-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grace
- Thread starter donnA
- Start date
emeraldctyangel
New Member
You're kidding right? You see humility in falsely accusing someone of beliefs that they don't hold? You see nothing hateful nor wicked in persistently putting words in someone else's mouth even after being corrected in detail?
You need to re-read the thread.
As for being proud or whatever else you think, I have done my best to answer TS's objections and questions one by one. Even when she repeats the same objections, I have remained patient with her. The only time I became impatient is when she kept falsely insisting that I believed something that I don't. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Okay okay you dont believe. Whatever man. Dont. Good for you - take a stand.
Test of faith?
Test of patience?
You decide.
She must have been avoiding JD.
Most non-calvinists don't want to answer my question because they recognize that the answer their system produces contradicts scripture.
Sorry TS. Your inability to answer my simple, direct question with a coherent, direct answer indicates that your system of belief on sotierology fails biblical muster.
Most non-calvinists don't want to answer my question because they recognize that the answer their system produces contradicts scripture.
Sorry TS. Your inability to answer my simple, direct question with a coherent, direct answer indicates that your system of belief on sotierology fails biblical muster.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
And you thought it was ALL SO CLEAR. Hmmm...lol
The passages are clear. Trying to figure out why they are relevant to this discussion, or how they fit together in context is what made me "dizzy".
Just because you can copy and paste 25 passages with the word "choose" in it, doesn't prove a thing.
I also see it as a way to avoid focusing on one passage and addressing its context and meaning.
Would you like to answer my question concerning John 1:13? It says that those that have been given the right to be children of God are born, not by the will of man, but by the will of God. How can that be anything else but a refutation of "freewill" theology? It is very clear, if you will accept it.
Just because you can copy and paste 25 passages with the word "choose" in it, doesn't prove a thing.
I also see it as a way to avoid focusing on one passage and addressing its context and meaning.
Would you like to answer my question concerning John 1:13? It says that those that have been given the right to be children of God are born, not by the will of man, but by the will of God. How can that be anything else but a refutation of "freewill" theology? It is very clear, if you will accept it.
He came unto His own (The Jews)
He was rejected by them.
He gave the ability to become sons to them that believe (Christians).
They must believe before this ability can be realized.
You can become a Jew without God actively participating.
You can be born a Jew.
You can be adopted into the Jewish family by conversion.
You can do this by an act of your will and the will of the Jewish authorities.
You cannot be born again by an act of your will. It is not an incantation where if you say the words it will happen automatically (as it is in becoming a Jew).
This ability is given by God, this birth is given by God, this transformation is given by God and it is done His way. It is His way AND the highway. Without Him personally giving you this ability, you have no chance and no possibility. You can become a Jew by an act of your will but it takes God to make you a son.
This passage not only does not refute freewill but it actually establishes it. You cannot be saved by blood. It doesn't matter who your parents were. You cannot be saved by the flesh. It does not make any difference what actions you take. You cannot be saved by an act of your will. It doesn't make any difference how determined you are. Salvation is something HE DOES. It isn't magic, He does it when He offers it AND we believe. It is still Him doing it. There is only a 100% corelation because He said that is how it is done and not because our belief is so powerful or meritorious. Our belief is meaningless without His having put the two together. It is very clear, if you will accept it.
Belief is a result of will.
It is either the result of our will independent of God per the equation you give above or else it is the result of God's will in spite of everything we have done.
If it is because of our will then it is certainly to our merit that we believe.
But according to your equation He can't do it until we believe by an act of the will of man.
It doesn't have to be "so powerful". It only has to be necessary and a result of our personal will to be meritorious.
Our belief is non-existent until He frees our spirit from the bondage of sin and death.
Your explanation was clear... but incoherent. The sum of the things you affirmed does not equal your conclusion. Not even close.
Scott, thank you for saying my explanation was clear but I am thinking that if it was incoherent then perhaps it wasn't as clear as I would have liked. As you seem to be a well informed man, I am sure you have heard and/or read a good portion of the arguments for and against freewill/grace. I will not try and convince you otherwise. I will, however, at least tell you what I find convincing. It all boils down to this. If it isn't a "real" choice, if God is not really asking me to decide, if I have no option in the matter, if God hasn't "leveled the playing field' so that all men have an equal choice, if I have no responsibility in the matter then, (to me) it is all a great big cosmic joke. The Bible would be completely incomprehensible as there is nothing clearer in the Bible than that I am held accountable for my rejection of God. I find this concept compelling and coherent. 
