Free will and the gospel

[agedman]

My apologies. I had put in the quotes but forgot to reference the article and Author:
REFORMED THEOLOGY by Dr. Adrian Rogers
https://www.lacollege.edu/sites/default/files/reformed_theology_jan_13.pdf

By the way, I don't view Adrian Rogers as an idiot!

You must understand that Adrian Rogers was not as opposed to “soft Calvinism.” In fact, in some areas he was in at least partial agreement.

For example, he agreed that the ungodly were depraved, but he disagreed that regeneration had to occur to the ungodly prior to salvation. However, he also held to “prevenient Grace” which is similar in view, that in deed God awakens a person (lifting a person) into a state in which they can of their own will make a choice.

So in effect BOTH have God waking, quickening, ... the ungodly. One to complete the purpose of salvation, the other to allow the believer to engage in the process.

What Rogers was opposed was Hyper-Calvinism.

If I were you, I’d take TCassidy up on his offer. It isn’t often a Seminary professor offers free tutorials!

But do it away from the threads in private conversation so that the edification you receive will be targeted to your needs and so all issues and questions may be perused.

 

[saved and sure]

If your "quotes" are what he actually said, then, yes, he is an idiot. Of course Rogers is well known as a rabid anti-Calvinist who makes all sorts of absurd statements and blames them on Calvinists.

His most idiotic is "Without freewill you are accusing our Holy and Righteous God of being the Author of sin, which is exactly what Calvinism/Reformed Theology does." And that is a lie straight out of the pit of hell.

The doctrine of free will does NOT accuse God of being the author of sin. That is just an idiotic lie.

Now, if you really want to know what Historic Particular Redemption really is, I would be glad to discuss the 5 Heads of Doctrine as published by the Synod of Dordt in 1618/9 with you, and point out the egregious errors of your above thread.

Why would I want to discuss doctrine with a mean spirited, name calling and angry person like you? If this is how you handle debate or discussion, I'll take a pass.

 

[saved and sure]

You must understand that Adrian Rogers was not as opposed to “soft Calvinism.” In fact, in some areas he was in at least partial agreement.

For example, he agreed that the ungodly were depraved, but he disagreed that regeneration had to occur to the ungodly prior to salvation. However, he also held to “prevenient Grace” which is similar in view, that in deed God awakens a person (lifting a person) into a state in which they can of their own will make a choice.

So in effect BOTH have God waking, quickening, ... the ungodly. One to complete the purpose of salvation, the other to allow the believer to engage in the process.

What Rogers was opposed was Hyper-Calvinism.

If I were you, I’d take TCassidy up on his offer. It isn’t often a Seminary professor offers free tutorials!

But do it away from the threads in private conversation so that the edification you receive will be targeted to your needs and so all issues and questions may be perused.

Thanks agedman for your response. But seminary professor or not, TCassidy's way of handling people needs a lot of improvement. My son graduated from Moody Bible institute in Chicago and I have met several of his professors and if they handled people like this gentleman does it would be a problem.

 

[TCassidy]

Why would I want to discuss doctrine with a mean spirited, name calling and angry person like you?

To learn something so you will not embarrass yourself by posting such nonsense in a public forum?

And by "name calling" do you mean calling people things like "mean spirited" and "angry?"

Where in the world did you get the idea I am angry? I don't care enough about what you believe, or about what Rogers believes, to be angry about it.

Good grief, man, you flatter yourself. Your ignorant opinions really don't matter enough to me to rise to the level of mild annoyance, let alone anger!

But if you have no desire to learn, far be it from me to force you to do so.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

 

[saved and sure]

To learn something so you will not embarrass yourself by posting such nonsense in a public forum?

And by "name calling" do you mean calling people things like "mean spirited" and "angry?"

Where in the world did you get the idea I am angry? I don't care enough about what you believe, or about what Rogers believes, to be angry about it.

Good grief, man, you flatter yourself. Your ignorant opinions really don't matter enough to me to rise to the level of mild annoyance, let alone anger!

