Poll on Doctrines of Grace and Free Will

[webdog]

You have brought out a strawman argument that is indeed easy to defeat.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Who has said this? I don't recall any of my posts where this was what was said or implied (by me).

First thing to remember GL, I'M NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR POSTS. I've said that already.

Calvinists in general, seem to believe that God had chosen EVERYTHING in ages past. He is on a set pattern. He knows who will sin, when folk will live and die, who He will save and who He will destroy, everything, all the way down to when the condor will go extinct and He is following that pattern exclusively. And if He dares to change the pattern along the way, like He did with Hezekiah, then it was what He intended all along (which sets God up as a liar, because He told Hezekiah he was going to die!).

"God is working through history to accomplish His ultimate will, and no action of human man or woman nor of devil or fallen angel nor of the natural cosmos will thwart the success and implementation of that plan."

I don't recall making a statement that would contradict this.

Your statement makes God out to be deterministic instead of sovereign. God is not deterministic in His sovereignty; Allah is.

LOL, how did Allah get into this conversation? He(it?) is nothing but a false god and has no bearing on this discussion. Deterministic, huh? I had to look that up just to be sure you were as far off my point as I thought you were. The definition of determinism is this:

"1. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory"

And that is about as opposite of what I am saying as you can get. Determinism is what Calvinism espouses: God has already decided everything.

Of note, the position you take with your statement above (assuming that you hold to some contra position) carries with it an implication that left to our own devices, we humans are not sinful and/or not in rebellion against God

Not sure where you got this idea from what I wrote.

and that we will work alongside God to accomplish His will,

Lets turn this around to "God works among mankind to accomplish His will" and then you'll have the right idea.

thus He has no need to direct history or the actions of persons in that history.

Okay, are you sure you don't have problems with comprehension?? I certainly never said OR implied this statement. If God had no need to direct history, He wouldn't have been doing so all these years!

I would greatly prefer a deterministic God than a God who leaves us to our own will or our own actions to accomplish His divine purpose.

Why?

I have already described how God caused my own "kicking and screaming will" to bend to His, and for Him it was child's play. My heart turned gladly to my Lord and Savior when I came into His presence, but HE initiated that action, not me!

You think this because you view your salvation from a Calvinistic viewpoint. I, on the otherhand, didn't come to Christ kicking and screaming. There was no force, just a choice.

 

[glfredrick]

You have brought out a strawman argument that is indeed easy to defeat.

I'm sure that you will go for it...

 

[webdog]

I'm sure that you will go for it...

I don't need to, MK did when she stated above "Not sure where you got this idea from what I wrote. "

 

[glfredrick]

First thing to remember GL, I'M NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR POSTS. I've said that already.

Point taken... But to whom are you responding?

Calvinists in general, seem to believe that God had chosen EVERYTHING in ages past. He is on a set pattern. He knows who will sin, when folk will live and die, who He will save and who He will destroy, everything, all the way down to when the condor will go extinct and He is following that pattern exclusively. And if He dares to change the pattern along the way, like He did with Hezekiah, then it was what He intended all along (which sets God up as a liar, because He told Hezekiah he was going to die!).

No, they actually don't. I've laid out a fairly accurate portrayal of what Calvinists actually hold, though as I've said before, I disavow myself of that handle. I don't care for it or Arminian. Neither are accurate or representative of the true biblical issues before us, and I'm only using the terms because they are handy for discussion sake.

In your rebuttal, which BTW, IS a response to my post above, you tell me that I am a liar, but by denying that you are responding to me directly, you simply make the class of people called "Calvinist" liars instead. Shame on you. We do not make God a liar any more than do Arminians because, as I said fairly clearly above, Calvinists DO NOT make God out to be a "deterministic God." That is YOUR argument -- and it is not a valid expression of Calvinism. It is, however, an expression of hyper-Calvinism, which is a position disavowed by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

LOL, how did Allah get into this conversation? He(it?) is nothing but a false god and has no bearing on this discussion. Deterministic, huh? I had to look that up just to be sure you were as far off my point as I thought you were. The definition of determinism is this:

"1. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory"

And that is about as opposite of what I am saying as you can get. Determinism is what Calvinism espouses: God has already decided everything.

I brought Allah in because that is who you are describing -- not the God of the Bible, who is not deterministic. If you wish to set up a strawman Calvinistic position then attack that, so be it, but don't pin beliefs on me or on "Calvinists in general" that are not factual. That doesn't help press the debate forward nor does it help us to remain united in fellowship like brothers in the Lord ought.

