Whosoever Will
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:17
What does this “whosoever will” mean, and how far does it extend? We normally use it as a proof text for the doctrine of the “free will of man”. If “whosoever will” may come, then we must choose Christ. So, really it is up to me to accept or reject Christ, because I must make the choice. “The Savior is waiting to enter your heart. Why don’t you let him come in?” Thus, my job as a pastor, as an evangelist, is to convince men to choose Christ, because man is free to accept Him or reject Him.
That man has some degree of what we call “free will” is undeniable. We see men to some extent choosing to believe or not. 2 Peter 3 tells us about the scoffers who are “willingly ignorant”. But it is impossible to Scripturally prove that man’s will is free in the same sense that God’s will is free. Nor can we possibly prove that God saves a man because of any decision he makes, though God will save men who make decisions for Christ.
For example, Romans 10:13 says, for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God does not save a man because he called upon the name of the Lord. On the other hand, no man who calls upon the name of the Lord for salvation will be rejected. If you seek God, you will find him, if you search for him with all your heart. Not because you searched for him, or searched with all your heart, but because God is gracious and merciful, and because God has purposed to be found of you. And why do you seek God? “Whosoever will” may come, but what causes them to will? A personal choice? Or something deeper, mysterious?
That is the question I intend to answer in this brief study. We will examine what “whosoever will” means, and then why “whosoever” wills it. Revelation 22:17 is true, but what does it really mean? Is the fact that “whosoever” wills a cause for pride or praise? Does your flesh desire God, seek God, please God? Do you work, or does God work?
First, whosoever will may come.
This is true. Whosoever will, let him drink.
Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Are you hungering and thirsting after righteousness? God promises you blessing. You shall be filled. By all means, come. God the Spirit says, “Come”. Our churches say, “Come”. Drink of that water of life from that well of living water, that well from which, if a man drink, he shall never thirst again.
The stream is in the desert, a dry and thirsty land where no water is. You need that water, more than you need anything else. God calls you to come and drink it. And if you want to drink it, that is good. That is all the more reason to drink it. God calls you to drink from that stream. “Whosoever will”.
The word “will” is the Greek word thelo. It means desire, a resolute striving, a decided and convinced seeking. We find that same word, thelo, in Matthew 15:28:
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
We find thelo in John 7:17:
If any man will (desires to, resolves to) do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
We find thelo in 2 Peter 3:5:
For this they willingly are ignorant of (desire resolutely to be ignorant of), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
So, “whosoever will” means whosoever desires resolutely. A man who would drink of that stream will “sell out” to do it. And those who sell out may come. They reject everything else, sell all they have, give up every cumbrance, and seek for that living water with all their heart. When a man once drinks it, he will need no more, and he will want nothing else. The more he drinks of it, the more he wants it, and the less he wants of anything else.
“Whosoever will”, let him take the water of life freely. That is the first thing. Desire it. More than anything else, thirst for that.
But secondly, WHY does “whosoever” will?
Can we really take credit for our thirst? Is it really praiseworthy that you were thirsty? Some will argue, “I could have gone after anything else to quench my thirst, but I thirsted for the Right Thing”.
But that is just it, you did go after everything else to quench your thirst. Nothing else worked. You tried other things, but you thirsted again. How did you come across the Right Thing?
That is the question. Why did you will it? What made you desire the water of life? What caused you to resolve to have it?
It was not your own flesh. Your flesh may know what should be done and not done, but it has no power to do right. We find the Greek word thelo again (the word for will – desire, resolute seeking) in the following verses:
Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would (thelo), that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would (thelo) not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will (thelo) is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would (thelo) I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Your flesh does not know the things of God, does not understand, and does not desire to know. (Thus, Ro 3:10-18; also Ps 14:1-3) And that is why Romans 8:8 says, So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:5-8 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would (thelo).
So, the fact that you “willed” (desired, determined, resolutely thirsted) to drink the water of life is no cause for praise or pride. Why did you “will”? Was it not the working of God in your heart?
Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth (thelo), and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If God has saved you, it is because God determined to save you. If you desired salvation (are there any saved who do not desire it?), God put that thirst in you.
Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD. And verse 9: A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Thirst is a natural thing. God put it in there. And thirst is a good thing too, because we must drink to survive. But God gives us the thirst because he wants us to drink. He is calling us to drink. Do you want to drink? God gave you that desire, and by his grace, God gives you the water. In other words, if you will, if you desire salvation, God put that desire there, because God has purposed to save you.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Understand that I am not denying any participation on the part of man. Contrary! I am asserting that there is in fact participation on the part of man. In salvation, man has a part and God has a part. The majority of the work is God’s part. He has done the work already. Man has a very tiny part to play… a cooperative role, but that is all. God does the calling, man does the responding. God does the wooing, man is wooed. We love him because he first loved us.
And even as we look at man’s part, we see God’s hand there too. God is working in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. And thus we see that God does not call us because of any merit he sees in us. Not because he sees in us a willing heart. But because God gave us a willing heart. Not because we desire salvation, but because he purposed that we would desire salvation.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will (thelo).
Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will (thelo) have mercy, and whom he will (thelo) he hardeneth.
