No. Can you show me one that teaches that man DOES NOT have that ability? I think the burden of proof lies with you who are making this claim.

James tells his readers to submit to God, draw near to God, and to humble themselves before God, and does not imply in any of those instructions that the Holy Spirit must first change their nature:

In these verses he also indicates that his readers can "resist the devil, cleanse their hands (of wrong doing), and purify their hearts so as to be single-minded. He doesn’t add that in order to do so, the Holy Spirit must first change their natures.

Then he makes this amazing statement:

He seems to say that one can visit orphans and widows in their affliction and keep oneself unspotted from the world through his own choice. Again he doesn’t say a word about this being impossible unless the Holy Spirit first changes his nature.

I run a couple of LinkedIn groups for writers and copywriters. Once a member - perhaps jokingly - said copywriters only work for ad agencies. That would defy common sense, as copywriters work for in-house marketing departments, PR firms, freelance (i.e. which many ad agencies hire as contractors), etc. And folks actually tried to argue against his statement. I just had this to say to him: Your statement is not self-evident. And that should put the matter to rest and place the burden on him to prove his claim.

I think it is sufficient to provide a scripture which clearly states that we have a choice to serve God or not.
Joshua 24v15 “Choose you this day whom you will serve”.
The text could not be more clear in stating that those people had a freewill decision to serve God (which Christ states is to love) or not to serve God.

In a sense however, this is irrelevant. The thread, and title of the thread was surely not to argue for or against determinism (was it?) but rather was a proclamation/suggestion that universalism and freewill are incompatible bedfellows. Eaglesway has eloquently and respectfully pointed out that they are not incompatible beliefs. What fascinates me is why there seems to be a need to imagine that the God of one camp, rather than the other, is more gracious, or more sovereign, or more loving or whatever.

My posts to u so far hav nothing to do with whether a person can make a decision for God without a changed nature.

I simply posted that your characterization of universalists who believe in free will was simplistic and incomplete to the point of indicating that you may not understand the paradigm of the view you oppose.

I have only clearly stated that man has been given a stewardship of choice by God.

But in response to your question, Romans 2 speaks of those who, never having had the law, became through obedience, a law unto themselves- their conscience accusing or excusing them on the day God judges the secrets of mens hearts thru Jesus Christ.

Paul said to Timothy… The foundation of God stands sure…inscribed with these words…the Lord knows those who r His and let evryone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.

Perhaps the Samaritan man in the parable had a changed nature, but Jesus wasnt highlighting that in the story. He was showing how the divine nature moves outside of religious boxes, like those of the Pharisee and the Levite.

The Samaritan man made a choice that showed he was a good steward of the gifts he had been given, and was a friend of God. The Pharisee and the Levite were poor stewards.

If anyone is in Christ Jesus they are a new creation. I believe in the new nature. We begin in it as babes…carnal. We grow in grace thru trials and life lessons where we are taught good stewardship…often by the conseqences of bad stewardship. All thru our lives God is bringing us into union with Him for the purpose of fellowship in the work of redeeming the creation from chaos.

I think that training requires a measure of free will, and so does friendship.

This is the position I take - as a hopeful universalist. It’s also a definition from a philosopher professor

But in Does Hopeful Universalism Sacrifice Divine Goodness?, the last term was defined like this:

Am I in trouble with you for proclaiming that one must be born from above, regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to begin the Christian life?

Of course we have a stewardship of choice, in that we are not robots. Certainly we make decisions and are accountable for our decisions. I do not dispute that. However, can a person freely choose to receive Christ and forgiveness and obey Christ of his own ‘free will’ without the transforming help of the Holy Spirit? Another way of saying this is, my confession that the reason I am a believer and a Christian and someone else is not is because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and raised me from spiritual death to life, whereas God has not yet opened the eyes of the unbelieving.

