Free choice to choose...

[Pastor Larry]

I basically can't go on with your "profane and vain babbling that lead only to more ungodliness."

This makes no sense. You have yet to show even one place where I have been unbiblical. I have shown many places where you have been. And yet you are the one accusing me of profane and vain babbling??

Your "God," the "God" of 5 pointers, is a "warmed over" Greek "God" before Whom you are both impotent and ignorant regarding your FATE.

I thought we cleared this up a couple of weeks ago. I believe God as he has revealed himself in Scriptures. If you want to address that, then fine. But don't make up stuff about God being like Greek gods.

From your testimony, I believe that there was a time when you knew Him just like Dale-c once did. And if you "purge yourself from [profane and vain babblings], you will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's [instead of Calvin's] work." 2Tim 2:16, 21

So now you are questioning my salvation? Saying I don't know him anymore? I am more than willing to discuss Scripture with you. You seem to have a problem with that.

Right now, what I am seeing is one who is "hardening" himself against scriptures. You likely say the same of me but without acknolwedging that I have made several strides to reconciling free will to Calvinism admitting that faith is "given by God" after regeneration (thus, the "new birth" is the proof of belief), among others.

Where you are seeing one hardening against Scriptures? I have bent over backwards to address the Scriptures without changing what they say. I have pointed out where you have changed the Scriptures to meet your own ideas. The fact that made a stride "toward reconciling free will to Calvinism" is irrelevant. The Scriptures are the authority. That is what we must bow before.

Sorry I have been the instrument of your hardening -- and yet, isn't that one of the ministries of your missionaries? to make the lost more guilty of their sin?

You haven't hardened me at all. As you can see, I have dealt very honestly with Scripture, something you have not done. I have pointed out severe errors to which you have no answer. You just ignore it and hope it will go away.

 

[npetreley]

This bloke is "willfully ignorant" because he accepts Calvin over scripture.

If I were the sort of person to stoop to the depths of the opposition, I'd advocate that all Calvinists start claiming that free-willers follow and worship Pelagius, and that they trust in Pelagius over God and hold Pelagius higher than scripture. Then I would ignore all their objections about how they've never actually read Pelagius and repeat the accusations ad nauseum.

 

[skypair]

If I were the sort of person to stoop to the depths of the opposition, I'd advocate that all Calvinists start claiming that free-willers follow and worship Pelagius, and that they trust in Pelagius over God and hold Pelagius higher than scripture. Then I would ignore all their objections about how they've never actually read Pelagius and repeat the accusations ad nauseum.

You basically WANT to "tag us" very badly but we don't submit to men's paradigms but to the Bible.

Whereas y'all make no bones about being "5 pointers" --- the "drunker on Calvin" you are the better --- we have problems with just about any label but "the Word of God."

I've witnessed to a Mormon elder much like that. "The Bible as interpretted by the Book of Mormon" was his justification. Kinda like the Pharisees, don't ya see, the Torah as interpretted by our 616 additions, here. Like "don't flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath (even if it is the tribulation)."

And you would have us all "tote the line" of Calvinism because you believe it as scriptural. Coming from scripture is not the same thing as "being scriptural" (as the illustration of the Pharisees makes clear).

skypair

 

[skypair]

This makes no sense. You have yet to show even one place where I have been unbiblical. I have shown many places where you have been. And yet you are the one accusing me of profane and vain babbling??

I've made numerous comments about your interpretation of scripture which you rejected. Our differences aren't the scriptures but the paradigms we have constructed behind them -- to make sense of them for ourselves. Basically, everytime I mention free will, you find no such thing in scripture. Or it is "free" only in one direction -- evil -- which is no freedom of choice (as I find the concept is described in the Bible) at all.

I thought we cleared this up a couple of weeks ago. I believe God as he has revealed himself in Scriptures. If you want to address that, then fine. But don't make up stuff about God being like Greek gods.

I am making that up. It is called an "analogy." It means that your paradigm of God and the Greeks paradigm are very close to the same. How do I think this came about?

I did a little more reading last night even but here it is ---- Calvin loved citing Augustine. Augustine learned in the Eastern Christian context of Origen, the first true allegorical interpretter. Both Origen and Augustine (the latter prior to conversion) were influenced and tried to adapt Christianity, more or less, to Greek philosophy. Hence the influence of fate vs. free will that has EVER SINCE haunted Christianity!