On the other hand, before you accuse God of an injustice, remember:
1Timothy 2:4 Who will (thelo) have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
So, whosoever will, may come! But we shouldn’t be puffed up because we desire salvation. After all, who put that desire, who created that longing in your heart? Who steered you towards the object of your longing? Who directed you to that well of the water of life? Was it not God himself? Then give him the glory!
posted by Dave Mallinak at
4:59 PM
35 Comments:
Are you a Calvinist? If only those seek salvation whom God Himself put in the thirst, then the opposite conclusion is that those who don't get saved are ones He decided not to give that thirst to. I do not believe that is Biblical.
According to John 16:7-14 (and other passages), I believe the Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens every man - and we choose of our own free will to respond. Those that reject Christ potentially* had the Holy Spirit working on them just as much as those that did respond, but they chose to reject that inward conviction and witness because of loving their sin more than the truth, therefore rejecting the Saviour.
*I say potentially, because the Holy Spirit is not obligated to keep drawing someone who is rejecting His work - though He knows the end from the beginning, and knows what it would take in each individual's life.
Thanks for your comments, Jerry. And no, I have no desire to be a calvinist. But I do think this verse must be handled Biblically.
The verse that keeps sticking out in my mind is Philippians 2:13 for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. We can't consider Revelation 22:17 without considering Philippians 2:13.
I hope you will let me be transparent here. When I look at these verses, I see God working. I don't deny that man has a part, nor do I deny that man's part is equally necessary. But the Bible clearly teaches that all the while, God is doing the work. So, repentance does not save a man, nor will any man be saved who does not repent. God saves the man who repents. Not because he repents, but because He is God.
You said that if only those seek salvation whom God Himself put in the thirst, then the opposite conclusion is that those who don't get saved are ones He decided not to give that thirst to. I don't think we can argue that. You are saying that "if I seek, then God gave the thirst; I don't seek, therefore God did not give me the thirst." I hope you don't mind me pointing out that this argument is denying the antecedent, which is an invalid argument. It would be similar to arguing that "if I am a father, then I am a man; I am not a father, therefore I am not a man."
Using the hypothetical you gave, the only valid argument would go like this: "If I am saved, then God gave me the thirst; God did not give me the thirst, therefore I am not saved."
I know that you might still disagree with that, and you might be wondering, "What's the big deal", but please hear me out on this. When we go to witness, we often will ask the Spirit to prepare hearts to receive the Gospel. (I guess I don't know if you pray that, but I hear people say that they do). Why do people pray that? I think they are recognizing the passage you pointed out in John 16. Why do we need the Spirit to prepare the heart? What is the Spirit preparing the heart for? Can a man receive/believe the truth if the Spirit has not prepared his heart?
The heart of my arguments in this post were proofs that the flesh cannot please God, will not yield to the Spirit, cannot do the things that it should, the flesh will not believe. Scripture clearly teaches that the flesh cannot save itself. Salvation is supernatural.
That is the only point I am making. I see evidence of free will, but I also see where free will gets us, starting with Adam in the garden.
Hey, Jerry, I'm trying to be clear, to clearly explain what I was saying in the post, while at the same time trying to dodge that branding iron you're waving around at me! I hope I can manage!
By the way, you argued that the Spirit convicts and enlightens every man, but some men reject (Rom 1 I think would say this). If that is the case, then aren't those men who don't reject God, aren't they willing because the Spirit convicted and enlightened? And isn't that close to what I am saying?
God bless!
* Jerry Bouey said...
* "Those that reject Christ potentially* had the Holy Spirit working on them just as much as those that did respond."
* My experience here tends to contradict your statement. But perhaps I missunderstand what you are saying, or perhaps experience is misleading.
* What about the child that is suddenly killed in an accident just as he reaches the age of accountability? Did the Holy Spirit work on him as much as He did on the reprobate that finally got saved at 45? Where does my grandfather fit in here, he was a virulent athiest and died in his nineties without getting saved?
* I can look at my life and see that I was born in America when she was still a God-fearing nation. My father was a saved man. I got to go to family camp from very early on. A teenage friend of my mother's, ten years older than I am took me to the children's services at the camp, long before I had time to become a cynic toward God. Few people had a more focused and directed introduction to Christ than I did. I praise God for His mercy to me, but it is going to take some clear Bible statements to convince me that the Holy Spirit worked just as hard on a young, heathen born juvenile in a heathen land who never saw a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ.
* I think that many would not be willing to address this question because it seems unfair that God should work more in one man's life than in an other man's. The Holy Spirit came upon John the Baptist while he was yet in womb. Then, was it fair for God to say to Pharoah "...for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth," (Exodus 9:16)? But then I remember that God is just, not fair. If he were fair, I would be in Hell and His Son would never have been crucified!
* The answer is in God's sovereignty. It is absolute, but in His sovereignty, He has determined that He will not violate His own will. It is His will that we have the choice to turn Him down. (But not without consequence!)
* Speaking through my hat,
* ... Joel
Thanks Joel, and I think it is good to point this out. Men are not rejected because "God didn't make them thirsty". Men are rejected because they reject. Yet God in his mercy and kindness reaches for some men.
But the key is to give glory to God, as you have done. Thank you.
The verse that keeps sticking out in my mind is Philippians 2:13 for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. We can't consider Revelation 22:17 without considering Philippians 2:13.
One is dealing with the lost, and the other is dealing with the Holy Spirit working in the saved. His ministry in the saved is different (though there are some elements that overlap) than His ministry to the lost.
