Free will

[Brother Bob]

HP: Gods requirements are to exercise ones will by forming intents consistent with repentance, faith and obedience to the end. Not for the sake of salvation, for the only grounds of salvation is the grace and mercy of God, but rather thought of in the sense of 'not without which,' as in the prison illustration concerning the need for the prisoner to show a true change of heart, attitude and walk at antipodes from that former life of violating the law, without which no pardon will be granted by any just or fair governor. He will not be pardoned for the sake of his repentance and change of attitude, but neither will he be pardoned apart from such formed intents. His pardon, regardless of the required conditions, can never be thought of as a pardon earned by his efforts. If the prisoner is pardoned it will be due to the grace and mercy of the governor, not his good works or even his repentant heart.

That is why repentance is required at the hands of all men. It is to become sorry you sinned against God. There is also a worldly sorrow that worketh death. We can choose which one we want according to our hearts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now, as for David, do you declare to me, O Pelagius, that David was saved by his own righteousness, and hath not need of grace?

HP: You neither understand Pelagius nor the Arminians. Pelagius never believed that any man was saved by works, and that all sinners were indeed in need of grace. That is a paper duck put up by those that would rather put up a false duck to shoot at than try to understand the truth. I would ask anyone on this list to show forth the evidence that either Pelagius or any Arminian believes in salvation by works. That is a figment of ones imagination to even suggest such a thing. Such language has riveted one sect against another for centuries, and it is a flat out misrepresentation of those so accused. It is time to stop the flat out falsehoods thrown out by the misinformed, willfully or done in ignorance.

Don’t waste your time quoting from one of Pelagius’s detractors. Either show us from his own writings or keep silent. We do not need to perpetrate hearsay or slander on anyone.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: That is why repentance is required at the hands of all men. It is to become sorry you sinned against God. There is also a worldly sorrow that worketh death. We can choose which one we want according to our hearts.

HP: I have been accused by numerous Baptist preachers of believing salvation by works for stating that I believe repentance is a condition of salvation. This is nothing other than a false and baseless accusation, This was Augustine’s tactic in dealing with those he opposed, and was as false then as it is now. Thank the Lord that there are still some that can see past the denominational rhetoric and have embraced the truth.

 

[Brother Bob]

It makes their argument look better is why they accuse Free-Willers of Salvation by works. We also believe that we have to take heed to the Spirit of God which will lead us to Grace through faith, but the difference is that we believe that Spirit strives with ALL men. We none believe that we can work out our Salvation but that Salvation is of the Lord and comes by Grace through faith.

HP; if a man don't ever become sorry he sinned against God he will die and go to a devils hell and God saves you from your sins. a Godly Sorrow worketh repentance.

Jesus said "except you repent you shall die in your sins and where I am (Heaven) you cannot come.

I can tell you of several Baptist Associations of several thousand of members, that every church preaches repentance as Jesus said for us to preach.
"Repent ye for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". I don't know anything else to preach except Jesus and Him being crucified.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: but the difference is that we believe that Spirit strives with ALL men. We none believe that we can work out our Salvation but that Salvation is of the Lord and comes by Grace through faith.

HP: Sure God’s Spirit strives with all men. I would not believe that all men are granted the light of salvation, but the Spirit strives with all men via their conscience from first light of moral agency by influencing them to proper behavior, if even 'ever so faintly' due to the dark oppression of their surroundings. I do not know one Arminian alive, nor do I believe Pelagius himself believed any differently than ‘Salvation is of the Lord and comes by grace through faith.’ Where I would differ from some is that I do not believe grace is the ‘granting of ability’ to do right, but rather is the influence from God to form intentions in correlation with repentance and faith to and for salvation even when we do not deserve any further influence or opportunity. All men have the necessary abilities, their want is in the area of applying that ability in the direction of the proper motivation. It is that they cannot do right, it is that they ‘will not’ do right. Sinners are not victims of their circumstances, but willing rebels against what they know to do but will not do it.

BB: "Repent ye for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". I don't know anything else to preach except Jesus and Him being crucified.

HP: Amen. Keep preaching it.

 

[Burrito Breath]

Still waitin HP

HP, I still waitin to kno ef some freewillers believe theres peeples in Hell who woulda been saved eef theyd lived 10 years longer. Do U beleeve that? B.B.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll stick with what the Bible says, regardless of any theological group's point of view. The Bible says that those who are condemned are condemned because of unbelief. Is that a sin? What law does it transgress? For it is the law which shows us what sin is, according to Paul.

