Did Jesus have free will?

I believe Baptists are right about Baptism of believers. Right about the premillennial second coming. Right about the issues I listed above.
And I find a lot of agreement with Arminian Baptists as well as the format for worship and Sunday School that the Southern Baptists use.

I find a lot of good preaching and doctrinal "Truth" coming from men like Chuck Swindoll and Stanley and Howard Hendricks whenever I get a chance to hear something by them on the Radio.

But I also believe they are wrong on certain doctrinal issues as well. If I ever came to the conclusion that they had a strong Biblical case for the areas where we differ (at least a stronger one than the alternative) I would jump on the band wagon in a heartbeat!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Perhaps we could explore your answer in detail given the details of the discussion so far -- on this very topic.

 

I would never say that.

It is not a question of "carries more weight" it is a question of exegeting the text accurately.

If you would like to spend some time on a detailed review of "how salvation" is described in 1John 2:2-8 -- lets do it and "See" what the text itself yields.

It is my claim that the text of 1John 2 makes it impossible to argue for the "Saved" being "in open rebellion".

I agree that what I choose to "Believe about it" does not make it right any more than Calvinism's obvious "need" to recast it as "saved people making choices" makes their view right.

What "makes it right" is the Bible context for what salvation is NOT. That determines the "boundaries". And one set that is clearly defined can be seen in Romans 8, Matt 7 and 1John 2. The boundaries those three areas define are so clear and obvious that Rev 3:20 can "easily" be seen to fit well outside the scope of "salvation".

Granted my friend. But even Spurgeon argued that Wesley would have made a great candidate for a 13th Apostle, and is considered a great man of faith - and saint of God (in heaven) -- though Spurgeon admitted to doctrinal differences with Wesley.

The debates on this board are "vigorous" but I never take them personnally. I see them as reflecting the earnest enthusiasm that each side has for its own view and its desire that the other side see their obvious and clear points of error.

If I agrue my brother out of his error - we both win. If he argues me out of mine -- we both win. But if in that process neither of us moves, yet we both learn more about God's Word -- we both win.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IF anyone HEARS AND ALSPENS the door THEN I WILL come in" Rev 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deaf people don't hear and they certainly don't answer knocks on the door.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed - hence the "supernatural drawing of ALL MANKIND".

Hence the "CONVICTING of the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

God ENABLES hearing and ACTING -- CHOOSING ability... but REMAINS on the OUTSIDE knocking!!

How devastating to Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As "compelling" and detailed as that response is -- it is typical in lacking the "attention to inconvenient and disconfirming detail".

Notice that I dont have to "insert Arminian definitions" into the scenario where Christ is on the OUTSIDE knocking and the sinner is on the INSIDER faced with a choice to make.

The text says it FOR ME!!

It is left to the Calvinist to try and "redefine terms" until the text can be turned to the point of making it pallatable for Calvinism.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But to AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM TO THEM HE GAVE the right to be called the children of God"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There I would have to agree with you 100%.

The text "NEEDS NO" Arminian "redefinition" to point its barbs into the heart of Calvinism.

It does it "on its own".

Neither Calvinist NOR Arminian argues that the saved are not "born again".

Arminians argue that "GOD IS NOT WILLING that ANY should perish" - and have been arguing that the Gospel is in fact the WILL of God who wills that ALL Man come to repentance.

Calvinists seem think that each time they find some place where God is WILLING that mankind be saved - that Arminians are "supposed to say - no He is not -- man ALONE is willing".

John 1 shows that Christ CREATES THE WORLD and then into the SAME WORLD "Christ COMES" and Comes as LIGHT to the WORLD "Enlightening EVERY MAN" - because GOD WILLS salvation FIRST.

Context is an incredibly important (and wonderful) thing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, The text does not say that God was "willing". It says that the children of God were B-O-R-N, not of the will of man but of God. This explicitly says what I have been arguing with you and Wes.

It not only says what I have been saying, it refutes what you have been saying... the will of man (a good "choice") is not the cause of new birth... it is the will of God.

 

I do not think that either of us believes that this is effectively a universal enlightening that causes the salvation of all.

We both agree that the effect of the light is limited by something. You believe it is limited by human choice. I believe it is limited by the perfect will of God in election of the saints.

 

The Arminian argument is never that Man can cause the new birth or that God's act in drawing and convicting is not done "first" in the process that leads to the New Birth.

IF you are trying to "get the text" to say that "God IS WILLING but man is NOT willing" for the new Birth to take place the entire time leading up to it -- then we have the "Whosoever WILLS" of scripture comes into play - including the Matt 23 text telling us "HOW I WANTED to save your children but YOU were UNWILLING".

God never describes Himself as "Saving the UNWILLING" but rather the "Whosoever WILL" of humanity whose will is brought about by God FIRST Drawing "mankind to Himself" and FIRST convicting "The WORLD".

Question -

Are there ANY Calvinists here that would argue that if Person-A is someone who IS DRAWN by Christ and is CONVICTED by the Holy Spirit - then Person - A will never WILL to yield/accept the New Birth??

OR do they in fact argue that EVERYONE who is DRAWN AND convicted by God WILL in fact come and WILL in fact believe - WILL in fact yield WILL in fact choose to submit.

What is your position?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I thought this thread was on "Did Jesus have free will?"

 

I am not really concerned about the Arminian nor Calvinist "argument". The scripture directly says that those who become the children of God are not born into that relationship by the will of man. It doesn't say anything here about a general offer or drawing/convicting.

I am not trying to "get the text" to say anything... I am simply letting it say exactly what it says.

Whosoever will? Those who are born of God into His family/kingdom, that's who.