But if you have no desire to learn, far be it from me to force you to do so.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Your response makes my point. These conversations are being viewed by many people who are looking at Christians and how they treat each other. Your remarks like "I don't care enough about what you believe" ; "Your ignorant opinions really don't matter" sure show what what is in your heart.

This is my last word on the subject:
Titus 3:9-11 ESV
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

[TCassidy]

Your response makes my point.

That you called me names? Yes, I know. That was my point.

"I don't care enough about what you believe"

That is a very dishonest reply. It is out of context and you know it. The context is "I don't care enough about what you believe, or about what Rogers believes, to be angry about it." Shame on you.

"Your ignorant opinions really don't matter"

Again, a very dishonest reply. What I said was "Your ignorant opinions really don't matter enough to me to rise to the level of mild annoyance, let alone anger!" Again, shame on you!

And if you had a more humble and teachable spirit you might listen and learn that "Total Depravity" does NOT mean "we are just about as bad as we can get." In fact it has nothing to do with being as bad as we can be.

Total Depravity means that all three parts of man (the total man) has been affected by the fall and is no longer sinless and thus meriting salvation.

The body is fallen, which is why we grow old and die.

The soul (will, intellect, and emotions) is fallen, which is why we sin against God in our thoughts.

The spirit is fallen and now is in need of spiritual regeneration.

And your opinions on the other 4 points are just as wrong.

So, do you want to learn or will you walk away clutching your ignorance as a child clutches a security blanket?

 

[saved and sure]

That you called me names? Yes, I know. That was my point.

That is a very dishonest reply. It is out of context and you know it. The context is "I don't care enough about what you believe, or about what Rogers believes, to be angry about it." Shame on you.

Again, a very dishonest reply. What I said was "Your ignorant opinions really don't matter enough to me to rise to the level of mild annoyance, let alone anger!" Again, shame on you!

And if you had a more humble and teachable spirit you might listen and learn that "Total Depravity" does NOT mean "we are just about as bad as we can get." In fact it has nothing to do with being as bad as we can be.

Total Depravity means that all three parts of man (the total man) has been affected by the fall and is no longer sinless and thus meriting salvation.

The body is fallen, which is why we grow old and die.

The soul (will, intellect, and emotions) is fallen, which is why we sin against God in our thoughts.

The spirit is fallen and now is in need of spiritual regeneration.

And your opinions on the other 4 points are just as wrong.

So, do you want to learn or will you walk away clutching your ignorance as a child clutches a security blanket?

Please, pay attention to what I have said. I am done dealing with you on this. Your arrogance and prideful attitude are overwhelming.

My original post was referencing an article that was written by someone else, not me, and you haven't even asked me if I even agree with Rogers on everything that he wrote on the subject. You have made the mistake that most people like you make. Because of your self absorbed know it all attitude, you assume that I am in agreement with everything that Rogers wrote on the subject and you're claiming that I said it.

It was mentioned that you were a seminary professor, that is a real surprise based on how you have interacted with me on this thread. I pray that this is not how you deal with your students.

Consider this to be my last post to you on this subject although I assume that you will want the last word on this, so have at it.

 

[TCassidy]

My original post was referencing an article that was written by someone else, not me,

Your failure to cite the author is not my fault.

and you haven't even asked me if I even agree with Rogers on everything that he wrote on the subject.

I just read what you posted.

you assume that I am in agreement with everything that Rogers wrote on the subject and you're claiming that I said it.

As you did not cite the source the only logical conclusion is that the words were yours.

It was mentioned that you were a seminary professor, that is a real surprise based on how you have interacted with me on this thread.

Yes, of course. Your refusing to learn is all my fault.

I pray that this is not how you deal with your students.

No, had a student of mine plagiarized someone else's work he would not only be kicked out of my class, but would probably be expelled from the school.

Consider this to be my last post to you on this subject although I assume that you will want the last word on this, so have at it.

Yes, but all means, run away rather than learning the truth. And your childish last comment is very funny. What are you? About 12?

