Freewill bites the dust

[Andy T.]

Again, the difference is:

Non-cal - Man could have responded in a positive way to the gospel instead of continuing on his way to hell. (man's fault, not God's choice)

Cal - Man is on the path to hell, where he will remain, unless God chooses to enable him to respond in a positive way to the gospel. (still man's fault, also God's choice)

O.k., that is a decent summary with one objection - under the non-Cal position where you say it is "not God's choice". It is his choice - his choice was to leave it up to man. Again, he could always override a man's free will in order to save him, so in the end, it is God's choice to let him go to hell.

Blammo, I will say this: Of all the non-Cals on this board, you have the most understanding of, and generosity towards, the Calvinist position - and that is appreciated.

 

[Blammo]

O.k., that is a decent summary with one objection - under the non-Cal position where you say it is "not God's choice". It is his choice - his choice was to leave it up to man. Again, he could always override a man's free will in order to save him, so in the end, it is God's choice to let him go to hell.

Yep, you got me there.

Blammo, I will say this: Of all the non-Cals on this board, you have the most understanding of, and generosity towards, the Calvinist position - and that is appreciated.

That's because I am an "almost-cal". :laugh:

Seriously, Andy, I have a lot of good examples, including you. I find that most of the people that involve themselves in these discussions are pretty decent. I will not name the exceptions, they should know who they are.

 

[Tom Butler]

O.k., since our salvation hinges on our response, I am very glad that I responded the right way and am saved. I'm glad I had enough __________ (fill-in-the-blank) to respond the right way. As for those who did not respond the right way, God could have saved them if he wanted to, but he is more concerned about giving his creatures liberterian free will. He would rather see those people burn in hell than save them against their natural will.

I am about to do a very difficult thing: admit that I don't know everything.

What is the difference between libertarian free will and any other kind of free will?

Oh, I could look it up, but I thought I'd ask the question here, since there are some here who actually do know everything.

 

[Andy T.]

I am about to do a very difficult thing: admit that I don't know everything.

What is the difference between libertarian free will and any other kind of free will?

Oh, I could look it up, but I thought I'd ask the question here, since there are some here who actually do know everything.

I am about to do something even more difficult - admit that I use big words to make me look smart! Just kidding...well, kinda. :laugh:

Everyone on both sides of this debate believe that man's will is free. The Calvinist (and even non-Cals) believes that a man's will is free to act according to his [sinful] nature. Libertarian free will is a concept which says that man's will is essentially unfettered, especially when it comes to choosing salvation. It is basically a Pelagian concept. I think when most non-C's understand it, they back off from it, because it is patently unbiblical. However, there are some who hold to it unwittingly, if not purposely.

I may be using the term incorrectly, but the above represents what I am thinking of when using the term.

 

[Sularis]

Dear john

“…If faith lies dormant within us... should have been my first question….”

To answer that – you claim faith as an object and gift – I say it is an ability and NOT the gift – at worst it is a muscle that is atrophied – but through the UNIVERSAL EFFECTUAL call God brings it back to functionality. It is something we have, but cannot use due to its weakened – well ok useless "dead" state

“… It's all the same. Being saved and the mechanism used is here. You can't say certainty is dormant, not proper logic old chap. …”

Yes I can – God bless temporal paradoxes!! And aorist tenses

Most Calvinists state that very same thing - that the elect isnt born saved – just that he will be saved at some moment in time – before he dies - In fact THIS has been stated several times on this board by several Calvinists

It’s the whole concept behind the aorist tense – certainty dependent on conditions

“… Like saying the fire is cold or the light is dark. …”

just a side note – fire is the expression of heat – it is not heat – it is light

“…. What God says is that He gives His chosen certainty to each as He sees fit. By grace He gifts this certainty in a man and commends the man for it. ….”

Change certainty to ability and add using just before the last word

“… It is because of him that I am in Christ Jesus... 1 Cor 1:30 …”

No disagreement there

God’s Grace activates faith which allows us to choose to call upon Him – It’s a chain

Regeneration – faith – justification* – salvation* - sanctification

* These two are simultaneous and are almost the same thing but not quite – there are other terms that slip in there such as adoption, sealing, etc…. However, I limited it for the purposes of the KISS principle

The gift is that we don’t burn like the human briquettes we deserve to be – The gift is salvation not faith. People perceive faith as a gift through a faulty misunderstanding of regeneration.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

God’s Grace activates faith which allows us to choose to call upon Him – It’s a chain

Regeneration – faith – justification* – salvation* - sanctification

Somebody tell me what verse they think they got this from. It is a mystical as the divinci code.

