Honest, Studied and Converted free willers?

Isn't that what everyone says. We could start this whole debate over again and end up the exact same place we were before you started this slur.

Isa 42:16And I will bring the blind by a way [that] they knew not; I will lead them in paths [that] they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

The Lord is my guide.

 

Do you believe God could of made us all without sin. There was a reason for making us "subject" to vanity. So He could recieve Glory and honor out of the "believers".


Jhn 6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

May I ask you a question?

1. If God in His soveriegnty wanted to make a man out of the dust of the earth, and make that man subject to vanity so that he could either choose good and live or choose evil and die. Could God do that if He wanted to?

 

If God wanted to change His purpose in making man, sure he could save anyone.

 

Your answer to this scripture is?

Good thing God is more merciful or we would all be lost. Whosoever will. God's words.

 

All of what and why does one believe and another does not?

 

Studied?
See Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. He is a Calvinist, rather strict as I recall, and has a large section dealing with free will in his Theology. Also see W. G. T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, particularly volume 3, which he wrote about 16 years or so after he published the first two volumes (he was clarifying the public's misconceptions from the first two volumes). Shedd has a particularly good reconciliation of his Calvinism with free will (see vol. 3, starting at p.298). Lewis S. Chafer, in vol. 1 of his Systematic Theology, also has a decent section explaining primary and secondary causes as it relates to God and man. Compare this to the sections in The Westminster Confession that deal with secondary causes. Chafer also has a nice lengthy quote of Dr. John Dick, who tends to agree with Shedd and Hodge. N. Geisler, in Vol.3 of his Systematic Theology, explains how fallen humans are divinely enabled to receive the gospel, and gives several pages of quotes from church fathers to support him. You might also read J. O. Buswell, Stephen Charnock, Emery Bancroft, Charles Ryrie, Fred Howe, and Robert Lightner, all who teach Calvinism and believe in free will.

So yes, there are some who are studied and don't agree 100% with Beza, Gerstner, Sproul, White, Pink, and Edwards. My question is whether those who post less-than charitable, accusatory messages ever read anyone other than their pet theologians, particularly before they imply others to be unread and ignorant.

I suggest starting with Hodge. As I said, he has a lengthy section in Vol. 2 that reconciles free will with his Calvinism.

 

Sproul writes about primary and secondary causes, too. Probably in more than one book but I can't think of the name of the one where I read it.

The thing about primary and secondary causes, though, is that God is still in control in both cases.

 

Why is one the "elect" and another is not if both are the same, or could it be that "one believes and the other one does not"? IMO,

 

A good indication that someone is not saved is that they will be emmeshed in false teaching. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth, so how can we have sincere Calvinists and Arminians?

To answer the question from a spiritual perspective, it is because of sin. The sin of laziness usually, sometimes the sin of denying the Bible's doctrine because it is offensive, sometimes the sin of idolatry, creating God into an image that suits their conceptions of what Jehovah 'should' be like. The problem is sin.

God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him, right? The main thing I can say is that 'christians' are content to have a cursory knowledge of the Bible, and thus prove their unregenerate state. For we know as a newborn babe hungers after milk, so we as new creatures will hunger after spiritual sustenance, the Word.

So, it is an issue of seeking. Challenging one's presuppositions, and asking themselves uncomfortable questions like, 'Could I still love God if he predestined people to hell?' 'would God be just in condeming sinners to hell without an opportunity to be saved?', and to inquire into their conceptions of God and see if they line up to the Bible.

Presuppositions : A preconcieved notion. If you are like the average American Christian, you are dependent upon your Pastor to feed you the meat of the Word. Your Pastor interprets a passage a certain way, now you view that interpretation as truth. John 3:16 stressing the word WORLD etc, you hear that enough, it will have an impact. And in fact, Calvinists have to battle this as well. It is easy to get a theological paradigm imposed on you, and then to read the Bible through that set of 'glasses', trying to conform scripture to fit into a mold.

A solution for avoiding presuppositions would be questions. Always interrogating a passage and looking at the multiple ways it could be interpreted, and then to use the analogy of scripture to see if your interpretation fits with the rest of scripture, the clear scriptures.

Another way to avoid presuppositions would be allowing the Clear, explicit doctrines of the Bible to interpret those vague and implicit passages(God 'repented' etc).

 

Jos 24:15And 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.

It does not matter how much scripture you are given, you will not accept it unless it fits into your theology!

 

Because God knows all things, even the end from the beginning, does not mean He causes everything to happen, like Easu selling his birthright.

God knows when you are going to die. Did He cause your death or did Adam's disobeidence cause it?