The Five Points of Free-Willism

[pinoybaptist]

it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and man’s faith that ensures his heavenly home

Can you tell us when the Gospel became flesh, dwelt amongst men, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected and ascended to heaven, please ?

 

[IFB Mole]

Gospel = Good News = The Bible = God's Word = The Word (God the Son, Jesus Christ) so apart from The Gospel of God the Son, Jesus Christ and WILLFUL faith in Him, we are hopelessly lost in our Sin. IS that clear enough? The Living Word lived in His earthly body approx 4 B.C - A.D. 30, is that what you wanted to know?

 

[Analgesic]

Well, when someone says you are not a sinner until you commit your first sin, I'd say that person is innocent. Whether or not you use the word "saved" or "innocent", it amounts to the same status before God, doesn't it? Either way, you go to heaven.

But it's a moot point now anyway. The amended #2 simply calls our "starting point" a point of contention and goes straight to accoutability.

How would this work, with respect to justification?

2. Age of Accountability: Whether or not man is born sinful or innocent is a point of contention. In either case, man is not held accountable for sin until he is mature enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. If man dies before this point, God either considers the man innocent, or imputes innocence to man and man inherits heaven by default. Either way, God's justice is satisfied. (scripture?)

Well, if "sinner" means "one who commits acts of sin" -- which is a reasonable definition for the term -- then clearly the infants who have yet to develop the capacity for such actions are not "sinners". Simply because someone believes that infants are not such "sinners" doesn't mean that they haven't been born into sin, estranged from God and under condemnation. They would be "innocent" only in the sense of "naive", and not in the sense of being "pure". Other than that ambiguity, the statement seems to be an accurate representation of that facet of free-willian belief.

 

[Analgesic]

Gospel = Good News = The Bible = God's Word = The Word (God the Son, Jesus Christ) so apart from The Gospel of God the Son, Jesus Christ and WILLFUL faith in Him, we are hopelessly lost in our Sin. IS that clear enough? The Living Word lived in His earthly body approx 4 B.C - A.D. 30, is that what you wanted to know?

Gospel might equal Good News, but it most certainly does not equal the Bible (which does equal God's Word) or The Word (which does not equal God's Word).

 

[npetreley]

I would say it more like this:

1. Limited Inability: Man is totally depraved but not absolutely depraved, by the fall, so he is able to will or to do good. (i.e man does have enough good in him to perform good works, since man remains created in the image of God, man has enough good in him that he is able to incline himself toward acknowledging there is a God - a God consciousness). Man is also not so fallen that he is unable to believe there is a God of his own free will, but apart from the Gospel he has the inability to “save himself”

This has lots of problems. How can man be totally depraved yet still will good? If that's what free-willers believe, then so be it, but I don't think you'll get much agreement there. Also, your version of depravity does not seem to match that of most others. I don't think most free-willers would say they are unable to believe there is a God of his own free will. Again, if the majority of free-willers correct me, I will gladly concede the point. But I don't get that impression from the posts here.

2. Age of Accountability: Man is born a sinner but innocent of its condemnation only if a man dies before reaching the age of accountability (ability to exercise faith and acknowledge sin), Man does not come under the condemnation (wages or penalty of sin) of sin until he knowingly and willfully understands his sinful condition.

Again, you are contradicting other free-willers here. At least two, and probably many more, would say man is not born a sinner. Not my words, their words.

3. Sovereignty Sovereignly Abdicated: It is God's sovereign will to LIMIT His sovereignty to man with respect to man's will. God remains absolutely sovereign over all things EVEN man's will, but it is His sovereign decision to LIMIT His absolute sovereignty over man's will to believe or reject the Gospel.

I like the LIMIT, and I think other free-willers will like it. But how can God be sovereign EVEN over man's will yet limit His sovereignty over man's will. That is an apparent contradiction that is unnecessary for the purpose of these points. Why not simply stick with "limit"?

4. Resistible Grace: It is God's will that all men be saved, but God does not impose His will upon man. God gives man enough grace to be saved, but not so much as to coerce man's salvation contrary to man’s will. Man may resist God's grace and refuse the gift of salvation, thereby thwarting God's will that all men be saved so thus holding man responsible to the Gospel, so man is without excuse.

This version works for me.

5. Free Faith: The driving force behind the previous points is that God wants man to have faith in Him, but does not consider faith worth accepting unless man gives faith to Him freely from his heart and not coerced, i.e. according to man's own will once enlightened by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is IMPOSSIBLE that apart from the Gospel that a man can “will himself” to be saved, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and man’s faith that ensures his heavenly home

Again, I don't think this reflects the philosophy of most free-willers on this board. They almost always put what God desires in terms of love, not faith. Also, this modification makes it almost redundant with Resistable Grace.

 

[IFB Mole]

If an unregenerate man started an orphange for abused children, wouldn't that be a good work??