 

[johnp.]

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Rom 1:17, my friend. "I am not ashamed of the gospel ... for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ... the invisible things of Him are clearly seen ... so that they are without excuse!" There's your "general call." ALL hear and are responsible, john!

That is nothing of the sort. You are confusing responsibiltiy and ability. We have no ability but we are responsible, or considered responsible. God controls us and we get the blame. That's right isn't it? I mean, if that isn't right why would Paul expect you to ask, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

"Why does God still blame us for who resists His will." skypair? You are expected to come to the conclusion that makes you ask this question man. Look how many are expected to come to the conclusion that a question needs to be asked. "One of you will say to me."

You can say UNEQUIVOCABLY that they are atoned for, john. "...[A]nd not for ours only but for the sins of the WORLD." 1John 2:2

If you want the 'world' to mean everybody that ever lived then you are making an interpretation. The 'world' is an ambiguous word at best. A little rearrangement of scripture and you will see that this word just cannot carry the weight you put onto it.
For God so loved the world that He cut Israel off for it. Your 'world' and 'all men' just means the Israelites and Gentiles. But then if Jesus so loved the world then His love has failed because He said, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." John 17:9. Jesus prays for me, He does not pray for the world and so the world hasn't a chance.

You can say UNEQUIVOCABLY that they are atoned for, john. "...[A]nd not for ours only but for the sins of the WORLD." 1John 2:2

And I can say without a doubt that you are teaching a thing contrary to scripture. To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20.
The scripture is clear and unambiguous. God swore an oath that Eli's family was not going to get a sacrifice for their sins ever. No atonement was to be given on oath to the house of Eli. 1 Sam 3:14. Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " You have no light in this.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Andy T.

Everyone on both sides of this debate believe that man's will is free. The Calvinist (and even non-Cals) believes that a man's will is free to act according to his [sinful] nature.

I am a Calvinist and my view is: Man's will is under constant control forever doing the bidding of God. Men going to Hell by their own choice causes them to be sovereign over their destinies and so God isn't Sovereign any longer.

God does not permit or allow but is active in all men's wills to work out His purposes. The reason men go to Hell is because God actively chose that for them. That God works in a man's will to be willing isn't the thing that sends men to Hell it was His choice to send them to Hell prior to their sin.

john.

 

[johnp.]

To answer that – you claim faith as an object and gift...

I said that the gift is the certainty and assurance God gives a man.

...but through the UNIVERSAL EFFECTUAL call God brings it back to functionality.

Those without the law will perish without the law... Scripture itself contradicts you Sularis. 'Universal effectual call' is novel. A fantasy novel. How can a certainty and assurance be anything but? The bible contradicts your definition of faith. HEB 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Yes I can – God bless temporal paradoxes!! And aorist tenses

Is having a subjuntive a medical condition and do the temporal paradoxes work?

Most Calvinists state that very same thing - that the elect isnt born saved...

Most are. Anyway, it makes no real difference if at one point we are under the wrath of God. In the plan we could never suffer from the wrath of God because He loves us. We were lost and now we are found. We were in Adam when he fell, GE 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;...
There were two groups coming out of Eve. A herd of those called sheep and another called goats. Only the sheep were lost and only the sheep had the Good Shepherd. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Matt 1:21.

Most Calvinists state that very same thing - that the elect isnt born saved – just that he will be saved at some moment in time – before he dies - In fact THIS has been stated several times on this board by several Calvinists

The elect will be saved according to the plan of Him that works out everything in conformity with His purpose. Where's the problem?

God’s Grace activates faith which allows us to choose to call upon Him – It’s a chain
Regeneration – faith – justification* – salvation* - sanctification

RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Everyone on both sides of this debate believe that man's will is free. The Calvinist (and even non-Cals) believes that a man's will is free to act according to his [sinful] nature. Libertarian free will is a concept which says that man's will is essentially unfettered, especially when it comes to choosing salvation. It is basically a Pelagian concept. I think when most non-C's understand it, they back off from it, because it is patently unbiblical. However, there are some who hold to it unwittingly, if not purposely.

