Free Choice to Accept or Reject?

[Arial]

I believe it is possible. At least temporarily.

Considering the passage you use, since Jesus is the resurrection and the life the rejection could only be temporally.

Yes. But if you do believe---and remember Jesus is using that word in conjunction with eternal life----can you make a choice to not believe it?

 

[Carbon]

Yes. But if you do believe---and remember Jesus is using that word in conjunction with eternal life----can you make a choice to not believe it?

If I do believe? Then, no it's not possible to reject. The flesh may try to resist but.

 

[Arial]

It's a technicality. Scripture as originally written is perfect IMO, but we have no originals. As copies were made errors were created. Said errors were minor.

In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 New Testament variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers.

There are approximately 180,000 words in the New Testament
The vast majority of variants are of no significance i.e. spelling, etc
There are no doctrinal discrepancies

Interesting variants

• Mark 16:9-20 not found in older manuscripts (story of Mary Magdalene)
• John 5:4 only found in KJV, NKJV and NASB
• John 7:53-8:11 Passage omitted in the critical text. See Jesus and the woman taken in adultery
• Matthew 18:11 MT/TR: For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. CT: Verse omitted
• Mark 11:26 MT/TR: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses. CT: Verse omitted (similar verse in Matthew 6:14-15)
• Romans 16:24 MT/TR: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. CT: Verse omitted

On YouTube, if you search for "daniel b wallace textual criticism" you can listen to interesting stuff on the subject

I figured that is what you meant. I have that entire manuscript breakdown and the verification, and cross verification methods (also including margin notes on originals) in my Reformation Study Bible. And that is the conclusion. None of it changes the truths as disclosed in the Bible that we have. They are minor.

 

[Arial]

If I do believe? Then, no it's not possible to reject. The flesh may try to resist but.

That is what I am getting at. You can't believe something and not believe it at the same time. And if you believe what is necessary for eternal life, then according to Jesus you will be bodily raised to life when he returns. Even if we die, yet we shall live. It makes mincemeat of the argument that we can choose to not believe what we do believe.

 

[prism]

I believe it is possible. At least temporarily.

Considering the passage you use, since Jesus is the resurrection and the life the rejection could only be temporally.

I gave this a 'laugh' understanding temporary to mean shortly his knee will bow and his tongue confess Rom 14:11.

 

[JIM]

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her,"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time?

The theist is one who believes that God is the creator but rejects the basic message of the Bible. One can believe in God and still reject the Bible as the word of God. So yes, it is possible to believe something and reject it at the same time. That is the message of Romans 1:18-32.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[JIM]

It's a technicality. Scripture as originally written is perfect IMO, but we have no originals. As copies were made errors were created. Said errors were minor.

In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 New Testament variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers.

There are approximately 180,000 words in the New Testament
The vast majority of variants are of no significance i.e. spelling, etc
There are no doctrinal discrepancies

Interesting variants

• Mark 16:9-20 not found in older manuscripts (story of Mary Magdalene)
• John 5:4 only found in KJV, NKJV and NASB
• John 7:53-8:11 Passage omitted in the critical text. See Jesus and the woman taken in adultery
• Matthew 18:11 MT/TR: For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. CT: Verse omitted
• Mark 11:26 MT/TR: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses. CT: Verse omitted (similar verse in Matthew 6:14-15)
• Romans 16:24 MT/TR: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. CT: Verse omitted

On YouTube, if you search for "daniel b wallace textual criticism" you can listen to interesting stuff on the subject

That it is not found in the "older" manuscripts does not mean that it was not in the original manuscript.

 

[Arial]

The theist is one who believes that God is the creator but rejects the basic message of the Bible. One can believe in God and still reject the Bible as the word of God. So yes, it is possible to believe something and reject it at the same time. That is the message of Romans 1:18-32.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Now, relate the OP question to the scripture that was given. John 11.

 

[Mr GLee]

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her,"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time?

I would offer.

I think it would be impossible to believe (faith) and reject as un-belief (no faith ).

According to the law of faith power of God "let the be" (believe) and the evidence shows "it was God alone good"

Jesus, the Son of man as a apostle prophesied words given from the father .The Father relied I am the ressurection and life The same that resurrected the Son of man. Jesus . Faith as power not as I will . father but you the storeroom of faith .

