Does man have a voluntary will?

[reformedbeliever]

reformedbeliever

I doubt that anyone on this forum, including yourself, would suggest that God's Sovereignty is at stake. However, any suggestion that anyone is compromising His sovereignty is not a forthright assessment. I do believe if you scan my comments closely you will find a statement somewhere close to this, "God's Sovereignty never violates his Holiness". Whatever actions, thoughts, etc that God is involved in never violates His holiness. So whatever we understand His sovereignty covers, it does so from the understanding that it can not violated His holiness.

I am not sure how you would express that. I think you would agree non-the-less. So if I might ask you to consider that understanding that in the best interest of all of us, we all are eager to defend the sovereignty of God and His Holiness too. In the end we just see it differently. We process things differently. Yes, we feel strongly about what we think, but I doubt seriously any of us on here are out to dethrone God in any shape or fashion.

Also, in all respect, I accept my limitations, but I am not beholding to Augustine, Calvin, Luther, or any past professing Christian regardless of how many books they wrote. Nor am I in the present either. If Books were the measure of truth then we have a sever conflict of interest because brilliant minds are on all sides of the argument and in life as well. Please, and I ask kindly, don't impugn my intelligence. I don't think you intended to do so. But in a sense you have.

I want to believe you are smart enough to do your own work and to argue your own case. I would not call on you to be compared to anyone that is prolific in writing books regardless of who they are and what they believe. Have your view and defend your view, but don't call my intelligence in to question simply because of the works of others. Again if this be the criterion then Calvin would lose hands down but the number of works is not a measure of truth. Only the Bible is. I say read all you can as much as you can and then do your own work, thinking, writing. The whole process of school was to teach you to do it yourself.

I do study on my own. I've never read Calvin's institutes or commentaries. I've come to my beliefs by studying scripture.

The point I was making is that Calvin's commentaries have been praised by many theologians of all theological persuasions.....
You have constantly put Calvin down in your responses to me. I have not put down one theologian. I was simply pointing out your seemingly being above such a great theologian. I disagree.

 

[MB]

Hi RB;

I do study on my own. I've never read Calvin's institutes or commentaries. I've come to my beliefs by studying scripture.

The point I was making is that Calvin's commentaries have been praised by many theologians of all theological persuasions.....
You have constantly put Calvin down in your responses to me. I have not put down one theologian. I was simply pointing out your seemingly being above such a great theologian. I disagree.

Do you believe Calvin to be better than other Christians some how?
MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hi RB;


Do you believe Calvin to be better than other Christians some how?
MB

Better? Better how? Please explain. Did you read what I wrote? I have not read Calvin's commentaries.

 

[MB]

Hi RB;
I'm not putting down any theologians. I don't believe in the defaming of anyone even if the slander were true. It isn't our place to Judge and that goes doubly for the dead.
What I'm getting at is this. Is Calvin held in higher esteem than other Christians.
I can agree that Calvin was used by God for the reformation as was Luther but does this give them a hero's status. Since what ever these men did wasn't really of them in the first place.
To give men praise because of the works of God seems misplaced.
MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hi RB;
I'm not putting down any theologians. I don't believe in the defaming of anyone even if the slander were true. It isn't our place to Judge and that goes doubly for the dead.
What I'm getting at is this. Is Calvin held in higher esteem than other Christians.
I can agree that Calvin was used by God for the reformation as was Luther but does this give them a hero's status. Since what ever these men did wasn't really of them in the first place.
To give men praise because of the works of God seems misplaced.
MB

That depends upon what esteem you are speaking of. Is Calvin a better theologian than other Christians? I would say absolutely. Better than lets say about at least 98%. Seeing as how more than 50% of those professed Christians would believe that much of the bible is simply a myth. Seeing as how much of those professing Christians don't believe in the virgin birth. Seeing as how........... shall I go on?

Are they any better than just being saved by the sovereign grace of God from thier spiritual necrosis? No
We all come from the same lump of spiritual deadness, it is only by His sovereign grace that any of us are saved.

How many great theologians can you count since Calvin's time? Not many in the recent history of Christianity.

