:
   
   "logical incongruity" or "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another" Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
   
   How can God make all choices, including determining that every one is born lost beyond their control, and then selecting a few to be saved without basis? All to bring about His own glory? According to the Bible this is unfair and proudful! What we see in the doctrines of unconditional election, total inherited depravity, and irresistible grace are contradictions with the Bible teaching on God character. By faith, I am prepared to accept Bible teaching that does not reconcile with my experience. However, when one accepts a doctrine contrary to Bible teaching, it cannot be called faith, because it is not according to the Bible (Romans 10:17).
   
   You have recognized the chief inconsistency, but yet you dismiss it. If we cannot understand and harmonize the Bible, then how can we base any beliefs on it, including the arguments that were originally proposed? The Scripture must harmonize. God does not lie (Titus 1:2); therefore, any contradictions must be accounted to man's lie, else we abandon the idea of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, including all fundamental basis for understanding the Bible.
   
   There are two ways to look at this, depending on how one views Adam's will: Either, God gave Adam free will and then unfairly condemned all of mankind for one man's mistake, over which mankind, except Adam, had no influence or control; or, God made Adam sin, by which He unfairly condemned all of mankind including Adam. There is no way around this. Calvin and Wesley both recognized this and ignored it, but how can we honestly believe something that contradicts the Bible's clear teaching of God's character? The absolute nature of the absolute statement that God is absolutely sovereign leaves no room but for the conclusion that God is absolutely responsible! How can one make Him 100% responsible for our salvation without making Him 100% responsible for others' condemnation? If we have nothing to do with our salvation, then we have nothing to do with our condemnation! This is the necessary implication of such absolute statements. There is no way around it. If one cannot justify or base their belief on the Bible, then they cannot have faith in it according to the Bible. At this point, the entire doctrine collapses about the root!
   
   God directly says that man is not to be held responsible for the actions of his ancestors, whether good or bad, but each will be judged on his own actions (Ezekiel 18:1-18). Also, He states that those who repent will not be held accountable for their past actions, whether good or bad (Ezekiel 18:19-32). Instead, each man will be judged based on his own ultimate actions (II Corinthians 5:10; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Matthew 16:27; Exodus 32:33).
   
   I would really like to see these verses and thoughts explained, as they are my personal, fundamental Bible objection to the doctrines of Calvinism. Certainly, much more is included, and not everything is summarized by this point, yet it does seem to be a fundamental inconsistency with the Bible.
2. Matthew 19:17 contains another classic "not-but" construction, "not man, but God". Please observe the following contradiction, if such an interpretation is assumed: If man was entirely devoid of good, absolutely, and since this statement is unbounded by time, we were therefore never good, we are not good, and we will never be good - absolutely. Therefore, we will never be with God, since He cannot fellowship evil. Our sins and unworthiness to stand before God are not denied, but this passage cannot be read so that the words "entirely" or "absolutely" are inserted at the reader's discretion. Notice the following references to man being good, or having good qualities: Luke 23:50 and Acts 11:24. These verses directly contradict man being absolutely evil. Although some men may become absolutely evil, some men have some good qualities, ideals, and goals without being "good" to the same degree as God is absolutely "good".
   
   Please recall that "not-but" constructions show relative comparisons. The "notted" component is never necessarily eliminated entirely, while the replacement phrase is never necessarily substituted entirely. The components may have absolute significance, but they are not necessarily implied by the construction. Please recall the following exemplary verses that would lead to absurd and unacceptable conclusions if this construction was always absolute: John 6:27; John 12:44; I Corinthians 1:17; and I Timothy 2:9-10. These constructions simply illuminate relative relationships or subtle distinctions.
3. One cannot present one set of verses while ignoring others:
   

   "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13

   14 "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
   15 "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
   16 "and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
   17 "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
   18 "But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
   19 "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!
   20 "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
   21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
   22 "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
   23 "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
   24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
   25 "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
   26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:14-26

   It seems that it takes all these things working together. God certainly does not need these things, yet He has made them a requirement and condition. Who are we to reject it? If we do not like God's requirements, who are we to complain or judge? Notice the fine difference between this and dismissing God's injustice: one accepts the Bible teaching on faith against his own reason, while the other accepts his own wants against the reason of Bible teaching.
   
   Also, God has already promised to offer some form of praise to man on Judgment Day (I Corinthians 4:5; Romans 2:29). How is it that God can praise man without violating His own glorious sovereignty, but man cannot accept God's grace without violation of His sovereignty? "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord." Matthew 25:23
   
   Of course, man is not to praise himself, since it is useless and misdirected (I Corinthians 4:4; I Corinthians 1:31).