Lets turn this around to "God works among mankind to accomplish His will" and then you'll have the right idea.

How is that materially different than what I wrote? It is still God working out His perfect will in a way that will not be altered.

Okay, are you sure you don't have problems with comprehension?? I certainly never said OR implied this statement. If God had no need to direct history, He wouldn't have been doing so all these years!

I simply pushed forward the logic of your statement. Of course God has directed history since the beginning. He's God! But, how can God direct history if He has no control over the humans that make that history? See the problem?

You think this because you view your salvation from a Calvinistic viewpoint. I, on the otherhand, didn't come to Christ kicking and screaming. There was no force, just a choice.

Did God pre-date your coming? Then He instigated it. Did God cause your heart to be softened or hardened toward Him? Then He instigated it.

I'm fully aware of the arguments for human free will and the concept that we reflect upon our fallen state then seek out God in repentance and belief, but I'm also fully aware of the fact that the Bible says that we can't do that the way that you and many others say that we do.

This, for example:

Rom 9:13-24 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

This passage alone clearly refutes any claim to a man-first coming to God. Paul SPECIFICALLY takes to task the claim of the Arminian that God cannot direct the affairs of those that He wills to direct and Paul even anticipates your argument: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? and refutes that also.

Then there is John:

Jhn 1:12-13 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 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Arminians get all excited about verse 12 -- "But as many as received him" but seem to miss verse 13, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Again, please don't put standard fare, Arminian classroom and tract information concerning Calvinism into my mouth. That information is not factual and there are no Calvinists teaching that program nor living that program that I've ever seen, including some of the most staunch 5-point Calvinists in America like John Piper, Albert Mohler, Bruce Ware, or Tom Schreiner.

 

[CF1]

We all love you, or at least we love you as much as God gives us grace to love and forgive, and/or as much as we pray for God's grace to love. Either way we all love you or should love you. God loves all of us so we should love each other in the same way. And we love the people who don't see it our way (whichever way that is) and find our views not understandable from their experiences or research in the Bible texts. We're all going to be loving each other in heaven so we might as well do the same now. In heaven we'll give each other high-5s of love. This post has been going on for quite a while and many of the differing views harken back to old posts at the beginning of the thead, they aren't thinking about any one person. The poll shows that 2/3 of the people hold to 4-5 point Calvinistic leanings and we need to have plenty of loving room for those who wish to hold other views. There are challenges in trying to understand each other, but God still loves us all. The views we all hold can be very personal and so meaningful to each of us. So we need a lot of love for each other in the process.

I have to remind myself of this chapter below more often than I wish to admit. Much more often. But that's all part of God's grace with me daily. His Glory shines through when I lack, proving that without His Grace, I'm nothing. He reminds me of this not only at salvation, but daily.
_____________________

1 Corinthians 13 (New American Standard Bible)

1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
_____________________

Here is a great song to download and meditate on when we realize how much we need the Lord. It's old, from the 1970s but still good. I still listen to it on my MP3 player all the time.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0011TPQYE/?tag=baptis04-20

Here, I found a free link
http://www.ipraisethee.com/tag/charity/

Grace and peace to all

 

[CF1]

We were typing at the same time. I submitted my post before seeing your post above. Please don't view it as such.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Very nice post CF1. We can disagree in love, without degrading each other. When I feel attacked for my beliefs I will defend then but I will not degrade you or ridicule you. Once again let us disagree in love.

a servant in hope

Jeff

 

[webdog]

This passage alone clearly refutes any claim to a man-first coming to God.

GLF, you keep alluding to this. Who on here has even hinted as such?

 

[glfredrick]

GLF, you keep alluding to this. Who on here has even hinted as such?

Then what are we debating?

 

[webdog]

Then what are we debating?

I asked you first. Who has argued for a man centered, man first theology (what you keep bringing into this)?

 

[glfredrick]

You have argued consistently for an Arminian perspective, which is, at the end of the day, a man-centered theology. Yes, I know that "previnient grace" is the dodge used to explain how persons dead in their sin and trespasses can reach out to God, but I cannot find "previnient grace" in the Scriptures. I find that God draws all men to Himself, and that God is the author and finisher of our salvation, and that we participate with God in that event in a limited fashion in but a couple of the aspects of salvation, faith/repentance, sanctification, and perseverance. We cannot call ourselves, we cannot elect ourselves, we cannot justify ourselves, we cannot seal ourselves, we cannot adopt ourselves, we cannot glorify ourselves, and ultimately, without God's grace, we also cannot even believe, have faith, repent, or be made into the image of Christ (sanctification).

