The book Of Romans

NPETRELEY:

Calm down, it will be ooookay. I never stated it wasn't a piviotal issue, I said there was more to it that JUST that issue, BUT IT WAS AN ISSUE INDEED (i even underlined it for you in my first posting to you).
One thing though concerning Luther and his statement of free-will is a works based salvation. He was standing against the Catholic Churches view of Free-will being a works based salvation. You are conflagating the two views in your statement as if Luther was marking free will in general. He was attacking the beleifs of the Catholic church on salvation who hold to purgitory, loosing your salvation ect... Their version of free-will is not what most understand or hold to.

What?! You have a vivid imagination of what I wrote since it NEVER entailed false doctrine, evil Calvinists, or true doctine (free-will).
I have NEVER claimed in ANY posting to speak for God but stated that SINCE it occured it WAS Gods will.
Now, let us review and correct you false assumptions and accusations. :thumbsup:
My Statement:
However, the ruling body of reformers (later) would not allow ANY dissent against the acknowledged reformed view, and thus we KNOW they persecuted and killed those who did not believe like they did at that time.
As you can see I never called it a false doctrine, but that after a time the ruling body of reformers would not allow any other veiws than theirs. This is not anything new but can be found in any church history book of the reformation age. There were some that took it BEYOND it's intended scope. It is the old adage of "to much of a good thing can be bad thing."

My Statement:

 

Jarthur

About 1555 through and up to about early to mid 1600's

Positions - I was refering to leadership since the reformed body would not allow any anyone not holding a strict reformed view could not be any of the following;(professors or principles/headmasters of schools and or seminaries, pastors, teachers, and even the governing or ruling body or religous affairs in their different teritories, and or countries.) They eventually began to lighten up though many (non-reformed) just became a seperate group.

 

Allan,

You said...

Give me the name of your group and we will look at them.

2nd..

Who is the "non-reformed" group?

 

This is not at all true. Please read (if you haven't already) Luther's Bondage of the Will. Although he was responding directly to the diatribe written by Erasmus, Erasmus made almost the same exact arguments in favor of free-will that you see here on the boards today. And Luther's (and Erasmus') language is very clear that they were arguing about free will the same way we do, not some unique Catholic view of free will.

Here, for example, is Luther summarizing free will as defined by Erasmus:

That's a very generic (though elegant) way of saying that free will is the power of man to choose to accept or reject God's grace. There's nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about that.

 

Whatever, it just so happens that I sat up last night and re-read portions of the "Bondage". I'm always amazed, though I shouldn't be by now, at how the arguments then were just like the ones now.

It wasn't until Luther had gone into hiding after the Diet of Worms that he formulated his theology in a systematic way. Before this period, he and Erasmus had enjoyed a warm relationship, being that Erasmus shared Luther's views on church reform in many ways - particularly, in regards to the immoralities that the church was indulging in. But when Luther came to realize (probably calling upon his exposure to Augustinian doctrine) that underneath the corrupt system lay a corrupt foundation - the foundation of freewill theology. Luther correctly saw this theology as the root of self-righteousness and disregard for a "sola scriptura" world-view (which the "church" so sorely lacked at that time).

 

Very well said. IMO, we have the same problem today. The biggest difference between now and then is that we don't have anything close to a Christian theocracy. So the church has no power to impose its views (right or wrong) on anyone. The church had more political power in the past. (IMO, the Bible does not call for a theocracy, so we're better off without one. But the self-righteousness problem still exists today.)

Edited to add: Not only are the arguments the same, Erasmus even used the same scriptures as prooftexts for his position. You've probably already read Pink's Sovereignty, but that book covers the same exact arguments, too.

 

npetreley:

Actually the free will he is (and I also) castigating is the idea where man when and as he choses can come to God without God having to do anything to draw him.

Now, what you fail to realize is there are those on BB that do not hold to this (many in fact) but do hold to:
1. Man is depraved in the sense he will not of himself seek after or chose God if left to himself.
2. God MUST call men first (be the initiator), this call (in a basic sense) is the revelation of Truth.
3. Man, now with two choices before him, (old life or new) has to decide if he will believe God is able to do what He promised.

God is the first cause of salvation, and the final clause (so to speak) of same said salvation. Without His direct intervention, Man would stay in darkness never knowing he needs anything, as says (in general) the scriptures.

This in NOT the view (of free-will) that Luther directed his diatribe to. But that man can of his own free-will come to God, instead of God coming to him first.

Free-will = same name different meaning. ( I like the word responsible to free-will though, but it is the same rose just a different name)