Did a C or A say this?

[Eternally Grateful]

You can believe in both and still believe in Free Will. I am Calvinist and I believe in Free Will.

I will be honest. You would be the first free will calvinist I have ever met.. lol

Calvinist are my brothers and sisters I have no doubt, I disagree with how we get to the end result. but the end result is the same.

 

[Reynolds]

​

I've never actually seen JM state that any Scripture supports Arminianism. Do you have any references?

I will find it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I also do not find value in digging around in men's theologies. That said, this does not mean that men like Dewight Moody, CS Lewis, and Tozier have nothing of benefit to offer.

As you know, I believe in predestination (and reprobation). So your charge that I have drank the free-will "kool-aid" is kinda weird. This goes back to what @Reynolds and @Eternally Grateful were talking about and proves them correct.

I understand ypu cannot go back to Tozer's doctrine. I couldn't go there either. Now I could not go back to Calvinism for the same reason - it would be as a dog returning to his own vomit.

This is normal. When you find an error it is silly to return to that error. This dies not mean I cannot worship with Calvinists or with Free-will Baptists. Those who are truly saved are my family, and we remain united in Christ even as we are divided over theology.

I can appreciate Tozier as a godly man God used for His purposes while at the same time find his neglect for his family and aspects of his theology the results of the man being human, finite, and capable of error.

The problem with only reading the works of men who have a perfect theology is there are none in this lifetime. The problem with only reading those who say what you want to hear ("tickle your ears") as you become unable to discern truth from error. They tell you the ink blot is a bat and pretty soon you can't see it as an ink blot.

That just goes to show what we are thinking.

He is arguing doctrine based on what he was taught and thinks. Not listenign to what we are saying

 

[AustinC]

I also do not find value in digging around in men's theologies. That said, this does not mean that men like Dewight Moody, CS Lewis, and Tozier have nothing of benefit to offer.

As you know, I believe in predestination (and reprobation). So your charge that I have drank the free-will "kool-aid" is kinda weird. This goes back to what @Reynolds and @Eternally Grateful were talking about and proves them correct.

I understand ypu cannot go back to Tozer's doctrine. I couldn't go there either. Now I could not go back to Calvinism for the same reason - it would be as a dog returning to his own vomit.

This is normal. When you find an error it is silly to return to that error. This dies not mean I cannot worship with Calvinists or with Free-will Baptists. Those who are truly saved are my family, and we remain united in Christ even as we are divided over theology.

I can appreciate Tozier as a godly man God used for His purposes while at the same time find his neglect for his family and aspects of his theology the results of the man being human, finite, and capable of error.

The problem with only reading the works of men who have a perfect theology is there are none in this lifetime. The problem with only reading those who say what you want to hear ("tickle your ears") as you become unable to discern truth from error. They tell you the ink blot is a bat and pretty soon you can't see it as an ink blot.

Jon, do you even comprehend how condescending you are? It is clear ypu have a much higher view of yourself than others have of you. It's best if I ignore you rather than be frustrated by that which you are blind about yourself.
Feel free to go on reading books that deny the substitionary atonement of Christ or soteriology of grace. From my perspective you have abandoned the teaching of the vast majority of Christianity to cling to a novel view you cannot even clearly articulate. Following your path would in essence be a suicide mission in the path to sanctification while here on earth. I cannot join your path and I am fully at peace not joining you.

 

[AustinC]

That just goes to show what we are thinking.

He is arguing doctrine based on what he was taught and thinks. Not listenign to what we are saying

I have listened quite well, thank you. I have found your theories entirely empty of merit. Moreso they are entirely built upon a house of cards that represent sentences removed from context that are merely prooftext for a pretext.

 

[Silverhair]

Jon, my heart pumps camel water for you.

You just proved Jon's point about some of the calvinists on BB.

 

[JonC]

Jon, do you even comprehend how condescending you are? It is clear ypu have a much higher view of yourself than others have of you. It's best if I ignore you rather than be frustrated by that which you are blind about yourself.
Feel free to go on reading books that deny the substitionary atonement of Christ or soteriology of grace. From my perspective you have abandoned the teaching of the vast majority of Christianity to cling to a novel view you cannot even clearly articulate. Following your path would in essence be a suicide mission in the path to sanctification while here on earth. I cannot join your path and I am fully at peace not joining you.

No. What part of my post do you feel is condescending?

You say that you cannot return to your old belief (Toziers doctrine) as it would be like a dog returning to its vomit. I agree with you. I also cannot return to doctrine I have found to be error for the exact same reason. I mean that as a principle. Nobody returns to error once they see it as error.

Perhaps you just consider that condescending because you meant your post as condescending. If so, that's on you. I did not mean it that way at all.

 

[canadyjd]

Crickets or insults…..

I asked a serious question. Jonny Mac was referred to as a “high Calvinist”. I asked what that meant. I am attempting to engage the OP.

You made a (funny) joke about Calvinists smoking marijuana.

Then the complaints of insults and crickets.

