Of Freedom of the Will

[37818]

Romans states that actually hearing the word of Christ brings faith/belief. That the expression of such faith/belief is confirmation of the change having taken place in the heart- salvation.
That you chose to repent was not from the desire of the fallen nature, but because God had placed faith in your heart. "The goodness of God leads to repentance" is in the same Scriptures as "it (faith) is a gift of God."

Good testimony!



There are some who do, and in my humanity I do not, either.

What I do know is that God selects and why He would ever select me I do not know - but am eternally thankful.




You did good, until that last sentence.

John 1 states that only to certain few does God grant the authority to become His own.



But did Judas have a choice about being born?

Human kind cannot choose righteousness. The best they may do is choose to do right.

It is God who grants the gift of righteousness not based upon any human ability, will, or freedom of choice. Rather, upon that core change in the heart we see as belief / faith.




Does not John 3 state that the unbeliever is "condemned already?"

All are "condemned already" unless the goodness of God grants to a few that faith/belief, and all those that do believe have eternal life.

John 3:16 "Whosoever" is not an open invitation, rather it is the condition that separates "those that believe" being not condemned from those that do not believe being condemned already.

 

[InTheLight]

But to me, you and Benjamin ( so far ) seem to have a real problem with the Baptists who hold to "TULIP".
Again, what's the problem?

Another strawman.

In fact, I'd say that the problem Ben has is with TULIP, no matter the denomination of the adherent.

Are you relegating the Baptists who hold to TULIP, to one area of discussion, while the rest of the Baptists are free to discuss anything else, anywhere else?

No. I said that there are more than Baptists that hold to TULIP, so why not put the discussion in the proper forum?

How about asking the mods for a ruling then?

Because I don't care enough about it to ask.

 

[Dave G]

Because I don't care enough about it to ask.

But you seem to care enough about it to assert that any discussion of free will from the TULIP side, be assigned strictly to the CvA forum, while any comments and discussion from the other side, seem to be acceptable in this one.

Is that an accurate assessment?

 

[InTheLight]

But you seem to care enough about it to assert that any discussion of free will from the TULIP side, be assigned strictly to the CvA forum, while any comments and discussion from the other side, seem to be OK in this one.

Is that an accurate assessment?

No.

 

[Dave G]

No.

With all due respect, I'm not getting that same, firm "no" from my end.
If you ask me, it seems fairly biased in your favor.

 

[InTheLight]

With all due respect, I'm not getting that same, firm "no" from my end.
If you ask me, it seems fairly biased in your favor.

Well, you're making stuff up in your head. I never said ANYTHING about free will discussions being acceptable (or unacceptable) in this forum. I said it's obvious the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion is Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Not only that but adherents to both sides of this discussion are not limited to Baptists, another reason it should be moved to the other forum.

 

[Dave G]

Well, you're making stuff up in your head. I never said ANYTHING about free will discussions being acceptable (or unacceptable) in this forum. I said it's obvious the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion is Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Not only that but adherents to both sides of this discussion are not limited to Baptists, another reason it should be moved to the other forum.

With respect to the bolded part, Benjamin seems to have a real problem with one side of it being here, and you appear to be stepping in on his side.

I think you're avoiding the issue.
To me, you keep insisting that this type of discussion be moved to the CvA forum, even though Baptists throughout history have landed on both sides of the tracks.

You don't see that your request is being unequal in its treatment of both sides?

 

[Benjamin]

But you seem to care enough about it to assert that any discussion of free will from the TULIP side, be assigned strictly to the CvA forum, while any comments and discussion from the other side, seem to be acceptable in this one.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Perhaps the board has become lax in its organization to keep topics in their rightful category. Personally, I come to this forum for other than C&A discussion, that is why the separation exists, and if I wanted to engage in C&A discussion I would have plenty of subjects to begin in the proper forum, but frankly I merely observe Cosmic Calvinistic Consciousness personalities there that can't see past their Calvy lens glasses to engage in a meaningful discussion so I don't bother. Which Is WHY it is preferred to keep that subject in its place!