 

[TCassidy]

Let's get back on track. You started this fiasco by posting:

I thought that this may be a good reminder of what people who believe in what Calvin taught teach:

Then you posted something that those who believe in Calvinism (Particular Redemption) DO NOT teach about Total Depravity.

Then you posted something that those who believe in Calvinism (Particular Redemption) DO NOT teach about Unconditional Election.

Then you posted something that those who believe in Calvinism (Particular Redemption) DO NOT teach about Limited Atonement.

Then you posted something that those who believe in Calvinism (Particular Redemption) DO NOT teach about Irresistible Grace.

Then you posted something that those who believe in Calvinism (Particular Redemption) DO NOT teach about Perseverance of the Saints.

And when Total Depravity was explained to you, you completely ignored it and whined about how mean I am for telling you the truth.

Now, if you really want to learn, I will explain the other 4 Heads of Doctrine to you. Your choice. Learn or don't learn. It is up to you.

 

[Van]

"THERE IS NNE THAT SEEKS GOD, NO NOT ONE", if you believe scripture that's the answer. "The natural man is UNABLE to please God", "The natural man is UNABLE to understand the things of the Spirit", "You are UNABLE to come to me unless the Father who sent me DRAW HIM, ALL that the Father draws WILL COME, and he who comes I will in no wise cast out".

We believe, but ONLY AS A RESULT OF GOD'S ELECTION, Eph 1, Acts 16:2, Romans 9, John 6:40 et al

Adding to scripture is inappropriate.
1) There is none that seeks God, no not one. Now the bogus doctrine adds "at any time" to this verse, rewriting it to say no one ever seeks God, unless enabled by irresistible grace. But since there are verses that indicate people do indeed seek God, i.e. Romans 9:31-33, the intended meaning is that no one seeks God all the time, because everyone sins, and we are not seeking God when sinning.

2) The natural man is unable to understand the things of the Spirit. Now the bogus doctrine adds "all" such that it means unable to understand all the things of the Spirit. But since 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 teaches men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, the intended meaning is that the natural man is unable to understand some things of the Spirit.

3) Yes no one comes to the Christ unless drawn (attracted) by the Father, John 6:44.

4) "All that the Father draws will come." Note this is a wholesale addition to the text, found no where is scripture.

5) "We believe, but only as the result of Election." Yet another wholesale addition to the text, found no where in scripture.

6) Yes every born anew believer was chosen corporately before the foundation of the world. When God chose His Lamb, His Redeemer, He also chose corporately those His Redeemer would redeem. That is why Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen in Him.

7) Acts 16, and the story of Lystra, does not say she was elect before she became a believer. So a phony claim of support for bogus doctrine.

8) Romans 9 does not say people were individually elect before being chosen for salvation. OTOH, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election for salvation.

9) John 6:40 does not say people were individually elect before becoming a believer. So another phony claim of support for a bogus doctrine.

 

[TCassidy]

Van, as much as I liked and admired you 40 years ago when we worked together, I have to say in this case I think you have misunderstood some important things in this discussion.

1) There is none that seeks God, no not one. Now the bogus doctrine adds "at any time" to this verse, rewriting it to say no one ever seeks God, unless enabled by irresistible grace. But since there are verses that indicate people do indeed seek God, i.e. Romans 9:31-33, the intended meaning is that no one seeks God all the time, because everyone sins, and we are not seeking God when sinning.

Nobody I know of has claimed that nobody at any time seeks God. That is the purpose of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives, to guide us into all truth. He causes us to seek truth. But He is only present in the life of a believer. And Romans 9, which you referenced, tells us they didn’t seek it by faith but by works.

2) The natural man is unable to understand the things of the Spirit. Now the bogus doctrine adds "all" such that it means unable to understand all the things of the Spirit. But since 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 teaches men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, the intended meaning is that the natural man is unable to understand some things of the Spirit.

But in 1 Corinthians 2:15 Paul starts talking about saved people. Saved but still babes in Christ. And in chapter 3 he calls those fleshly men "Brothers" who were members of the Church at Corinth.

3) Yes no one comes to the Christ unless drawn (attracted) by the Father, John 6:44.