Those above disagreeing with this understanding above have quoted Romans 2:12-15 in defense that man does have free will. Does the passage go that far? The main point of that passage is that we are all sinners whether with or without the law, because even those without the law are both defended and accused by their conscience. In context Romans 2:4, already mentioned, does explicitly say that to neglect that it is God that changes hearts is in fact to show contempt for grace. A wrong attitude and understanding here will cause us to be judgmental towards others rather than recognizing that each of us only stands or falls according to God’s grace. That is one reason why this is a very important point. I think I touched on that earlier in this post, that a right understanding will help Christians to be more humble in evangelism and passionate in prayer.

Other passages are mentioned above such as Timothy, ‘departing from iniquity’, the good Samaritan, Joshua 24:15, ‘choose this day’, James, ‘submit to God’… However, one cannot use passages of this type, or examples of the Good Samaritan’s obedience to prove that natural man has a will with the freedom and ability to obey the whole law. And according to the argument of Romans 1-3 if someone cannot chose to obey the whole law, they are instead guilty of breaking the whole law. Just because God gives a command does not mean that natural man has the ability, the free will to comply. In fact according to Romans 5:20 the purpose of the law was not reform mankind and show us that we could obey, but in fact to show us that we cannot obey because we are sinners by nature. Sure some people obey certain commands, but no one has ever used their ‘free will’ to chose to perfectly satisfy the commands of God. Why not? Because our sinful nature is not free to do so. I do appreciate the Scripture references and would be glad to consider others. However, as you’ve already figured out, I do not think there is one. Someone above also agreed that there are no Scriptures that say man has ‘free will’.

However, there are many Scriptures that do explicitly and didactically teach that we do not have ‘free will’ and are in fact powerless without God’s help. Jesus himself said, ‘apart from me you can do nothing.’ Several have said the burden of proof is on me. I did quote Scriptures above, but I am guessing we each understand these differently. So there may be little useful point to further hair-raising argument in this post. However, to be willing to carry the burden of proof a bit further, Jeremiah 13:23 is often used to defend the necessity of God’s transforming power. I’ve already mentioned 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 positively highlights that God has revealed God’s wisdom to us, those chosen for faith, through his Spirit. Romans 11:6-10 negatively highlights that God gave others hard hearts and a spirit of stupor. My ebook at dgjc.org/optimism also highlights the specific words of Romans 11:32, “For God has bound all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all.” Someone that is ‘bound’ is certainly not ‘free’.

I do apologize for my extension of Jesus metaphor of the Spirit as wind… if an apology is needed. However, the point I was making is on target with the Scripture, that is to enter the kingdom one must be born of the Spirit, from above. The Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit can effect the change of heart needed to transcend the natural realm and enter the supernatural realm. Nicodemus came to Christ fearfully at night as a religious Jew with questions for Jesus. Jesus punches his hypocrisy right in the eyes, though of course Nicodemus was already blind to the truth. Jesus amazes him with the truth that Spiritual life has nothing to do with Nicodemus religious’ system. Instead the Holy Spirit has the authority and free will to blow where he wishes, bringing the birth and transformation of the spirit to anyone he chooses, even the Samaritans and gentiles whom the Jews despised. Spiritual life is not dependent upon human will, John 1:11-13, but the will of God.

One last note, it was objected that this discussion is off topic because the focus on the post title is that ‘free will’ is incompatible with universalism. Understandably the conversation drifted into whether ‘free will’ exists or not. So back on topic, in addition to my understanding that ‘free will’ is not Biblically defensible, consider two points in answer to this concern. First I believe that holding to ‘free will’ as a universalist undermines the reason for the confidence we can have that God will finally save all mankind. The reasons I am confident that the salvation of all mankind is guaranteed is because the legal justification of sinful man has already happened apart from our will at the cross. Furthermore, even though unbelieving mankind is presently running from God in rebellion, unwilling to submit, though already forgiven at the cross, the determination and superior resources of Christ will overtake every last rebel converting them into his son or daughter. God’s determination to make us willing will defeat the unwillingness of our sinful nature. Most Arminians do not believe in the salvation of all mankind because they believe most of mankind will not use their ‘free will’ to chose Christ. Well if the choice was left up to mankind, then no one would be saved at all, because unregenerate man is unwilling by his very nature! However, instead, because of the gracious choice of Christ, all mankind will be saved. Secondly, I have argued above that holding to ‘free will’ neglects to give God the glory and praise for his grace that has and will save all. Man’s choice will not be praised in glory, but instead each of us will praise Christ that he pursued us with his love until his will prevailed over ours, changing what we were powerless to change ourselves.