So, at the end of the day, however you argue any man-centered activity, you must have God and God's sovereignty first. Any other position, no matter how finely the arguments are crafted misses the main point, that we cannot reach out to God without God first reaching out to us, which even previnient grace says explicitly.

 

[webdog]

You have argued consistently for an Arminian perspective, which is, at the end of the day, a man-centered theology. Yes, I know that "previnient grace" is the dodge used to explain how persons dead in their sin and trespasses can reach out to God, but I cannot find "previnient grace" in the Scriptures. I find that God draws all men to Himself, and that God is the author and finisher of our salvation, and that we participate with God in that event in a limited fashion in but a couple of the aspects of salvation, faith/repentance, sanctification, and perseverance. We cannot call ourselves, we cannot elect ourselves, we cannot justify ourselves, we cannot seal ourselves, we cannot adopt ourselves, we cannot glorify ourselves, and ultimately, without God's grace, we also cannot even believe, have faith, repent, or be made into the image of Christ (sanctification).

So, at the end of the day, however you argue any man-centered activity, you must have God and God's sovereignty first. Any other position, no matter how finely the arguments are crafted misses the main point, that we cannot reach out to God without God first reaching out to us, which even previnient grace says explicitly.

Besides not having a firm grasp on what I have "argued" or even believe for that matter, you erect the very strawmen you accuse us of doing. You are not Arminian by default, even though it is much more convenient from your camp to use that phrase.

The irony in this whole thing is the man-centered sovereignty definition that states "for God to be sovereign, He must XYZ..." and "He cannot be sovereign if He allows XYZ". You have unintentionally handcuffed Him using the very theology you claim grants Him ultimate sovereignty. As I have shown, there is a tension in Scripture on God's involvement with man in the confines of time, and you cannot accept that since it doesn't come pre-wrapped with a nice little bow on top.

I've never said man can reach out to God independent of God's first action in man's life or man can regenerate and save himself. THAT is the strawman you keep putting forward and it is either intentional or it is not. I hope it's the latter.

 

[CF1]

Then what are we debating?

Well, it could be we're debating simple misunderstandings of our understanding. It happens all the time. It's normal. We get excited and need to take a breather, say a prayer, get some physical exercise to let go of daily stress. That's life. None of us are exempt from life's stress and misunderstandings. We all get our fair share. I had mine last week with family members. We had to slow down our emotions and fast pace and now we're back to normal again and everybody's happy again. Join the club, praise the Lord anyhow, and go on being a vessel for God to fill and use as He has in the past, and will in the future.

With Christ's Love,
CF1

 

[menageriekeeper]

But to whom are you responding?

As I've said before, I was and mostly still am responding to the general trend of the conversation and not to any particular person, though I may (or may have) quote someone as a starting off point for my own discussion. Though now I am talking to YOU specifically, because you seem to be both taking my posts personally and reading into them something I'm not saying.

you tell me that I am a liar,

Nope, I didn't. I said that Calvinist who believe that God can't change His mind make God into a liar. Not that they lie themselves.

But, how can God direct history if He has no control over the humans that make that history? See the problem?

There's a difference between no control and total control. It doesn't take away from God's sovereignity for Him to decide that He wants us to decide whether or not to follow Him.

Calvinists DO NOT make God out to be a "deterministic God."

Hmmm, God choses who He will save is a basic tenet of a 5 point Calvinist (not hyper either), so how is this NOT deterministic?

:
Originally Posted by menageriekeeper
Lets turn this around to "God works among mankind to accomplish His will" and then you'll have the right idea.

How is that materially different than what I wrote? It is still God working out His perfect will in a way that will not be altered.

Let's back up to where I only quoted a portion of your comment and let me quote the entire comment:

the position you take with your statement above (assuming that you hold to some contra position) carries with it an implication that left to our own devices, we humans are not sinful and/or not in rebellion against God, and that we will work alongside God to accomplish His will, thus He has no need to direct history or the actions of persons in that history.

This I dealt with already.

The part in red is the exact opposite of "God works among mankind to accomplish His will". We do not work alongside God, He works alongside US. Him first, us second. His authority first, our response second.