If that is the case, then aren't those men who don't reject God, aren't they willing because the Spirit convicted and enlightened? And isn't that close to what I am saying?
I believe the Holy Spirit creates that thirst in all mankind (to some extent) - and that thirst is only fulfilled in Him. That is why the pleasures of sin ultimately leave us empty because that thirst can only be quenched through faith in Him.
You are saying that "if I seek, then God gave the thirst; I don't seek, therefore God did not give me the thirst."
No, I am saying that is basically what it sounds like YOU are saying. You state that those who are saved have all had a thirst given them by God, which is why they got saved. The opposite side of the coin (which sounds like Calvinism from where I am sitting, which is why I want to clarify) is that the lost don't have that thirst because God never gave it to them (which is why they are lost). So in a practical sense, it seems you are stating God picked and chose whom He wanted to work in, He did so and therefore those ones got saved - the rest He sovereignly chose not to save.
Yet, I find many places in Scripture where it says He would and they would not - that He called and convicted and they rebelled and resisted.
----
Joel, notice I clarified my statement with "potentially." God is not obligated to KEEP giving light to someone who rejects it - yet the Scriptures do teach that Christ came to give light to EVERY man (John 1:9). I believe He calls the heathen (which we all were before we got saved - that is what Gentile means, those without God) just as much as anyone else. If they responded to the light of nature and their conscience (see Romans 1 and 2), then God promises to reveal Himself to them - so therefore the Holy Spirit is convicting that person potentially as much as He does someone in North America. If someone here or there rejects that conviction and witness, the Holy Spirit is not obligated to do more - though He many times does do so.
The Holy Spirit came upon John the Baptist while he was yet in womb. Then, was it fair for God to say to Pharoah "...for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth," (Exodus 9:16)?
I am unsure what you are stating here. If you are trying to state that the Holy Spirit saved John the Baptist in the womb, you are dead wrong. Filled means being controlled by - I cannot understand how the Holy Spirit can control or influence John from the womb, but the Bible says He did so - however it does not say he was saved from the womb.
And the Pharaoh was given clear opportunities to turn to the Lord and do God's will - but he refused over and over - until God Himself hardened his heart. That isn't God sovereignly rejecting him for salvation - that is the Pharaoh himself rejecting God - then God turning from him. We know from Exodus that before Moses even went to him, that God told Moses Pharaoh would reject God and refuse to do God's will - but in the unfolding of events we still see Him speaking and calling to Pharaoh. Rejecting someone for service is not the same thing as rejecting them for salvation.
* Jerry,
* First, a minor point, Gentile means not Jewish, except here in Utan, where it means not Jewish or Mormon (Random House College Dictionary). To show the difference, I am a Gentile, but I am not one of those without God (most agree).
* My point about the difference between John the Baptist and Pharaoh is that John, from before his birth, received the witness of the Holy Spirit, while Pharaoh was raised in Godless paganism and probably was never preached to until Moses came along. Who would you expect to end up pleasing God? I agree that both were called to personal redemption, and that God was both just and merciful to both, but could you say that both "had the Holy Spirit working on them just as much" as the other.
* As Dan Rather almost said, "Sovereignty ... sovereignty."
* ... Joel
Jerry, before I answer, tell me what you think of this statement:
I believe that through His atoning sacrifice, the offering of His life on Calvary's Hill, He expiated the sins of mankind, relieving us from the burden of sin if we will forsake evil and follow Him. I believe in the reality and the power of His Resurrection. I believe in the grace of God made manifest through His sacrifice and redemption, and I believe that through His Atonement, without any price on our part, each of us is offered the gift of resurrection from the dead. I believe further that through that sacrifice there is extended to every man and woman, every son and daughter of God, the opportunity for eternal life and exaltation in our Father's kingdom, as we hearken to and obey His commandments.
Jerry, I'm not ignoring you! Really I'm not! I've got much to do, and little time to do it, but I will get back to this. And I really am curious what you think about the statement above... I will explain it after I get your thoughts on it.
Joel, trace out the word "gentile" in the NT, and you will see that in various places it is in reference to those without Christ, the unsaved. Not in every occurence, but in some the contrast is Jews, Gentiles (heathen, pagan, unsaved, without Christ), and the church of God (ie. all believers in this age). Regardless, it was a minor point, I was just commenting that Gentile/heathen (Biblically) applies just as much to the unsaved in North America as to the "heathen" in Africa. See 1 Corinthians 10:20, 32; 12:2; Galatians 2:15; Ephesians 2:11; 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 1 Peter 2:12; 4:3.
I believe that through His Atonement, without any price on our part, each of us is offered the gift of resurrection from the dead.
The gift of salvation is ours through faith (and repentance), without anything on our part (ie. we cannot purchase or earn it). Though I am not sure I agree with the phrase, "the gift of resurrection from the dead." If you just mean salvation (which includes all believers one day being resurrected), then I would agree.
I believe further that through that sacrifice there is extended to every man and woman, every son and daughter of God, the opportunity for eternal life and exaltation in our Father's kingdom, as we hearken to and obey His commandments.
This part puzzles me a bit. Through Christ's atonement, salvation is offered to all - but we do not become His children until we receive that (both the Saviour and His gift of eternal life) through faith.