The problem Artimaeus is that your view (at least I don't think you're an open theist) doesn't escape the implications you apply to mine.
You mentioned "real" choice. I believe that we have a real choice. However, there is nothing inherently unfair about being subject to one's nature. For instance, we can't breath under water. Is that unfair since fish can? No. As Romans 9 tells us, it is within God's prerogative to make us, or not make us, after whatever form He chooses.
We do indeed have a real choice and our spiritual response will be determined by our spiritual nature as surely as our physical responses are determined by our physical nature.
I love Lazarus as an illustration of this truth. Lazarus was dead. Christ determined even before his death that he would raise him. He delayed and allowed Lazarus to die rather than preventing him from doing so (a picture of the fall).
When Christ arrived at the grave, did Lazarus respond to his presence independently by choosing to come alive? No. Jesus performed a miraculous act of regeneration with a "call" to Lazarus. Did it violate Lazarus' will? No. Did he make a "real" choice to respond? Yes. Is there any way he would have made a different choice and stayed dead? No. And finally, was it incumbent upon Jesus to go to every grave and raise even all of His friends who had died during His life? No.
So why was Lazarus raised? To satisfy man's sense of fairness? No. To give all corpses an equal opportunity to be raised? No. He was raised because Jesus loved him and acted in grace to the glory of God.
But let's look at the non-calvinist view concerning a "real" choice. Did you have a choice as to whether to be born? No. Did God ordain your life? Yes. Did God do this knowing whether or not you would be saved? Yes. Is His foreknowledge always true? Yes. Can the future be any different than what God has foreknown? No.
So since your life was ordained by God and He foreknew even before your birth whether you would believe or not and since what He foreknows must come to past... Did you have a "real" choice by your definition?.... No more so than if you adopted my understanding.
You mentioned "real" choice. I believe that we have a real choice. However, there is nothing inherently unfair about being subject to one's nature. For instance, we can't breath under water. Is that unfair since fish can? No. As Romans 9 tells us, it is within God's prerogative to make us, or not make us, after whatever form He chooses.
We do indeed have a real choice and our spiritual response will be determined by our spiritual nature as surely as our physical responses are determined by our physical nature.
I love Lazarus as an illustration of this truth. Lazarus was dead. Christ determined even before his death that he would raise him. He delayed and allowed Lazarus to die rather than preventing him from doing so (a picture of the fall).
When Christ arrived at the grave, did Lazarus respond to his presence independently by choosing to come alive? No. Jesus performed a miraculous act of regeneration with a "call" to Lazarus. Did it violate Lazarus' will? No. Did he make a "real" choice to respond? Yes. Is there any way he would have made a different choice and stayed dead? No. And finally, was it incumbent upon Jesus to go to every grave and raise even all of His friends who had died during His life? No.
So why was Lazarus raised? To satisfy man's sense of fairness? No. To give all corpses an equal opportunity to be raised? No. He was raised because Jesus loved him and acted in grace to the glory of God.
But let's look at the non-calvinist view concerning a "real" choice. Did you have a choice as to whether to be born? No. Did God ordain your life? Yes. Did God do this knowing whether or not you would be saved? Yes. Is His foreknowledge always true? Yes. Can the future be any different than what God has foreknown? No.
So since your life was ordained by God and He foreknew even before your birth whether you would believe or not and since what He foreknows must come to past... Did you have a "real" choice by your definition?.... No more so than if you adopted my understanding.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Did you ever stop to think that is what was already said? Like a million and one times?
I didnt cut and paste passages, I figure you fine folks have a Bible and can look them up yourself. My mother used to quote passages from the Bible at me, which can only be later described as doing so in some sort of incantation. Almost everything she quoted had no applicable value to our current situation and well, she appeared a bit crazy to me, like she was trying to summon up something to swoop down and change the situation.
My personal interpretation of John 1:13 of those that have been given the right to be children of God are born, not by the will of man, but by the will of God, means this:
We are all born with reason - to serve Him. Anyone can choose not to, and therefore suffer the consequences.
I dont accept your proposed theory and this is why: There are too many non believers in this world, and too many immoral people. That right there refutes all of your theory. Clear? No? didnt think so.
You are right, I am not an open theist.
[ July 29, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]
I am with you so far.
Yes, I'm still with you.
Here, I am not so much with you. Lazarus was not taken into consideration.
No, he had no choice whatsoever, real or unreal.