 

[MB]

That depends upon what esteem you are speaking of. Is Calvin a better theologian than other Christians? I would say absolutely. Better than lets say about at least 98%. Seeing as how more than 50% of those professed Christians would believe that much of the bible is simply a myth. Seeing as how much of those professing Christians don't believe in the virgin birth. Seeing as how........... shall I go on?

Are they any better than just being saved by the sovereign grace of God from thier spiritual necrosis? No
We all come from the same lump of spiritual deadness, it is only by His sovereign grace that any of us are saved.

How many great theologians can you count since Calvin's time? Not many in the recent history of Christianity.

There are several theologians I have liked very much, my favorites are A.W. Tozer, Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, J Vernon Mcgee,
Billy Graham has done more to evanglize than any modern man though none of his success can be accounted to him since none of us can do anything with out Christ at the Helm. Christ get's all the credit. Yes; I know Mcgee was a Calvinist.
Tozer said;
The Layman need never think of his humbler task as being inferior to that of his minister. Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called and his work will be as sacred as the work of the ministry. It is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular. It is why he does it. The motive is everything. Let a man sanctify the Lord in His heart and he can there after do no common act. All he does is good and acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For such a man, living itself will be sacramental and the whole world a sanctuary. His entire life will be a priestly ministration. As he performs his never so simple task, he will hear the voice of the seraphim saying Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of host: the whole earth is full of His glory.

For me to call any man great isn't possible. I cannot allow myself to become a respector of men. The only respect I have for men is what I have for all equally. My favorites are favorites because of How God used them and not of the men them selves. It must be a humbling experince to be used so well by God.
Everyman has his purpose to fulfill. John Calvin had his as did Luther. These men broke the hold of the RCC they served there purpose as God used them but it wasn't of them so they in themselves are not great but only servants of God. I count them as brothers and give them no more respect than I wish for myself as a brother in Christ.
MB

 

[GordonSlocum]

I do study on my own. I've never read Calvin's institutes or commentaries. I've come to my beliefs by studying scripture.

The point I was making is that Calvin's commentaries have been praised by many theologians of all theological persuasions.....
You have constantly put Calvin down in your responses to me. I have not put down one theologian. I was simply pointing out your seemingly being above such a great theologian. I disagree.

Please, quote me specifically when you refer to me doing something so I can at least comment on the specifics.

(1) In my younger days I would read this and that as I have stated.
(2) I am settled in my convections and doctrine.
(3) Calvin means nothing to me, except that he was in my opinion a miss guided sinful theologian who erred greatly. He was not a David, or Peter, or Paul, - he was a human being who indulged in passions that I consider deviant and wrong.
(4) Lets address his character. If we put Calvin in today’s world would the church accept his behavior? No, they would not. If a government in any country did what he did, having his hand in the death of around 50 and the torture of some 70 plus we know that it would not be tolerate today. Would you align yourself if any one who calls themselves A Calvinist today - lived like him - acted like him, and had his vengeful attitude etc? I ask - would you?
(5) His views are tainted by his character. David repented, Peter repented, Paul Repented, Calvin did not, that I know of.

What I would like for you to do for me is deal with this one issue of Calvin's character and attitude. Lets talk about the man John Calvin and his actions. You have brought him into this discussion and so lets deal with the real man and his real life.

Regardless of the difference he has with those he influenced to put to death through the government lets deal with the real John Calvin and his sin, murder which comes from hate and vengefulness.

Is there any Calvinist on here that is forthright who will honestly condemn Calvin's sin and attitude? Is it fair to draw a conclusion that a man that acted like he did is not a spiritual person to say the least. Could one justly conclude that such a person is mad and insane? If your pastor did that today would you follow him? That is a fair relevant question worthy of an answer. It makes the issue contemporary and real. Calvin living today influences the government to murder those he disagrees with and have other tortured. Pick out your favorite Calvinist today and ask yourself if you would listen, follow, or give and credit to a person who acted like that?

If is did what He did would you accept me if I were the one that wrote the same books he wrote? Would you? If the Devil tells you the truth will you parse him. If Hitler tells you the truth will you praise him? If a well known person living today tells you the truth and you find out they are grossly in sin will you trust that person? Where do you draw the line.