Eternal life is in no way conditioned upon our obedience (except for our obedience to the Gospel - obeying God's command to come to Him through His Son); however our rewards (which is what I think you mean by exaltation in His kingdom) is based on our obedience and faithfulness in service. Of course, true salvation involves repentance, so a true believer will (generally-speaking) obey the Lord. While none of us are sinless yet, 1 John 3 teaches that the saved "doeth righteousness" (ie. ongoing, in a continual sense - as the characteristic of their life), and the unsaved "doeth not righteousness" and "committeth sin" (as the characteristic of their life). The saved will stumble at times, but that is not the characteristic of their overall walk.
I am not sure if I answered what you were looking for, but that is what comes to mind when reading what you wrote (and looking at it through what I believe the Scriptures teach).
Jerry, I wasn't trying to be malicious here... in looking back, I guess it does look like I made the statement myself. So please forgive me for not telling you that I didn't say that, someone else did. I wasn't intentionally trying to be deceitful, nor was I setting you up.
I did want to illustrate something here about Mormonism, about the importance of a solid theology of salvation, especially when error is so close to the truth.
The statement that I put up was not my own. It was the statement of Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church).
Of course, if you had known that, you would have read it differently. But at the same time, I wanted to show that on the surface most of our stripe would think some of the phrasing to be unusual, but would agree for the most part with the statement.
This is why it can be easy for someone in our area to witness to a Mormon and walk away thinking they might be saved. And that is also why we must have a thoroughly Biblical understanding of salvation.
Again, I wasn't trying to trip you up here. Nor does it say anything about you... You were definitely on the right track in dealing with this, and if I had been more forthright, you probably would have nailed it. Thanks for jumping in on it without knowing.
And now, for the fun part. You objected to my post, and I better have a good answer (great big happy face inserted here if I knew how).
You said that I said if I seek, then God gave the thirst; I don't seek, therefore God did not give me the thirst . I am looking back to see if I actually said this... I can't find it. In your first response, you accused me of saying this. (If only those seek salvation whom God Himself put in the thirst, then the opposite conclusion is that those who don't get saved are ones He decided not to give that thirst to.) But that is not what I said. In fact, I am arguing that the two statements are not equivalent as you insist.
God does not choose men for hell. Period. God is not willing that any should perish. I said that. God rejects men because they reject him. I said that. In fact, let me quote myself here... Some will argue, “I could have gone after anything else to quench my thirst, but I thirsted for the Right Thing”. But that is just it, you did go after everything else to quench your thirst. Nothing else worked. There you have it. I said what you are arguing.
This is the point. I think we agree on everything, except for what you are trying to say I said. I pointed out earlier that in your first reply you said that I believe the Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens every man . If that is the case, then those who are saved are saved because God convicted and enlightened them. Are you arguing that they should get some credit too, since they did after all accept/choose?
In your second reply, you said of Revelation 22:17 and Phil. 2:13, One is dealing with the lost, and the other is dealing with the Holy Spirit working in the saved. Let's say you are right about that. Then you are saying that only in saved people does God work to will and to do of his good pleasure. Again, that sounds like what I am arguing.
I'm sure that you aren't arguing that every human has an equal opportunity to be saved. That would be nonsense. Of course my son has a better opportunity than a child of his age in a jungle tribe. When I consider my own salvation, I see that it was God working from beginning to end.
Again, can any man be saved whom the Spirit has not prepared? Not according to John 6:44 (as quoted in my post). So the Spirit must prepare, the Father must draw, or I will not be saved.
The point is this... all the glory must be God's. Demanding even partial credit, as if I did part of the work, is rebellion against the magnificent glory of Almighty God. It is all of grace, or it is none of grace (Rom 11:6).
* Pastor Mallinak said: "It is all of grace, or it is none of grace."
* In the way I believe you mean this, I agree. But this is a catch phrase used by the Calvinists to indicate that if God decides to save you, He overrides your will and, poof, you are saved.
* We must make the decision. Choice is the important difference between men and angels. Angels were given the opportunity to sin but men were given the opportunity to be saved by grace. (Note: Angels did Not fall from grace as some Bible commentators have it. Angels were never under grace, they were sinless!)
* All of creation was set up for this one purpose. God wanted to fellowship with and to love those who chose to love Him, even though they had the other choice of something they could see that looked good (Gen. 3:6 and I John 2:16).
* Not understanding this point is the great failure of Calvinism. It is why the Calvinist salvation is all of God and none of man.
* From God's point of view, even after all of the cost to Jesus Christ to purchase it, salvation is of no value if it is not accepted by the choice of the rescued man.
*
* Talking through my (KJV only) hat,
* ... Joel
I am not talking about claiming credit - but being saved by grace doesn't mean we didn't respond. If today God convicted Man A and Man B when they hear the Gospel through a friend, Man A responds positively and Man B responds negatively - God convicted and enlightened both to understand the Gospel, one accepted and one rejected - God worked on both. There is nowhere Scripturally you can state God only convicted and drew the one and didn't do that to the other, or that God sovereignly gave a thirst to one and didn't to the other, so the one got saved and the other didn't - which is what I am disagreeing with. That is what it sounds like you are saying.
