Does it or did it make any difference to you?

[1689Dave]

You having a front porch melt down?

It's too cold.

 

[DaveXR650]

It's salvation by works, start to finish. Any time you see Free will, it is no different than Catholic salvation by works. Only the works have changed.

Dave. When I said maybe I'm missing your point I didn't mean that I didn't know what you said. Would you please explain the Free Will = Salvation by Works . It almost looks mathematical but I don't think that's your point.

 

[1689Dave]

Dave. When I said maybe I'm missing your point I didn't mean that I didn't know what you said. Would you please explain the Free Will = Salvation by Works . It almost looks mathematical but I don't think that's your point.

You need to understand salvation by Grace before you can spot the error of free will. Remember, the Reformation was largely about Luther defeating the Roman Catholic doctrine of free will. If you read Luther's book The Bondage of the Will, you will have a good chance of recognizing the error of free will. We can trifle with it to no avail. So take my advice and get this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Bondage-Will-Martin-Luther/dp/1598562800

 

[DaveXR650]

Thanks Dave. You know with winter coming on I think I will try to read Luther's Bondage of the Will. I have read Jonathan Edwards on free will and I think he is right in that free will means doing what your most powerful inclination to do is at the moment. And for us in American, 2021, that's how we all understand it. And this I think ties in to the OP in that I think it is perfectly OK for someone to say "I heard the gospel, I felt conviction, I realized that Jesus Christ was able and willing to save me and I threw myself on his mercy. And if you ask them if they decided on their own to do this (and this is very important) and they say "I decided by my own free will to do this" they are in no way in jeopardy as to the validity of their Christianity. Now I believe that if you look further into why they came to that decision and why their opinion changed about Jesus then I feel the system we call Monergism or Calvinism with it's scripture references and philosophical reasoning best explains how this happened. But it DID happen and such folks are 100% fellow Christians and I know many of them personally and although in my opinion they don't have as good an understanding of the theology as I do when it comes to love and good works they are far ahead of me.

 

[DaveXR650]

Oh yes, and by the way, I have read enough Luther to disagree with the premise that the the Reformation was about Luther defeating the Roman Catholic doctrine of free will. But that's for another thread.

 

[1689Dave]

Oh yes, and by the way, I have read enough Luther to disagree with the premise that the the Reformation was about Luther defeating the Roman Catholic doctrine of free will. But that's for another thread.

Certainly, it was a power struggle to squash Antichrist's kingdom and rescue the church from his grip. But truth became the bullets and the cardinal doctrine to shoot down was the Doctrine of free will. It all collapses when it falls. I believe that Arminianism is the Papacy's attempt to place Protestants back under the control of the Antichrist through his poisonous doctrines. In this, he still sits in the temple of God as He did since the 9th century or thereabouts. Can you identify the Antichrist in the doctrines and customs so many churches take for granted?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks Dave. You know with winter coming on I think I will try to read Luther's Bondage of the Will. I have read Jonathan Edwards on free will and I think he is right in that free will means doing what your most powerful inclination to do is at the moment. And for us in American, 2021, that's how we all understand it. And this I think ties in to the OP in that I think it is perfectly OK for someone to say "I heard the gospel, I felt conviction, I realized that Jesus Christ was able and willing to save me and I threw myself on his mercy. And if you ask them if they decided on their own to do this (and this is very important) and they say "I decided by my own free will to do this" they are in no way in jeopardy as to the validity of their Christianity. Now I believe that if you look further into why they came to that decision and why their opinion changed about Jesus then I feel the system we call Monergism or Calvinism with it's scripture references and philosophical reasoning best explains how this happened. But it DID happen and such folks are 100% fellow Christians and I know many of them personally and although in my opinion they don't have as good an understanding of the theology as I do when it comes to love and good works they are far ahead of me.

Luther work best I ever read, as he was going against Eramus on this issue!

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh yes, and by the way, I have read enough Luther to disagree with the premise that the the Reformation was about Luther defeating the Roman Catholic doctrine of free will. But that's for another thread.

Luther and Calvin both agreed that they were attacking the very foundation of the Catholic church, in regards to justification of lost sinners!

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe that Arminianism is the Papacy's attempt to place Protestants back under the control of the Antichrist through his poisonous doctrines. In this, he still sits in the temple of God as He did since the 9th century or thereabouts. Can you identify the Antichrist in the doctrines and customs so many churches take for granted?

That's a good question for another thread and the only reason I respond to it here is just to say that that is an unfair charge on Arminianism. I love the Puritans and I know enough history to understand why they thought the Papist church was the Antichrist but I think they were wrong because they have never denied Jesus as the Christ. I see more of the Antichrist in mainline protestant churches, some of them Calvinist, who even a hundred years ago started denying the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the divinity of Christ and today are completely apostate and pagan. Also, I have to admit that some Calvinists drowned people for rebaptizing adults and even in America - Baptists, Quakers and Catholics were persecuted in the U.S. colonies. I think that Baptists in both branches, Calvinist and Free Will have a pretty good record on not persecuting others - and partly I think it's because we are big on SHARING the good news with others and having them come in to us voluntarily - on their own free will even! I don't know if "proud" would be the right word but we should at least be thankful for this even though sometimes our theology is not well written out.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a good question for another thread and the only reason I respond to it here is just to say that that is an unfair charge on Arminianism. I love the Puritans and I know enough history to understand why they thought the Papist church was the Antichrist but I think they were wrong because they have never denied Jesus as the Christ. I see more of the Antichrist in mainline protestant churches, some of them Calvinist, who even a hundred years ago started denying the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the divinity of Christ and today are completely apostate and pagan. Also, I have to admit that some Calvinists drowned people for rebaptizing adults and even in America - Baptists, Quakers and Catholics were persecuted in the U.S. colonies. I think that Baptists in both branches, Calvinist and Free Will have a pretty good record on not persecuting others - and partly I think it's because we are big on SHARING the good news with others and having them come in to us voluntarily - on their own free will even! I don't know if "proud" would be the right word but we should at least be thankful for this even though sometimes our theology is not well written out.