Correct. We agree.

4) "All that the Father draws will come." Note this is a wholesale addition to the text, found no where is scripture.

John 6:37 "All those whom the Father gives me will come to me. He who comes to me I will in no way throw out."

However, in the interests of full disclosure, I believe this verse is talking about the Old Testament Saints who were God's children under the Old Covenant making the transition to the New Covenant. All the Old Testament Saints believed in Christ and none were lost.

5) "We believe, but only as the result of Election." Yet another wholesale addition to the text, found no where in scripture.

I am not sure who said that, but I believe it is wrong. We don't believe because of election. We believe because of the work of the Holy Spirit, using the preaching of the Gospel, to draw us to Christ.

6) Yes every born anew believer was chosen corporately before the foundation of the world. When God chose His Lamb, His Redeemer, He also chose corporately those His Redeemer would redeem. That is why Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen in Him.

I agree, but election is also individual.
Romans 16:13 says, “Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." The word "chosen is “eklektos” - elect.

It is definitely true that Romans 9 includes the election of nations and that those nations are represented by Isaac, Jacob, Esau, etc. But it is also true that it is the individuals themselves, the fathers of those nations, who were elected to be blessed by being the fathers of those nations. This alone is evidence that election of individuals occurs in Romans 9.

7) Acts 16, and the story of Lystra, does not say she was elect before she became a believer. So a phony claim of support for bogus doctrine.

Acts 16:14 tells us of "A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one who worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened to listen to the things which were spoken by Paul." She was already a believer, and the Lord opened her heart to make the transition to the New Covenant teaching. This is, in my opinion, a parallel to John 6:37, above.

8) Romans 9 does not say people were individually elect before being chosen for salvation. OTOH, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election for salvation.

I think you may have conflated regeneration and salvation. Note that 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which you referenced, says "God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth."

How did God choose them? Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit which resulted in belief in the truth. The Greek word και is a copulative conjunction which connects the noun and the complement. It is saying that "belief in the truth" is connected in a causative way to "sanctification of the Spirit." It was the setting apart by the Spirit that caused the belief in the truth.

9) John 6:40 does not say people were individually elect before becoming a believer. So another phony claim of support for a bogus doctrine.

John 6:40 is preceded by John 6:39 which is the circumstantial clause establishing the context for verse 40.

"This is the will of my Father who sent me, that of all he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day."

Again I believe this is referring to Old Testament believers who heard and saw Christ and recognized Him as Messiah. None of those would be lost.

John 6:40 This is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone (of the above who God gave to Christ) who sees the Son, and believes in him, will have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Now, Van, allow me to ask you for a consideration. You have referred to my faith in Christ as "bogus" and "phoney." I can assure you it is neither. My faith in Christ is real. Genuine. I believe my salvation is all of Him and none of me. I believe He is in control. I believe He is Sovereign. None of that is bogus or phoney. It is my heart felt conviction that He is Lord.

So, please, I ask you, moderate your language a bit. Please. We are brothers in Christ. We should act more brotherly.

 

[Van]

TC, lets go through your post, one item at a time.
I said total spiritual inability is bogus and unbiblical, I did not say or suggest your faith in Christ was bogus. Please stick to the facts.

Just because you say you are unaware of how Romans 3:11 is interpreted in reformed circles does not alter the facts.

mans 3:11 highlights the “noetic effects of sin”—the impact of sin upon the mind. Paul quotes Psalm 14:2, applying it to both Jews and Gentiles to show how all people in Adam have had their minds darkened and do not understand what is right. Of course, this does not mean they have no sense of the good; it means they misuse and pervert what they do know, twisting it for selfish and sinister ends. Moreover, “no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11b). This was a shocking thought even for the Gentiles who, from all outward appearances, did search for the divine through their philosophies and religions. Yet being religious and truly seeking after the Lord do not always go hand in hand. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, we seek only the benefits of our Creator and not the Creator Himself. This gives many “the appearance of godliness,” though they deny its power (2 Tim. 3:1–5).