This passage alone clearly refutes any claim to a man-first coming to God.

And again, freewiller that I am, I never stated that man came to God first. Not in the least, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me". God reached out to man first, now the decision is: What will man do with God's offer.

This is why I say neither Calvin nor Arminius hold the entire complete view of what God is trying to tell us. The whole Romans passage that you quoted, takes on another meaning altogether when viewed my perspective, rather than trying force it to mean that man has no choice in how he responds to God's call.

Jhn 1:12-13 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 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Arminians get all excited about verse 12 -- "But as many as received him" but seem to miss verse 13, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

You know, here again, it is you who seem to think I can't read plain English. Of course I don't believe that anything I could have done, any of the sacrifices made by the priests, nor anything that other humans may have done, would have given me salvation had God not first sent the Way, the Truth and the Life. He's already made first contact!

Again, please don't put standard fare, Arminian classroom and tract information concerning Calvinism into my mouth.

This is quite amusing. What I know of Calvin, I first learned about HERE on the BB. Same with Arminius. Then I studied them both out for myself. No tracks, no classroom fare, just the words of the men themselves. (though I don't claim to have read every word each man wrote) Neither was all wrong. Equally, neither is all right. Both were failable humans just like us, who did their best to abide by God's word.

 

[glfredrick]

I'll admit, right now, that I am reasonably confused as to several of the positions presented in this thread (and others). A few of you seem to have no cohesive theology, but pick and choose what you wish to hold depending on if it fits the argument you would like to make at the moment.

That's fine if that is what you want to do, but don't expect anyone to actually rebut your points because they make about as much sense as calling a square round. In a fashion, you seem to want your cake, and eat it too.

Either God is sovereign or God is not. I've made my choice, and I'll bow to God as my sovereign King. If that makes Him deterministic (which He isn't) so well. Let it be. Better HE than I.

I AM really curious as to how the Romans and John passages I laid out above can be interpreted in another manner, however. They seem REALLY clear to me. But obviously, I can never really comprehend Scripture because I'm the one looking at it through a "disapproved lens." :BangHead:

 

[webdog]

I'll admit, right now, that I am reasonably confused as to several of the positions presented in this thread (and others). A few of you seem to have no cohesive theology, but pick and choose what you wish to hold depending on if it fits the argument you would like to make at the moment.

That's rich. You are the one confused...yet it is our theology that is not cohesive. It would do you a world of good to learn opposing views to your own.

I have yet to see you address the story of Hezekiah. Curious as to why.

 

[go2church]

As per the usual when this discussion comes up there is too much talking past each other and not to one another. You're a heretic cause this old theologian says so, no you're the heretic cause this other old theologian said so.

Lots of heat not much light

 

[ituttut]

Where do we find this? Show me where it says that Adam could have chosen otherwise. Many Calvinists believe that Adam did have a free will before the fall. He may have. But I wonder if you can make a case for it. What we know is that man does not have a free will after the fall.

Hello Luke2427. Late answering as extended Thanksgiving traveling.

(KJV) II Thessalonians 2:13, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I find here a verse you may see as teaching predestination of salvation by God, which to me is of a Robotic nature. I cannot quarrel with that understanding that salvation of who is saved is predestined, and known by God. However what is overlooked is Who is predestined, and who isn't. The above verse says "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation". He then tells us how, as He continues with what was from the beginning, i.e., "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

If we believe God (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved), then we are predestined, for from the beginning it is ". "Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth", just as Paul tells us.

Show me where the Bible says that sinners, unregenerate people can choose to live for Christ as an act of their own volition. They cannot do it.

Of course they can't. Where have I suggested such as this? If a sinner hears the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, and believes that gospel, they will be baptized into the Body of Christ, and sealed in. If they hear (or do not hear) and do not believe that salvation is a gift, made possible by the Grace of God, Through Faith without any works of our own, then they will not be saved.

 

[Luke2427]

Of course they can't. Where have I suggested such as this? If a sinner hears the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, and believes that gospel, they will be baptized into the Body of Christ, and sealed in. If they hear (or do not hear) and do not believe that salvation is a gift, made possible by the Grace of God, Through Faith without any works of our own, then they will not be saved. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

OK, well I am confused about what you believe then. Help me to see your perspective more clearly.

If the unregenerate man cannot choose Christ (which the bible clearly teaches) how does, in your view, the unregenerate man come to Christ?