John 3:16

[TCassidy]

I really don't understand why there is this unbiblical opposition to "free will", in humans, when the Bible very clearly teaches it!

It is because it is what the bible teaches. The bible makes it very clear that the lost man's will is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death. And the saved man's will is bound to the law of New Life in Christ.

So, unless you deny that the lost man's will is in bondage to the law of sin and death, our you deny that the saved man's will is bound to the law of New Life in Christ, then you will have to admit the will is not free, it is in bondage.

I recommend you read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. He proves, from the bible, exactly what I outlined above.

 

[agedman]

James Arminus was himself a "reformed" theologian, whose eyes the Good Lord opened to Bible Truth!

Perhaps you need to examine both the time line and the statements of James Arminius.

Doing so, you would better draw some much clearer distinctions as to what James Arminius actually taught (for he far more enjoyed teaching than engaging in disputation) in comparison to what was later ascribed to him.

The same is actually true for John Calvin.

John Calvin was not a "hyper-calvinist."

What Arminius held was not the general "freedom of the will" such as Pelagius held, but the will was a fallen will that without God's direct intervention, there was no salvation to be considered, that salvation was "foolish" and "ignorance." Because was NO freedom of the will innate in fallen man for that person to ever seek God, but rather the opposite such a will to actually despise, hide, turn aside from the authority of God, then the truth of "no man seeks God" as the Scripture states is the default condition of all fallen.

Wesley took it a step further by instigating the un-scriptural scheme of "prevenient" or "preceding" grace, in which, the fallen will was in some manner lifted or given a half-life so the human could respond to the appeal. No such situation is found anywhere in Scriptures, nor is such a grace expressed in the Scriptures.

The current Baptist thinking still uses "prevenient grace" thinking whether they be Arminian based or Calvinistic based. It is NOT found in Scripture, or even hinted in Scripture that such a grace is extended to anyone.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It is because it is what the bible teaches. The bible makes it very clear that the lost man's will is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death. And the saved man's will is bound to the law of New Life in Christ.

So, unless you deny that the lost man's will is in bondage to the law of sin and death, our you deny that the saved man's will is bound to the law of New Life in Christ, then you will have to admit the will is not free, it is in bondage.

I recommend you read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. He proves, from the bible, exactly what I outlined above.

Yes, I do believe that the Bible teaches that all humans are "dead" in their sins and relation with God. I also believe that no person can ever by and of themselves ever turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, and they need to be worked in by the Holy Spirit's conviction and repent of their sins, and turn to Jesus for their salvation. However, where I would differ, is the "extent" of this "deadness" of the human will. I understand Jesus' words in John 5:25 to mean that all lost sinners, who are indeed dead in their sins, have the capacity to "hear" the Gospel, and respond to it by accepting their lostness and need for Jesus as their personal Saviour. This is only possible by the working of the Holy Spirit, in the sinners heart, through the preaching of the Gospel Message. A good example is Lydia in Acts chapter 16, who, were are told, "worshipped God" (as did Cornelius), whose "heart the Lord opened", which helped her understand the message preached, and accept Jesus as her Saviour. Am I correct in saying, that the early Church before Augustine, never taught the so-called "doctrines of grace"? I don't much care for Augustine, mainly because of his unbiblical view on the Atonement, which is central to the Christian Faith.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Perhaps you need to examine both the time line and the statements of James Arminius.

Doing so, you would better draw some much clearer distinctions as to what James Arminius actually taught (for he far more enjoyed teaching than engaging in disputation) in comparison to what was later ascribed to him.

The same is actually true for John Calvin.

John Calvin was not a "hyper-calvinist."

What Arminius held was not the general "freedom of the will" such as Pelagius held, but the will was a fallen will that without God's direct intervention, there was no salvation to be considered, that salvation was "foolish" and "ignorance." Because was NO freedom of the will innate in fallen man for that person to ever seek God, but rather the opposite such a will to actually despise, hide, turn aside from the authority of God, then the truth of "no man seeks God" as the Scripture states is the default condition of all fallen.

Wesley took it a step further by instigating the un-scriptural scheme of "prevenient" or "preceding" grace, in which, the fallen will was in some manner lifted or given a half-life so the human could respond to the appeal. No such situation is found anywhere in Scriptures, nor is such a grace expressed in the Scriptures.