I respect those who repent of their sin and I honor the contriteness of believers who fall and admit their wrong and move on. David did, Peter did, Paul did, Calvin did not.

Basically when we discuss the word "Calvin" we are not so much discussing the ms, anymore. Although Calvinist seem to push that side of the discussion as you are. If we stick to the teaching and leave the man out of it then we have the doctrine of Calvinism verses the non-Calvinist views. Within this doctrinal realm are variants of Calvinism and Non-Calvinism exist. .

Should we not leave the personal stuff out? All-be-it, you have managed to personalize it and I have not approached you with personal issues concerning the man John Calvin until now.

So now that the cat is out of the bag lets discuss the man. Please do everyone the honor and kindly answer the questions I have posed concerning the man John Calvin and his activity as a murderer, and torturer.


Here is a statement you can fill in. I (your name here) _______________ will follow ______________ (a present day Calvinist), if the same actions and attitudes were displayed in the person I have written in, as were demonstrated by John Calvin, both willful murder and torture.

 

[skypair]

Gordon, refrombeliever,

Calvinism was a "stage of development" of the church. As such, there were some good things that transpired and some bad things. One of the bad things was that the Protestant church acted much like the Catholic church that preceded it in governance, in rites, in accepting half-truths from scripture.

In other words, I would hate to condemn Calvin for sin on account everyone without the perfect knowledge that only God has sins. He was offering up a new paradigm that was flawed -- as seen by the acts is committed -- and that brought rise through its "protest" of Catholicism to a better paradigm to follow, namely Philadelphia's paradigm. Philadelphia has a name that lives but is NOT dead.

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

Please, quote me specifically when you refer to me doing something so I can at least comment on the specifics.

(1) In my younger days I would read this and that as I have stated.
(2) I am settled in my convections and doctrine.
(3) Calvin means nothing to me, except that he was in my opinion a miss guided sinful theologian who erred greatly. He was not a David, or Peter, or Paul, - he was a human being who indulged in passions that I consider deviant and wrong.
(4) Lets address his character. If we put Calvin in today’s world would the church accept his behavior? No, they would not. If a government in any country did what he did, having his hand in the death of around 50 and the torture of some 70 plus we know that it would not be tolerate today. Would you align yourself if any one who calls themselves A Calvinist today - lived like him - acted like him, and had his vengeful attitude etc? I ask - would you?
(5) His views are tainted by his character. David repented, Peter repented, Paul Repented, Calvin did not, that I know of.

What I would like for you to do for me is deal with this one issue of Calvin's character and attitude. Lets talk about the man John Calvin and his actions. You have brought him into this discussion and so lets deal with the real man and his real life.

Regardless of the difference he has with those he influenced to put to death through the government lets deal with the real John Calvin and his sin, murder which comes from hate and vengefulness.

Is there any Calvinist on here that is forthright who will honestly condemn Calvin's sin and attitude? Is it fair to draw a conclusion that a man that acted like he did is not a spiritual person to say the least. Could one justly conclude that such a person is mad and insane? If your pastor did that today would you follow him? That is a fair relevant question worthy of an answer. It makes the issue contemporary and real. Calvin living today influences the government to murder those he disagrees with and have other tortured. Pick out your favorite Calvinist today and ask yourself if you would listen, follow, or give and credit to a person who acted like that?

If is did what He did would you accept me if I were the one that wrote the same books he wrote? Would you? If the Devil tells you the truth will you parse him. If Hitler tells you the truth will you praise him? If a well known person living today tells you the truth and you find out they are grossly in sin will you trust that person? Where do you draw the line.

I respect those who repent of their sin and I honor the contriteness of believers who fall and admit their wrong and move on. David did, Peter did, Paul did, Calvin did not.

Basically when we discuss the word "Calvin" we are not so much discussing the ms, anymore. Although Calvinist seem to push that side of the discussion as you are. If we stick to the teaching and leave the man out of it then we have the doctrine of Calvinism verses the non-Calvinist views. Within this doctrinal realm are variants of Calvinism and Non-Calvinism exist. .

Should we not leave the personal stuff out? All-be-it, you have managed to personalize it and I have not approached you with personal issues concerning the man John Calvin until now.