 

[npetreley]

If an unregenerate man started an orphange for abused children, wouldn't that be a good work??

Are you asking me or free-willers? I believe free-willers would say, "yes". That's why I wrote #1 to say man is not totally fallen such that he is unable to do good.

If you're asking me, then I would say, "no, it's not a good work". Man's works are rubbish and will be burned away to nothing. The only "good works" are works that have their origin in God. Motive and origin are everything. But it is not the purpose of this exercise to compile a list of things I believe.

 

[IFB Mole]

My point was man can do the appearance of good works, like the orphanage, but of course as for God's standards our works are as as filthy rags. I used these words because I heard a free-willer use these words that man is "totally depraved but not absolutedly depraved" that's why our society isn't in a state of violent anarchy.

Man is created in God's image so God's Law is written on the heart of men, no matter how depraved their actions are, men have a God consciousness - unlike the animals. Man "fell" in the Garden, he didn't die, that's why they call it the "Fall"

 

[webdog]

Are you asking me or free-willers? I believe free-willers would say, "yes". That's why I wrote #1 to say man is not totally fallen such that he is unable to do good.

What free willer would say man is not totally fallen? That's ludicrous! Man is totally depraved in the sense, left to themselves EVERYONE would be reprobate. God doesn't leave man to themselves, however. Scripture tells us that EVERYONE will give an account for what was done in the body both GOOD and bad. Reprobate are included in everyone, no? They will give an account both GOOD and bad...

 

[npetreley]

My point was man can do the appearance of good works, like the orphanage, but of course as for God's standards our works are as as filthy rags. I used these words because I heard a free-willer use these words that man is "totally depraved but not absolutedly depraved" that's why our society isn't in a state of violent anarchy.

Man is created in God's image so God's Law is written on the heart of men, no matter how depraved their actions are, men have a God consciousness - unlike the animals. Man "fell" in the Garden, he didn't die, that's why they call it the "Fall"

Well, I'd debate you on this, but IMO it is a topic for another thread. I'm trying to stick closely to what the majority of free-willers on BB say, not establish what I personally think is correct doctrine.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Gospel = Good News = The Bible = God's Word = The Word (God the Son, Jesus Christ) so apart from The Gospel of God the Son, Jesus Christ and WILLFUL faith in Him, we are hopelessly lost in our Sin. IS that clear enough? The Living Word lived in His earthly body approx 4 B.C - A.D. 30, is that what you wanted to know?

No.
Your statement is clear.
The gospel, you said, and man's faith, ensures his heavenly home.

The gospel is simply good news about Christ who came to save sinners, and did in fact save sinners.

It is good news of one's finished salvation.

Good news did not happen because you believed it.

Your salvation did not become a reality to you because you had faith in Christ.

You had faith in Christ precisely because you are a saved sinner.

Therefore, with or without the good news, you are a child of God, a saved sinner, and heavenbound. Translation: without the gospel, you are still a child of God.

Now, this is as far as I will go, because I do not want to derail npet's thread.

You can start a thread about this if you desire to refute.

 

[IFB Mole]

Yes I realize that and my corrections to your post (which was good by the way) were from conversations I have had with ardent free-willers, which really is nothing more than humanism. Free-will (as defined by the free-willers) makes man autonomous or "neutral" to the Gospel. It is influenced by the Grace of God but not "coerced" to the point beyond man making the final - therefore sovereign - decision to make salvation "effectual".

"God votes for ya, devil votes agianst ya and YOU cast the deciding vote of your own free will" - 'bout sums it up.

 

[IFB Mole]

Pinoy,

I agree with you, but God's eternal redemptive purpose was that the Gospel is the method used to make His free gift of salvation effectual.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

IFB MOle you missed the mark. Man is not nuetral about God he is either for or against there is no in between. Also there is a diffeance between coerced and forced without choice. God seeks out man,and convicts him of sin,many times over and over again. God makes every effort short of outright forcing us to choose Him to win us over to His side.:godisgood:

 

[skypair]

I compiled the following from my observations over the years. Please amend these points as you see fit. In all cases, "man" means mankind, and refers to men and women.

First, I applaud your effort to see "free will" apart from Aminianism and semi-Pelagianism applause and putting the issues in plain terms.

Second, this really does present the issues for all to consider.

1. Limited Inability: Man is fallen, but not so damaged by the fall that he is totally unable to will or to do good. Man does not have enough good in him to save himself, but since man remains created in the image of God, man has enough good in him that he is able to incline himself toward salvation if he so wills. Man is also not so fallen that he is unable to love God of his own free will. (scripture?)

I might elaborate on this point by saying that man, after the fall, knew evil AND GOOD (including God) which he knew previously. And in the end, choosing salvation is just like any of a myriad of decisions man makes -- there's a set of facts, there's good and evil possibilities, there are distincitve outcomes (rewards or punishments) to be considered.