The ONLY difference between traditional Arminians and we Calvinists is that they misunderstand how they were saved, as both saved under same process!

 

[JonC]

The ONLY difference between traditional Arminians and we Calvinists is that they misunderstand how they were saved, as both saved under same process!

Or that's something they have in common

 

[DaveXR650]

1689Dave and Yeshua1. Thanks for putting me on to Luther's Bondage of the Will. I don't want to plug products but if you have one of those electronic readers you can get all Luther's works for one dollar!

 

[Yeshua1]

1689Dave and Yeshua1. Thanks for putting me on to Luther's Bondage of the Will. I don't want to plug products but if you have one of those electronic readers you can get all Luther's works for one dollar!

That book maybe biggest influence other then bible to making me a calvinist!

 

[1689Dave]

That's a good question for another thread and the only reason I respond to it here is just to say that that is an unfair charge on Arminianism. I love the Puritans and I know enough history to understand why they thought the Papist church was the Antichrist but I think they were wrong because they have never denied Jesus as the Christ. I see more of the Antichrist in mainline protestant churches, some of them Calvinist, who even a hundred years ago started denying the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the divinity of Christ and today are completely apostate and pagan. Also, I have to admit that some Calvinists drowned people for rebaptizing adults and even in America - Baptists, Quakers and Catholics were persecuted in the U.S. colonies. I think that Baptists in both branches, Calvinist and Free Will have a pretty good record on not persecuting others - and partly I think it's because we are big on SHARING the good news with others and having them come in to us voluntarily - on their own free will even! I don't know if "proud" would be the right word but we should at least be thankful for this even though sometimes our theology is not well written out.

The word vicar comes from the Latin word vicarius meaning substitution. The on-line version of the Pocket Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. defines the Vicar of Christ as, “The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church...”

#882 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Colossians 1:18 And he (Christ)is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

#936 “The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth.”

I Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...

VICAR OF CHRIST. The pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church. This title for the pope dates from at least the eighth century and gradually replaced the former title, "Vicar of St. Peter.” Its biblical basis is Christ’s commission of Peter to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary Jun 25, 2013
by John Hardon

BTW, Vicar of Christ = Antichrist by definition.

 

[BILL]

By your standard, if you misunderstand anything in the Scripture you fail.
You do not have to be a theologian to be saved.
You remember Jesus illustration of childlike faith

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

I think you misunderstood child like faith, he was showing they were born that way.
Wheat seeds only grow wheat. TARE SEEDS ONLY GROW TARES
THE SEED OF THE SERPENT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING RIGHT AFTER THE SEED OF THE KINGDOM. THAT IS WHY CAIN WAS A MURDERER. EVE WAS A LIAR, SHE HAD NOT GOTTEN A MAN FROM THE LORD, HE WAS FROM THE DEVIL UNDER THE TREE, THUS IS WHY THE BIBLE USES THAT PHRASE TO SHOW ADULTRY, UNDER EVERY GREEN TREE.
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Yes the seed of the serpent was responsible for the blood of Able and also the blood of the prophets, and the blood of Christ

 

[37818]

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

I think you misunderstood child like faith, he was showing they were born that way.
Wheat seeds only grow wheat. TARE SEEDS ONLY GROW TARES
THE SEED OF THE SERPENT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING RIGHT AFTER THE SEED OF THE KINGDOM. THAT IS WHY CAIN WAS A MURDERER. EVE WAS A LIAR, SHE HAD NOT GOTTEN A MAN FROM THE LORD, HE WAS FROM THE DEVIL UNDER THE TREE, THUS IS WHY THE BIBLE USES THAT PHRASE TO SHOW ADULTRY, UNDER EVERY GREEN TREE.
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Yes the seed of the serpent was responsible for the blood of Able and also the blood of the prophets, and the blood of Christ

Matthew 18:3.
Mark 10:15.
Luke 18:17, John 3:3-4.

 

[agedman]

1689Dave and Yeshua1. Thanks for putting me on to Luther's Bondage of the Will. I don't want to plug products but if you have one of those electronic readers you can get all Luther's works for one dollar!

It is not for the elementary reader and many college level may struggle in comprehension just from mere exhaustion, but the best and most thorough work on the will is from Jonathan Edwards, “Freedom of the Will.”

The PDF version is free to read and even download on line.

It isn’t light reading, for he attacks the central arguments of the top thinkers concerning the will from every conceivable premise.