So now that the cat is out of the bag lets discuss the man. Please do everyone the honor and kindly answer the questions I have posed concerning the man John Calvin and his activity as a murderer, and torturer.


Here is a statement you can fill in. I (your name here) _______________ will follow ______________ (a present day Calvinist), if the same actions and attitudes were displayed in the person I have written in, as were demonstrated by John Calvin, both willful murder and torture.

1. You are entitled to you opinion.

2. You state that Calvin is responsible for the "murder" of Servitus. The burden of proof is yours. The little internet link is far from proof.

3. Until you prove that Calvin had authority from the state or the church, then your opinion is just that, an opinion.

4. As far as personalizing anything, I have not been the one personalizing. You need to look in the mirror. When a person says they are calvinist, it is a theological designation, it is not meaning that they follow a man. Do you call yourself baptist?

5. I did not start a post calling a dead man a murderer, you did. Prove it or appologize to the dead man.

6. I really couldn't care less what you have read or even what you think of Calvin.

7. You fill in the blanks.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Now we know. You my friend opened that can of worms not me.

You are offended by anyone that is not like you. The historical evidence it there and you know it.

Now, lets get the thread back on track.

Does man have voluntary will. Yes

The doctrines espoused by the followers of "_________" say man can not be saved unless he is first regenerated, then once brought back to life is infused with a special gift of unscriptural faith whereby he then is made to believe. That is not voluntary will - it is forced. I call it fatalism.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Now we know. You my friend opened that can of worms not me.

You are offended by anyone that is not like you. The historical evidence it there and you know it.

Now, lets get the thread back on track.

Does man have voluntary will. Yes

The doctrines espoused by the followers of "_________" say man can not be saved unless he is first regenerated, then once brought back to life is infused with a special gift of unscriptural faith whereby he then is made to believe. That is not voluntary will - it is forced. I call it fatalism.

The only ones I'm offended by are the ones who call themselves Christians and then say that because someone holds to certain theological designations, that they are worshiping another god. That is against the forum rules too.

Yes, lets get the thread back on track. I say that we do have a choice, but it is not an amoral choice. I believe God puts factors in place where we will always choose in a manner that will be consistent with His decreed will. That is my opinion. You have a right to yours.

Again, I follow no man, only Christ. I do not go around calling dead men murderers, or other Christians as people who follow other gods.

You really need to get a hold on your emotions. Grace and peace.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Scripture teaches that faith comes from hearing the word of God. At that time the person makes a choice. This choice is an ability that is part of the makeup of man who is created in the image of God.

The view that sees the image of God as dead is a false view not taught in Scripture. A dead person can not will. Dead in the Bible means separation.

All will notice that in the Garden after Adam and Eve sinned that God talked to them. They were still alive. They talked with God. They were able to understand what they did. They accepted the provision of the Skins God provided for them. God later told Cane that he had a choice. Just because God knew his choice before he made it did not make his choice forced. He was free in his "dead" or "spiritually" separated state to accept the truth or reject it. He rejected it.

You will notice that later in Genesis a statement was made that men began to call on the name of the Lord.

The idea that man's separation is inability to believe is non-sense. Can't find it in my Bible anywhere. It is not in the Greek Bible the Hebrew Bible, the KJV or any other version that I have.

Jesus said “your faith” “their faith” so I will just believe Jesus over theologians who simply want to disagree with the truth. There you have it. God is not willing that any perish but that all come to repentance. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Oh! How I love Jesus.

I don’t know about you but I love to listen to good gospel music.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/l/a/alasand.htm

 

[MB]

Hi RB;

Yes, lets get the thread back on track. I say that we do have a choice, but it is not an amoral choice.

You're right it isn't a moral choice it's a Spiritual choice

I believe God puts factors in place where we will always choose in a manner that will be consistent with His decreed will. That is my opinion. You have a right to yours.

I agree; It's just what that will of God really is, that we may disagree on. You may believe that this will would be to do or, not to do. Mine is that will is to choose what we should do yet both of us knows it still up to His will as to what will happen. This is why it is all of Him
MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

MB
You're right it isn't a moral choice it's a Spiritual choice

I didn't say a moral choice, I said amoral choice. We do not make choices in a vaccuum. Many factors cause us to make the choices we make. We make choices according to those outside factors or they would be amoral choices.