So now you are questioning my salvation? Saying I don't know him anymore? I am more than willing to discuss Scripture with you. You seem to have a problem with that.

No sir. Even under Calvinism, you can't lose your salvation. I said of dale-c, though, that he appeared to be in apostacy --- made "shipwreck" of his faith. Paul considered it a "shipwreck" if you had the wrong concept of resurrection timing, for heaven's sake! I say you can't go anywhere with a theology that 1) doesn't know (and can't teach) why God chooses whom He chooses to salvation and 2) has NOTHING that a "mere mortal" can do change in any way with God his salvation status and his walk. You have insisted continually that every choice has already been made by God -- predestined before creation all by His will -- "monergistically," EVERYTHING.

You haven't hardened me at all. As you can see, I have dealt very honestly with Scripture, something you have not done. I have pointed out severe errors to which you have no answer. You just ignore it and hope it will go away.

It is obvious that you have tried to show your interpretation was the right one and I for my part as well. It is obvious that when we discuss "Elect to salvation according to..." that you only want to look at the first 3 words. I say that "according to" or "through" gives us God's reasons WHY He elects us to salvation, Larry. The very question Calvinism can't answer is right there in front of your face but, what? you ignore it? Or you say that "sprinkling of the blood" or "belief" comes afterward?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

I've made numerous comments about your interpretation of scripture which you rejected.

That’s not what you said. You said you showed where I was unbiblical. You have not. You have simply showed where you interpret the Bible differently than I do.

Basically, everytime I mention free will, you find no such thing in scripture. Or it is "free" only in one direction -- evil -- which is no freedom of choice (as I find the concept is described in the Bible) at all.

But you don’t find your concept of free will described in the Bible. That’s the problem. I believe in free will as defined by Scripture.

under Calvinism, you can't lose your salvation. I said of dale-c, though, that he appeared to be in apostacy --- made "shipwreck" of his faith. Paul considered it a "shipwreck" if you had the wrong concept of resurrection timing, for heaven's sake

It is likely that shipwreck of the faith means you aren’t saved.

I say you can't go anywhere with a theology that 1) doesn't know (and can't teach) why God chooses whom He chooses to salvation and 2) has NOTHING that a "mere mortal" can do change in any way with God his salvation status and his walk.

The good thing is that you can go to heaven with this. You insist on more than God has told us. You are unwilling to trust God with the things you do not know. I find that troubling. Scripture answers #1 with “for the praise of the glory of his grace” and you insist on more. Scripture answers #2 with Man can do nothing, and you insist on more.

You have insisted continually that every choice has already been made by God -- predestined before creation all by His will -- "monergistically," EVERYTHING.

See, here, you just are not making sense. To believe that everything has been predestined does not mean that every choice has been made by God. This is why this conversation is frustrating. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

"Elect to salvation according to..." that you only want to look at the first 3 words. I say that "according to" or "through" gives us God's reasons WHY He elects us to salvation, Larry.

More dishonesty. I have not only looked at the first three words. I have dealt with it all. I have explained the whole issue time and time again.

The very question Calvinism can't answer is right there in front of your face but, what? you ignore it? Or you say that "sprinkling of the blood" or "belief" comes afterward?

After election? Yes. Sprinklking of the blood and belief comes after election. How is that hard? We didn’t believe before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) or before creation (2 thess 2:13).

This is another place where you are unwilling to accept what Scripture says.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Anyone seeking "a verse which proves..." is looking at the Bible in a fundamentally incorrect manner.

If taken individually there are verses that seem to support free will and others which seem to support election. But the Bible is not a series on "one-liners". And there is tension in scripture - with different books adressing different situations.

The answer is that we do (from our perspective) have free will but yet are in a sense predestined (since God must know all and since His will cannot be subverted).

The tension cannot be removed without resorting to an artificial "systematic theology".

 

[skypair]

But you don’t find your concept of free will described in the Bible. That’s the problem. I believe in free will as defined by Scripture.

What was "Behold, I put life and death before you. Choose life."

It is likely that shipwreck of the faith means you aren’t saved.