 

[Benjamin]

I said it's obvious the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion is Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Not only that but adherents to both sides of this discussion are not limited to Baptists, another reason it should be moved to the other forum.

Apparently some people believe they are entitled to come here and proselytize their views wherever they want.

 

[Dave G]

Benjamin,

I don't feel that insulting me is very a godly thing to do, and your apparent hatred of everything "determinist" is very obvious to me.
Anything that even hints at God having total control over salvation seems to anger you greatly, from my vantage point.

I'm very sorry that you see His grace to sinners in such a light,
and that any mention of such beliefs is only seeking to draw men away from what you believe is the truth.

However,
This is a forum ( this particular one is under, "Baptist Debate Forums ( Baptist Only )" ). , and I wasn't aware that I ( or anyone else who believes as I do ), needed your permission to express my beliefs as a Baptist, or to engage in discussions that you personally find objectionable.


With that said,

May I suggest dropping the "calvy" comments, and simply ask the mods to...moderate?
I think it's the proper thing to do, rather than continuing this back-and-forth sniping that it seems we are engaged in.


May God bless you, sir, in all areas of your life and in the lives of your loved ones.

 

[37818]

Romans states that actually hearing the word of Christ brings faith/belief. That the expression of such faith/belief is confirmation of the change having taken place in the heart- salvation. . . . <snip>

Actually, two issues. 98% of the manuscript evidence reads "God." And the context cites from Psalms 19 referring to creation as revelation, natural revelation, being the word of God giving faith. Romans 10:17-18.

 

[37818]

Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

I don't think a child desiring to go to the zoo is concerned about "whose will is it that I should go to the zoo today"?

But puts her hand in Daddy's hand and they both exercise their joint will and go see the lions and tigers.

". . . And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. . . ." -- Mark 10:13-15. For the very reason Jesus told Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- John 3:3.

 

[InTheLight]

Benjamin,

Anything that even hints at God having total control over salvation seems to anger you greatly

Strawman.

I wasn't aware that I needed your permission to express my beliefs as a Baptist, or to engage in discussions that you personally find objectionable.

And, Strawman.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

I don't feel that insulting me is very a godly thing to do, and your apparent hatred of everything "determinist" is very obvious to me.
Anything that even hints at God having total control over salvation seems to anger you greatly, from my vantage point.

I'm very sorry that you see His grace to sinners in such a light,
and that any mention of such beliefs is only seeking to draw men away from what you believe is the truth.

Dave, first, you might want to look up Reverse Ad Hominem fallacy because I see right through such fallacious tactics such as with your shining example above.

However,
This is a forum ( this particular one is under, "Baptist Debate Forums ( Baptist Only )" ). , and I wasn't aware that I ( or anyone else who believes as I do ), needed your permission to express my beliefs as a Baptist, or to engage in discussions that you personally find objectionable.

This is a forum with categories my friend, again with purpose. FYI, I have been a member of this forum for quite some time and have witnessed the moderators clean up the categories and move the C&A topics to their right category many times over the years to preserve the decorum here. As I said, as a new member your presumption to rewrite the rules as per your agenda is baseless and rooted in ignorance per the decorum here.

With that said,

May I suggest dropping the "calvy" comments, and simply ask the mods to...moderate?
I think it's the proper thing to do, rather than continuing this back-and-forth sniping that it seems we are engaged in.

Oh yes, I'm sure as per your previous attempt at Reverse Ad Hominem above you find the word "calvy" terribly offensive, as per your many examples of civility as you take the higher ground on a personal note here and please do accept my apology for any offense.

May God bless you, sir, in all areas of your life and in the lives of your loved ones.

Thank you for your sincere blessing. May you be blessed as well.

