Free Will compatible with Sovereignty

It was the anabaptists and not the other Protestants that fought for and believed in adult baptism.You are aware that both John Calvin and Martin Luther along with the Catholics severely spoke out and persecuted the doctrine of adult believers baptism? Believers baptism had nothing to do with the Martin Luther's reformation. The Protestants and the Catholics alike persecuted the Anabaptists. The doctrine of baptism pre-existed because as baptists we believe that was the proper and original way of baptizing believers. The Anabaptists took part in the reformation but did not share all the same beliefs and free will was one of those beliefs that the baptizers held to that Luther and Calvin did not.

 

Anabaptists

THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1527

SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION OF THE SWISS BRETHREN (Anabaptists)


First. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Mt. 28, Mk. 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance.

also:

A BAPTIST church was found in Augsburg, in 1525, where Hans Denck was pastor. In this city Denck was exceedingly popular, so that in a year or two the church numbered some eleven hundred members. Urbanus Rhegius, who was minister in that city at the time, says of the influence of Denck: "It increased like a canker, to the grievous injury of many souls," Augsburg became a great Baptist center.

Associated with Denck at Augsburg were Balthasar Hubmaier, Ludwig Hatzer and Hans Hut. They all practiced immersion. Keller in his life of Denck says:

The baptism was performed by dipping under (untertauchen). The men were in thus act naked, the women had a covering (Keller, Em Apostel der Wiedertaufer, 112).

Schaff is particular to relate that the four leaders of the Anabaptists of Augsburg all practiced immersion. He says:

The Anabaptist leaders Hubmaier, Derek, Hatzer, Hut, likewise appeared in Augsburg, and gathered a congregation of eleven hundred members. They had a general synod in 1527. They baptized by immersion. Rhegius stirred up the magistrates against them; the leaders were imprisoned and some were executed (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI. 578).

Immersion was the practice of the Baptists of Augsburg. There is the testimony of a trusted eye-witness in the Augsburg Benedictine, Clemens Sender. This old historian says of the Baptists of Augsburg:

In Augsburg in the gardens of the houses in 1527, men and women, servants and masters, rich and poor, more than eleven hundred of them were rebaptized. They put on peculiar garments in which to be baptized, for in their houses were their baptisteries where there were always a number of garments always prepared (Clemens Sender, Die Chronik, 186).

Sender thus hears witness to the large number of persons immersed in Augsburg. It has sometimes been claimed that the baptisms which occurred among the Baptists in houses and cellars must have been by sprinkling. They had especially prepared baptisteries in their houses for immersions. When it was dangerous and inconvenient to go to the rivers and streams for baptismal purposes baptisteries were erected in private houses. This is the testimony of an eye-witness. Hubmaier is moreover associated with these immersions.

Wagenseil, a historian of Augsburg, says:

In the year 1527 the Anabaptists baptized none who did not believe with them; and the candidates were not merely sprinkled, but they were dipped under (Wagenseil, Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg, 1820).


Hans Denk: The Suffering of Christ is sufficient for the sins of all men even if no man were ever saved. 28

Melchior Hoffman: All are created for salvation, and the Son of God suffered for all. As the whole seed of Adam without their own fault was condemned in Adam so also they are again made blessed, redeemed, and purchased from death through Jesus Christ freely and without any merit of their own. . . . . . . [H]e is an atoner not only for the sins of the believers, but for the sins of the whole world, that is, for the whole seed of Adam. 29

Balthasar Hubmaier (1480-1528) was a thoughtful opponent to the doctrine of the bondage of the will and of predestination that was prevalent in thought of Luther, Zwingli and the Magisterial Reformers.

