Question for free willers

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
npetreley,
First thanks for fixing the URL. Second feel free to post a site which is critical of Arminius,I will be glad to go to the article you point out.In my own mind I am not an Arminian or a Calvinist.

I was being sarcasting to make a point. I find nothing useful about character assassination, regardless of which side of the CvA argument it supports. So you will get no anti-Arminius URL from me.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Pick an unbeliever. Any unbeliever. If you have a hard time thinking of one, try Ted Turner. He's an unbeliever (at least he is as of today, as far as I know).

Please answer these two questions. Please be specific.

1. What is the difference between you and the unbeliever such that you chose to trust Christ and the unbeliever did not?

2. Who made that difference?

PREDICTIONS:

Prediction 1. People will fall back to "We chose differently because we had the free will to choose differently."

This is not an answer. People choose things for a reason. You choose vanilla because you prefer vanilla. My question is the equivalent of: Why do you prefer vanilla, and why does the other person dislike vanilla and prefer chocolate? What makes the difference between you two such that you prefer different flavors? And who made that difference?

Prediction 2. Even if they understand the questions, no free willer will ever post a straight answer.

Will a non-free willer ever post a straight answer?

CAN you tell me which I am?

As a “free willer”, I am “predestined”. As I am “predestined”, I am a “free willer”. As a “free willer” I have scripture on my side. As a “predestiner” I have scripture on my side.

I have not read all replies, but can you say, or any other has given a “straight” answer from either side, presuming by straight you mean positive proof, one way or the other. Each time one or the other side gives scripture, one then responds with scripture to counteract the other. Isn’t antinomy the order of the day on this subject ever since?

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Taylor42]

Well Npetreley, what are your beliefs?

 

[Brother Bob]

ituttut;
I am the same way and asked the same question and was told that my label is "confused". I guess if you don't have the answer you just insult. So look out!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Taylor42:
Well Npetreley, what are your beliefs?

With respect to my questions? I already posted it:

Q1. Why did you choose to accept the Gospel and another person reject it?

A1. Because we are different.

Q2. Who made the difference?

A2. God.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God, (is condemned already)

He that believeth on him is not condemned:

So what's the condemning charge here, Sin, or unbelief??

In Court, whatever the "Charge", you're either guilty/innocent, so why is the charge "unbelief" rather than sin???

The answer is simple, we've all sinned, so if the charge was sin, we'd all be guilty.

So the condemning charge isn't the sin we're all guilty of, but "unbelief" that prevented people from being saved, those condemned are not condemned for "being sinner", but "Remaining sinner" in spite of Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world.

Their sin doesn't condemn them, but their "UNBELIEF" in Jesus does.

because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In order for them to "Reject" Jesus, the offer must be made to them, this is confirmed by "Many "ARE" called, few chosen".

God, not willing that any should perish, gives "EVERYONE" the opportunity to be saved,

Man was already condemned, so the Cross was never meant to condemn anyone, but to "SAVE EVERYONE", even the sins of the whole world.

This is why the "GOSPEL" (Good News) must be preached to all the world before the end.

"Irresistable calling, Limited Atonement, predestination, denies this.


Re 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


"FAITH" (Belief) in Jesus is a "LOOP HOLE" in the law whereby the whole world can escape death for their sins,

and the only condemnation that exist, is for people who refuse that loop hole.

This old farmer has some cattle out, so I probably will not get through the thread while eating, but this post is dead center. Except for the lousy, completely out-of-context, citing of Rev. 3:20, which has not one single thing to do with the subject at hand.

I am not a "free-willer" whatever that attempted pejorative, misleading and un-Biblical term may mean. The Bible uses two Hebrew terms the KJV translates as "freewill" a total of 17 times. As far as I can tell, these words from the same 'root word' have the idea of present spointaneously, or volunteer, or offer liberally, in the meanings. Save Ezra 7:13, where the NKJV translates this as volunteer, in each instance I found, the idea of some sort of "freewill offering" is implicit in the term. So I'll say before I go chase the bovines, I am not a "freewiller", but God is!
In His grace,
Ed

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Your sarcasm was understood.I was'nt being sarcastic.We are known by our friends as well as our enemies.Your position should be able to stand close srutiny without getting to worked up about it.