 

[robycop3]

This is an interesting discussion. I was just thinking about Romans 8:29-30 "For 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; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
Since Paul uses both "foreknew" and "predestined", it looks like our eternal destinies are predestined. However, we obviously do have free will, because the Scriptures give us so many warnings and instructions regarding our behavior. Robycop3 makes a good point the examples of Moses, Judas, etc. who had special purpose according to God's will.

Is it possible that the answer is a combination of predestination and free will?

I tend to agree, although I steadily maintain that God did NOT create anyone who has no chance for salvation & is predestined to hell, no matter what. God is JUST, and creating someone with no chance for salvation would be the greatest INjustice possible! But God DOES give some people more chances for salvation than He does others. That's why , when I witness to someone, I remind him/her this may be the LAST time you hear the Gospel, and not one of us is guaranteed to be here tomorrow, so please open your door to JESUS while He's knocking on it, before He moves on!

yes, Scripture gives us examples of both predestination for special service to God, & of those who consciously made the choice to serve Him.

 

[Lodic]

I tend to agree, although I steadily maintain that God did NOT create anyone who has no chance for salvation & is predestined to hell, no matter what. God is JUST, and creating someone with no chance for salvation would be the greatest INjustice possible! But God DOES give some people more chances for salvation than He does others. That's why , when I witness to someone, I remind him/her this may be the LAST time you hear the Gospel, and not one of us is guaranteed to be here tomorrow, so please open your door to JESUS while He's knocking on it, before He moves on!

yes, Scripture gives us examples of both predestination for special service to God, & of those who consciously made the choice to serve Him.

A very sound argument, Brother. Indeed, why would a JUST God create people who have NO chance of eternal life with Him? You have also touched upon the "application" part of the argument, which is the Great Commission. Whether one holds to Calvinist or Arminian views, ALL who follow Christ are to be His witnesses.

 

[agedman]

I tend to agree, although I steadily maintain that God did NOT create anyone who has no chance for salvation & is predestined to hell, no matter what. God is JUST, and creating someone with no chance for salvation would be the greatest INjustice possible! But God DOES give some people more chances for salvation than He does others. That's why , when I witness to someone, I remind him/her this may be the LAST time you hear the Gospel, and not one of us is guaranteed to be here tomorrow, so please open your door to JESUS while He's knocking on it, before He moves on!

yes, Scripture gives us examples of both predestination for special service to God, & of those who consciously made the choice to serve Him.

This post caused me to consider another aspect. Here is my thoughts as I ponder.


It is true that John 1 does show the comparison of those who do not turn from the light and those who do, as well as the consequences,

John is a book showing comparisons and contrasts of opposing sides.

Perhaps an aspect of “freedom of the will” should also be a discussion in the area of repentance. Paul states the contrast between Godly sorrow and worldly repentance.

Using John1 terms pertaining to light, if one who has turned from that light repents by turning back to the light and lives by the light, will that bring automatic salvation - by merely repenting?

John does not state that turning to the light is salvation. Such empowerment is (according to John) granted to only those abiding, embracing, not turning from the light but the language seems to be that from the larger grouping God selects a few.

As stated earlier, not all who were “added to the church, daily” included “those who were being saved,” but not all were saved.

Is it then that “freedom of the will” needs to include that their are those who (knowing right from wrong) consciously choose to do right what they perceive as right? Is it perhaps that, within the choosing to do what is perceived as right, God may then grant the empowerment (opening ears to hear the gospel, instilling a Godly repentance....) that the person’s heart be changed and the person expresses salvation?

Such would be consistent with the testimony of Cornelius, and also fit with what Paul reminded Timothy’ upbringing. Would an OT type (example) be the rejection, repentance, and purifying of the messenger who came to Elijah and was told to wash in the muddy river also indicate this thinking as true?

Perhaps this is also why the Scriptures use such words as “might be saved” and “those who were being saved” in contrast to more deterministic language.

Is there then that “freedom of the will” worldly repentance in which God looks upon the heart, sees the person is humanly sincere and humanly honest even determined to live, as best as they know how, “in the light” and God may grant to them that Godly sorrow leading to salvation?