Well I think you guys understand me well enough and yet likely still disagree so I probably need to discipline myself to leave the argument. God bless. Pray for me and I’ll be praying for you.

You are not in trouble with me at all. I am just sharing an opinion. You seem to think we are discussing being born from above now, as if I dont believe in that, but that was never in my re-posts to your posts, so I dont get it.

I am not sure where you are getting these presuppositions.- about what I dont believe… I think my only disagreement with you has been about nuances of sovereignty vs. free will.

I just thought your OP communicated an inaccurate view of a free will universalist perspective. Are you now trying to say anyone who believes in free will does not believe in being born again?

My responses were just towards the strange bird analogy, since I am one

I believe in being born from above, by the incorruptible seed of the word of God- I do not believe that that was availavble in the OT in the way it is now thru Christ crucified- yet people did serve God, walk in righteousness, walk in faith…

I am not really interested in getting into a comprehensive debate on this, but I have some honest questions for you. Being born from above- made new in Christ, is a New Testament experience. Were there no righteous in the OT?. Are you saying there was never any love among Jew or Gentile? No sacrifice ever made for another. No generous act such as that of the Samaritan man in Christ’s parable?

That no one could ever make a choice for God before the “born again” experience was available?

Acts 10:1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the people and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God".

What of this man who was a Gentile and did not know Jesus? Were his acts, acknowledged as they were by God, the result of a “born from above” experience- before he was born from above? Was he the only one ever to hav chosen good stewardship(love God, love thy neighbor) before Christ regenerated him into a son of God? The last one? Or have there been many, throughout the ages from the beginning, unnamed people in forgotten lands and times who, as Romans 1 explains, saw the divine nature and eternal power of God through the things He created and walked before Him in humility- as well as in a certain limited ignorance?

That is what Romans 1 & 2 are all about. Cornelius was a just man before God having only his conscience to answer to, not being a Jew, and as yet having no gospel of Jesus Christ.

The scripture seems to indicate that he was chosen because of his deeds for the honor of being the first Gentile house to receive the gospel… the first Gentile house to be born from above.

Also, in relation to the OP, I would like to see the post of the strange bird who would say that we can do anything without the help of the Holy Spirit. I have not heard one single free will disposed universalist say such a thing. Or who ever said anyone could use their will to obey the whole law? These things are not even in dispute.

I do think the Holy Spirit may be more available than you do, like the rain, falling on the just and the unjust alike- otherwise how could anyone love another, sacrifice for a child or a spouse, lay down their lives for a friend… but in no way would I ever assert that man is sufficient to himself. i am just saying that God has allowed, even ordained, that man shares participation in the process from a “will” point of view, and the scriptures (imo) sustain that perspective. While my own views on the balance between sovereignty and man’s will are to complex to compose in a couple of posts, I will say one last time that I seriously disagree that being of an “Arminian” or “Calvinistic”(for lack of better terms sorry) undermines the reason for an assurance of the salvation of all, since everyone agrees that God is in control of the ages and His plan- it is a matter of method that is held in disagreement- a disagreement with too many degrees of moderation to go into thoroughly here. I am assured that all will be saved because of the glory of Christ crucified. It will win all into love, gather all into Him- but of course, God planned it that way.

That is why Peter says that we are predestined according to the foreknowledge of God. No doubt its a great mystery . I would never presume to over simplify it.

man shares participation in the process from a “will” point of view.

Certainly.