So here is the picture I get from npeterely.He has provided the only answer he considers acceptable.Any answer that deviates from his answer is considered avoidance.We are to only read from those who support his position.So now I am willing and waiting for his list of approved authors and the specific material allowable for study.When I am through I will ask him what my response should be.Then I will respond according to his wishes. That way I won't be avoiding anything and he will get an answer that satisfies him.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Although there is some truth in my last post,I apologize for the way I presented it. I should not have responded in kind.When all is said and done I do expect to see my calvinist friends up in heaven.I just hope we don't get deparate rooms so they will think they are there by themselves.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Although there is some truth in my last post,I apologize for the way I presented it. I should not have responded in kind.When all is said and done I do expect to see my calvinist friends up in heaven.I just hope we don't get deparate rooms so they will think they are there by themselves.

There's an old story about a man who died and went up to heaven. St Peter started showing him around the heavenly city. They came to one section where there seemed to be a lot of partying going on. The man asked Peter what was happening and Peter replied, "Oh, that's the charismatic section over there. There's always a lot of pew jumping and dancing day and night."

They came to another section where they heard some classical music being played on the organ. The man asked St. Peter, "Who is over here?" St. Peter replied, "This is the Presbyterian section. They use a very liturgical form of worship even up here in heaven."

The next section they came to had a real high wall, so high that he couldn't see the top, and there was no sound coming from the other side. The man asked St. Peter, "who is on the other side of that wall?" St. Peter quickly said, "Shhhhhh." and began to whisper, "This is the Baptist section. They think their the only ones here."

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by ituttut:

As a “free willer”, I am “predestined”. As I am “predestined”, I am a “free willer”. As a “free willer” I have scripture on my side. As a “predestiner” I have scripture on my side.

I have not read all replies, but can you say, or any other has given a “straight” answer from either side, presuming by straight you mean positive proof, one way or the other. Each time one or the other side gives scripture, one then responds with scripture to counteract the other. Isn’t antinomy the order of the day on this subject ever since?

Here is the problem ittitut. Here is the substance of a post I made on another thread in response to a question about me claiming that people are held responsible for their decisions:

Because the Bible teaches it. You have to understand that we don't just make up our beliefs. We take statements of Scripture and try to figure them out.

For instance, we take these statement:

Ephesians 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will

Romans 9:15-18 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." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

And from those verses we see that God is absolutely sovereign and has chosen, before the foundation of the world, who He would save. It is perfectly within His right to do so.

We also see verses like this:

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

John 3:18-21 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

That's just a few, but should be plenty to get my point across. We see in these verses that the choice is held out to man to believe or reject and he is held responsible for that choice.

That is why we believe that God is absolutely sovereign and man is responsible for his choices. It has nothing to do with a theological system and everything to do with declaring the whole counsel of God.

Calvinists believe that all these scriptures are true. We believe the Bible teaches God's absolute sovereignty and we believe the Bible teaches man's responsibility. When we say this, we get the following reply:

Why can't you see the above statements are contrary to one another. You can't have it both ways.

We try to do justice to everything the Scripture says and we get told our view doesn't work. So, who do you (not you personally) have a problem with? Not with me, but with the Bible.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Any answer that deviates from his answer is considered avoidance.

I'm sorry if you can't see how the free willers have avoided answering the question, but they have. It's a cop-out to say that they answered the questions but I'm just calling it avoidance. In fact, to say that is avoidance, itself.

Not a single free willer has actually given straight answers to these questions. Here, I'll even get a bit more specific so you can see how the answers did not address the questions.

1. What is different about you that you were inclined to accept the Gospel and did, but another person was disinclined to accept the Gospel and therefore didn't?

2. Who made that difference?

Some people have answered the first question, but then they never answered the second in accordance with their answers for the first.

Read the thread again and see for yourself.

For example, someone answered the first by saying (and I paraphrase) "I love the truth, but the other person doesn't." But no matter how hard you look for a second answer that is in accordance with the first, you won't find it. Who made the difference such that you loved the truth, and the other person didn't?

I'd be satisfied with, "I did. I made the difference. God gave us both the capability to love the truth, but it was I who decided to love the truth of my own free will. I, therefore, can take credit for being saved vs. the person who decided not to love the truth of his/her own free will, because it was I who made the difference."

At least that would be a straight, honest answer. But of course nobody is going to say that, because it exposes the pride behind holding fast to the concept of free will.

Which is why I predicted you'll never get a straight answer from the free willers.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Your sarcasm was understood.I was'nt being sarcastic.We are known by our friends as well as our enemies.Your position should be able to stand close srutiny without getting to worked up about it.

But, and I haven't read the link yet, if our enemies are misrepresenting our view with ad hominem attacks and mischaracterizations, then we should not take what they say as having anything to do with the truth.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

The way I see it is we will never be 100 percent sure while we are on this earth.There will always be that little element of doubt in the back of our minds.We will have it figured out for sure when we get to heaven.