Gives us little of His calling us" ye of little faith just" enough power to please the father

The dynamic dual

 

[JIM]

Now, relate the OP question to the scripture that was given. John 11.

There is a difference between believing and believing in. John 11 is about believing God and believing in God.

 

[prism]

That it is not found in the "older" manuscripts does not mean that it was not in the original manuscript.

If it's not found in any manuscript (older or original), why would we want to treat it as God's Word?

 

[fastfredy0]

That it is not found in the "older" manuscripts does not mean that it was not in the original manuscript.

True ... there is a chance the original scripture writing could have mentioned @Arial and @makesends too, but I doubt it. *giggle*

Theory goes that God has seen to it to keep what was in the original writing in what we have today. The many copies of the same scriptures is evidence of this.

 

[JIM]

If it's not found in any manuscript (older or original), why would we want to treat it as God's Word?

We have no originals and older does not always mean better.

 

[Arial]

There is a difference between believing and believing in. John 11 is about believing God and believing in God.

What Jesus asked Martha if she believed was that he was the resurrection and the life. And the question of the OP is, if one believes what is necessary for eternal life, can they not believe it at the same time by choice?

 

[makesends]

Is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time?

Jesus in his comment to Martha asked if she believed he was the resurrection and the life, and that those who believed, even if they died would live. Believed who he is (the resurrection and the life) is all the "criteria" he gave. He did not go into a theological or doctrinal discussion.

Martha responded that yes she believed that he was the Son of God who was coming into the world. A direct reference to Messianic prophecies. We are not told what was in Martha's mind when she said that, but it is safe to presume one thing, I believe, and that is that she placed full and confident faith in Jesus the person. The fact that she, a Jew, called him Lord would also indicate that she recognized the Son of God as being God.

I fully agree with you that no matter how great or small one's faith is in knowledge, no one has it within themselves. It is a direct work of the Spirit and it is the Spirit who bears witness to our spirit within us. No other human can see that. It has been described in Christian circles as ,"I know that I know that I know." Which of course, is a meaningless statement to anyone else. They don't know what we mean unless they too have that internal witness of the Spirit. And even the unregenerate can and often do, make the same statement about whatever it is that they do believe.

So I return to my question. And I put it in the C/A board for a reason, but obviously I have not made myself clear, though a very fruitful and interesting discussion has developed anyway. Maybe even a better one. The question of the OP was dealing with a claim of a particular view of"free will" debate. .

That is, that yes God must provide grace because of our fallen state and of being at enmity with him. This grace gives us understanding, opens our eyes to see it and understand it. At which time we then make a choice whether to believe or reject.

This scenario has one understanding and believing and at the same time capable of not believing what they believe.

Maybe. Maybe she recognized him as a prophet. It seems to be her sister Mary who really understood who he was. The fact that not even the disciples truly understood even as they talked with him after his resurrection, makes me question that she knew him as the resurrection and the life, the Son of God and Lord. The only way she could know that, at that time, (prior to the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts) was by the Spirit revealing it----in her heart and mind.

Well, you sure do invite a lot of commentary not directly OP-related! I must restrain myself!

Historically —at least since Wesley and Finney— much has been made of the change from death to life, and with good reason, since Scripture also makes much of the one's change of heart compared to the several who have been faithful ("left the 99 to find the 1", "more joy in heaven", etc). But there is, it seems to me, more written about the subsequent life in the Spirit than about the initial change. We place too much emphasis on the matter of "making it to Heaven" at the cost of learning to know Him and of what the nature of what Heaven will be. We can still quench the Spirit, and we, believing, fade in and out of following/pursuing Christ, assuming in some way that it is not as important as "getting in".

All that to say, that even in those of us who subscribe to a different worldview and mindset that God is the point from which all other things diverge, there is still in the 'old man' that tendency to put ourselves as the measure of all things. And thus, all the wrong use of such things as 'Gospel', 'faith', 'free', 'belief', and so on.

