World 3:16

[Iconoclast]

My phone can handle all colors. I bet my 2 year old phone is more capable than whatever thing you're using.

I prefer to use what is called "Dark Mode" on my phone. That means the background is black instead of bright white. That saves battery because the screen doesn't need to light up all pixels to white color and it saves my eyeballs from looking at mostly white space.

I still have a black and white TV with rabbit ears but I haven't used it in 30 years. It's in storage.

I answered your post in black yesterday

 

[Reynolds]

Reynolds ,you had posted this link;
The Five articles of Remonstrance refers to the document drawn up in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). A "remonstrance" is literally "an expression of opposition or protest," which in this case was a protest against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination contained in the Belgic Confession. Consequently, those followers of Arminius who drafted this protest were given the name "Remonstrants."

This document was condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619. [1]

Let's investigate why it was considered heresy. [so kyred will not get nervous,lol]

Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. [2]


Not a bad statement, what do you think here...?

I agree completely with all the Articles. (Surprisingly or not)

 

[Reynolds]

Article 3


Agreed...man was rendered spiritually dead at the moment Adam fell.


Here is the common error of supposing the will of man to be free



They recovered themselves, and came back to the biblical understanding.

Free will. We both agree there is free will, we just argue about how much.

I dont see man "recovering himself". I see, as stated by the article, The Holy Spirit restored man.

 

[Iconoclast]

Free will. We both agree there is free will, we just argue about how much.

I dont see man "recovering himself". I see, as stated by the article, The Holy Spirit restored man.

I do not believe free will exists, for anyone,at anytime,anywhere, now or in eternity.

 

[JonC]

I do not believe free will exists, for anyone,at anytime,anywhere, now or in eternity.

Joshua 24; Proverbs 16; Mark 8; Isaiah 55; Galatians 5; Genesis 2; and Deuteronomy 30 prove otherwise.

Unless, of course, you are talking about libertarian free-will (an uninfluenced will), which is venturing into philosophy (very few seriously venture that we exercise our will uninfluenced, but it is unbiblical to say that we do not exercise our will freely).

Scripture tells us that we are slaves to sin or to righteousness, but also that we have freedom of the will to seek that which we desire. So to blame our choices on an inability of the will rather than the desires of the flesh or the spirit (where Scripture puts these matters) is wrong. But you are, of course, entitled to be wrong.

 

[Reynolds]

I do not believe free will exists, for anyone,at anytime,anywhere, now or in eternity.

So you dont believe in any degree of free will? Most Calvinists will strongly argue that they believe in "free will." Do you not believe in free will only as it pertains to salvation, or do you not believe in any free will at all?

 

[Reynolds]

I'm dropping out of this thread as somebody continues on using colored fonts in bold format for no apparent reason. Colored fonts are very difficult to read on my phone using a dark background color scheme.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

For those of us who use a normal color scheme, the colored fonts are nice.

 

[Van]

The liberal Calvinist viewpoints should be in liberal blue, and the conservative truth of non-Calvinists should be in red.

Take the idea that this Cal/Arm debate should be moved to the Cal/Arm forum. That is true so should be in red.

And the view that this thread does not belong in the Cal/Arm forum, that is a liberal redefinition of the purpose of the forum.

 

[JonC]

For those of us who use a normal color scheme, the colored fonts are nice.

I don't mind the colors if they are to make a point.

It is like highlighting in a book. It is good to bring out a sentence but over use clouds the issue.

I wonder if we could have the color scheme limited to afre colors.

 

[Iconoclast]

So you dont believe in any degree of free will? Most Calvinists will strongly argue that they believe in "free will." Do you not believe in free will only as it pertains to salvation, or do you not believe in any free will at all?

None..no will is free.
The term itself is a product of fallen man and his Carnal philosophy.
Men make Choices all the time, but we are not to mistake such choices for a will that is free.
Some who do not understand the fall into both spiritual and physical death that occurred at the Fall, of course they imagine many things, and will trot out verses saying choose.....nothing to do with the condition of the will, but they suggest it is significant.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reynolds,
What I have mostly seen among Calvinists is using the term,free moral agent.
This attempts to show that man make Choices everyday, but still bound by their sin nature.

 

[Reynolds]

None..no will is free.
The term itself is a product of fallen man and his Carnal philosophy.
Men make Choices all the time, but we are not to mistake such choices for a will that is free.
Some who do not understand the fall into both spiritual and physical death that occurred at the Fall, of course they imagine many things, and will trot out verses saying choose.....nothing to do with the condition of the will, but they suggest it is significant.

If we have no free will, we are simply puppets in God's great puppet show. What is the point in anything?

 

[Iconoclast]

If we have no free will, we are simply puppets in God's great puppet show. What is the point in anything?

1689 LBC: Chapter 9: "Of Free Will"

Term exists so here is how the 1689 confession of Faith deals with the term trying to frame it out and explain a Biblical perspective on it.

 

[timtofly]

Hello T fly
Man has a will.
Man makes choices.
Man's will and choices, are bound by his nature.

Jets that cannot really glide are bound by gravity, yet they are free to fly for thousands of miles. So no, nature does not bind us. It declares we cannot change on our own. But God says if one is willing, God would change their natures.

 

[Reynolds]

1689 LBC: Chapter 9: "Of Free Will"

Term exists so here is how the 1689 confession of Faith deals with the term trying to frame it out and explain a Biblical perspective on it.

That seems to in no way eliminate free will in matters not pertaining to Salvation.

 

[JonC]

Hello T fly
Man has a will.
Man makes choices.
Man's will and choices, are bound by his nature.

Scripture teaches that men are bound but not by nature. You are going from Scripture to philosophy in your belief here.

We are by nature children children of wrath, we are "flesh", and in bondage to the powers of darkness but free in terms of righteousness. Saved we are slaves to righteousness and freed from sin.

Since we are talking philosophy rather than Scripture, Jonathan Edward's work is a good one.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jets that cannot really glide are bound by gravity, yet they are free to fly for thousands of miles. So no, nature does not bind us. It declares we cannot change on our own. But God says if one is willing, God would change their natures.

where do you read that?

 

[Iconoclast]

Scripture teaches that men are bound but not by nature. You are going from Scripture to philosophy in your belief here.

We are by nature children children of wrath, we are "flesh", and in bondage to the powers of darkness but free in terms of righteousness. Saved we are slaves to righteousness and freed from sin.

Since we are talking philosophy rather than Scripture, Jonathan Edward's work is a good one.

you speak of philosophy
I will stay with scripture starting with the fall into spirtual death.

 

[JonC]

you speak of philosophy
I will stay with scripture starting with the fall into spirtual death.

No. That is my point. YOU are speaking of philosophy with your discussion of men not possessing freedom of the will.

Scripture is what I gave you (what you ignored) stating that men do have free will. Scripture does not deal with libertarian free-will (what you are talking about). Scripture deals with men being in bondage to the darkness or the Light; flesh or Spirit; Satan or Christ; Sin or Righteousness.

 

[timtofly]

where do you read that?

Are you saying that babies are born with a Christ like nature? God does not change any one's nature against their will. Where did you read that? All humans are born in sin, the book of Romans. God changes one's nature. Claiming there is no free will is harder to prove from the Bible; if at all possible.

Did Adam have free will? Before sin, no one worried about free will, because all choices were good choices. Now with sin that does not change. The issue flipped. In ethics we are taught that even two GOOD choices result in evil. That some choices result in good is the Grace of God. Having free will is that it does not matter to God what we choose. So, NO God does not force us to do anything. God does change our nature when our sinful will gives into His saving will. But still no force needed.