For Hubmaier, the liberation of the will is the work of God through the preaching of the gospel, “Through the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, it is liberated from its bondage to sin through the new birth.” (Schriften, p. 322). Through the gospel God takes the initiative in drawing men to himself. As the gospel is proclaimed, God’s Spirit convicts human hearts and leads them to confess Christ. While God takes the initiative, he does not make the decision for man. By His “attracting, drawing will” . . . God “wills and draws all men unto salvation. Yet choice is still left to man, since God wants him without pressure, unconstrained, under no compulsion.” (Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, p. 135)

Hubmaier’s distaste for the doctrine of predestination is unconcealed. He wrote, “It were a false God who should day words, “Come here,” and yet in secret in his heart should think, “Sit yonder.” It would be an unfaithful God who should publicly offer grace to man, and should clothe him in new raiment, yet in secret take it away from him and prepare hell for him.” (Vedder, Balthasar Hubmaier, p. 197.)

via Dr. Bruce Prescott, at MainStreamBaptists.org

 

Monastier, himself a Waldensian pastor, has this to say about Waldensian doctrine in 1530, just before the confession of Angrogne was issued:

It would appear that in what regards the acceptance of salvation and the internal life of the Christian, the barbes at that time allowed an immense share to the human will. . . . They did not admit predestination, excepting with certain explanations, which reduced it to be nothing more than an anticipated view of human intentions and actions by the omniscience of God. [10]

 

also it appears to be well known that these same Waldenses became reformed on their views of baptism also when they became Calvinists and ceased to be baptists because of the reformation.
Jarrel says:

Prof. Whitsitt says that no doubt the Waldenses altered their opinions under Luther's influence. [7]

Moser states that the Waldenses began to accept alien immersion at this time:

In Luther's war against the church, he sought the support of the Waldenses in order to defeat Rome. This struck a responsive chord with the Waldenses who had been persecuted for lo these many centuries, and they showed some interest. However, Luther demanded a change in their practice of rebaptism lest he might be required to be rebaptized. . . . There were a few of the Anabaptists or Waldenses that went over to Luther and abandoned rebaptism just as you see some Baptists today, and the histories written of today will only record those defectors and omit the majority who refused to compromise and join in with the ecumenical activity. [8]

Though it is likely that many Waldenses retained their Baptist convictions after 1532, helping to give strength to the Anabaptist movement, the main body of Waldenses in Savoy cannot be regarded as Baptists after that year. Their identification with the Reformers from that time on is well-known. Latourette says of the Waldenses: "In the 16th Century the majority of the remnants were drawn into the family of the Reformed Churches." [9]

 

Did Jesus have free will or was his will subservient to the will of his Father?... Brother Glen

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

Man's will is bound to the Law of sin and death UNTIL it is DELIVERED by the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. After that, we are joined to Christ and no longer under sins dominion. Hallelujah!

Agree that God is free! Nothing outside of Himself can coerce or limit Him. And He is not brought under any alien force or power. That makes Him free and autonomous

The fact that God only acts according to His nature does not negate His freedom. Acting according to an UNCORRUPTED uncoerced and unimpeded is perfect and absolute autonomy

 

Did God

 

Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Thank God he didn't!... Brother Glen

 

How could Jesus have been tempted by the devil in the desert if he had no free will?

 

I decided to try to look up the Hebrew concept of free will. It seems the Hebrews had no concept of predestination. It seems that was a Greek concept.

Rapidly I encountered a puzzle. The puzzle is the true meaning of Lamentations 3:38-40. And it makes me want to read the original Hebrew rather than a translation. Somebody here has probably already done so (read it in the original Hebrew) and will hopefully chime in about it.

Contrast the following two translations of Lamentations 3:38-40:

First this one:

Lamentations 3:38-40 King James Version (KJV)
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?

40 Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord.

Next this one:
(From On the Nature of Free Will)

It is not from on high that evil and good emanate. Thus, of what shall a living man complain? A strong man [should complain] over his own sins! Let us therefore search and examine our ways and return to Hashem.

— Lamentations 3:38-40

 

No one said that God wills His nature. He wills according to His nature, but His Will is free

I think the disagreement is the result of varying definitions of freedom. How do you define freedom?

 

I agree. But How does this negate freedom? How do you define freedom?

 

And also foreknowledge...