However, what is in dispute with the ‘free will’ question is the effective agency behind the process. Some in this forum are saying that the effective agency is the ‘free will’ of man, whereas I am saying it is the sovereign choice of God. God is the one who open’s our eyes and brings us to faith. Here is a verse that makes the distinction, 1 Corinthians 4:7, “For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” The Biblical answer to Paul’s question is that God himself makes the difference at every level, whether OT or NT believer or even the difference between a ‘good’ or bad unbeliever or the difference between Cornelius and his neighbors. Unless one confesses that it is God who has made the difference, then they are boasting in themselves rather than boasting in the Lord.

For most orthodox Arminians the expression ‘free will’ is the answer as to why they are saved and why most are eternally damned. They believe each individual’s ‘free will’ choice made the difference. This is an offense to grace. That is why ‘free will’ universalists seem like a strange bird to me because we have already concluded that God’s will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will (though the Holy Spirit persuades each individual’s will to receive the good news.) Now I am certainly not saying that those holding to ‘free will’ are not Christians. True Christians, followers of Christ can be right and wrong on numerous points and still be Christian, for no one is perfect. However, the Christian holding to their ‘free will’ choice as the reason that they are Christian is either misinformed or rejecting the birds and the bees of spiritual life.

To state that, for most orthodox Arminians, freewill is the answer as to why they are saved and others damned is an oversimplification to say the least but if I go along with that view, I still cannot understand your comment “That is an offense to grace”. Firstly, let me say that I interpret your statement to mean “That is an offense to God in that it does a disservice of some sort to His grace”.
Why does it? To my mind it is the Calvinist’s perspective which does the disservice to God’s grace by limiting it to a select few (or for the deterministic universalist, by rationing God’s grace to a select few now and delaying His gift to a much later time for the others).
The Arminian position is that **God’s grace is more freely and expansively available to countless more people **but some of these people use their freewill to reject His grace. Doesn’t this latter view magnify the grace of God?
The only retort I can imagine is “Yes, but from the Calvinist’s perspective, God’s (very limited) grace is irresistible and therefore of greater substance”. I really think this argument doesn’t hold water, as I see it as a **most gracious **act that God should allow us to be ‘wooed’ by His Love into freely choosing to respond positively to His Love-gift of relationship with Him.
But I may have misunderstood your statement or may have missed another argument you have to persuade me that the Arminian’s view of God’s grace is a lesser one??

One of the commentators in Does Hopeful Universalism Sacrifice Divine Goodness? raised an interesting question. Let me pose it here:

I interpret your statement to mean “That is an offense to God in that it does a disservice of some sort to His grace”.

Claiming that ‘free will’ made a distinction between you and another rather than grace is not really a disservice to God’s grace, for ultimately nothing interrupts God’s purposes, even our unbelief. But instead it is a dishonoring of God and a prideful boast toward our fellowman.

Why does it?

A good question. First the Scriptures themselves specifically teach that attributing spiritual progress to anything but grace is contemptible in Romans 2:4 and boastful in 1 Corinthians 4:7. Second I also said earlier in this post that if we believe persuasion at the natural level of logic and argument is sufficient, then our evangelism will create victims rather than converts. We will neglect to pray asking God to provide the heart change that only he can provide. One might argue that we chose to pray because of our ‘free will’ choice to obey. However, Paul gives the glory for all his effort to God in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:10 and even our prayers as explained in Romans 8:26. Third, it is already admitted that there are no Scriptures that explicitly teach that man has a ‘free will’, but there are verses that teach that man must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be alive to God. Since this is the case the question begs, why not humbly accept the Scriptures? Why the resistance? Fourth, if I claim that my ‘free will’ made the difference in my spiritual progress I have a boast before my fellowman, but if I acknowledge that grace made the difference I am God’s servant to point others to the only hope for their healing, God himself. Further then God can answer for himself as to why he chooses to do this or that.