2. Age of Accountability: Man is born saved and innocent. (I understand that free-willers do not say the words that man is born saved, but I don't know any other way to interpret this. Feel free to "fix" or "amend" if necessary.) If man dies before reaching the age of accoutability, man is not held accountable for sin and deserves heaven. Man does not become a sinner until he knowingly and willfully commits the first sin. (scripture?)

Born innocent but NOT saved. Infants are JUSTIFIED until accountability on account of 1) sinlessness and 2) lack of capacity for good or evil. Scripture? Rom 7:9.

All the JUST will be resurrected into Christ's earthly kingdom and have opportunity to receive Christ as Savior when they have knowledge.

3. Sovereignty Sovereignly Abdicated: It is God's sovereign will to abdicate His sovereignty to man with respect to salvation. God remains sovereign over all things except man's salvation, but this does not mean God is not sovereign, since it was His sovereign decision to abdicate His sovereignty in this matter. (scripture?)

God allows His created beings (men and angels) sovereignty in their own affairs -- but God retains sovereignty over the outcomes of their decisions. He will have mercy on whom He desires to have mercy regarding outcomes (which is really everyone since this is one of His means of drawing men to Christ). Scripture? "Choose YE this day whom you will serve."

4. Resistable Grace: It is God's will that all men be saved, but God does not impose His will upon man. God gives man enough grace to be saved, but not so much as to ensure man's salvation. Man may resist God's grace and refuse the gift of salvation, thereby thwarting God's will that all men be saved. (scripture?)

God gives men enough INFORMATION to sovereignly CHOOSE His salvation would be better. He even uses nature, Rom 1:19-20.

I also would caution that Calvinists/Reformers seem to have a muddy definition of "grace." Right here what you say seems to infer that "enough grace" would be "enough Holy Spirit" or "enough salvation." At the point of not having received Christ, I don't think anyone receives "grace." Rather, they are given "mercy."

5. Free Love: The driving force behind the previous points is that God wants man to love Him, but does not consider love worth having unless man gives love to Him freely, i.e. according to man's own free-will. This requires point #1, that man is not so fallen as to be unable to love God of his own free will. (scripture?)

"Faith, hope, love -- but the greatest of these is love." Love is the fruit of faith that God is looking for. Love is being a blessing to the Object/object of your love (God, wife, children). Love is wanting the best for that Person/person today and forever. As this demonstrates, love is knowable to even the lost and is responsive "in kind" to the person loved.

Yes, there is no greater desire on God's part than that we love Him of our own will. "Love covereth a multitude of sins" --- isn't that the truth!!

skypair

 

[skypair]

That's how they interpret Paul saying things like the following in Romans: "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law" - and "Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." They interpret this to mean we are spiritually alive at birth (which is why I say "born saved"), but sin springs to life when we are able to discern right from wrong, after which we sin and die. Then we must be raised to life again through salvation.

You just answered your own charge, npeterely. Spiritually alive means that we still have mind, emotions, and will wherein either 1) "there is no law" or 2) the law has been replaced by faith in Christ.

Do you see that between the time when there was no known law until "sin sprang to life" that there was a period when one was innocent in God's eyes of any sin guilt?

skypair

 

[skypair]

2. Age of Accountability: ... In either case, man is not held accountable for sin until he is mature enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. If man dies before this point, God either considers the man innocent, or imputes innocence to man and man inherits heaven by default. (scripture?)

That last line is meant to emphasize that man must somehow be innocent in order to enter heaven. I think even free-willers would agree that sinners will not enter heaven, so the man must either be innocent from birth, or innocence must be imputed to the man.

Here's where the point is a little out of touch with reality/scripture IMO --- we enter heaven with the same mind, emotions, and will that we left earth with. Infants are not going to suddenly experience all knowledge once they go there either. They will come back to earth with all those who didn't or couldn't know Jesus (insane and OT saints included) and they will have a choice to make THEN. It's the same choice we have to make NOW -- Jesus saves or self saves.

skypair

 

[skypair]

brother npetreley:

my own position with regards to babies is that those babies and infants who die in the womb, at birth, or at infancy, belong to the elect of God.

First, Revelation tells us that " the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (ch.20, v.12).

Babies, infants, toddlers, fetuses, have not done works that they have to account for. God has not condemned man on account of his sin nature, but on account of what that nature brings out in him.


I am sure that their being elect of God is not a big problem to God since He knows who among His people will be born where, when, and how.

FWIW.

Your point really militates, not for innocence, but for election by some other means than Christ, pinoy.

Further, in equating "elect" with "saved," you assume that infants will have the privilege of being raptured when Christ "comes in the air" for us. That too would not be true. Infants are counted among the 'just" -- like OT saints who couldn't know Jesus Christ as Savior.

skypair