Does man have the power to limit the work of God?

Carbon

Well-known member
And please prove free will in 1 Tim 4 along with Christ dying for the whole world. In light of Job 34:14-15.

1 Timothy 4:10
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I’m still waiting for those who believe man has to first believe before the Spirit will enter them and cause regeneration.
In light of Job 34 below.


Job 34:14-15,
If he should set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to dust.
I am wondering about what you are making of this verse? Job is speaking about the breath of God in our physical bodies that makes us living souls. If God were to retract that Spirit from a man, the man wouuld cease to be a living soul and just be a bag of meat.
The Bible teaches that when God breathed His spirit into Adam, he became a living soul. Not a born again child of God.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Amen. But doesn't God's Right of Refusal pre-exist our Right of Refusal; since we're Condemned already? The Condemned of God HAVE no Rights, so they wouldn't have the Right of Refusal; correct?
We THINK we have the Right of Refusal...

Don't you agree that before the Application of Prevenient Grace, you actually had NO Right to refuse God; though out of your Enmity you refused God daily?


Herein lies the rub! The question, as posed, does not speak of a post-fall condition or any specific context. Man is still born with the image of God, though marred by sin, and the functions of those attributes remain.

But to your point, the right to refuse is given the moment a request, opportunity or command is made. Requests, opportunities, and commands from God are made and obeyed or refused all the time! The "right" is really an expectation of response, accept or reject, obey or disobey, no man has the right to demand or expect God based on his own standing. Man only has the rights that God gives him. To respond to God, positively or negatively is not a right, it is an expectation, a necessary response!


Doug
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Herein lies the rub! The question, as posed, does not speak of a post-fall condition or any specific context. Man is still born with the image of God, though marred by sin, and the functions of those attributes remain.

But to your point, the right to refuse is given the moment a request, opportunity or command is made. Requests, opportunities, and commands from God are made and obeyed or refused all the time! The "right" is really an expectation of response, accept or reject, obey or disobey, no man has the right to demand or expect God based on his own standing. Man only has the rights that God gives him. To respond to God, positively or negatively is not a right, it is an expectation, a necessary response!


Doug
You know me, I'm mainly dealing with Antecedents and Subsequents. Since we're Condemned already, we have no Rights. A Criminal THINKS he has a Right to Vote...

The Sinner THINKS he has a Right to Vote against God. We're at Enmity with God, and are Enemy Combatants at War with God; if you're not with him, you're against him. There is no Geneva Convention for the Condemned of God. But nevertheless, we THINK we have Rights...
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Makes one want to bang ones head against the wall reading these man made doctrines and teachings, "limited range of sovereign choice," "free will choosing," "God could not usurp those decisions from man's will."

Strange teachings not found in Scripture.

Yep, they teach God can't, then teach man can. God "could not." Unbelievable. Or is it just plain unbelief?

Some need to reread Matthew 19:25-26 "...Who then can be saved? But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
I do not say God cannot, " could not", I said that God does not of his own accord! Huge difference! Your straw man grows with every sentence you write!


Doug
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
I do not say God cannot, " could not", I said that God does not of his own accord! Huge difference! Your straw man grows with every sentence you write!


Doug


Wow Doug, the point is your blurbs aren't found in Scripture, and the point has gone over your head. And you seem very angry(!!!!!!!)

And my point isn't a straw man, so please stop misrepresenting me.

The thing with your errant gospel is you have God incapable of doing anything to save man unless man gives Him permission. That is wrong on so many levels, and at the least sacrilegious. You present God as some aging, feeble, pushover, grandfather hoping we will let him help us. That god you project is nothing like the God of Scripture. It's the same god that Copeland preaches.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
You know me, I'm mainly dealing with Antecedents and Subsequents. Since we're Condemned already, we have no Rights. A Criminal THINKS he has a Right to Vote...
In Main and Vermont, convicts never lose the right to vote. In all other 48 States, all convicts regain the right to vote at some point after their sentence is completed.

The Sinner THINKS he has a Right to Vote against God...
Again, it is not a "right" per se, but an expectation of response. If his voice speaks and says "repent", we either do or we don't. It's not a "right" to say yes or no, it is a divine requirement that we must and will do.


Doug
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Wow Doug, the point is your blurbs aren't found in Scripture, and the point has gone over your head. And you seem very angry(!!!!!!!)

And my point isn't a straw man, so please stop misrepresenting me.

The thing with your errant gospel is you have God incapable of doing anything to save man unless man gives Him permission. That is wrong on so many levels, and at the least sacrilegious. You present God as some aging, feeble, pushover, grandfather hoping we will let him help us. That god you project is nothing like the God of Scripture. It's the same god that Copeland preaches.
Do you know what a straw man is? It means you have misrepresented someone's argument and then argued against your own misrepresentation.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Wow Doug, the point is your blurbs aren't found in Scripture, and the point has gone over your head. And you seem very angry(!!!!!!!)

And my point isn't a straw man, so please stop misrepresenting me.

