Doesn't God force people to believe in Christ?

[shnarkle]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

[shnarkle]

This is the crux of my argument that we're not here on earth to find GOD but to be returned TO GOD after putting our faith in HIM (finding HIM and coming to HIM, so to speak),

The problem I have with this idea is that Christ points out that we don't choose him, but he chooses us. It isn't our faith, but as Paul put it, "by grace through faith, and that NOT OF OURSELVES". It's not our faith, but "the faith of Christ" placed within the new creature.

by their free will, but then lost that free will through choosing to be sinful and here, as sinful humans are being brought back to HIM by HIS will, HIS gift of faith through grace, since we cannot do that for ourselves any more.

I think this works just as well without the added mythology. I don't use the term in a pejoritive or demeaning way. I'm just not sure how the added mythology works yet.

This says nothing about those who have never believed, ie put their faith in HIM and are therefore outside of HIS grace eternally. Believers who sin are not condemned for their sin but non-believers who have never put their faith in HIM are condemned already; Jn 3:18.

The thing about putting our faith into Christ, is that it looks man centered rather than God or Christ centered, and given that all of creation is created in, with, and through Christ FOR Christ, I see no point in leaving any of it up to the "will or effort" of fallen mankind.

Christ pays for what is his, and he's going to take it regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. It is according to God's will, and no one else's. I see no scriptural evidence for God leaving anything up to the will of mankind rather than his own purposes.

[ttruscott]

This is the crux of my argument that we're not here on earth to find GOD but to be returned TO GOD after putting our faith in HIM (finding HIM and coming to HIM, so to speak),

The problem I have with this idea is that Christ points out that we don't choose him, but he chooses us. It isn't our faith, but as Paul put it, "by grace through faith, and that NOT OF OURSELVES". It's not our faith, but "the faith of Christ" placed within the new creature.

Well I agree totally as it applies to sinners on earth being redeemed but it does not restrict our previous responding to the gospel in the spirit world before the foundation of the world, ie , before our election.

[ttruscott]

...by their free will, but then lost that free will through choosing to be sinful and here, as sinful humans are being brought back to HIM by HIS will, HIS gift of faith through grace, since we cannot do that for ourselves any more.

I think this works just as well without the added mythology. I don't use the term in a pejoritive or demeaning way. I'm just not sure how the added mythology works yet.

It supports the denial that we have a free will until reborn as it is written sinners are enslaved to sin.

It denies that GOD interferes with our free will since as sinners we do not have such freedom from sin. HIS grace only changes our sinful self will without doing any damage to the absolute necessity that we accepted HIS marriage proposal by our FREE WILL which happened before we chose to be sinners.

[ttruscott]

The thing about putting our faith into Christ, is that it looks man centered rather than God or Christ centered, and given that all of creation is created in, with, and through Christ FOR Christ, I see no point in leaving any of it up to the "will or effort" of fallen mankind.

Fallen mankind has absolutely nothing to do with our own being saved from sin except by creating that need by sinning. But if our election / non-election was not merit / dis-merit based by a free will acceptance / rejection of HIS gospel then there is no reason for Satan to be damned by being passed over for election.

IF HE created us to choose so HIS marriage with us was in fact real, how does that negate HIS Glory? Does it not rather show its manifestation? There is no glory in manifesting evil so we know HE did not create evil therefore Satan must have done it by his free will...and so us too.

[ttruscott]

I see no scriptural evidence for God leaving anything up to the will of mankind rather than his own purposes.

You see no explicit verse but the need for our free will acceptance of HIM as our espoused is an absolute necessity as a true marriage cannot be forced.

Our free will is also an absolute necessity to keep HIM at arm's length from the creation of evil and it is also an absolute necessity so that our sins make us actually guilty which we would not be if HE created us evil in Adam or doing only evil by our created nature.

[2timothy316]

I see no scriptural evidence for God leaving anything up to the will of mankind rather than his own purposes.

The Bible itself is the evidence. If we had no freedom to chose what is the point of the scriptures?