Perhaps such sorrow was used in terms of granting physical salvation and not Spiritual?

We all can acknowledge salvation is not by the “freedom of the will,” however choosing to living in the light certainly is for it is among the choices from which humankind may select. One may choose to do right in spite the distractions.

One for certain is that God does not select from those who have turn from the light to be given the “power to become His.” (John 1)

 

[agedman]

Well, you're making stuff up in your head. I never said ANYTHING about free will discussions being acceptable (or unacceptable) in this forum. I said it's obvious the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion is Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Not only that but adherents to both sides of this discussion are not limited to Baptists, another reason it should be moved to the other forum.

You would be right IF this was limited to the arguments presented by calvinists and Arminianists, but it is not (refer to the OP.

It is a leap into bias that assumes all things on the topic of”freedom of the will” is either Calvin or Arminian.

This topic was placed here for discussion by BAPTISTS and not to be interfered with by people who do not contend for the faith holding fundamental Baptist principles.

“Freedom of the will” is a central Baptist issue with no singular consistency of presentation by Baptist’s.

Seems as though Baptist’s need to discuss this issue to develop at least a bit more consistency.

 

[Lodic]

This post caused me to consider another aspect. Here is my thoughts as I ponder.


It is true that John 1 does show the comparison of those who do not turn from the light and those who do, as well as the consequences,

John is a book showing comparisons and contrasts of opposing sides.

Perhaps an aspect of “freedom of the will” should also be a discussion in the area of repentance. Paul states the contrast between Godly sorrow and worldly repentance.

Using John1 terms pertaining to light, if one who has turned from that light repents by turning back to the light and lives by the light, will that bring automatic salvation - by merely repenting?

John does not state that turning to the light is salvation. Such empowerment is (according to John) granted to only those abiding, embracing, not turning from the light but the language seems to be that from the larger grouping God selects a few.

As stated earlier, not all who were “added to the church, daily” included “those who were being saved,” but not all were saved.

Is it then that “freedom of the will” needs to include that their are those who (knowing right from wrong) consciously choose to do right what they perceive as right? Is it perhaps that, within the choosing to do what is perceived as right, God may then grant the empowerment (opening ears to hear the gospel, instilling a Godly repentance....) that the person’s heart be changed and the person expresses salvation?

Such would be consistent with the testimony of Cornelius, and also fit with what Paul reminded Timothy’ upbringing. Would an OT type (example) be the rejection, repentance, and purifying of the messenger who came to Elijah and was told to wash in the muddy river also indicate this thinking as true?

Perhaps this is also why the Scriptures use such words as “might be saved” and “those who were being saved” in contrast to more deterministic language.

Is there then that “freedom of the will” worldly repentance in which God looks upon the heart, sees the person is humanly sincere and humanly honest even determined to live, as best as they know how, “in the light” and God may grant to them that Godly sorrow leading to salvation?

Perhaps such sorrow was used in terms of granting physical salvation and not Spiritual?

We all can acknowledge salvation is not by the “freedom of the will,” however choosing to living in the light certainly is for it is among the choices from which humankind may select. One may choose to do right in spite the distractions.

One for certain is that God does not select from those who have turn from the light to be given the “power to become His.” (John 1)

To "dovetail" off your message, I was thinking of Hebrews 6:1-6, which speaks of the Peril of Falling Away. Specifically, verses 4-6 speaks of those who have fallen away after having been enlightened and made partakers of the Holy Spirit.

 

[loDebar]

To "dovetail" off your message, I was thinking of Hebrews 6:1-6, which speaks of the Peril of Falling Away. Specifically, verses 4-6 speaks of those who have fallen away after having been enlightened and made partakers of the Holy Spirit.

welcome Lodic,

but you are reading Hebrews wrong. There is NO chance of losing salvation in this passage.... because Christ cannot be crucified again