Now, if it is a sin, was not all sin atoned for, according to Hebrews? Not according to Calvinists, I know, but according to the Bible it was all atoned for. Simply not forgiven... and that is a different issue.

This is a sticky wicket for many on this board.

I agree with all the Arminians that say that Christ died for the sins (all the sins not just some of them) for all the world.

His suffering is sufficient in the amount needed to forgive all! Not just "some".

But take a look at Lev 16 -- there we see Atonement as defined by God.

In that case the daily sacrifice for the entire year has already been applied and individual forgiveness already obtained. But at the end of the year there is this final step of "atonement" which completes the process. That means that the blood of Christ provides for BOTH the individual forgiveness received during the year AND the final corporate atonement God defines in Lev 16 as the all-consuming end of that process.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP, I still waitin to kno ef some freewillers believe theres peeples in Hell who woulda been saved eef theyd lived 10 years longer. Do U beleeve that? B.B.

That is a hypothetical problem about the foreknowledge of God and whether he would doom someone to hell simply because their life was tooo short. What if the Matt 23 and 1Thess 2 and Genesis 6 principle of "probation ended" applies such that "My Spirit will not always strive with Man" as God said?

What do the Calvinists think when the lost sinner continues to cause damage and suffering "to others" while turning down call-after-call to accept Christ -- only to ACCEPT Christ 10 years later. Do Calvinists claim that God did not CARE about the suffering and damage being caused - and only CARED to save that lost soul ten years later?

 

[Burrito Breath]

One more time Bob

Huh?

I okay wid Englesh but still wood like staight answer.

Do U beleeve some peepls would be saved eef they live 10 years longers? I be very curioso. bb

 

[Brother Bob]

HP, I still waitin to kno ef some freewillers believe theres peeples in Hell who woulda been saved eef theyd lived 10 years longer. Do U beleeve that? B.B.

Nobody can answer that. Only God in Heaven knows such a thing. They would of had 10 more years to repent of their sins but whether they would of would not is only known by God Himself. None of us here on earth are God nor do we know His mind or neither have we been His councelor.

That is the same as asking if someone who killed himself had not of done it would he still be alive. Who knows, he may of gotten run over by a truck the same day that he killed himself if he had not.

 

[BobRyan]

Huh?

I okay wid Englesh but still wood like staight answer.

Do U beleeve some peepls would be saved eef they live 10 years longers? I be very curioso. bb

No.

The book of Jude makes it very clear that when they are raised at the 2nd resurrection "God convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds". The lost are convicted that they have fully and freely chosen hell (no Calvinist tricks played on them such that they had no choice but hell).

The sovereign God KNOWS their future and would not "cheat" them out of heaven IF they would really have accepted life some time later in life.

 

[Eric B]

Certainly, Arminianism is “natural” in one sense, in that it represents a characteristic perversion of biblical teaching by the fallen mind of man, who even in salvation cannot bear to renounce the delusion of being master of his fate and captain of his soul. This perversion appeared before in the Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism of the Patristic period and the later Scholasticism, and has recurred since the seventeenth century both in Roman theology and, among Protestants, in various types of rationalistic liberalism and modern Evangelical teaching; and no doubt it will always be with us. As long as the fallen human mind is what it is, the Arminian way of thinking will continue to be a natural type of mistake. But it is not natural in any other sense. In fact, it is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought, inescapable meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that He saves those whom He has chosen to save, and that He saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Saviour, and that their whole salvation flows to them from the Cross, and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the Cross. It is Calvinism that gives due honour to the Cross.

Originally Posted by BD17
Why HP you will only ignore the truth which happen to be things you as a fallen human do not like and then try to tell us "Calvinists" what we really mean when we say we believe the things we do. It is an endless circle that has no real importance, for your beliefs will not be changed nor shall mine. I can show scripture for what we "Calvinists" believe that falls in live with the ENTIRE Bible from begining to end, yet you will ignore or choose to believe in what makes you feel good inside yourself, choose to believe in a god that suits what you believe he should be and decide what role he is allowed to have in your life, you all will continue to carry on living your life in less than complete surrender to the person you say is your Lord and Savior, yet has no real power over your life, because it would violate your unrealistic views of free will. You will continue to drive-up to your Burger King Theology window and "Have it your way." You will make your god into a Mr. Potato head god and give him the attributes you like and take away the ones you do not. If you do not like the way he looks just give him a new nose, or lips, or eyes, as long as it suits your tastes, and does not interfere with YOUR wants or DESIRES than he can stay. Yet once those wants and desires get interfered with you find new ways to make scripture say what you want it to.