The thing with your errant gospel is you have God incapable of doing anything to save man unless man gives Him permission. That is wrong on so many levels, and at the least sacrilegious. You present God as some aging, feeble, pushover, grandfather hoping we will let him help us. That god you project is nothing like the God of Scripture. It's the same god that Copeland preaches.

1) I am not angry, I am emphatic! A certain poster of your persuasion shows more anger, in my opinion, with their all caps EMPHASIZING, which textually mean shouting or yelling!

2) When you lump me in with Finney and Copland (I'm assuming you mean Kenneth Copland) you are misrepresenting my beliefs.

3) It is your claim that I say God is "incapable of doing anything to save man unless man gives Him permission", not mine. Unless you can quote me making such a statement, you are misrepresenting me by this straw man caricature you present! Again, I'm not angry, I'm emphatically stating you're not stating my beliefs accurately.

Doug
 

Predestined

Well-known member
What we have here is a failure to regenerate.

In order to rectify this one needs to get the “ordo salutis” in the correct order. Before I go any further I want to affirm that our omniscient God does not need to do things in sequential order as we do, but there is a logical order to the way in which God saves us from sin and its consequences.

Since we are described as “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1-5) and unable to do anything to save ourselves from our dire predicament (John 6:44), God must act upon us while we are still “dead” in order to save us from our sins. The ordo salutis is simply an attempt to understand what steps God takes to save us, and in what logical order he takes them.

Here is the good: the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

Here is the not so good: ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.

The most important thing to get right in the order of salvation is the place of regeneration in the new birth. Some hold that regeneration takes place before effectual calling since the Bible teaches the doctrine of predestination of the elect (election). The elect, therefore, will be regenerated since God’s grace is irresistible. The Scriptures teach that man is dead, unable and unwilling to come to Christ on his own. God set his love, mercy, and grace on his elect in eternity past. God chose them first! John 15:16.

The focuses is on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God's electing decree.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
1) I am not angry, I am emphatic! A certain poster of your persuasion shows more anger, in my opinion, with their all caps EMPHASIZING, which textually mean shouting or yelling!

Anyone who sees one word capitalized, and the rest of the sentence in lower case, and interprets that as "shouting" is an idiot. Imagine someone reading the bulk of a sentence in a quiet reading voice, then shouting ONE word, and then going back to a quiet reading voice, and interpreting that as "anger". That's insane.

Context is everything.

2) When you lump me in with Finney and Copland (I'm assuming you mean Kenneth Copland) you are misrepresenting my beliefs.

Not if you share their beliefs.

3) It is your claim that I say God is "incapable of doing anything to save man unless man gives Him permission", not mine.

That's the view your posts contain.
If you don't like it, change what you post.
 

Predestined

Well-known member
You peaked my interest with this statement.

Can you establish the difference between sequential order and logical order?

Sure that will be as easy as pie. The process for making a pie is done in a Sequential order. First read your recipe then you gather your ingredients and your utensils. Next mix your ingredients and follow the cooking instructions.

So Sequential order shows you how to do something and if you change that order around the end result may not be what you had in mind.

Now a logical order does the same exact thing. See how easy that was? But thanks for pointing that out to me as obviously I didn't make it real clear in my other post. Let me try again.

I wasn't referring to the difference between sequential order and logical order as they are the same. What I was trying to say was when we want something to happen we have to do A, B and C God on the other hand says "let there be light, and there was light". But in the case of our salvation he had that all planned out from the garden.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15

That was one big huge sequential order and the logical order of it is laid out for us in the Bible. Salvation's what I'm talking! Makes us clean ,clean from the inside out. The logical Order of Salvation.

Let me break it down another way. If I do this, that, and the other thing I'll be saved - a sequential order (a bad Recipe).

I'm a broken, lost, dead inside... Master of my own destiny. There's no hope for me I can't change that. But then something happened:

In John 15:16 Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.” Ephesians 1:4 says, “He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” First Peter 2:9 says, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

God used his logical Order of Salvation and changed me into a slave of the most high God. The recipe was Jesus, the ingredients were John 3:16
And as I've heard quite a few people on these boards mention about themselves "He's not done with me yet"... I'm thinking The Wedding Feast of the Lamb sounds like a party!

Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty One has entered into his [consummation] reign! Let us rejoice and be exultant and give him glory! For the wedding feast of the Lamb has come, and his bride has prepared herself, and it was granted her to robe herself in radiant, fine linen. (Rev 19:6–8​
 

kamaeq

Active member
How would you categorize verses such as ..

Mat 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mar 6:5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching
Times and places where man denies miracles (and suppresses evidence of them if need be) and ascribe all things to the works of man. It has been common for over a century, all the way back to the Century of Myths (19th). This mythology was created to "prove" the superiority of modern (for the time) mankind. The signs were there all the way back 80-100 years ago and led to a great bloodletting, which has continued unabated ever since in the service of man. The current politics of the world with the massive fake crises supported by pseudoscience continue the trend.

Even if you do great miracles, there will propaganda and denial. I've seen miracles and heard witness to them by two or more witnesses, but nobody considers them to be such. It is all just "something happened we don't understand, must have missed something" types of responses.
 
Top