• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinism and Free Will

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allan

Active Member
npetreley said:
So what you're saying that God would just create us with magical knowledge of His mercy without Him ever having to demonstrate it in order for us to experience it first hand? Well, maybe if you can demonstrate that you "know" this from some special revelation from God, I'll consider it. Otherwise, it only makes sense to me that we can know God's mercy from His demonstrating it. And God can't demonstrate mercy without a creature that doesn't deserve it (a sinner), and a sacrifice (Jesus) to make it possible.
And THIS is not a pompous diatribe?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
npetreley said:
And with that tired refrain ("You [sic] God really IS limited"), I will gladly put you on ignore, along with webdog and the pompous quack.
Allan, welcome to the fraternity...it's growing :laugh:
 

TCGreek

New Member
Allan said:
Then you my friend need to repent.
My love for the truth exceeds my love for my doctrine.
You 'sober quote' was nothing more pride.

Allan,

1. I'm not one to point fingers--look at my posts. Everyone is convinced of certain biblical truths, and it is from that position I offered my quote. You may not agree with my brand of Calvinism and how I view Scripture. That is ok.

2. But why this pride talk, my brother. Why?
 

Allan

Active Member
TCGreek said:
God decreed that sin should be, to which you also agreed in a roundabout manner, and also decreed the HOW through man's moral agency (Lk 22:22).
I agree, but He did not decree there be sin and then determine how they would sin.

IOW - Not that He knew they would sin but that He determined they must sin.
 

Allan

Active Member
TCGreek said:
Allan,

1. I'm not one to point fingers--look at my posts. Everyone is convinced of certain biblical truths, and it is from that position I offered my quote. You may not agree with my brand of Calvinism and how I view Scripture. That is ok.
On this I agree but to be SO devoted to a doctrine that you will not seriously listen to and consider the possiblity you could be wrong is near idolitry (not that I am specifically referencing you but in general). I do not hold and SYSTEM of doctrine so high that it is infalable. I take seriously (any serious conversation not riddled with condecention) and listen to, evaluate, their side. It does not mean I will agree but I HAVE modified some of my views through these debates and completely changed a few others.

2. But why this pride talk, my brother. Why?
Let us back shall we:
I asked you to scripture prove that God decreed sin to be and then decreed how He would bring it into being. (paraphrase of a few posts to you)

You stated this regarding my request:
According to Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, "To give more evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give more room for misinterpretation."

To which I replied:
It is sad to see you play such games when asked to biblically support your position.

However, God be the judge between you and me and your statement concerning my love for the truth.
You question my love for the truth of God and think Pride is NOT apart of your statement.

You assume that which you hold is the truth and since I will not blindly accept it but seriously request and expect bibical support you presume next to question my love for truth as though your love is greater and therefore you will/have recieve it and I will not. THAT is prideful.

To illistratw my point in your own words, here is your next post regarding this:
I'm sorry that you see my sober quote as a game. And I make no apology for my quote--it is what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TCGreek

New Member
Allan said:
On this I agree but to be SO devoted to a doctrine that you will not seriously listen to and consider the possiblity you could be wrong is near idolitry (not that I am specifically referencing you but in general). I do not hold and SYSTEM of doctrine so high that it is infalable. I take seriously (any serious conversation not riddled with condecention) and listen to, evaluate, their side. It does not mean I will agree but I HAVE modified some of my views through these debates and completely changed a few others.


Let us back shall we:
I asked you to scripture prove that God decreed sin to be and then decreed how He would bring it into being. (paraphrase of a few posts to you)

You stated this regarding my request:


To which I replied:

You question my love for the truth of God and think Pride is NOT apart of your statement.

You assume that which you hold is the truth and since I will not blindly accept it but seriously request and expect bibical support you presume next to question my love for truth as though your love is greater and therefore you will/have recieve it and I will not. THAT is pride.

To illistratw my point in your own words, here is your next post regarding this:

Let's put this personal stuff to sleep; I'm sorry if certain things rubbed you the wrong way, but I wish not to take them back. :thumbs:
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
I see you have taken a page out of npetreley's "non-apology apology" book :)

Still eagerly awaiting to see the Scirpture you supply Allan with, which he asked for...
 

Allan

Active Member
TCGreek said:
Let's put this personal stuff to sleep; I'm sorry if certain things rubbed you the wrong way, but I wish not to take them back. :thumbs:
And that is fine. That is why I said made the statement:
God be the judge between you and me and your statement concerning my love for the truth

And my observation stands as well and illistrated nicely in your last post :smilewinkgrin:

Anyway TCG, peace and all glory be to God in all things regardless of if we see eye to eye.
 