"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.�—Deut. 30:19, 20,

If we are predetermined by God as what we are going to do, why is Jehovah God Himself telling us to choose life? Why tell us to listen to His voice and stick to Him? Isn't it already determined? Is God deceiving us, giving us the illusion of freedom?

[shnarkle]

...by their free will, but then lost that free will through choosing to be sinful and here, as sinful humans are being brought back to HIM by HIS will, HIS gift of faith through grace, since we cannot do that for ourselves any more.

I think this works just as well without the added mythology. I don't use the term in a pejoritive or demeaning way. I'm just not sure how the added mythology works yet.

It supports the denial that we have a free will until reborn as it is written sinners are enslaved to sin.

It denies that GOD interferes with our free will since as sinners we do not have such freedom from sin. HIS grace only changes our sinful self will without doing any damage to the absolute necessity that we accepted HIS marriage proposal by our FREE WILL which happened before we chose to be sinners.

I can see how it supports what you're saying, but here again it's still redundant. The bible as it stands provides more than enough support for these ideas. I"ve already posted half a dozen or more topics proving that fact.

[Anomaly]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

I agree with your assessment. Would you find this process wrong if God's answer is to draw all to Christ? If so, why?

[shnarkle]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

I agree with your assessment. Would you find this process wrong if God's answer is to draw all to Christ? If so, why?

It depends on what you mean by "draw". If you're saying that God draws all to Christ, but not all are drawn successfully, then I would disagree because the texts don't indicate that God is inept at drawing people to Christ.

If you mean that he doesn't create "vessels fitted to destruction" then I would have to ask why you think that to be the case. Obviously vessels fitted to destruction are created to show God's glory to his vessels fitted for mercy so without them, we have a problem Houston. If they're not there, then where are they? Where is God's power shining if not in the vessels fitted for destruction? We can come up with all sorts of other ways to show God's power, but it doesn't negate the fact that God has chosen His vessels fitted for destruction for His own purpose.

In other words, no amount of "will or effort" can turn wolves into sheep, or tares into wheat.

What is there in the texts to indicate otherwise?

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 19 by shnarkle]

It depends on what you mean by "draw". If you're saying that God draws all to Christ, but not all are drawn successfully, then I would disagree because the texts don't indicate that God is inept at drawing people to Christ.

No, I don’t mean that. I’m a universalist, so I believe God draws all to Christ.

If you mean that he doesn't create "vessels fitted to destruction" then I would have to ask why you think that to be the case. Obviously vessels fitted to destruction are created to show God's glory to his vessels fitted for mercy so without them, we have a problem Houston.

I believe God creates vessels fitted to destruction. If you hold, as my literalist brethren do, that destruction is identical to either annihilation or an eternity in hellfire, then I understand the conundrum. I maintain that all destruction in the temporal leads to (and is part of the process of) salvation in the eternal. Thus, wrath and destruction can be used on the one hand to demonstrate God’s power while simultaneously being used to cleanse the ‘vessels of destruction’ of the stuff that causes their rebellion so they may be made whole.

Destruction is relevant to the literal understanding. Cleansing relates to the symbolic understanding. If both take place concurrently, this disentangles the conflict, doesn’t it?

no amount of "will or effort" can turn wolves into sheep, or tares into wheat.

What is there in the texts to indicate otherwise?

But now you’ve created a new problem. If no amount of will or effort on God’s part can turn the apostate into a saint, then Mat 19:26 (and other verses) that claim with God all things are possible creates a contradiction.

Your appeal to the texts to “indicate otherwise� is ambiguous. If you hold, as many do, that only a literal interpretation of the Bible is valid, then like them you are stuck in your contradictions without escape. I take historical-grammatical literalism to be a man-made corruption.

Question: does what I presented above remove the contradiction you implied in the OP? I understand that there are a number of areas in what I presented that need evidence to support presuppositions. But setting that aside, all things being equal [I.e., assuming I’ll be able to provide adequate warrant for those presuppositions], is the contradiction not removed by the idea of simultaneous cleansing within the destruction itself of the apostate?