Define choice...jcjordan said:I asked you for a quote from a calvinist who says that all people don't have a choice. Is this your answer?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Define choice...jcjordan said:I asked you for a quote from a calvinist who says that all people don't have a choice. Is this your answer?
Nope, the text teaches that whosoever believeth, not believes.Jerome said:"John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man's natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
Some may reply, "All right. The text does not explicitly teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that." I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a thing.
. . .We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ." ---R. C. Sproul
Yep, the calvinists forget the invitation for all that are heavy laden to come to Jesus includes everyone that is a sinner.stilllearning said:Hi Salamander
You said.........
Very well put.
Matthew 11:28
“Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Believing is not a choice? It is forced?"John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing.
Have you read Romans 1?The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ.
This is circular reasoning. If I walk into a building and say "whoever comes outside will get $100" of course only those who come outside will get the $100! This does not mean "whoever" or "whosoever" couldn't receive the cash!A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man's natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
Not quite, the non-elect could have chosen Christ and remain that way until they choose Christ. You seem to damn them for eternity and allow them no chance to choose Christ.Pastor Larry said:It teaches that the non-elect reject Christ. So both sides are covered. There is no dilemma here.
Ephesians 1:4 does a pretty good job if you believe the Bible and not a man-made doctrine.Where is this? Hopefully you can tell me. I have asked for years for people to show me this verse, but so far, no one has been able to demonstrate this from Scripture. So please, tell me where the Bible teaches that those who choose Christ become elect.
You're twisting Scripture, again.That's not what Romans 9 says. It says that the choice was made before the twins before, before they had done good or bad. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with God.
As a Calvinist, I can assert that I haven't forgotten this at all. All sinners are not only invited to come; they are commanded to come. And to fail to come is disobedience to the truth.Yep, the calvinists forget the invitation for all that are heavy laden to come to Jesus includes everyone that is a sinner.
This isn't a distinction at all. The old way of saying "believes" is "believeth" in the context.Nope, the text teaches that whosoever believeth, not believes.
Right, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that their faith is not submissive faith, or saving faith.The devils believe and tremble, devils can't get saved.
Yes indeed. It is a wonderful message by which God saves people. It is utterly humiliating for us to recognize that we are completely without hope unless God unilaterally and sovereignly moves in us to draw us to faith and salvation. This is why Calvinist soteriology is most biblical ... it removes any basis for human pride, and exalts only God.God chose the foolishness of preaching to SAVE them which believe.
And this is exactly the point. When God says, "Whosoever believes will be saved," only those who believe will be saved. It does not mean that "whoever" or "whosoever" couldn't be saved. They can't be saved because they won't believe. The message is foolishness to them.This is circular reasoning. If I walk into a building and say "whoever comes outside will get $100" of course only those who come outside will get the $100! This does not mean "whoever" or "whosoever" couldn't receive the cash!
Nice post Jerome. And I noticed that the double-post bug bit you.Jerome said:"John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man's natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
Some may reply, "All right. The text does not explicitly teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that." I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a thing.
. . .We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ." ---R. C. Sproul
OK.J.D. said:Thanks brother for your love and blessings, but the C v A issue doesn't have anything to do with who follows which favorite leader. Something far greater is at stake. To the typical non-C, the justice of God is at stake, and to the typical C, the omnipotent glory of God is at stake. For some people, their whole image of God crumbles if he does not love all people equally, even though the Bible plainly declares that he prefers some over others for no reason in the one preferred.
I agree and as I have been guilty, I am trying to be more civil. I am concerned about the perceptions of onlookers up to a point, but there's only so much that can be done about it. Some people are going to find differences between Christians as some kind of proof of their own skepticism, no matter how civil the debate is. Quite frankly, I don't like to debate with civility. By nature I'm a bare-knuckles type of guy, both literally and figuratively.HankD said:OK.
My objection is to what the onlookers see when they witness the very same thing here on the BB that was going on in the Corinthian Church. I guess (on the bright side) they see that we are human.
Ideally we should be able to discuss/debate these issues without the poor witness of arguments and name calling.
I am and have been guilty, its an easy pit to fall into.
HankD
Now you're stuck with explaining the differences between willful disobedience and disobedience due to ignorance.Pastor Larry said:As a Calvinist, I can assert that I haven't forgotten this at all. All sinners are not only invited to come; they are commanded to come. And to fail to come is disobedience to the truth.