To my mind it is the Calvinist’s perspective which does the disservice to God’s grace by limiting it to a select few

On that we totally agree.

or for the deterministic universalist, by rationing God’s grace to a select few now and delaying His gift to a much later time for the others.

Yes, that is a concern. I have already said I do not like the negative connotation of the word ‘deterministic.’ The word ruins the artistry of what God is building and designing. Yet I also ask with you, why did God bring me to faith at age 18, others earlier, and even others later? Or why do many die in unbelief and unrepentance and suffer Hades when God’s grace could stem the tide? I do not like these facts either. However, it is what the Scriptures teach. So we could try to find an explanation that makes sense to human reason alone and helps us feel more comfortable, or we could give our lives to the Spirit’s purposes and allow God to make his appeal through us as Paul did, 2 Corinthians 5:20 “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

The mistake many make who reject the sovereignty of God, is thinking of it as God sitting in heaven pulling switches and using words like ‘deterministic’ to describe his sovereign influence. This is a mistake that improperly characterizes the beautiful work of God’s grace. God’s sovereign grace is intimate and present and at work and when we obey his will, then it is certain that he is at work through us for the good.

If we are unable to respond to God’s love of our own free will out of the love that is within our own hearts, what kind of love is that?

Very true LLC.

A rose by any other name doth smell as sweet. Likewise, using any other word for ‘deterministic’ does not alter the concept. Yes, the concept you hold on to does have negative consequences and IMO diminishes the grace of God as I outlined in my last post.
I think there are too many caricatures and strawmen in this thread, possibly quite unintentionally. Nevertheless, with that, and a lack of real engagement with points clearly stated, I’ll bow out wishing all God’s blessings.

Eaglesway, you are not a ‘strange bird’. You are a storehouse of information and wisdom. I am grateful for your presence on this forum.

I don’t think it is the case that “we have already concluded that God’s will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will.” If it were God’s will to do that, then why hasn’t He done it instantaneously? My answer is that if He saved people apart from their will, he would have many continuing rebels in His presence throughout eternity. God never forces the will of anyone. God Himself has free will, and He created man in His image—also with free will.

Rather than forcing His will onto people, God has chosen to save each individual when that person of his own free will repents and submits to the Messiah’s authority. Anyone who refuses to do that will not be saved until he submits. That is the reason it is taking so long, and will probably take many ages more before everyone has submitted. But God has patience. He will continue to work with everyone throughout the ages until all come to repentance and submission.

Actually Jeff, I view the thing, in brief- as I said before, man’s will is a bubble within the infinitely larger bubble of God’s will, His plan, His allness. He creates the parametrers of man’s will, as a stewardship that we call a life span, with which we are given great latitude by Him… however, it was never my intention and still is not- to engage in ANOTHER huge discussion or debate over this issue.

If you go back over the posts(not saying you should jus saying if… ) you will note that I am only disagreeing with your oversimplified and inaccurate characterization of the free will universalist’s perspective. it is clear you do not understand that viewpoint… not saying you should accept it… just saying you should be willing to understand what a viewpoint is before you mischaracterize it. As I said, my views on the relationship between the will of God and the will of man are to complex to do in short form… so i gave you some brief hints, which it doesnt really appear you read, or “got” and this oversimplification will be the weakness of your book, for many, because not all will see it as you do… but it will read well with those who see things just like you do. I prefer to share universalism as transcending some of the more common polarizations of orthodox doctrines… but that is just my perspective on that.

Arminians believe man chooses hell. Calvinists believe God chooses men for hell. I am neither. I am a universalist. I believe God made a plan where all will eventually submit willingly to the Lordship of Jesus, embracing the love of God. He is the agency, but we are agents.

Just as you dislike the word deterministic, as I said before, I dislike the term “free will”- it is not free from God, it is free within the field of God’s choosing, in the cosmos of time and space… and subject in its “freedom” to certain universal laws God set in place as the foundations of creation. Romans 8 tells us how God subjected the creation to futility with a forward view to the setting free of the whole creation into the freedom that we, as children of God have been born into, which is love- “the glorious freedom of the children of God”.