Most of us on here try to correct that tendency within ourselves by good reasoning concerning the Scriptures, and by not entirely trusting that reasoning, with the Scriptures being ultimately the authority, necessarily beyond our understanding of them.

So with Mary's 'believing'. Here is a consistent affirmation of the notion that our faith is not produced by us, but rather, within us, by God. What she believed was not definitive of her faith, but, rather, of her growth in understanding, and of mindset change that comes from knowing God.

Ha! Reminds me of the way that those I knew and loved from my childhood, long-time believers —though Arminian in doctrine, when they talked with God they were as Calvinist as anyone else.

 

[Arial]

So with Mary's 'believing'. Here is a consistent affirmation of the notion that our faith is not produced by us, but rather, within us, by God. What she believed was not definitive of her faith, but, rather, of her growth in understanding, and of mindset change that comes from knowing God.

Do you mean Martha? Or are you referring back to Mary the mother of Jesus, and her conversation with Gabriel? Either way, I agree to some extent. That is, I believe that it affirms that our saving faith, is not from within us but is by the revelation of God to our mind and our heart. (It goes through the mind to penetrate our heart.) It is the same thing that happened with Peter when Jesus told him God had revealed it to him and upon that rock (God's revelation to our minds and hearts) his church would be built.

And no one finds this revelation in their own flesh and will. So if it is revealed, which would include at least a modicum of understanding (seeing) something that is necessary, the person does believe. "Believe and you will be saved." So, is it possible for anyone to arrive at this believing and still have a personal choice to not believe what they do believe? As is said by those who reject election by God of persons, and faith as being a gift?

Where I disagree with what you said to some degree is that it was not definitive of her faith but of her growth. I say to a degree, because as we grow in our understanding, and we cannot do that until we believe (as Jesus does whenever he states believe or believe in me, and you will have eternal life) we do just that. Our first belief, the faith given by God in his grace, is bound to change or grow more dimensions. Our belief that saves does not change. Our beliefs should as we learn from his word. If someone is in exactly the same place forty years down the road as they were when they first began, as to their understanding of God and his work, and they are of sound mind, something is amiss. Why? Because it is God who works in us to conform us to the image of Christ.

I found God would not allow me to remain a baby who trusted like a baby and prayed about everything and received instant answers from him. He brought me to a place where I was practically shaking my fist at him because I was not getting my way, like a spoiled child. And then he brought me to my knees like Job, and from the book of Job. And then, like with Job, he answered the prayer. It really is a beautiful story, one that in the telling will still evoke the same tears of gratitude for the humbling.

 

[makesends]

Do you mean Martha? Or are you referring back to Mary the mother of Jesus, and her conversation with Gabriel? Either way, I agree to some extent. That is, I believe that it affirms that our saving faith, is not from within us but is by the revelation of God to our mind and our heart. (It goes through the mind to penetrate our heart.) It is the same thing that happened with Peter when Jesus told him God had revealed it to him and upon that rock (God's revelation to our minds and hearts) his church would be built.

Sorry. I meant Martha. I must be getting old... But the same discussion works there, too.

I'm not altogether sure I can agree that saving faith must "go through the mind to penetrate the heart". But, then, I'm not sure what you mean by that paragraph. Maybe you can make your point with Martha in view, rather than Mary. (My bad).

And no one finds this revelation in their own flesh and will. So if it is revealed, which would include at least a modicum of understanding (seeing) something that is necessary, the person does believe. "Believe and you will be saved." So, is it possible for anyone to arrive at this believing and still have a personal choice to not believe what they do believe? As is said by those who reject election by God of persons, and faith as being a gift?

I wouldn't want to agree with these words if they imply that those who reject the facts of "election by God of persons", and "faith as being a gift" cannot have that faith in spite of their mental rejections.

Where I disagree with what you said to some degree is that it was not definitive of her faith but of her growth. I say to a degree, because as we grow in our understanding, and we cannot do that until we believe (as Jesus does whenever he states believe or believe in me, and you will have eternal life) we do just that. Our first belief, the faith given by God in his grace, is bound to change or grow more dimensions. Our belief that saves does not change. Our beliefs should as we learn from his word. If someone is in exactly the same place forty years down the road as they were when they first began, as to their understanding of God and his work, and they are of sound mind, something is amiss. Why? Because it is God who works in us to conform us to the image of Christ.