The opposite side of the coin - which I am also refuting - is that if ONLY those get saved whom God gave the thirst to, then those He sovereignly chooses not to give a thirst to are damned - THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THIS REASONING, GOD IS ELECTING SOME FOR SALVATION AND SOME TO BE DAMNED. You can't have one side of this coin without the other. If God elected/chose some to be saved, and those exact ones did get saved (regardless of their own will in the matter), then He also elected/chose some to be damned (ie. specifically those He did not choose to elect to be saved).
I am not trying to twist or misrepresent what you are saying. From where I sit, this looks to me what you are basically saying. If I am missing something somewhere, please clarify.
God gives grace - but His grace does have conditions. In regards to salvation, we must receive it. In regards to service and daily living, we must humble ourselves (or we won't receive it). This is from James 4 and 1 Peter 5. So He does not sovereignly dispense grace apart from the free will of man. If I chose to rebel against Him today, I would not get the grace I need today to serve Him - likewise, if I want that grace that He promises, I need to do my part to be able to claim that promise: and my part is to humble myself. In regards to salvation, my part is to humble myself, repent, and come to Him His way and He will give me His gift of eternal life because His way is through faith in His Son - when I receive Jesus as the only Saviour, the only way to Heaven, who paid the complete penalty for my sin, then I am saved - which involved my free will.
I am nowhere stating I came to Him apart from His work in my heart and mind - yet, if I can rebel as a Christian (at times) when He is working in my life, I could have certainly rebelled as a lost man and rejected that inward witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit, and not have gotten saved.
When a stated opinion veers away from "conventional wisdom", or is stated differently than our tradition states it, we tend to read into it the things that we want while ignoring what is really being said. Read my post again. I clearly stated that man has a part. But I also gave MANY arguments and MUCH Scripture in support of what I said. And so far, all of Jerry's comments have referred to what he thinks I am IMPLYING. He only differs with what I say because he differs with what he perceives it to IMPLY. I have denied that it IMPLIES that. What I said and what he says I said are not EQUIVALENT. Not logically, not Biblically. I have denied that my statement implies his, and I have repeatedly denied believing what he is trying to attach to me.
Okay, so Jerry, I will say it for all to hear. I do NOT believe that God elects some for Hell. I do NOT believe that God is playing a great cosmic game of eeny, meeny, miney, moe, this one's saved and this one goes. The Bible does NOT teach it, and therefore I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. PERIOD! (I guess all-caps makes it stronger... shows I am passionate about that). I DON'T BELIEVE IT! Are we okay with that?
I have to believe what the Bible says. I have to believe what the Bible says about me. I have to believe what the Bible says about my flesh. All my arguments have been grounded in Scripture. All your disagreements have come from what you think I am inferring. Refute my Scripture proofs. Show me from the Bible that the flesh can ever please God. Show me from the Bible that the flesh EVER goes towards God. Even in the regenerate heart, the flesh is still lusting AGAINST the Spirit, and the Spirit AGAINST the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other so that ye CANNOT do the things that ye would.
Do we all have free will? Yes. We all have the ability to make a choice. We can all choose whether or not to sin. Show me one man who chose not to sin. We can all choose whether or not to seek the Lord. Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Isaiah 53, and Romans 3 tells us what choice we ALL make. Every time. Unless you want to say that this is only referring to the unsaved. But then I would be forced to agree with you. Those passages are talking about the unsaved. The unsaved do not seek the Lord. The natural man does not understand, neither indeed can they. They run, they resist, they hide. That is, until God's Spirit guides them into truth. Until then, we are all like sheep going astray.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. I am justified by my faith. But is faith a work? No. Faith without works is dead, so faith includes work, but faith is not a work. Faith is not a MEMBER of my flesh. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Faith is a grace. Faith is the gift of God. God gives me the faith to believe, and then God saves me for believing.
I put a big emphasis on the word because in my post. I will not be saved unless I repent, but I am not saved because I repent. I am not saved unless I believe (or choose as you prefer), but I am not saved because I believe. I am saved because Christ saved me, or I am not saved at all. But unfortunately, we like to qualify that statement. We like to qualify that Christ saved me because I made the right choice. Man struggles to ever let go of his pride.
I am not saved because I believe. I am saved because Christ saved me, or I am not saved at all.
Christ does not save apart from our personal faith.
From where I am standing it seems you are playing a semantics game - maybe I am blind and just cannot see the subtle distinction you are making that makes you a non-Calvinist in this particular point. I cannot see how - if God chooses who He will save and gives them the faith to believe (and all who believe had that same faith given them by God) - that does also not mean that God chose NOT to save some (by not giving them that same faith) - because if He gave SOME faith (and ALL these are the ones that got saved), then the other side of the coin is that He did NOT give others faith - therefore damning them (as they cannot be saved apart from that faith that you say He gave to those who would be saved).
Again, I am not accusing you of saying something you are not, I am saying it SEEMS to me you are saying something - which I disagree with. If I am reading into what you are saying and therefore arriving at the wrong conclusion, I apologize. Better to refute what I think you are saying and get clarification than to just overlook something that could be a major difference in approach to this issue.
Jerry,
You should know that hardly a Calvinist would say that "man has a part." I think Pastor Mallinack or myself could also argue from the Bible that man does not have a part. I am stepping out here to say that he says "man has a part" to distinguish himself from a Calvinist. How could we have a part if "none seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:10-12)? How could we have a part if it is granted unto us to believe in Christ (Philip. 1:29)? Man is responsible, but absolutely none of my salvation is man's or my own. These may seem to contradict, but they are how Scripture reads. We receive Him not by the will of the flesh or of man (John 1:11,12).