The current Baptist thinking still uses "prevenient grace" thinking whether they be Arminian based or Calvinistic based. It is NOT found in Scripture, or even hinted in Scripture that such a grace is extended to anyone.

I do think that much has to be said of the Holy Spirit's conviction in the sinful lost world (John 16), and the "power of the Gospel" message that brings salvation to all who listen and accept. Jesus is seen time and again urging people to repent and accept His Teachings, which He would not have done if it were not possible for the lost to "hear and accept"! I think the reformed teaching of the "bondage" of the will take it to far, and was never taught in the Church for the first 400 years!

 

[agedman]

Yes, I do believe that the Bible teaches that all humans are "dead" in their sins and relation with God. I also believe that no person can ever by and of themselves ever turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, and they need to be worked in by the Holy Spirit's conviction and repent of their sins, and turn to Jesus for their salvation.

Good, this is what BOTH Calvin and Arminius taught.

However, where I would differ, is the "extent" of this "deadness" of the human will. I understand Jesus' words in John 5:25 to mean that all lost sinners, who are indeed dead in their sins, have the capacity to "hear" the Gospel, and respond to it by accepting their lostness and need for Jesus as their personal Saviour.

There is no innate capacity natural in any lost. Such thinking is in violation of the statements of Romans 10.

Romans 10 shares WHY some hear and some do not.

It is not some innate capacity given to all.

Throughout the gospels the outward ears capacity was not the hearing needed. Rather, that gift given as indicated by the phrase "those who have ears to hear...."

Such ears WILL respond and that person who hears WILL be saved, just as Hebrews 4 states:
2For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

Now, DO NOT give into the thinking that this is some human generated faith. It is not. NOTHING of human effort goes into salvation, it is totally of God or not at all of God.

This is only possible by the working of the Holy Spirit, in the sinners heart, through the preaching of the Gospel Message. A good example is Lydia in Acts chapter 16, who, were are told, "worshipped God" (as did Cornelius), whose "heart the Lord opened", which helped her understand the message preached, and accept Jesus as her Saviour. Am I correct in saying, that the early Church before Augustine, never taught the so-called "doctrines of grace"? I don't much care for Augustine, mainly because of his unbiblical view on the Atonement, which is central to the Christian Faith.

I can agree with some of this, but not all.

Peter expressed the purpose of Christ in this statement: (1 Peter 3)
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

The "us" is not all men everywhere of their own innate ability. It is believers.

The ECF very much taught the doctrines of grace EXCEPT for the limited atonement linking blood to salvation.

Rather, they linked the limit to the unmerited favor of God to endow faith that He be glorified in the working of the salvation and what responsibility He has prepared for those whom He chooses. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Good, this is what BOTH Calvin and Arminius taught.



There is no innate capacity natural in any lost. Such thinking is in violation of the statements of Romans 10.

Romans 10 shares WHY some hear and some do not.

It is not some innate capacity given to all.

Throughout the gospels the outward ears capacity was not the hearing needed. Rather, that gift given as indicated by the phrase "those who have ears to hear...."

Such ears WILL respond and that person who hears WILL be saved, just as Hebrews 4 states:
2For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

Now, DO NOT give into the thinking that this is some human generated faith. It is not. NOTHING of human effort goes into salvation, it is totally of God or not at all of God.




I can agree with some of this, but not all.

Peter expressed the purpose of Christ in this statement: (1 Peter 3)
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

The "us" is not all men everywhere of their own innate ability. It is believers.

The ECF very much taught the doctrines of grace EXCEPT for the limited atonement linking blood to salvation.

Rather, they linked the limit to the unmerited favor of God to endow faith that He be glorified in the working of the salvation and what responsibility He has prepared for those whom He chooses. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

"Election" as taught in reformed theology is not consistent with the Bible. It is not right to suppose that God predestinates some to eternal life, and the rest He leaves to be damned forever! Take the Old Testament, where Israel were God's elect people, and yet there are instances where even the non-Jews, like Rahab, and the people of Nineveh were part of God's wonderful plan of salvation! It is absurd to suppose that ALL the inhabitants of this city were God's elect! This shows God's rich mercy and grace, which can further be seen in the salvation of the Gentiles, who were no part of God's original revealed plan of salvation, but now we see that it was! AMEN!