Not according to Paul it's not. And even Alexander who "greatly withstood me" Paul did not condemn to hell.

You insist on more than God has told us. You are unwilling to trust God with the things you do not know.

No, Larry. That is your "blind spot." You say I nor anyone can know things that God has freely revealed to us. It "snobbery" and "coverup" of the flaws of Calvinism that forces you to insist that God has not told us I even showed you where Sproul discounted the correct answer as to how sin entered creation and then says neither he nor anyone knew how it entered!). If these things were "revealed" to Calvinists, it would bust the theology wide open!!

I find that troubling. Scripture answers #1 with “for the praise of the glory of his grace” and you insist on more. Scripture answers #2 with Man can do nothing, and you insist on more.

So "scripture" says man cannot turn to God. How many times in one day do you change your mind? What is it that MUST be changed in order for you to be saved?

See, here, you just are not making sense. To believe that everything has been predestined does not mean that every choice has been made by God. This is why this conversation is frustrating. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

You insist that "Joe" cannot change his mind from what God has predestined, right? You also insist that God chose Joe. So where is it that anything is NOT predestined and "prechosen" by God? You're right, I don't know what WE are talking about because I see no choices in what you say.

After election? Yes. Sprinklking of the blood and belief comes after election. How is that hard? We didn’t believe before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) or before creation (2 thess 2:13).

We DID believe before creation --- it was in the foreknowledge of God. Not TO belief but THROUGH belief were we saved. God didn't save us TO believe -- He saved us BECAUSE we believed.

Am I making my point? Your "foreknowledge" is not even foreknowledge -- it is predestination TO salvation. All those verses that we argue about say we are saved by belief, not to belief. Again I say, try this if you are having a problem with "belief" vs. "faith." Call "belief" hope --- as in "lively hope" which, to me, is our beliefs after we are saved. You know, like of the rapture, "the blessed hope of His glorious appearing." Or like I have been trying to explain to you about Heb 11:1 --- "Faith is the substance of things HOPED for,..." that is, "things BELIEVED" but unproven to us before God GAVE us the Holy Spirit (regenerated/rebirthed us) and, thereby, faith.

Do you know how that worked in the absence of indwelling in the OT?? Man obeyed and God responded in the PHYSICAL realm to their belief. Often God appeared or spoke to them. Then, their acts were shown to have been prescient -- the flood DID come.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

The tension cannot be removed without resorting to an artificial "systematic theology".

I think you are right. I am not sure it should be characterized as "artificial" though. Systematic theology is simply correlating the truth of Scripture. Scripture gives us examples of it and we have to do it.

 

[skypair]

Anyone seeking "a verse which proves..." is looking at the Bible in a fundamentally incorrect manner.

If taken individually there are verses that seem to support free will and others which seem to support election. But the Bible is not a series on "one-liners". And there is tension in scripture - with different books adressing different situations.

The answer is that we do (from our perspective) have free will but yet are in a sense predestined (since God must know all and since His will cannot be subverted).

The tension cannot be removed without resorting to an artificial "systematic theology".

Charles, I respect and have heard that opinion from young Christians. However, the truth is that both free will and predestination are true in their proper context.

In the context of God's foreknowledge, free will is true. In the context of God's overall plan, predestination is true. Free will is something that God "permits" within His plan in order to bring only BELIEVERS to glory.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

What was "Behold, I put life and death before you. Choose life."

A command. What part of that do you think I disagree with? And did you forget that God said that the people could not keep the Law? That was how the life and death would come.

Not according to Paul it's not. And even Alexander who "greatly withstood me" Paul did not condemn to hell.

Yes, it was likely not even saved. But that’s not really the issue here.

No, Larry. That is your "blind spot." You say I nor anyone can know things that God has freely revealed to us. It "snobbery" and "coverup" of the flaws of Calvinism that forces you to insist that God has not told us.

You are dishonest again. I have never said that we cannot know things that God has freely revealed to us. To the contrary, it is I who keep insisting that we look at what God has revealed.

I even showed you where Sproul discounted the correct answer as to how sin entered creation and then says neither he nor anyone knew how it entered!). If these things were "revealed" to Calvinists, it would bust the theology wide open!!