I agree with what Pastor Mallinack has written, and I am a zero point Calvinist, and could explain why, but won't because I don't have the time presently.
You should know that hardly a Calvinist would say that "man has a part."
I wasn't saying he was a Calvinist - I was saying in this one point, it sounds like he is Calvinistic.
I am not saying I have a part in my salvation - that I did something to save myself. Though I am saying that if I did not respond to the Gospel I would not be saved.
I agree, on our own we do not seek after God. We seek after Him because of His work of conviction in us. I am certainly not saying I sought Him apart from His work in me.
However, if only those sought Him whom He chose to do so - then you are saying exactly what I have a problem with: that God did choose who He would save (and they did get saved) apart from their own will or choice - and conversely He chose who He would not save (ie. that is all those others who He did not choose to save; therefore He did choose who He would damn - you can't have one without the other). In the Scriptures I see Him saving all who come to Him through Christ, and damning all those who will not receive Christ.
We receive Him not by the will of the flesh or of man (John 1:11,12).
Actually the passage says we are born again not by the will of the flesh or of man - it does not say we did not receive Him of our own will. In fact, there are various OT and NT passages where the Lord appeals to our will. He convicts and enlightens us to understand the Gospel, and we respond - then based on that response (if positive) He regenerates us. There is nowhere in Scripture that it teaches He regenerates apart from man's response to the Gospel.
The saved got saved because they received the witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit, received the Gospel, received the Saviour, received the gift of eternal life. And the lost are damned because they received not the witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit, they received not Jesus Christ. Not because God sovereignly chose it one way or the other, apart from their personal free will choice (ie. receiving or rejecting Christ/the Gospel is a conscious willful choice).
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
If we cannot see eye to eye on this, then I will just bow out - it is not my blog and I do not want to create endless arguments on yours. Clarification is edifying, but so far it seems we have a fundamental difference in understanding this issue (unless I am really missing the boat on what you are saying).
Jerry stated
"I wasn't saying he was a Calvinist - I was saying in this one point, it sounds like he is Calvinistic."
Jerry perhaps the reason that he sounded Calvinistic is because even Calvinists, do hold to someBiblcal truths, just like Pastor Mallinak, the difference lies in the interpretaion of the Bible, and not what is convenient to what you want to believe, the whole Bible as a solid unit, in that what I am confident that is what Pastor Mallinak is presenting.
I hope made this clear and it doesn't sound as if I am rebuking anyone
You might be missing the boat, Jerry. We might be close and exact. I think you have probably studied your stuff. Many haven't. There are so many Calvinists out there writing in blogs especially that sometimes when someone sounds like he is espousing Calvinism, when he is not, a knee-jerk reaction will occur to a strong sovereignty position. Nothing I said was a very thorough exegesis, and some of your clarification was correct.
I seem to tangle with Calvinists and Arminians. Be well, brother.
* I am going to stick my head up, here, partially because Pastor Mallinak and I have discussed this very subject and were slow to come to a common understanding. The difficulty is in looking at it from man's viewpoint, not God's.
* "... if I be lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all men unto me," John 12:32.
* He was lifted up (John 3:14), so all men are drawn unto Him, though I am not convinced that the Holy Spirit extends the same effort upon each man. "What if He didn't" is not a valid question. He did. It is God's will to draw all men unto Himself.
* But why then, are not all men not saved?
* ... (Deuteronomy 8:20) ... so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.
* ... (Jeremiah 29:19) Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.
* ... (Matthew 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
* They are not saved because God has given them the free will to REJECT Christ. Accepting Christ is wholly of the Grace of God. Rejecting Christ is wholly the sin of man.
*
* Talking through my hat ...
* Joel
Those are some good points, Joel, and something I was trying to get at, though I didn't say it as precisely as you. I think the point is clear. We are free to reject, but when we come, it is God who drew us. Put another way, free will only gives us the ability to reject. If we accept Christ, that is the grace of God. Very Good!
They are not saved because God has given them the free will to REJECT Christ. Accepting Christ is wholly of the Grace of God. Rejecting Christ is wholly the sin of man.
We are free to reject, but when we come, it is God who drew us. Put another way, free will only gives us the ability to reject. If we accept Christ, that is the grace of God.
So - if we never exercised our free will, would we all be saved (seeing as God is drawing all men, convicting and englightening all - to different extents)?
Cathy, I am not against everything Calvinists believe, but I do not believe their "5 Points" hold up under the light of Scripture - and this area seems to fall in under Irresistable Grace, which is why I had a problem with it.
Based on the last couple of entries above, I am getting a better grasp on what is being said here - though I hope I can get my question above answered, as that would really help.
I was thinking further on this, and wanted to state where I stand on some of the last things stated:
Yes, I believe that apart from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, all mankind's free will is used to rebel. Before salvation - all we have power to do is sin. It is not until after we get saved that we have liberty to serve and do righteousness.
WHEN the Holy Spirit does His work of convicting and enlightening (to our sin, to understand the Gospel, witnessing of our need of Christ, and drawing us to Him) - THEN we have the free will to respond positively (which we do not have prior to His inward work)or negatively; we THEN have the ability to receive or reject Christ (whereas before all we had was the ability to reject Him).