You are to "BLIND" to see your own self-rightousness and deny that you are a sinner incapable, of choosing things that are Holy. If it makes you feel better than that is all that matters.

Calvinists are always complaining about people telling them what they believe, yet look at all the stuff they spew out, telling others why they believe their theology, such as this claim of Arminianism being a desire to be the "master of their fate". But they believe they are already saved, so it is not like one of Calvinism's supposed "reprobates" rejecting Calvinism because he knows he's helpless and he simply "doesn't like it". The issue is God's plan and character, and it is Calvinism that has speculated that the notion that "God saves" depends on Him denying salvation to everyone else. That is the issue, not someone wanting to believe they have saved themselves, or "boast", or make God out to what they want Him to be.
And then all the rest of these statements, bordering on blasphemy (especially if the charges are false, and Calvinists wrong on some of these issues), yet Dave Hunt said nowhere near all of these ad-hominem assualts on Arminian's faith and their 'god'; look at the outcry against him, and about how Calvinism was being "misrepresented"! They forgot then, about all the hefty words they have spoken to the other side.

Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh. Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says; that is the significance of the Patristic testimonies to the teaching of the “five points,” which can be quoted in abundance. (Owen appends a few on redemption; a much larger collection may be seen in John Gill’s The Cause of God and Truth.) So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology “Calvinism” at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith.

Funny, but it never came up in the Church until Augustine formulated it in response to Pelagius. Pelagius may have pushed certain things too far (but then, HP is saying that even he is being misconstrued), but it seems this debate stems from Augustine overrationalizing things (much of which all are ultimately forced to conclude are above our comprehension), as he did in other areas. The Eastern Church, for instance, always was suspicious of his theology, and never accepted points of his like this.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No.

The book of Jude makes it very clear that when they are raised at the 2nd resurrection "God convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds". The lost are convicted that they have fully and freely chosen hell (no Calvinist tricks played on them such that they had no choice but hell).

The sovereign God KNOWS their future and would not "cheat" them out of heaven IF they would really have accepted life some time later in life.

All the foul fowls of Arminianism in a single post!

It presupposes most dishonestly no one is lost unless he chose to be lost; and everybody truly is not lost unless God declares he is lost.
It's such an ugly doctrine of lies!

But BobRyan adds his own bit of SDA venom: "the second resurrection"! What on earth!

God only 'knows' the future yet stands pwerless over against it - HE determines the future. So I would much rather leave the welbeing of my soul in God's hans, than clutch to my own 'free will' for it.

TRUTH is, man's will IS free - to do whatever he is inclined to - which, in the arrogance of his fallen state, is to choose and to act for sin and death. Even Adam when independently choosing in his unfallen state, fell for evil and death rather than to rest in God's sovereign rule over him.

 

[Burrito Breath]

Muchas Gracias Bobby

No.

The book of Jude makes it very clear that when they are raised at the 2nd resurrection "God convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds". The lost are convicted that they have fully and freely chosen hell (no Calvinist tricks played on them such that they had no choice but hell).

The sovereign God KNOWS their future and would not "cheat" them out of heaven IF they would really have accepted life some time later in life.

Gracias for straight answer Bobby R. I agree; no meestakes in Hell!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting Burito Breath,
"no meestakes in Hell!"

Yes! and all meestakes in heaven but for the electing grace of God!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: All the foul fowls of Arminianism in a single post!

HP: May I ask you something? What insight did this attack give to the listener? Does it cause your post to be better understood, or does it throw a roadblock up before the body of your post is ever addressed?

GE: It presupposes most dishonestly no one is lost unless he chose to be lost; and everybody truly is not lost unless God declares he is lost.
It's such an ugly doctrine of lies!

HP: Yet another verbal attack.

Jos 24:15 ¶ And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.


Now this sounds to me very much like a choice one must make does it not? Did not God also tell Adam and Eve, do this and ye shall live, do that and ye shall die?

De 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:“ This is yet another of numerous passages that indict to the listener that indeed ones destiny will be directly associated with the choice one makes. There is not the slightest hint tha the choice has already been made and that on can only do as he is granted the ability to will, but quite to the contrary. Man is reasoned with and every attempt is made to influence his judgment to choose between two alternatives. Read Proverbs. There are some choices one has to make if in fact wisdom is going to be utilized.