I don’t know what Sproul said. I haven’t read much from him. I am not the least confident in your evaluation of

So "scripture" says man cannot turn to God. How many times in one day do you change your mind? What is it that MUST be changed in order for you to be saved?

Salvation comes through faith and repentance.

You insist that "Joe" cannot change his mind from what God has predestined, right? You also insist that God chose Joe. So where is it that anything is NOT predestined and "prechosen" by God? You're right, I don't know what WE are talking about because I see no choices in what you say.

We DID believe before creation --- it was in the foreknowledge of God.

So we didn’t have any choice??? How do people who do not exist believe before they exist?

Not TO belief but THROUGH belief were we saved. God didn't save us TO believe -- He saved us BECAUSE we believed.

I agree, and so do most Calvinists. The issue of the timing of belief is not about salvation. We all (virtually) agree that salvation comes after belief. But salvation is not the same as election.

Am I making my point?

If your point is that you do not understand basic issues, yes, you are making your point.

Your "foreknowledge" is not even foreknowledge -- it is predestination TO salvation.

No it’s not.

All those verses that we argue about say we are saved by belief, not to belief.

I agree. We weren’t talkgin about salvation but election.

Again I say, try this if you are having a problem with "belief" vs. "faith." Call "belief" hope --- as in "lively hope" which, to me, is our beliefs after we are saved.

There is a differently word in the NT for hope. Belief is not it.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Skypair,

I think I'd agree with that.

I have always eschewed the Calvinism/Arminianism debates because I think they are pointless and serve only to expose the weakness of the whole concept of "systematic theology".

I have no problem accepting the tension of free will and predestination in the Bible. Any attempt to show that somehow there is not tension is pointless.

 

[npetreley]

You basically WANT to "tag us" very badly but we don't submit to men's paradigms but to the Bible.

Nonsense. It would be ridiculously easy to tag the free-willers here as semi-pelagians (more toward Pelagius than semi). But to argue that you follow Pelagius instead of Christ would be like arguing that Calvinists follow Calvin instead of Christ. That would be a lie, and I would know it -- just as you know it's a lie to claim we follow Calvin. You seem to think it's okay to lie in these debates. I don't.

 

[Pastor Larry]

the weakness of the whole concept of "systematic theology".

It is impossible to understand the Bible without systematic theology. Anyone who compares two verses to understand them is practicing systematic theology.

 

[skypair]

A command. What part of that do you think I disagree with? And did you forget that God said that the people could not keep the Law? That was how the life and death would come.

That they can choose. And even then if "life" was by keeping the law, you're talking about a "works" religion. I don't think so. "Choose life" with works? I don't think so. Do you?

You are dishonest again. I have never said that we cannot know things that God has freely revealed to us.

Good. We in the Baptist church like to say, "I have a 'know so' salvation." Tell my how you know God chose you to salvation. How did you "bust open" the secret counsels of God to find that out?

Salvation comes through faith and repentance.

Sorta "out of the blue" faith and repentance as I understand it from Calvinists. :laugh: "One day I couldn't even spell 'Christian' and now I are one!" :laugh:

So are you denying it takes intellect on our part? How about will on our part? Or were you "regenerated" at baptism? Some of your ilk think they were "regenerated" before creation. Are you one of those?

So we didn’t have any choice??? How do people who do not exist believe before they exist?

You're forgetting what "foreknowledge" is again, sir. You're forgetting Psa 33:14-15 -- "God looks down from His habitation [eternity] and sees the works of men [ALL of them]." Though belief occurs in time, it was foreseen when time was created.

We all (virtually) agree that salvation comes after belief. But salvation is not the same as election.

Sorta on this order: election - regeneration - belief - salvation, right? IOW, regenerated before you have the first thought about anything but self (if even that). So let's identify when you, yourself, were "regenerated." What did you notice? Where were you? What manifestations of the indwelling Spirit did you have?

There is a differently word in the NT for hope. Belief is not it.

Hey, I know that. Try it anyway. You may learn something -- like about Heb 11:1.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Nonsense. It would be ridiculously easy to tag the free-willers here as semi-pelagians (more toward Pelagius than semi). But to argue that you follow Pelagius instead of Christ would be like arguing that Calvinists follow Calvin instead of Christ. That would be a lie, and I would know it -- just as you know it's a lie to claim we follow Calvin. You seem to think it's okay to lie in these debates. I don't.