Opposing Conclusion

God created man good and upright, beginning with Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:31; Ecclesiastes 7:29). Adam and Eve sinned, ushering sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-13), bringing a physical curse upon the race (Genesis 3:16-24), separating themselves from God by sin (Genesis 3:16-24), and altering their character such that they became knowledgeable of both good and evil (Genesis 3:22). Although Adam and Eve lost their relationship with God, they did not immediately become depraved, but were knowledgeable of both good and evil (Genesis 3:22). All children begin life as fresh and innocent as Adam and Eve (compare Deuteronomy 1:39 with Genesis 3:22). They begin life in an innocent, pure, and humble state, which God fellowships (Matthew 18:1-5; 19:14).

Unfortunately, given enough time, all men reach a time of accountability and eventually sin (Romans 7:9-11; Romans 3:23). Death and sin spread through the world, not because Adam sinned, but "because all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). Like Adam and Eve, their sins separate them from God (Isaiah 59:2). Similarly, they do not immediately become depraved, but become subject to the gradual depravity, which God inflicts as a consequence of continually rejecting Him (Romans 1:18-32). Once a person rejects truth and providence long enough, which are the works of the Holy Spirit and the calling mechanisms of God (II Thessalonians 2:13-14; James 1:18; I Peter 5:10; John 16:7-15; and Psalm 119:67, 71), then man's conscience becomes seared, and he becomes utterly depraved and ceases to be reachable and repentable (Mark 3:28-30; Romans 1:21, 28; Ephesians 4:17-19; I Timothy 4:1-2). However, this is only accomplished through great stubbornness, resisting unavoidable pleas to repentance (Acts 9:5; Romans 2:4-10; II Peter 3:9).

If any time during this rebellion, man responds to the gospel (Romans 1:16), repents, and moves toward God (Acts 2:38), then God draws closer to him (James 4:6-8) and helps us continue to grow closer to Him through His Word (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Corinthians 3:18; James 1:21-25). If the Christian remains faithful to God and His Word, then he will ultimately be saved and reconciled to God (I Corinthians 15:1-2; Hebrews 10:35-39); however, if he again turns to evil, rebuilding the old prison of sin, then he will be lost (Galatians 2:17-18; I Corinthians 9:26-27; 10:12; Galatians 5:4; II Peter 2:20-22).

Why do people sin? We sin because we are drawn away by the lusts (I John 2:15-17), which are part of our natural body (Romans 8:20-21), and transgress God's commandments (James 1:14-15). Why does God save? God saves because He loves the whole world and does not want any one to be lost and destroyed (John 3:16; II Peter 3:9) - a far nobler goal than just to heap up His own glory. Why do men choose to be saved? Men sin. Because of their God-like nature (Genesis 1:26), they regret in their conscience and seek something better, maybe not knowing what or where, to which God responds in mercy (Romans 1:16; Matthew 21:28-31; II Corinthians 7:9-11; James 4:6-10; Acts 17:26-31). What is the basis of our salvation? How are we justified? It is certainly not by being wicked (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 17:15), or by justifying ourselves over God (Job 32:2; 40:8; Luke 7:29). But, we are justified first and foremost by accessing God's gracious gift of His Son on the cross, which provides forgiveness of sins (Isaiah 53:11; Romans 3:24; 5:9). When we humbly submit to God's Will through obedient faith (Luke 18:14; James 4:5-10), our sins are forgiven (Acts 15:38-39; 2:38), and our faith is substituted for the meritorious works which we should have accomplished (Romans 3:28; 4:2-5). This faith is evidenced, judged, and perfected through obedience to God's will (James 2:14-26; Matthew 12:37). Ultimately, it requires God working and man working (Philippians 2:12-13). Eliminating either is an unbiblical extreme. It is not that God could not have done it another way, but this is the way He revealed to us; therefore, it is the way that He chose and we must accept, if we want to be saved ...

I believe the false doctrine of man's free should be resisted at all costs by all true believers. So I invite all those Christians who agree with me to join me in resisting this great satanic lie of man's free will that is purported on the Christian world.

It is my purpose to form an international group of believers - linked through this website in fighting worldwide the false doctrine of man's free will. So please write to me to give your ideas how together we can fight the false doctrine of man's free will. Even one word of your support will be helpful at this stage. Also I would like to hear from those who disagree with me.

May the truth, God's truth, always flourish, and may we flourish in it, whatever it may be, wherever it may lead, and regardless of the cost!

I look forward to your response! May God bless you in your study