In any event God gets the credit,it is Him who sends the Holy Spirit to make us realize that God is real,there is a penalty for sin,Jesus Christ paid that penalty and He is the only way to heaven.You must count on the risen Christ for your salvation.Now are you forced by an irresistable predestined urge which you have no control over to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.According to my studies the answer is no,according to your studies the answer is yes.Are we both diligent in our studies?My best guess would be yes.Are we sincere? Yes would be my answer.We are talking about a critical momment in time which is so infintismal it can't be measured.We can't come under conviction without the urging of the Holy Spirit.We can't be saved without believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is an old saying. "If the enemy is within range so are you.We better know as much about our enemy as we can."

 

[Calvibaptist]

Bill, I know you didn't mean it this way, but I don't consider any non-Calvinist believer my enemy.

 

[Brother Bob]

Calvibaptist (quote)

That's just a few, but should be plenty to get my point across. We see in these verses that the choice is held out to man to believe or reject and he is held responsible for that choice.

That is why we believe that God is absolutely sovereign and man is responsible for his choices. It has nothing to do with a theological system and everything to do with declaring the whole counsel of God.

The two quotes above is what I said were contrary to your belief of predestination to go to Heaven or Hell?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

You are right.But you get the drift.I try to read from those I disagree with as well as those I do agree with.
Just from my little study here, I find out that perseverance is not the same as OSAS. I was shocked to find out Calvin thought you could lose your salvation.

The stuff about who hanged,burned up beat up,imprisoned,or exiled who was pretty much done by anybody who had any real power,none of these guys were without guilt as far as I read.

I do get tickled though. There are calvinist missionaries on this board who have gone through some pretty scary and some nasty things, for what, to spread the gospel.They believe the great commission applies to them.There are other calvinists on this board who are soul winners(one of those who go and witness often).Why because they believe the great commission applies to them.So they may believe in prredestination and irresistable grace but I can live with someone who is a witness for Christ who tells me he is calvinist.

 

[Brother Bob]

Plain Old Bill;

Where did you read that Calvin believed you could lose your salvation. I saw where he held to his Catholic baptism as an infant as his regeneration but I did not find where he said anything about losing your salvation? Thanks,

 

[Plain Old Bill]

It was in one of the documents I have been reading over the last three days.There have been so many I can't remember if it was in the institutes or elsewhere.If someone made a false accusation in that direction I would be more than happy to know it.Reading that little tidbit surprized me.Prior to that reading I had always thought Calvin was OSAS which would have made me at least a 1 point calvinist.

 

[J.D.]

Thank you PlainoldBill for that nice post. Just a point of correction here - Calvin did not believe that someone could lose their salvation. Calvin taught the the elect are certain of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. He taught that the regenerated elect will preservere in faith. Those that don't preservere in faith were never truly in the faith.

Think of it this way - rather than OSAS, Once Saved Always Saved, Calvin teaches that, for the elect, in terms of eternal decree, it's ASAS, Always Saved, Always Saved.

Preservation is the foundation of preserverence. We preservere because we are preserved. And this preserverence is in terms of FINALITY. Our faith may be severely weakened at times, and we may grow so faint of faith that we may seem to lose it for some time, but we will by God's design turn back to God having at last, having been refined through the manifold temptations of this life.

There are some Arminian Theologians that teach a doctrine of preserverence, but when they say preserverence, they mean that man must preservere in order to avoid being lost again. In other words, preserverence for them is an achievement that man strives for in order to be worthy of salvation. In the Calvinist system, preserverence is the EVIDENCE of God's work in us.

Arminian system: Preserverence causes salvation.

Calvinist system: Salvation (specifically, regeneration) causes preserverence.

See the difference?

And speaking of missionaries, most of the famous missionaries of history were died-in-the-wool Calvinists! The work of the Presbyterian missionaries should not go unnoticed by anyone interested in missionary histories. So many of them gave their own blood to bring the gospel to the uttermost parts of the world.

Keep learning and God bless!

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Well truthfully I think a lot of what goes on is hair splitting and semantic gymnastics.I think most folks in truth who are Bible believers are closer in thier doctrine then they like to admit.Tweek a word here,change a comma or a semicolon there.I am not saying our theology is identical ,just nearer rather than farther then we think.
Now I have been asked if I speak in tongues and to that I say yes.They are thinking glossalalia and I am thinking chinese,korean,and italian.Am I Spirit filled,you bet, and people can understand me when I talk in tongues.Same word different meaning.