 

[agedman]

"Election" as taught in reformed theology is not consistent with the Bible.

Actually, it is.

The word "eklektos" (elect, elected ones) is used in such passages as:

Colossians 3:12 "12So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;..."
Titus 1:1 "1Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
Ephesians 1: "3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.​

It is not right to suppose that God predestinates some to eternal life, and the rest He leaves to be damned forever!

Again, you are attempting to hold God to a human standard of what is fair or right in contrast to what you perceive as unfair or not right. That isn't Scriptural, but a human avoidance in desperate desire to deny the reality.

Paul answers this claim made by you:

Romans 9: 19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?​

The writer of Hebrews states that "...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith..."

And Paul writes in Romans 8:

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.​

So, yes, certainly predestination is taught in the Scriptures.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Actually, it is.

The word "eklektos" (elect, elected ones) is used in such passages as:

Colossians 3:12 "12So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;..."
Titus 1:1 "1Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
Ephesians 1: "3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.​

Again, you are attempting to hold God to a human standard of what is fair or right in contrast to what you perceive as unfair or not right. That isn't Scriptural, but a human avoidance in desperate desire to deny the reality.

Paul answers this claim made by you:

Romans 9: 19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?​

The writer of Hebrews states that "...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith..."

And Paul writes in Romans 8:

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.​

So, yes, certainly predestination is taught in the Scriptures.

I am referring to the reformed teaching of election and predestination, both of which are not taught in the Bible, as they say it is! Let me ask you this. Why do you think that God "elected" you to eternal life, and not, say, your neighbour? What is the basis for this "unconditional election"? How can this election be compatable witn universal atonement? This whole "system" is faulty, as it teaches that some sinners are "chosen" before the foundation of the world for salvation, and the rest left to be damned for ever. Paul says , "That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor, 5:19), which includes every human being. If this were just the elect, who would come to God, as they were so disposed to, then why would Paul go on to say, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God" (v.20)? Why does God need to "plead" with the elect, as if they would not want to come to Him? It can only be understood when including EVERYONE in the world, because we know that many are not interested in God!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Good night from England...

 

[MB]

Fine. Remain ignorant. I really don't care.

I do not see anything ignorant about scripture. I rely on it as the Words of God. Far more excellent than anything else in the world. And those who do the same relying on the teachings and direction of the Holy Spirit are better off for it.
MB

 

[agedman]

I am referring to the reformed teaching of election and predestination, both of which are not taught in the Bible, as they say it is!

Perhaps then you need to be more specific and point out the teaching and exactly what is not conformed to Scriptures.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think that God "elected" you to eternal life, and not, say, your neighbour?

That is purely God's business.

A better question might be why would God ever determine that a wretched infidel such as me was worthy of His attention!

What is the basis for this "unconditional election"?

I am totally unworthy of any of God's attention.

There is no "condition" of merit or exercise of human ability in which I could ever attain God's attention as being righteous.

He redeemed me despite my own inclinations, desires, and life choices.

As a result, "All that I am, or ever hope to be, I owe it all to Him (you)" Written by Andre Crouch and found in "My Tribute."

How can this election be compatable witn universal atonement?

Why not?

Universal atonement (taking that you mean that the shed blood was for every human that ever lived) is a separate but necessary part of salvation. (Without the shedding of blood....)

Election is based solely upon the Sovereign will of the Father. He does that choosing of His own purpose, timing, and needs, and not upon our own.

This whole "system" is faulty, as it teaches that some sinners are "chosen" before the foundation of the world for salvation, and the rest left to be damned for ever.

NO, the Bible teaches this, not some system.

The system is a human scheme that attempts (imperfectly so, imo) to group correlate various themes.



[/QUOTE]
Paul says , "That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor, 5:19), which includes every human being. If this were just the elect, who would come to God, as they were so disposed to, then why would Paul go on to say, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God" (v.20)? Why does God need to "plead" with the elect, as if they would not want to come to Him? It can only be understood when including EVERYONE in the world, because we know that many are not interested in God![/QUOTE]

Why do you think God "pleads" with anyone?