Not exactly, take the context: Nicodemus already knew that Jesus came from God and did miracles only God could do, he just hadn't yet realized that Jesus is God and what Jesus would do for him that no other man could do.This isn't a distinction at all. The old way of saying "believes" is "believeth" in the context.
Interesting, I thought all calvinists say that those who aren't "elect" have NO faith? But these devils believe and tremble knowing their destruction is at hand, they are the ones who left their first estate.Right, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that their faith is not submissive faith, or saving faith.
The problem is you're trying to completely write off the will of man having to be broken to come to saving knowledge. Inadvertantly you would be in danger of writing off Holy Ghost intervention to bring a pricking of the heart so a man could see his need and trust Jesus.Yes indeed. It is a wonderful message by which God saves people. It is utterly humiliating for us to recognize that we are completely without hope unless God unilaterally and sovereignly moves in us to draw us to faith and salvation. This is why Calvinist soteriology is most biblical ... it removes any basis for human pride, and exalts only God.
Salamander said:Interesting, I thought all calvinists say that those who aren't "elect" have NO faith? But these devils believe and tremble knowing their destruction is at hand, they are the ones who left their first estate.
The essence of belief is not a cognitive ability but a complete trusting in the finished workof Calvary as to wholeheartedly cast onesself on Christ.
The problem is you're trying to completely write off the will of man having to be broken to come to saving knowledge. Inadvertantly you would be in danger of writing off Holy Ghost intervention to bring a pricking of the heart so a man could see his need and trust Jesus.
Man exalts himself by foolish pride and ultimately places himself above the throne of God. Until he is brought under conviction due to preaching against sin and according to salvation through Christ no man could see the need and there would but absolutely NO need for missions.
Another danger of calvinism exposed.
God isn't exalted by His programming people to be saved, but rather when a man's will has been turned over to the Lord and away from sin.
Jesus said he had finished the work in John 17 and glorified the Father. Any man who places trust in the work of Christ ultimtely glorifies the Father. This incorporates that man's will, though now broken, yet in God's hands and under His command.
If this weren't the case you could never even mentioned man being brought under subjection. Subjection requires submissiveness of the will.:sleeping_2:
What am I stuck with? Ultimately, the reason for disobedience is irrelevant.Salamander said:Now you're stuck with explaining the differences between willful disobedience and disobedience due to ignorance.
No, I am taking it as a general statement of truth. Your distinction is absurd, and has no biblical basis whatsoever.Not exactly, take the context: Nicodemus already knew that Jesus came from God and did miracles only God could do, he just hadn't yet realized that Jesus is God and what Jesus would do for him that no other man could do.
You're taking it as a general comment when it was directed to Nicodemus personally.
Goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Everyone has faith. Some have saving faith and others do not.Interesting, I thought all calvinists say that those who aren't "elect" have NO faith?
Yes, indeed.The essence of belief is not a cognitive ability but a complete trusting in the finished workof Calvary as to wholeheartedly cast onesself on Christ.
No, I am not. You aren't reading closely.The problem is you're trying to completely write off the will of man having to be broken to come to saving knowledge.
Nope, I think "pricking" is way too understated for what the Bible says.Inadvertantly you would be in danger of writing off Holy Ghost intervention to bring a pricking of the heart so a man could see his need and trust Jesus.
I agree until your last phrase, which seems to be missing something. The reason for missions is to preach the word so that man will see his need.Man exalts himself by foolish pride and ultimately places himself above the throne of God. Until he is brought under conviction due to preaching against sin and according to salvation through Christ no man could see the need and there would but absolutely NO need for missions.
Yes, excellently said.God isn't exalted by His programming people to be saved, but rather when a man's will has been turned over to the Lord and away from sin.
Again, well said.Jesus said he had finished the work in John 17 and glorified the Father. Any man who places trust in the work of Christ ultimtely glorifies the Father. This incorporates that man's will, though now broken, yet in God's hands and under His command.
Yes, indeed.If this weren't the case you could never even mentioned man being brought under subjection. Subjection requires submissiveness of the will.
This is not a biblical distinction. The word group pistis/pisteuo as a verb is translated believe and as a noun is translated faith.annsni said:There's believe then there's a belief based on faith. Two different entities.
The NT does not make this distinction. The prepositions used are not consistent in the NT, showing that there is more fluidity in them than statements like this make clear.That's the difference between belief IN and believing ON.
Irrelevant? Wow...What am I stuck with? Ultimately, the reason for disobedience is irrelevant.
Yes, when it comes to separation from God for disobedience, the reason is irrelevant. You are still separated from God for disobedience. Why is that shocking to you?Irrelevant? Wow...