God has done all this, but His overiding purpose is to create “friends” and “sons” who commune with Him from a place of agreement because He Is Love. What a place to share from, the joy of fellowship, as mature children of God who have entered the autonomy of love.

This is why, in 1 Cor 15, it says all rule power and authority will be done away, because when God is all in all, all will be in love, and love does no ill, so there will be no need for rule- there will only be joy like a river of ten thousands of ten thousands praising God… His voice being like the rushing of many waters.

For freedom Christ has set you free. The one who the Son sets free will be free indeed. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Our mother is the new Jerusalem from above who is free. The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound and you dont kno where it is coming from or where it is going…so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The way of love produces freedom, “it is written in the volume of the book of me, 'I come to do Your will O God.”

This “Perfect law of liberty” is given by God and grows in us by grace as we walk with Him.

Really, I am not pitting anything against anything. Certainly not free will against God’s sovereignty. They are two sides of one coin. God’s sovereignty is setting us free, as His grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and walk in the Spirit.

Yes I would like to agree with all of you as much as possible. Most of the discussion, lengthy words aside, boils down to our understanding of the nature of the non-Christian and the Christian. Is the Holy Spirit the essential agent turning and moving us God-ward?

To fine-tune that question a bit more, could we put it this way:

1. Is the HS the necessary and sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?
   OR
2. Is man’s activity a necessary, but not sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?

Isn’t it a combination of both? But in what proportion? It’s like Yosemite Sam and the dragon. He needed to get the dragon (spiritual inspiration in the form of scripture, church attendance, moral works, etc.) into the room. And with the right combination of elements, the Holy Spirit (TNT) took him to the moon (i.e. God)

I reallylike these two questions together. If viewed as two aspects of one truth, you can see how the second question is an open conduit to the first.

Man’s activity is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

“No man comes to me except the father draw Him”…“If I am lifetd up from the earth I will draw all men unto me”.

In the reference to the serpent lifted up on a stick as Moses was instructed, the snake bite ws cured when the Israelites looked upon it. The snakebite itself, with its detremental effects motivated them to seek the offered release, and to look upon it as commanded… but only the sufficiency of God provided their healing, deliverance, salvation. If they didnt look they were not healed. If they looked they were healed, but not by their own sufficiency.

Of course God set up the entire construct. This is a perfect(imo) view of how God works.

“Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone will open the door I will come in and sup with them.”

Man opens the door. God sets up the circumstances that lead to the awakening to the knock of Christ.

"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’(Acts 17:25-27)

All creation is set up to draw us to Him.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Ro 1:20,21)

Chaos is the method(the earth was without form and void-tohu and bohu- and the Spirit hovered over the waters). God speaking is the resolution(Let there be light…faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.) Grace is the always at ready willingness of God to supply the deliverance offered in timely fashion to those willing to receive.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Eccl 3:11)

God has seen the end from the beginning, having set it all up in His perfect wisdom and love, in such a way that not one will be lost, but that all will someday see and choose to yield, submit to and embrace His love- revealed by the snake on the stick and healed by the revelation…Christ crucified.

When man goes to far in trying to explain the ways of God he runs into the wall of his own limitations, for His ways are higher than our ways. We typically align on one side or the other of the paradox within the paradigm and say, “If this is true that is false”…but it is not always the case. Apparent contradictions within the whole cloth of the truth are there on purpose, to draw us further in seeking resolution(not to set up camps short of the whole counsel of God).

Proper exegesis demands that we come up higher seeking the seam between the two views(to the extent they are both represented in scripture)- which the two questions do nicely in my opinion.

As I see it, God’s word does not leave us sorting out opposing view points from scriptures that are saying different things in opposition, they all integrate at some point in a balanced understanding…but that understanding may always have some fuzzy edges, so we dont get too proud, put God in a box, because HE prefers to be seen through a glass darkly at times.

The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.(Eccl 12:11,12)

33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.