Christ gave a great illustration of a single sheep, who sought whom?
Christ gave the great parable of the rebellious son, who longed for whom?
Christ states that the gospel (word of God) is spread indiscriminately on the ground, why is only one harvested?

Each of these illustrate that God (Christ) is not "pleading" but active in performing the task of salvation specific to each person.

Why does this present a conflict in your mind?

Is it possible to find some example of salvation in the NT that was not purposeful by the power and instigation of God?.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not see anything ignorant about scripture.

I didn't say the scriptures were ignorant. I said YOU are ignorant.

I rely on it as the Words of God.

There is only one Word of God (see John 1:1). You probably meant the words of God, IE, the bible.

And those who do the same relying on the teachings and direction of the Holy Spirit are better off for it.

Yes, those whom I encouraged you to read. The great Christian minds you can learn from if you have a humble heart and a teachable spirit.

So far I haven't seen any evidence of either, but I am willing to be pleasently surprised.

 

[MB]

That's just your ignorance talking.

More ignorance. Particular Redemption was articulated by several of the ECFs, as early as the 2nd century AD. Augustine of Hippo systematized it in around 400 AD.

Unlike you, I am aware of the facts.

Ah yes Augustine; You seem to think that he wrote with authority. You rely on him to explain scripture. And claim I talk in ignorance.
MB

 

[MB]

I didn't say the scriptures were ignorant. I said YOU are ignorant.

There is only one Word of God (see John 1:1). You probably meant the words of God, IE, the bible.

Yes, those whom I encouraged to you read. The great Christian minds you can learn from if you have a humble heart and a teachable spirit.

So far I haven't seen any evidence of either, but I am willing to be pleasently surprised.

I've read some of them not all of them and not one have I agreed with. Which is why I'm not impressed by them. I do not consider any of them as Great nor anymore intelligent than anyone else. You hold them as great Christians while I reject what they say as nonsense. That's because they all disagree with what scripture actually says.
MB

 

[agedman]

Ah yes Augustine; You seem to think that he wrote with authority. You rely on him to explain scripture. And claim I talk in ignorance.
MB

I was going to mention that Augustine was a papist, and I personally do not hold him in very high regard.

But as with the manner of all theologians, he wrote, and some was inaccurate some was accurate. At times, he as all theologians modified what was originally written or clarify it with further writings.

It is ignorant to not read the writings of very good theologians, but also it is ignorant to embrace any writing in the stead of or irregardless of Scripture truth.

 

[TCassidy]

However, where I would differ, is the "extent" of this "deadness" of the human will.

To quote an old friend of mine, "Dead is dead."

I understand Jesus' words in John 5:25 to mean that all lost sinners, who are indeed dead in their sins, have the capacity to "hear" the Gospel, and respond to it by accepting their lostness and need for Jesus as their personal Saviour.

As God opens their ears. Without God's Grace their metaphorical ears remain dead, hearing nothing.

This is only possible by the working of the Holy Spirit, in the sinners heart, through the preaching of the Gospel Message.

Exactly.

Am I correct in saying, that the early Church before Augustine, never taught the so-called "doctrines of grace"?

Almost universally taught Particular Redemption.

 

[TCassidy]

Ah yes Augustine; You seem to think that he wrote with authority.

Wrong again. He was off in left field most of the time. I cited him as proof of the ignorance of your statement that Particular Redemption "comes from Calvinism."

You rely on him to explain scripture.

Wrong again. I cited him to show your ignorance of Historical Theology.

And claim I talk in ignorance.

Yes, your post proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[MB]

Wrong again. He was off in left field most of the time. I cited him as proof of the ignorance of your statement that Particular Redemption "comes from Calvinism."

Wrong again. I cited him to show your ignorance of Historical Theology.

Yes, your post proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I couldn't care less about your historical theology. None of it stands on scripture any way and the bottom line is The Bible is the only truth about theology. There is no reason to consider the mistakes of others such as your self.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why do you think that God "elected" you to eternal life, and not, say, your neighbour?

'For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy' (Romans 10:15-16).

 

[agedman]

I couldn't care less about your historical theology. None of it stands on scripture any way and the bottom line is The Bible is the only truth about theology. There is no reason to consider the mistakes of others such as your self.

So you use no other "helps?"