TCGreek

New Member
webdog said:
I see you have taken a page out of npetreley's "non-apology apology" book :)

Webdog,

1. You and I have been engaged in several debates before. You know I'm a straight-shooter.

2. I don't apologize for what I say, but only for HOW it rubbed. That is all!
 

TCGreek

New Member
Allan said:
And that is fine. That is why I said made the statement:


And my observation stands as well and illistrated nicely in your last post :smilewinkgrin:

Anyway TCG, peace and all glory be to God in all things regardless of if we see eye to eye.

No hard feelings, Allan. Sorry for questioning your love for the truth. Maybe it's the Calvinism in me. :laugh:
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
TCGreek said:
Webdog,

1. You and I have been engaged in several debates before. You know I'm a straight-shooter.

2. I don't apologize for what I say, but only for HOW it rubbed. That is all!
Does that make it right :confused:
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
TCGreek said:
Allan and I are over it. Let's put it to rest.
I'm glad you have...but I don't see how it can be considered noble to never apologize for what is said, but only how something "rubbed".
 

skypair

Active Member
Andy T. said:
...but it is certainly in his decretive will for sin to occur.
This is what is objectionable, sir! That God decreed it rather than merely foreknew of it! It was definitely NOT His will of any kind!

I believe in the free agency of man, and I believe that after the Fall, man's will is in captivity and is dead in sin and cannot respond favorably to God without the supernatural act of God to change his disposition towards Him.
Which is why you are a Calvinist and I am not. Man's will is not in captivity until he sins. He is NOT in sin until he actually sins. And, knowing GOOD and evil, man CAN respond to God's drawing through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Do you not see that God is NOT going to give the ability to see Him to anyone who does not first believe???? What is so hard about that concept that you reject if out of hand? Can God NOT speak to man without your permission?

skypair
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So SP , you think people can respond to God's drawing through the influence of the Holy Spirit .

As Scripture establishes , all those who the Father gives to Christ will come -- that's the drawing . It's not a tugging wherein the Lord may lose the tug of war because of the invincibility of man's free will .

All those who are drawn come -- not one is lost .

SP said : "Do you not see that God is NOT going to give the ability to see Him to anyone who does not first believe ????" No , SP , I do not see this in Holy Writ . I understand that all of us are dead in our sins . I understand that we are slaves of sin . We are in spiritual straightjackets . No one in that position has the ability , strength , insight , capacity or wherewithal to believe . God gives belief and repentance to the people of His choosing . Romans 9:16 says that : "It does not , therefore , depend on human desire or effort , but on God's mercy." (TNIV) . The Lord chose to give us spiritual birth ( see James 1:18 ) . According to John 1:13 the children of the Lord "are reborn -- not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan , but a birth that comes from God." (NLTse) .

Okay SP , you don't think that it is biblical to believe that it is God's will for to sin to occur . You think that God merely knew it ahead of time . But what about Acts 2:23 :" This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge ; and you , with the help of wicked men , put him to death by nailing him to the cross ." (TNIV) . Or consider Acts 4:28 :" But everything they did was determined beforehand according to your will." (NLTse)

Scripture is against your contentions SP . There is a mysterious harmony between evil and the accomplishment of God's will . The verses cited in Acts show the ultimate sin -- the killing of God's dear Son . Yet God Himself was behind it all . God foreordained the act and evil men carried it out .

A lesser instance of this is nevertheless still instructive . Ponder Genesis 50:20:" You intended to harm me , but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done , the saving of many lives." (TNIV)
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
npetreley said:
Hats off to you npetreley, for defending the faith in such a well showing in manner of articulation of the truth. Don't be discouraged by them dodging your pointed questions. Keep-up the good work.

In Christ...James
 

JustChristian

New Member
skypair said:
This is what is objectionable, sir! That God decreed it rather than merely foreknew of it! It was definitely NOT His will of any kind!

Which is why you are a Calvinist and I am not. Man's will is not in captivity until he sins. He is NOT in sin until he actually sins. And, knowing GOOD and evil, man CAN respond to God's drawing through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Do you not see that God is NOT going to give the ability to see Him to anyone who does not first believe???? What is so hard about that concept that you reject if out of hand? Can God NOT speak to man without your permission?

skypair


This is a good point that I'm not sure I've ever thought about. Yes, man fell when Eve ate the apple and passed it to Adam. That gave us our sinful nature. But their eyes were opened and now they were aware of good and evil. If their sinful nature was passed down to us so was their knowledge of good and evil. It's a bit of a jump but this infers that they were capable of making decisions about which one to pursue. It's my belief that a being which is totally depraved doesn't see the difference and has only one choice, evil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

npetreley

New Member
Jarthur001 said:
Hats off to you npetreley, for defending the faith in such a well showing in manner of articulation of the truth. Don't be discouraged by them dodging your pointed questions. Keep-up the good work.

In Christ...James

Thanks, James. I needed that more than you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top