I found God would not allow me to remain a baby who trusted like a baby and prayed about everything and received instant answers from him. He brought me to a place where I was practically shaking my fist at him because I was not getting my way, like a spoiled child. And then he brought me to my knees like Job, and from the book of Job. And then, like with Job, he answered the prayer. It really is a beautiful story, one that in the telling will still evoke the same tears of gratitude for the humbling.

I don't think (currently, anyway) that those ('salvific' and 'subsequent') are two different faiths, though possibly that they are two different aspects of the same faith. I agree with you, as you know, that the faith that saved us was completely within the bounds of monergism, as to our regeneration, but the subsequent living water is of the same source and purpose, even if we must separate monergism from anything following our regeneration we might describe as synergism, since we deal separately (doctrinally) with Salvation vs Sanctification.

Seems pretty often I find you and I either meaning the same thing but from a different point of view and using different words, or focusing on and describing different things not at odds.

One thing I have found, that many people I have known over the years 'grow in grace', quite apart from their 'intellectual comprehension' or understanding of what is going on. Maybe that is a result of repeated choices/obedience becoming habit, or something else —I don't know.

 

[Arial]

I'm not altogether sure I can agree that saving faith must "go through the mind to penetrate the heart". But, then, I'm not sure what you mean by that paragraph. Maybe you can make your point with Martha in view, rather than Mary. (My bad).

We don't know what was in Martha's mind (or Mary's). But it wasn't blank. It is our heart that is changed by God. So whatever was in her mind could only enter her heart by first going through her mind. And it would be the revelation that was revealed to her mind. I would say it is not with our mind that we believe (unto salvation) but with our heart. The heart is of course not referring to our physical heart (as far as I know. It has been shown that our heart holds memories so who knows.) But it is used in Scripture as a metaphor for "the usness of us." The engine that drives us. So when this revelation is given, whatever content is in the revelation that is salvific faith or belief, drives us towards God and his righteousness; to the Son and his calling to us.

I wouldn't want to agree with these words if they imply that those who reject the facts of "election by God of persons", and "faith as being a gift" cannot have that faith in spite of their mental rejections.

No, that is not what I meant. I simply mean that in the debate over the doctrines of grace, the argument against is that we do the choosing, not God. They always add the implication of "choose" before the words "believe and you will be saved." (And similar verses.) They misunderstand what happened is all. Believing is believing no matter how a person thinks they got there.

I don't think (currently, anyway) that those ('salvific' and 'subsequent') are two different faiths, though possibly that they are two different aspects of the same faith.

I don;t think it is different faiths either. It is one faith, increased knowledge of the person and work of the Savior.

Seems pretty often I find you and I either meaning the same thing but from a different point of view and using different words, or focusing on and describing different things not at odds.

Yeah, I agree with that. Nothing wrong with that. Much can be gained from the perspective of others.

One thing I have found, that many people I have known over the years 'grow in grace', quite apart from their 'intellectual comprehension' or understanding of what is going on. Maybe that is a result of repeated choices/obedience becoming habit, or something else —I don't know.

From my perspective I would say it is God working in us/them to accomplish his purposes in conforming them to the image of Christ. He did not leave a single one of us as orphans.

 

[fastfredy0]

the argument against is that we do the choosing, not God

possible semantics issue that I clarify by stating .... we do the choosing according to our desires and God determines our desires.

John 1:3 All things were made and came into existence through Him [which includes our desires]; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being.

We choose according to our desires, we don't choose our desires. We can't choose our desires as we didn't exist to choose them.

 

[makesends]

We don't know what was in Martha's mind (or Mary's). But it wasn't blank. It is our heart that is changed by God. So whatever was in her mind could only enter her heart by first going through her mind.

I guess I'd have to have a definition of "mind" there that would encompass more than any of us know, for me to give intellectual assent to that. I just don't know that it has to go through one's mind first. But I do agree that faith comes by hearing. Yet we claim that regeneration is done TO us, and not necessarily in the mind, but definitely in the heart.

If it is the mind that makes a person that person, then I might agree with you, but that is more than I know.