I never said He did... nor does any calvinist I know of. The "will" in being saved is a manifestation of spiritual re-birth... born of the will of God.

Birth is not something willed by the born nor is it a violation of their will... it is a function of their nature.

Someone who is born again will yield/accept the offer of salvation by grace through faith.

Everyone who God grants new spiritual life to will yield to the drawing of God that goes out among men and will believe it because it is consistent with his spiritual nature.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Arminian argument is never that Man can cause the new birth or that God's act in drawing and convicting is not done "first" in the process that leads to the New Birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose a "selective reading" or a "snippet approach" to scripture might lead you to that point.

But as it is --

John 16 DOES say that God "CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

John 12 DOES say that God "DRAWS ALL MANKIND" to Himself.

Sad that these truths are lacking in the Calvinist view of the Gospel.

And "the Bible view" is in fact what Arminians have been teaching all along.

The Calvinist seeks to bend and twist the text (of some sections of John 1) so that it is completely out of step with Romans 10. But a sound exegetical approach would not do that. Particularly if you look at what John wrote in 1John 1 and 2 and compare that with John 1.

But in just looking at John 1 itself we see Calvinism refuted "in triplicate"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)

 

I suppose a "selective reading" or a "snippet approach" to scripture might lead you to that point.

But as it is --

John 16 DOES say that God "CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

John 12 DOES say that God "DRAWS ALL MANKIND" to Himself.</font>[/QUOTE] And you accuse me of selective reading and the snippet approach.

These scriptures cannot be left to stand alone with relating them to scriptures that support individual election like John 10:27 and John 1:13 that was cited above.

I don't know of any calvinist that doesn't believe in a general calling similar to the general revelation referred to in Romans 1... so that they might be without excuse when they stand under judgment.

The arminian view leaves them with an excuse: "I never heard the gospel... if I had then I might have made the right choice too".

If you think they are then the sad thing is that you haven't taken the time to actually listen and learn about what calvinists believe.

Sorry but no. Arminianism focuses on human free will while never dealing effectively with scriptures that declare divine election.

Calvinism (broadly) provides a framework that accounts for both man's free will and God's sovereign choice.

Your saying it simply doesn't count on bit toward proving it true. I can't remember a scripture that you have posted that I found necessary to twist or bend. Normally, I have just put the text back into context or else pointed out scriptures that must be accounted for in a valid interpretation of the text in question.

Not at all. Again after accusing me, it is you that is taking the selective reading approach.

You cannot simply "exegete" that passage alone. You have to deal with how it relates to Romans 8 among others.

Roman 8 gives a concrete process beginning with God's sovereign election. 1 John 1 & 2 is exhortations to the church and believers characterized by many conditional statements.

You cannot presume to answer the questions raised by John without keeping the direct answers given by Paul in view.

[ May 18, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

That John 1 review shows that the FIRST GATE is the refusal of man vs acceptance in the act that God provides in bringing the light to the ENTIER WORLD -- yes even the WORLD that HE made.

So far you simply "claim" to ignore it by arguing that you see nothing but God's arbitrary selection in the act of saving "some" when you read John 1.


John 16 DOES say that God "CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

John 12 DOES say that God "DRAWS ALL MANKIND" to Himself.

First you argue that these texts don't exist when you say no text speaks of God convicting the world or drawing the world to Himself - then when the text is admitted - you claim that Arminians don't belive in it????

What kind of an argument is that.

The Arminian model is that the Spirit CONVICTS THE WORLD of SIN -- how then is the Arminian going to say "poor- so and so - the Holy Spirit did NOT convict THEM. In fact He ignored them just like the Calvinists said He would"

-- that is never the argument of the Arminians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Specifically, it is one I didn't make.

You attempted to replace the clear implications of John 1:13 that the saved are born not by the will of man but of God with a general call to all mankind.

I responded "It doesn't say anything here about a general offer or drawing/convicting."

Note the word "here" that references that specific verse. That verse doesn't say what you were trying to make it say. This was never a blanket denial of a general calling.

 

That is a description of a very cruel God.

He convicts the whole world to the same degree but only makes provision for some to hear the gospel that can relieve them of that guilt.

Notably you twisted my comment. I didn't say anything about conviction. I proposed the excuse: "I never heard the gospel... if I had then I might have made the right choice too".

Which is a perfectly valid complaint if the goodness to believe originates within the man himself. Who is to say that people who lived and died without hearing the gospel wouldn't have believed under the arminian system? How is not completely unjust that God didn't ensure that they heard the gospel to answer that conviction you say they all had and were totally free and capable to respond to in their unregenerate nature?

 

So far you have not dealt with the absolute and undeniable statement that the children of God are not born of the will of men (including themselves) but rather of the will of God.

I have no problem believing THE WHOLE passage. It is you that needs to omit or redefine verse 13.

Do men reject God? Yes. Do men accept God? Yes.

What is the difference? Those who accept were born again by the will "of God" and specifically NOT by the will of man.

 

Excuse me Scott J, but could you definitively express exactly how God's will does anything? While you are at it, tell us about human will too!

 

Stick with the text before you leap back into CAlvinism and you will not make that assumption.

What you describe is a "mix" of Calvinism and the Bible.

The Bible says that God CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin.

The BIBLE says that God DRAWS ALL MANKIND unto Him.

Leave Calvinism out of it.

THEN show how it is "cruel" without doing that "mix" thing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Arminian argument is never that Man can cause the new birth or that God's act in drawing and convicting is not done "first" in the process that leads to the New Birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then anti-Scott said

Which Scott am I to respond to?