I Believe In Free Will

Does "decides on" mean "choice"?

 

Thank you for sharing, but for confirmation on what Arminian definition is on free will, is there a link to that source?

Also, do you consider making a promise or an oath to Christ or to follow Christ as the same thing as putting oneself back in bondage to the law or not? Freemasons and AA & NA see a commitment on the same level as a promise, and so should Christians put themselves back under the law by making a promise to follow Christ when they should be following Him by faith instead that He will help us to follow Him by the grace of God?

 

True Free will ended when the curse of the Fall hit creation, and especially mankind!

 

Was the heretic given a chance to repent though?

 

They will always reject unless God intervenes on their behalf!

 

We change; God doesn't, but is that really applicable when it was hardly an informed choice to make? Eve was deceived, and by Eve, Adam had followed. Now they have knowledge of good and evil; of what is outside the will of God in so doing.

Would they have even considered to choose contrary to God's word if the serpent wasn't there in the garden?

How many people said that they would go back in time and cut down that tree of the knowledge of good and evil to prevent the fall of man? It would be an oxymoron because they have to have knowledge of that evil act to go back in time to stop it.

Before we all get a headache, and start biting and devouring one another, how important is it to get everybody on the same page about believing or not believing in free will? What is the evil that can come out of either side of that issue? Maybe that should be addressed rather than emphasizing one part of scripture at the expense of the other as if that is the whole truth. If we see where we are going with it or so to speak, what the opposition is saying we are going with one side of the issue, maybe He can help us to see how to apply scripture rightly dividing the word of truth for our edification on that issue, especially when scripture would definitely reprove the evil that comes by that line of thinking?

 

More than likely, but it is still wrong to execute the heretic; Jesus had taught excommunication and so did Paul, twice. Paul even said that when the brother repents, he is allowed back into fellowship. Death removes that option for the heretic and for any other Christian that has gone astray.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

I do no tthink that Calvin was right to have the heretic executed, if indeed he did order that, but that would not render him lost, or change the truth one of the greatest theologians of all time!

 

John Calvin's actions by His words would suggest he did not know Him for doing that, but as for whether or not he has repented of that sin before his deathbed, only God knows, but he is saved regardless, even though he will answer for it " if " unrepented.

2 Corinthians 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

 

The sin of what he did was already atoned for and paid by Jesus for his sake!

 

Answer the question, How can one make choices except they do so in their free will?

you are changing definitions to nonsense

 

This is not affecting his salvation, but how He will be received by Him. If he has unrepentant iniquity, he will be disqualified from attending the Marriage Supper in Heaven, and thus a castaway ( excommunicated ) to be received later on after the great tribulation as a vessel unto dishonor in His House.

If he believed that he had not sinned, then he needed to confess his sin to be forgiven of them.

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

Well we're talking about free will not free Will and the bondage of the flesh. It's you Calvinists which are desperately seeking to make the will and the bondage the same as if the will could never want outside of bondage. Thus you have your total depravity where your everything, everything, everything has to be God including a desire for God.

Here's your problem! Paul didn't say that in Romans 7! He was comparing two type of conditions. His condition of being unsaved in 7 as contrasted in Romans 8 with his position after salvation. In Rom 7:18 it says for the will to do good was present with him...that was in his unsaved position. He wanted to keep the law before being saved but couldn't. Thus the will is still free to want the good. So no the will is not in bondage and blocked from wanting God as Calvinistic, TD would suggest.

 

Is this site an official source on Jacobus Arminius use of free will?

What does Arminianism mean? definition and meaning (Free English Language Dictionary)

If so, then I would think predestination is what you need to defend here if that is what free will is being used for by those that oppose.

What is Calvin's definition of predestination? And what are the verses that supports it?

Do these support?

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 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,

I would think those that would argue for free may make that complaint against God in verse 19.

 

No, no, no...You're trying to lump all of your theology into this and saying it's all needed to make the above possible. Non-Calvinsits believes Jesus sets us free from sin AND the bondage to sin and even most Calvinists I'd say know this.

I know you've qualified your statements as [Sarchasm] but is there really need to to engage in it WHEN all Christians believe Christ died on the cross for our sins.

And this is where you purposely muddy up the waters. Free will doesn't mean one can achieve all things. Their will and desire can want to but they need something more than free will. They needed the options of which their free will could decide about. But they still had free will all the time prior that is free will to live within certain parameters.

 

ALL of us will go to heaven with some sin not fully repented off though, and the unconfessed sin would cause some loss of eneral rewards, but ALL saved by the Grace of God in Jesus Christ will be in heaven, NO exclusionary probabtion or anything else fore any true Christian!

 

What some will come up with to avoid the argument, hmm? Let see, if one were able to define his opposition’s terms to suit himself, heck with “able to”, DEMAND, his opposition’s definition of “free will/human volition" must ONLY have the meaning of “bondage of the will”, without exception, no matter how the term has been used in these discussions for centuries, and then resort to calling them ignorant bible deniers and blasphemers every time they say they believe in “free will” as they define it, hmm, then he could avoid every argument in opposition to Determinism supported by the human ability to choose (free will/human volition) and just question beg on their TULIP view of Total Inability whenever convenient. Yep, great idea! …wish I was smart enough to come up with these kinds of arguments!


Guess that's what you have to do when logic is not on your side, eh.

 

Chapter 7 of Romans describes paul as now a saved person, but still weak in himself to live as he should, and Chapter 8 gives to us the revealtion that its by not my might or power, but by the Holy Spirit says the Lord!