I think you make an excellent point. When people say "free will", they can mean any number of things, and that confuses the debate. I'm sure there are more categories than the following three, but I would break it down into these three:

1. The Calvinist and true Arminian position as Arminius held to it: Being totally depraved, man is totally disinclined to respond to the Gospel, and can be said to be unable to respond to the Gospel of his own free will because he cannot change his own inclination. Man still has free will, but as all men exercise their will according to their nature, he simply exercises it according to his fallen (totally depraved) nature.

2. The free-willer or semi-pelagian position: Man has free will and exercises it according to his nature, but man's nature is only tarnished, and not so completely depraved that he is unable to respond to the Gospel.

3. The pelagian position: Man has a totally unfettered free will and is not only able to respond to the Gospel of his own free will, man is even capable of choosing to be good and obedient to God of his own free will.

 

[johnp.]

Can a man be saved who doesn't believe?

Yes, that was my experience and my brother Paul's as well if I'm not mistaken.
Jesus is our mediator between God and us. Anyone regardless of belief can ask Jesus to reveal Himself to them. I did as an atheist and I meet Him.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Jesus is our mediator between God and us. Anyone regardless of belief can ask Jesus to reveal Himself to them. I did as an atheist and I meet Him.

Wow, nice to know someone else went through the same experience. Almost, anyway. I was a diehard evangelical atheist, but in a moment of weakness (the work of God, praise God), I asked God to reveal Himself to me, show me that He exists and He is a personal God who actually takes part in the affairs of men. He answered my prayer that very week. But it was at least a year later before I dealt with the issue of Jesus and my sin.

 

[johnp.]

Hello npetreley.

I was in a bike gang and we were in Church for the coffee and the mayhem. I thought I could get the Pastor off my back if I went into his little room with him and ask Jesus to reveal Himself.

I was speaking into the air the words the Pastor spoke one second and the next I was speaking to Jesus with an experience going on in me. It was a bit of a shock really. It was 16 years before He caught up with me man.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Hello npetreley.

I was in a bike gang and we were in Church for the coffee and the mayhem. I thought I could get the Pastor off my back if I went into his little room with him and ask Jesus to reveal Himself.

I was speaking into the air the words the Pastor spoke one second and the next I was speaking to Jesus with an experience going on in me. It was a bit of a shock really. It was 16 years before He caught up with me man.

john.

Wow. I wouldn't say more than that but the forum wants at lest 10 characters.

 

[Andy T.]

Hello Andy T.



I am a Calvinist and my view is: Man's will is under constant control forever doing the bidding of God. Men going to Hell by their own choice causes them to be sovereign over their destinies and so God isn't Sovereign any longer.

God does not permit or allow but is active in all men's wills to work out His purposes. The reason men go to Hell is because God actively chose that for them. That God works in a man's will to be willing isn't the thing that sends men to Hell it was His choice to send them to Hell prior to their sin.

john.

Johnp, you are not a Calvinist, but a Hyper-Calvinist. I find many of your views, including the above, abhorrent.

 

[Andy T.]

Nicholas, I agree, those are good categories that you outlined.

 

[Allan]

Yes, that was my experience and my brother Paul's as well if I'm not mistaken.
Jesus is our mediator between God and us. Anyone regardless of belief can ask Jesus to reveal Himself to them. I did as an atheist and I meet Him.

john.

So you were saved without ever believing? Jesus revealing himself is NOT salvation or else it would not have taken you years to come to know Him.

BTW, unless you have a sibling name Paul - We know that Paul the Apostle WAS saved BECAUSE he believed. Because the scripture state we are saved by grace THROUGH (BECAUSE OF or BY) Faith. Believe AND BE Saved. Salvation is a work of God in which God has commanded men to believe or man IS NOT saved.

I'm sure you agree and I just misunderstood you.

 

[npetreley]

Johnp, you are not a Calvinist, but a Hyper-Calvinist. I find many of your views, including the above, abhorrent.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but it is scriptural.

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

 

[Andy T.]

It's a hard pill to swallow, but it is scriptural.

Sorry, Nicholas, I will not cross the line and say that God is the author of sin and evil. You can have your club.

 

[J.D.]

Sorry, Nicholas, I will not cross the line and say that God is the author of sin and evil. You can have your club.

This word "author" has always confused me. How come we can say that God "planned" the fall, "allowed" sin, "ordained" it, He "sends" evil spirits, but we can not say that He is the "author" of sin? If He is the architect of it, and engineered it, and set the machine in motion, how is saying He is the author of sin cross the line? Just asking.