I also understand from the Scriptures, that today is the day of salvation - that there is a time where we can seek the Lord while He may be found, when we can call upon Him while He is near, there is a time where we can respond or harden our hearts - AND THEN THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME WHERE THIS GRACE IS REMOVED AND WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO RESPOND POSITIVELY. This happened clearly with Pharaoh, and can be seen in John 3:19-21; Romans 1; 2 Thessalonians 2.
My point of differing would be: I do not believe anyone can be saved apart from an act of their own will, from their own heart choosing to receive the Gospel, choosing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ. (And of course, this choice can only be made when the Holy Spirit is working on that person.) There is no Biblical justification for believing anyone is saved apart from their own choice - there are no Scriptures where God overrode mankind's will or conscience and saved them apart from their own choice, apart from a conscious act of their own will. This didn't even happen with the Apostle Paul - though some might use it as an example. Jesus opened his eyes to see what he had been doing to His people, he saw he was rebelling against the Messiah, and in utter shock he repented and turned to Jesus - "What wilt Thou have me to do."
Here is an excellent article dealing with part of what we are discussing (man's free will in rejecting Christ):
God's Willingness And Man's Unwillingness
Jerry, I can't find the question that you are referring to. If you don't mind re-asking, I will gladly attempt an answer.
I'm glad we are having this discussion. First, God is a God of precision. I want my theology to be precise, and to be right. Of course, that requires me to be constantly modifying it, "reforming" it (if you will). So I hope you don't mind if I comment on just one thing you said above...
I do not believe anyone can be saved apart from an act of their own will, from their own heart choosing to receive the Gospel, choosing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ.
I too believe that man does play a part in this. Godly men have debated this issue throughout the last 2,000 years. The debate (which I'm guessing won't be settled until we sit at Christ's feet) has centered on God's part and man's part in salvation, and precisely where man's part ends and God's part begins, or contrarily, where God's part ends and man's part begins. I am settled in my mind that I have a Scriptural answer, though I may not be able to be precise on that. Certainly God plays a big part, and comparatively speaking, man's part is very small. And when a man looks back on his salvation, remembering when that full assurance came, he sees that God was enabling, was working, even as that man was working.
So, let me respond briefly to the quote above. You said, "I do not believe anyone can be saved apart from an act of their own will, from their own heart choosing to receive the Gospel, choosing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ." My difference would be small... I would hesitate to use the word act . I think a better word would be response. God acts. Man responds. Man's response might be rebellion. Man's response might be belief. You could make the case that man is actively responding. But man is responding to the action of God.
Coming in late here, perhaps after the bell.
Just for context, I would submit that once mankind was plunged into sin, God had no mandate or responsibility to save us. As we were in a freefall of our own choosing, it was going to take an act of God to rescue us from the natural end of our sin.
Now, you can argue to what degree God made effort to save each individual mankind, but before we shoot the Life Guard who only saved some, let's remember that it cost Him His Son in the doing. He did more for me than anyone could be expected to do, even with the knowledge that we would otherwise perish. In this context, no argument can ever constructed that would give solid enough footing for the perishing to claim that God is the one who chose their damnation!
With this as a context, no one can justly prosecute the Life Guard for choosing some for destruction. But it is certain that as Christ threw His life line to us, while we embraced it (our part), it was not even available until God sacrificed His Son to make the offer possible.
In tandem, other than being against His sovereign will, God could have required us to jump the moon, climb everest, or retrieve a penny from the Marina Trench in order to be saved, but it was by God's grace that we are "saved through faith" (Eph.8:9). It was something of which everyone of every culture, gender, race, or financial status was capable. Even our being "saved through faith" is constructed upon the "grace" of God. Praise the Lord!
Imagine the poor, dripping sap climbing up the beach, removing the rope and ring as television and radio personalities interview the Life Guard. "So how many did you save?...Wow!! Impressive! And it cost you your Son to do it!! What a hero you..." But just then, the sap leans into the huddle and says, "Now wait just a minute here: I CHOSE to grab that rope!"
* Jerry Bouey said... “So - if we never exercised our free will, would we [then] all be saved[?] ...”
* All the 3 Scriptures I quoted contained the phrase “Ye would not”. This wording demands that God already gave them the power to do something. When they didn’t, they were not saved. So God gave them the power to accept His offering or the free will to refuse it. The first alternative (accept) is all of God, with man’s willful consent. The other alternative, not accepting (whether as an active refusal or an indefinite postponement) is man’s will to refuse God.
* Suppose you are in a dark room and the power goes out, leaving you in the dark. You find a light switch and flick it on and back off. Nothing happens. Your host starts the backup generator and tells you to flick the switch again. Assume you do. The light then comes on. Is that your work, or only putting your faith in the host into action? Assume you don’t. The light doesn’t come on. Is the continued darkness your host’s refusal to be gracious, or your free will to refuse?
* Now, assume you are God. How more plainly could you put it than He has?
* Thinking through my hat,
* ... Joel
I also have used "response" to differentiate between something that is a work of man and faith. God's revelation does something to and in men to enable them to respond, so it is again God. And Jason, I really liked your lifeguard metaphor.