It's as much that we refuse to be called something we aren't Arminians or Palegians and that you acknowledge proudly that you are Calvinists.

I mean, you even try to stay Calvinist despite knocking out one of the "pillars" without which Calvinism should "crumble" (usually "L")! :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

I have always eschewed the Calvinism/Arminianism debates because I think they are pointless and serve only to expose the weakness of the whole concept of "systematic theology".

Don't be discouraged. raying: Folks around here think that their "theology" was derived "systematically" and so don't realize that, taken together, there were weaknesses in the "system."

And there is a "tension" as you say. Free willers call it "conviction of the Holy Spirit." There is a right way to resolve it and a wrong way. The wrong way would be to try to make one side or the other "go away."

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

Don't be discouraged. raying: Folks around here think that their "theology" was derived "systematically" and so don't realize that, taken together, there were weaknesses in the "system."

And there is a "tension" as you say. Free willers call it "conviction of the Holy Spirit." There is a right way to resolve it and a wrong way. The wrong way would be to try to make one side or the other "go away."

skypair

I thought I read one time, that you are a dispensationlist. Are you saying you no longer hold to this view?

 

[Pastor Larry]

That they can choose.

I haven’t disputed that.

And even then if "life" was by keeping the law, you're talking about a "works" religion. I don't think so. "Choose life" with works? I don't think so. Do you?

Does it matter what I think? Let’s look at what God says:
Deuteronomy 4:1 Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
Deuteronomy 4:40 So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."
Deuteronomy 5:33 You shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you will possess.
Leviticus 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

So you judge what the Scriptures says about the Law and life in its OT context.

Good. We in the Baptist church like to say, "I have a 'know so' salvation." Tell my how you know God chose you to salvation. How did you "bust open" the secret counsels of God to find that out?

I have told you before haven’t I? The faith that God has given me and the change that he has brought in my life confirm my election and calling.

Sorta "out of the blue" faith and repentance as I understand it from Calvinists.

Your understanding is deficient.

So are you denying it takes intellect on our part?

No.

How about will on our part?

No.

Or were you "regenerated" at baptism?

No.

Some of your ilk think they were "regenerated" before creation. Are you one of those?

No one of my ilk think that. Those are hyperCalvinists. Most will not even claim to be Calvinists. I disagree with them.

You're forgetting what "foreknowledge" is again, sir. You're forgetting Psa 33:14-15 -- "God looks down from His habitation [eternity] and sees the works of men [ALL of them]." Though belief occurs in time, it was foreseen when time was created.

I have not forgotten. You simply will not accept what foreknowledge is. But even using your definition, it is the same outcome.

Sorta on this order: election - regeneration - belief - salvation, right?

For some yes. Not for me.

IOW, regenerated before you have the first thought about anything but self (if even that). So let's identify when you, yourself, were "regenerated." What did you notice? Where were you? What manifestations of the indwelling Spirit did you have?

Faith, change, understanding, etc.

Hey, I know that. Try it anyway. You may learn something -- like about Heb 11:1.

So you think I should ignore the meaning of the words God inspired in order to hold your position? And you think there is nothing wrong with that? That’s scary.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let's talk more about Deut 30 and the "choose life" passage. This is often thrown out but rarely actually looked at. What kind of life and death is the Bible talking about in that context? It seems that many don't read the passage in its context. Give me the liberty of citing it here for you:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17 "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

When you read the passage, the life and death is connected to living in the land (v. 16, 20). It is connected with obedience to the Law. How did God “set before them” life and prosperity, death and adversity? By setting forth the Law. That is what the book of Deuteronomy is about: the second giving of the Law as Israel prepares to enter the land.

This passage is not about spiritual salvation but about life and death in the land of promise.

 

[skypair]

PL,

Thanks for presenting the passage. I'm away for a week selecting flooring, cabinets, lighting, etc. for my retirement home. I could us my own computer but this one is handier (but without Intraverse to look up scriptures with).

Anyway, how do they choose "life"/"good?" They can't even see God's "good," can they?

How about "Choose ye this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my family..." Again, choose.

Also, what was the "substance" and "evidence" of your faith?[/quote]

skypair