Although it may be true that few ‘choose hell’, but just the same by their selfishness they have made that choice whether or not hell was the object or not.

GE: But BobRyan adds his own bit of SDA venom: "the second resurrection"! What on earth!

HP: Now your attacks get even more personal. Your personal attack do much to destroy anything you have to add.

GE: God only 'knows' the future yet stands pwerless over against it - HE determines the future. So I would much rather leave the welbeing of my soul in God's hans, than clutch to my own 'free will' for it.

HP: You have just made God the author of all evil by such a statement. Such a view makes God out to be a most wicked creator, one that would make a man bound to his predetermined fate, and then punish that creation for eternity in a burning hell for something that was of necessity unavoidable and in it he played no part. What a blight is painted upon a Loving ad Just God!

GE: TRUTH is, man's will IS free - to do whatever he is inclined to - which, in the arrogance of his fallen state, is to choose and to act for sin and death. Even Adam when independently choosing in his unfallen state, fell for evil and death rather than to rest in God's sovereign rule over him.

HP: Your free will is no free will at all. Man can ONLY do as one wills. The doing is tied by necessity to the willing. There is not a shred of freedom in what you propose. Only as man is able to be free to initiate the intents of the heart, to be the cause of his intents, i.e., to make a choice between two or more alternatives under the very same set of circumstances, can the will of man be said to be free. Freedom must lie in the choosing of intents antecedent to any doing, or no freedom exists. Your ‘freedom to do as one wills’ is pure sophistry.

The freedom you represent would best be described as the freedom a rock has to fall in a downward fashion as it is kicked off a cliff. That in no way describes freedom of the will. God places blame or praise upon our actions. Go ahead and blame that rock for the freedom it exhibited in its downward fall. It would be just as illogical and senseless as the blaming any man if it is all predetermined as you state. Go ahead and punish that rock for exercising it choice to do as it willed. You beating the rock for falling would make as much sense as God punishing man for a fate predetermined by Him and Him alone.

While you are in such a just mode, you might reward the rock at the top of the cliff that did not fall due to the fact it was not kicked off the cliff. It makes as much sense as God rewarding man for something He had no choice in but to fall lockstep into the coerced plan of existence by predetermined fate.

 

[pinoybaptist]

No.

The book of Jude makes it very clear that when they are raised at the 2nd resurrection "God convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds". The lost are convicted that they have fully and freely chosen hell (no Calvinist tricks played on them such that they had no choice but hell).

The sovereign God KNOWS their future and would not "cheat" them out of heaven IF they would really have accepted life some time later in life.

But, Bobee, mi amigo,

Deed u not say in another post that God chose de free weel ? If God chose the free weel of men, and not the men themselves, porque there are ahora real men (no el machos) who are borning in hell, and not their wills onlee ?
Porque ? Por favor, amigo, diga.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting Heavenly Pilgrim,
"Jos 24:15 ¶ And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.


Now this sounds to me very much like a choice one must make does it not? Did not God also tell Adam and Eve, do this and ye shall live, do that and ye shall die? "

About what you find so offensive in my posts: Based on even more offensive doctrine; And don't just refer to the offending side and disregard the reasons given for it.

But enough -- now about this quote:

"If ..." says Josua. If you are God's People is his premise, then of course he had no problem reminding God's People of their obligation AS BELIEVERS. Calvinism is strong on this; Arminianism is weak of it, because there ever is the IMprobibility the addressed is NOT the People of God.

"But I and MY house --- we SHALL --" It is impossible we might do differently, because we are believers - the elect of God.

Josua may have just as well speak to wooden poles, were his speaking not the living Word of God proclaimed to the People in its very life-giving vogour. Or else Josua's claims would have been vain boasting.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I got a bit mixed up with my Nots and Ims. "... for there ever is the IMprobibility the addressed is / are the People of God"...
If they aren't (or he isn't), then in vain would have been Josua's plea. The ungodly would not react favourably - they have no interest to; but "IF ..." they were, this is how they would react: "We shall serve the Lord". "Nothing shall take them from my hand" -- it was Jesus who said.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

IN FACT: Josua told those Israelites it is IMPOSSIBLE they could serve the Lord; and he left them a choice to serve gods from among any of the FALSE gods - they could NOT serve the LORD God if it were evil in their eyes to serve HIM. "...if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites ..."