You can deny that Paul spoke to new Christians as to men of flesh. Therefore men of flesh could understand milk.

Do not equate being given to Christ (i.e. being transferred out of darkness into Christ) with being drawn (attracted) to Christ. The fact this verse (John 6:37) speaking of the transfer is demonstrated by Christ saying they will not be cast out. They have to be in Christ in order to be concerned with being cast out of Christ.

You can say people did not seek God till the cows come home, just read Romans 9:31-33.

You claim having your heart opened refers to irresistible enabling belief till the cows come home, all it means is the gospel was presented in a way she understood.

Next you rewrite 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says they were chosen for salvation through (1) sanctification by the Spirit and (2) faith in the truth. It does not say chosen by sanctification by the Spirit then given faith. And not to put too fine a point on it but the complement is addressing the verb (chose).

 

[Yeshua1]

TC, lets go through your post, one item at a time.
I said total spiritual inability is bogus and unbiblical, I did not say or suggest your faith in Christ was bogus. Please stick to the facts.

Just because you say you are unaware of how Romans 3:11 is interpreted in reformed circles does not alter the facts.

​

You can deny that Paul spoke to new Christians as to men of flesh. Therefore men of flesh could understand milk.

Do not equate being given to Christ (i.e. being transferred out of darkness into Christ) with being drawn (attracted) to Christ. The fact this verse (John 6:37) speaking of the transfer is demonstrated by Christ saying they will not be cast out. They have to be in Christ in order to be concerned with being cast out of Christ.

You can say people did not seek God till the cows come home, just read Romans 9:31-33.

You claim having your heart opened refers to irresistible enabling belief till the cows come home, all it means is the gospel was presented in a way she understood.

Next you rewrite 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says they were chosen for salvation through (1) sanctification by the Spirit and (2) faith in the truth. It does not say chosen by sanctification by the Spirit then given faith. And not to put too fine a point on it but the complement is addressing the verb (chose).

Paul spoke to the saints who were there "in the flesh" as those who were not acting as if they were not saved, as the babes in Christ refer to those either recently saved, or not maturing in growth, but the entire truth Paul wrote to us is the natural/lost cannoty receive the scriptures and be saved , apart that the Holy Spirit iopens their hearts/minds, regeneration, and they they receive Jesus thru faith.

 

[TCassidy]

I said total spiritual inability is bogus and unbiblical, I did not say or suggest your faith in Christ was bogus.

I didn't say you did. My faith teaches me that I am depraved. My faith teaches me that God is Sovereign. Neither of those are bogus.

Just because you say you are unaware of how Romans 3:11 is interpreted in reformed circles does not alter the facts.

I didn't say I was unaware of how Romans 3:11 is interpreted in Reformed circles. I am not Reformed. I am a Particular Baptist. I stated what I believe Romans 3:11 is saying.

You can deny that Paul spoke to new Christians as to men of flesh.

I never denied it. In fact I pointed out the new Christians were Christians, Paul's Brothers in Christ. Not lost. Not lacking the indwelling Holy Spirit. Nobody has said that saved people can't understand Spiritual things. That is the function of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Being carnal does not equate to being lost. Don't conflate the two.

Do not equate being given to Christ (i.e. being transferred out of darkness into Christ) with being drawn (attracted) to Christ.

I didn't.

You can say people did not seek God till the cows come home, just read Romans 9:31-33.

I didn't say people don't seek God. I explained that they do. I also explained my understanding of Romans 9. I explained that Israel's seeking was to seek the works of the law rather than the Spirit of Grace. All sorts of people seek all sorts of things. But they seek wrongly.

You claim having your heart opened refers to irresistible enabling belief till the cows come home

I never claimed that. I believe in efficacious Grace. God's Grace never fails to accomplish that which He intends it to accomplish.

Next you rewrite 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says they were chosen for salvation through (1) sanctification by the Spirit and (2) faith in the truth. It does not say chosen by sanctification by the Spirit then given faith.

That is the whole point of the copulative conjunction. It demonstrates a cause and effect connection.