He was not given a choice. He wasn't even asked, consulted, presented with the option, etc. If God asked me whether I wanted to breathe air or breathe water, that would not be a real choice since I cannot breath air (I can try but it isn't going to work out.) It is not a real choice unless I can actually choose.
This is my point. He did not give them a choice so they could not decide.
No, but God clearly does give me a choice about being born again.
[ July 29, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]
Here, I am not so much with you. Lazarus was not taken into consideration.</font>[/QUOTE] What? Christ didn't consider Lazarus and even Lazarus "desire" to live?
No, he had no choice whatsoever, real or unreal.</font>[/QUOTE] Why then did Jesus say "Lazarus come forth"? All commands implicitly have an associate choice.
You have a real choice as did Lazarus. You are called to come forth... but won't do it until the command is in agreement with your nature.
This is my point. He did not give them a choice so they could not decide.</font>[/QUOTE] But He did. Before regeneration, Lazarus "choice" was bound by his dead nature... just like sinners are bound by their sin nature prior to being freed by God.
If the physically dead had less of choice than the spiritually dead then why does the Bible make that direct association?
No, but God clearly does give me a choice about being born again. </font>[/QUOTE]Really? Where in John 3 does it say you must "choose" to be born again? Where does it say that in the Bible? In fact, John 1 specifically says we are not born of the will of man but of God.
Birth is something that happens to a person. Not something they choose. Resurrection also happens to a person. Both events are followed by "decisions" that are not available to those who are not living. Some of those decisions are subject to nature, like eating.
When one is regenerated, choices open to them that were contrary to their nature prior to their new birth, like believing and accepting.
Artimaeus, You did answer better than others.
Perhaps you can answer my other question:
If all men are equally free to accept salvation and if God's call is equally discernable to everyone, why do some believe while others don't?
At that point of decision, what is it that sets those who believe from those who reject? What is it about them that makes them different?
Perhaps you can answer my other question:
If all men are equally free to accept salvation and if God's call is equally discernable to everyone, why do some believe while others don't?
At that point of decision, what is it that sets those who believe from those who reject? What is it about them that makes them different?
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Scott, if all men ARE NOT equally free to accept salvation, who/what is preventing them?
When they have made their choice not to believe is when they become different.
When they have made their choice not to believe is when they become different.
There is no indication that He did. Why would He, Lazarus was dead? No interaction is even hinted at. Jesus loved Lazarus but He did not ask Lazarus if he would like to come back from the dead. Lazarus's thoughts on the matter weren't part of the equation because Lazarus had no thoughts at all.
All commands to sentient beings have an implicit choice (obey or not). All commands to inanimate objects are statements of power (Let there be light).
This is illogical. The progression is 1st: Command, 2nd Response (yes, I will come back to life):, 3rd Consequence (come back to life): But this is not what happened with Lazarus. You have the command, and then Lazarus coming back to life and then being able to decide to come back to life. How can he decide to come back to life until he has come back to life?
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him...(Joh 3:15)...That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (Joh 3:16)...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, (John 3:18)but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Believing is the point of salvation. Before the point of believing we are not saved, after the point of believing we are saved. (Luk 8:12)...lest they should believe and be saved. (Act 16:31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. We are commanded to believe (Remember, All commands implicitly have an associate choice.) Jesus, John, Luke, Paul and others tell us to believe and not once do any of them tell us to be saved and then we will believe.
But none of those decisions have anything to do with whether or not the events happen. We have no choice in our physical birth but we have a choice in our second birth. We have a choice in our physical death but we have no choice in our second death.
A choice about regeneration cannot take place after the regeneration. I cannot decide whether or not to drive my car after I am already out on the highway.
(Don't you just hate it when people knit-pick an analogy to death when it was just supposed to illustrate one simple truth to begin with.)
Be careful with the compliments, I tend to get a swelled head and then fall over and hurt myself from being top heavy.
Man is composed of the sum total of his existence. Some men love there sin more than they believe God. Others believe God more than they love their sin. Why? I don't know but, it is so. The Holy Spirit gives each man a fair share of the light so that he can decide but as to exactly what goes on with each person, we have no way of knowing. (Rom 1:20)...so that they are without excuse:
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
First, I believe that regeneration, like the resurrection of Lazarus and our physical birth and creation, are all acts of a sovereign God without respect to anything except His glory.
As to your analogy, you can't decide anything concerning a car until you are alive.
Regeneration leaves a sinner spiritual "conscious" so that he can discern the things of the spirit in every way that physical consciousness enables the discernment of the natural world we live in.