Now, you can argue to what degree God made effort to save each individual mankind, but before we shoot the Life Guard who only saved some, let's remember that it cost Him His Son in the doing. He did more for me than anyone could be expected to do, even with the knowledge that we would otherwise perish. In this context, no argument can ever constructed that would give solid enough footing for the perishing to claim that God is the one who chose their damnation!
From what I can tell, according to your analogy, God specifically did choose only to save some - THEREFORE THOSE HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO SAVE, HE CHOSE TO DAMN. I don't know how you (or others) can state one side of this coin, and yet have a problem when someone points out the other. If someone is only saved because God saved them, completely apart from any choice or response of their will, then those He chose not to save, He chose to damn to Hell. You can't have it any other way.
The Scriptures teach it was God's will to save all - yet not all would receive the truth of the Gospel, therefore not all are saved - yet all had the opportunity (to some extent).
Your lifeguard analogy is flawed - because it is basically stating that God only wanted to rescue some. The Bible teaches God wanted to rescue all. With a lifeguard, he goes out and brings back in the drowning swimmer. Yet if there were more than one drowning swimmer, your analogy is stating that He chose to save one of them, and left the other to his own doom (which is why I am saying that is the same thing as stating He chose to damn the other - because He specifically had the ability to save both and chose not to). I believe the Bible teaches that He threw out the lifeline to ALL the swimmers, and those whom grasped hold of that lifeline were saved, and those who neglected or rejected that lifeline were damned - but that lifeline was thrown to all. Maybe some got the line thrown to them more than once, maybe some were given better understanding on how much they needed that lifeline to be saved, yet all had to choose whether to grasp hold of that lifeline or not.
Unlike the lifegard scenario - salvation involves a conscious decision of the will to be saved. A lifeguard jumps in the water and rescues someone whether they want to be or not, they do not need to be a willing recipient of that physical salvation - they could be unconscious and unable to respond, yet they could still be saved physically. However, no one is saved spiritually without a conscious response on their part - that is the whole thing I am debating here. If God deliberately set out to save so many - and refused to save the rest - and those whom He chose to save did get saved, regardless of their own will in the matter - then those He chose not to save were left to damnation (therefore the same thing as if He chose to damn them, as He did not choose to save them) - BY CHOOSING ONLY TO DO SOMETHING FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE, HE IS ALSO CHOOSING NOT TO DO IT FOR ALL OTHERS.
All the 3 Scriptures I quoted contained the phrase “Ye would not”. This wording demands that God already gave them the power to do something. When they didn’t, they were not saved. So God gave them the power to accept His offering or the free will to refuse it. The first alternative (accept) is all of God, with man’s willful consent. The other alternative, not accepting (whether as an active refusal or an indefinite postponement) is man’s will to refuse God.
Joel, I agree with the way you have put it in your last post and am not arguing against that at all. However, I do disagree with some statements made by others here (at least I disagree with what I think they are stating).
I also agree that God has never commanded something of anyone that He did not give them the power to do - in some sense He enables or will enable each person to do what He has commanded (ie, He will convict man of their sin and give them understanding of the Gospel so they can be saved). If He commands mankind to be saved - then He has to work on them in such a way that they can respond to the Gospel. The same goes for the Christian life: when God commands us to live a certain way or to fulfill a certain command, He makes the ability to do so available (it is our fault if we do not humble ourselves and receive the grace or strength to do so).
Jumping in really, really late here. And really, really OFF TOPIC, but I must say...
I really like the life guard metaphor also, but the hat has to go-----really, really quickly!!!
* Jerry Bouey said...
"Your lifeguard analogy is flawed - because it is basically stating that God only wanted to rescue some."
* The lifeguard analogy was offered only to explain whether works is involved in one's salvation or not. It was not given to address anything about a selection of who would be saved.
* Analogies are rarely, if ever, perfect. They picture the subject addressed, but the set up and ancillary points often do not match reality.
* I think that your beliefs, Jerry, are probably no different than any of those commenting on this blog on this matter. The difficulty is that salvation is an infinite and eternal subject. As powerful as words are, one can always find questions that have not had the answers yet expressed. Thus the resort to metaphor in order to draw pictures to help communication. But any metaphor can only illuminate a part of the huge overall picture, any one statement (by man) cannot reduce the entire subject to a simple definition that satisfies all questions.
* All our best efforts to understand the great doctrine of soteriology amout to only examining a shadow and the limits placed on its interpretations.
*
* Talking through my hat,
* ... Joel
Jerry, I love you and really do like what you write, although I am frequently not keeping up with my own blog like I want, let alone others. However, metaphors, like the lifeguard one, often don't work on every level to illustrate something. What I liked about it was that the person had to grab the ring, and that was it, so he wouldn't be talking about his choice when it was done. Did you get that? God saved Him, not His choice. God won't save everyone because not everyone will grab the ring, but it really isn't our choice that saved us; God did. That's all.
Thanks for clarifying.
(playing Augustinian/Calvinists advocate):
Lifeguard can throw all the rings he wants to but...
dead men can't grap rings.
Anyway...just throwing this one out here.
Late two cents.
Ephesians 1:5-6 "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Ephesians 2:3-5 "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)"
And their answer for that one is that God regenerates so that the person can believe - which contradicts Scripture itself which teaches that God regenerates upon our belief. God enables man to respond to the Gospel and receive Christ, and then man has the choice to do so or not.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home