So, really it’s a waste of time and cyber space to attempt to have the conversation, so I’ll leave you to it.

peace to you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have listened quite well, thank you. I have found your theories entirely empty of merit. Moreso they are entirely built upon a house of cards that represent sentences removed from context that are merely prooftext for a pretext.

Really

Tell me what my theories are..

I will be waiting patiently.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Jon, my heart pumps camel water for you.

really?

Jon, do you even comprehend how condescending you are?

you should read your own posts

 

[AustinC]

Really

Tell me what my theories are..

I will be waiting patiently.

Go back and read them for yourself.

 

[JonC]

I asked a serious question. Jonny Mac was referred to as a “high Calvinist”. I asked what that meant. I am attempting to engage the OP.

You made a (funny) joke about Calvinists smoking marijuana.

Then the complaints of insults and crickets.

So, really it’s a waste of time and cyber space to attempt to have the conversation, so I’ll leave you to it.

peace to you

There is plenty of room in cyberspace for humor.

"High Calvinist" typically refers to worship styles. Hyper-Calvinism typically refers to a sect within Calvinism that views belief as a work. The Anti-Missions movement of the late 19th century was considered hyper-Calvinism.

I wouldn't consider MacArthur a high Calvinist, but I would Dr. Kennedy. I don't think either are hyper Calvinists.

 

[AustinC]

really?


you should read your own posts

Noted and understood. Thank you.

 

[Silverhair]

You don't need the context, but It is in the context of a Calvinistic commentary on Salvation by Grace alone Through Faith alone. It's not an out of context sentence. The group of CALVINISTS ON HERE, have accused both myself, @Revmitchell , and many others of "works based salvation" for saying one has to accept the free gift of Salvation. Here, J.M. says "reach out" to accept salvation and that is OK? Maybe J.M. is just ignorant or does not understand Calvinism???

It came from J.M. Commentry series. Vol 1 Romans. Chapter 4 vv3-5

Did a screen shot of the text. Seem odd that JM can't see the obvious contradiction in what he says. You have to think he just does not understand what these verses mean. 1Ti 4:10; Eph 1:13; Joh 3:15-17

 

[DaveXR650]

You don't need the context, but It is in the context of a Calvinistic commentary on Salvation by Grace alone Through Faith alone. It's not an out of context sentence. The group of CALVINISTS ON HERE, have accused both myself, @Revmitchell , and many others of "works based salvation" for saying one has to accept the free gift of Salvation. Here, J.M. says "reach out" to accept salvation and that is OK? Maybe J.M. is just ignorant or does not understand Calvinism???

Saving faith is not a work and cannot be a work whether you are an Arminian or a Calvinist. Your original post definition is just fine and I can show you other heavyweight Calvinists who had a similar definition. There is a way faith can be considered a work and it is this: Some guys like Richard Baxter, who I greatly admire and respect, fell into a form of neonomianism where he basically said something like this.Baxter was concerned in that he observed that some of the soldiers he served with had become antinomian and thought living a Godly life was not important. So he came up with the idea that Christ had fulfilled the old law and replaced it with a new easier law that we had to obey to be saved. And the new law was you had to have faith and then practice sincere obedience. In that context, critics said he had made faith into a "work" because it was part of the new law.

 

[Silverhair]

I have listened quite well, thank you. I have found your theories entirely empty of merit. Moreso they are entirely built upon a house of cards that represent sentences removed from context that are merely prooftext for a pretext.

Sounds like you are talking about how you present calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

No. What part of my post do you feel is condescending?

Seriously? Jon most of your posts in recent months have been FULL of condescension.

 

[Reformed1689]

I will be honest. You would be the first free will calvinist I have ever met.. lol

I don't know of any Calvinist that does NOT believe in free will. The question is not whether free will exists, the question is what is free will? What does that mean? Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum where there is an equal choice between two options. You have a desire, a sinful one, and that is the will you have and always go with unless that will is changed. Scripture confirms this when it says nobody seeks God and that God must draw (literally drag) someone to himself.

 

[Silverhair]

I don't know of any Calvinist that does NOT believe in free will. The question is not whether free will exists, the question is what is free will? What does that mean? Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum where there is an equal choice between two options. You have a desire, a sinful one, and that is the will you have and always go with unless that will is changed. Scripture confirms this when it says nobody seeks God and that God must draw (literally drag) someone to himself.

So according to you Jesus drags all to Himself.
Joh 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

So you are prompting universalism by your own words.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't know of any Calvinist that does NOT believe in free will. The question is not whether free will exists, the question is what is free will? What does that mean? Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum where there is an equal choice between two options. You have a desire, a sinful one, and that is the will you have and always go with unless that will is changed. Scripture confirms this when it says nobody seeks God and that God must draw (literally drag) someone to himself.

That is not free will.

I believe God draws us also. The difference is we have free will even when God draws us, to still reject or accept. That's why roman's 1 says no one has an excuse.. Because we not only Know God. we know because of our sin we are guilty and deserving of judgment.

Part of God drawing us to himself is to prove our guilt. which is why the law was given.

Saying a person could never chose to receive the gift of God is not free will.

In most calvinist discussions I have had, when I discuss free will. most calvin leaning people tell me I am wrong. and just trying to save myself which is not true,.