So don't you think God is big enough to put outside factors in place that will determine what choices we make? Don't you think God can use people, places, the environment, laws, people in authority etc... to make sure that His plans happen exactly as He planned them? He can do all these without causing anyone to sin, or even tempting anyone. Just ask Joseph. He said that God meant for good what men meant for evil.

 

[MB]

Hi RB;

I didn't say a moral choice, I said amoral choice. We do not make choices in a vaccuum. Many factors cause us to make the choices we make. We make choices according to those outside factors or they would be amoral choices.

Now I'm really confused as to what you were trying to say. I just said they were not moral choice which is exactly what you said.

So don't you think God is big enough to put outside factors in place that will determine what choices we make?

Of course it's called being convinced by God. I was convinced that I could escape what I deserve because of what Christ had done.

Don't you think God can use people, places, the environment, laws, people in authority etc... to make sure that His plans happen exactly as He planned them?

Of course I do.

He can do all these without causing anyone to sin, or even tempting anyone. Just ask Joseph. He said that God meant for good what men meant for evil.

What God meant for good to Joseph and his brothers was allowed by God not caused. God knew they would so He used it for the good of them all.
I'm not the one with the theory of God's foreknowledge, predesignating things to be as they are.
MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hi RB;

Now I'm really confused as to what you were trying to say. I just said they were not moral choice which is exactly what you said.

Of course it's called being convinced by God. I was convinced that I could escape what I deserve because of what Christ had done.

Of course I do.

What God meant for good to Joseph and his brothers was allowed by God not caused. God knew they would so He used it for the good of them all.
I'm not the one with the theory of God's foreknowledge, predesignating things to be as they are.
MB

Hint: Look up the word amoral.

It is not theory... It is what the bible teaches. Did you know that the words foreknowledge, predestination, are in the bible?

If you have a problem with predestination, look up the word appoint. Do a search in your bible..... you will be astounded at how many times the word appoint is there.

 

[webdog]

...same thing with "choose"

 

[reformedbeliever]

...same thing with "choose"

I don't have a problem with the word choose. Did you read my post? I said that of course we choose. We just don't make choices in a vaccuum. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

 

[MB]

Hint: Look up the word amoral.

It is not theory... It is what the bible teaches. Did you know that the words foreknowledge, predestination, are in the bible?

If you have a problem with predestination, look up the word appoint. Do a search in your bible..... you will be astounded at how many times the word appoint is there.

My dictionary says that A moral is defined as to be with out morals.
I know what foreknowledge is and I know what predestination is and I believe in both but not the same as you believing in foreknowledge writing the history of man. We have all been predestined once we believe. There is nothing to make one believe that predestination happens at the same time as election. as in before the foundation of the world.
The word is only mentioned twice in all of scripture by the same witness. How is it you can place so much on just one witness. Eph 1:5 and 1:11 and claim so much predestination has happened in scripture.

The word fore knowledge is used to explain how God knows what He knows when He does but since God is Omnipresent he is everywhere and in all times at once because He isn't ruled by time. Therefore to God there be no fore to His knowledge. He just simply knows because He is there in all times. This is why His foreknowledge doesn't write the actions of men.


MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

My dictionary says that A moral is defined as to be with out morals.
I know what foreknowledge is and I know what predestination is and I believe in both but not the same as you believing in foreknowledge writing the history of man. We have all been predestined once we believe. There is nothing to make one believe that predestination happens at the same time as election. as in before the foundation of the world.
The word is only mentioned twice in all of scripture by the same witness. How is it you can place so much on just one witness. Eph 1:5 and 1:11 and claim so much predestination has happened in scripture.

The word fore knowledge is used to explain how God knows what He knows when He does but since God is Omnipresent he is everywhere and in all times at once because He isn't ruled by time. Therefore to God there be no fore to His knowledge. He just simply knows because He is there in all times. This is why His foreknowledge doesn't write the actions of men.


MB

Well I suppose you are right. We should probably ingore or take out that part of scripture that says foreknowlede, predestine, election.... etc. And probably the scripture in Acts that says that Jesus was crucified by men and it was predestined by God.