Why I believe in free will and not sovereignty...

1. Man is not good or bold enough to ever choose Christ on his own. Ever.

You're right, which is why he sent Christ, appointed the apostles to proclaim the gospel, and sent his Holy Spirit who is calling all to come. You just don't think that's enough.

2. God is not waiting to see what will happen.

You're right, he sent Christ to seek and save that which was lost and he appointed the spread of the gospel and the calling of the HS as means to continue that work until he comes again.

[b}3. The prescient view of foreknowledge does not allow any more freedom than the foreordination view.[/b]
You're wrong, foreknowledge of an event doesn't necessate the one foreknowing to be the cause or responsible for that event. If you went to a fortune teller who told you something was going to happen, would you think that the fortune teller made that even happen? No. Plus, not all Arminians hold to a "foreknowledge" of faith view.

4. Man's depravity corrupts everything he does.

You're right, which is why he sends his Word and his Spirit to correct us. Depravity doesn't have to mean "total inability" to have faith which come by hearing.

5. The natural man is an enemy of God.

You're right, which is why he sent Christ is reconcile the world to himself.

6. Christ did not die hoping that peole would be saved.

No, he was certain that he was saving all of those who had come before Him who were declared righteous by faith. And he knew that his plan to seek and save the lost would have its effect.

That's right, God is free to do anything he pleases. And he finds pleasure in those who have faith in Him (Heb. 11) This is the plan that the SOVEREIGN God ordained. He allows his control to be limited and he gives his creation over to others to rule and make decisions. Why? Because that is his pleasure.

 

Amen! Preach the Word. Keep on preaching.

Bro. Dallas

 

Here are some reasons why I believe in free will and not sovereignty:

1. Man is not good or bold enough to ever choose Christ on his own. Ever. Abraham? Isaac? Noah? Nehemiah? Joshua? Ezra?, Ruth?, Samual?, Daniel?, Joseph?, Esther?, Jeremiah?, Ezekiel?, Micah?, Amos?, Hosea?, Nahum?, Habakkuk?, Haggai?, Zephaniah?, Zechariah?, Malachi?, Joel?, Obadiah?, Johah?, Job?, Lot?, David?, Solomon?, Levy?, etc., etc., All persons of faith in God!

2. God is not waiting to see what will happen. No, perhaps not, but he is patiently waiting for the time of the Gentiles to come to a close.

3. The prescient view of foreknowledge does not allow any more freedom than the foreordination view. Prescience is foreknowledge, So your statement makes no sense. "Foreknowledge does not allow any more freedom than foreordination?

4. Man's depravity corrupts everything he does.Perhaps mans propensity to sin corrupts everything, but it remains to be proven that every man is depraved. Look at the list above!

5. The natural man is an enemy of God. Who is natural created man to wage war against Eternal Spirit God? Natural man cannot even see God let alone wage war against him. If you acknowledge that being in the image of God that man is spirit (which I believe) then man may be at odds with God, but an enemy? Not hardly, who is man that God should be mindful of him?

6. Christ did not die hoping that peole would be saved. No, Christ Died knowing that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life. He is the one who made it that way.

Oh, did I mention that I believe in the free will of God and not the sovereignty of man?That's commendable, especially in light of the fact that man does not have sovereignty as an attribute. You wager incorrectly about man's free will, for surely free will is an attribute given by God to man. God also gave man Dominion over the rest of the creation, a position of stewardship.

 

do you also believe that man did not have the choice nor sovereignty when he was imputed with the sin of Adam, which was designed and imputed by God, that got each man depraved? and that since birth each man is already depraved because of that sin? and that each man, together with that imputation, was not given the chance to have the ability to choose for God?

 

do you also believe that man did not have the choice nor sovereignty when he was imputed with the sin of Adam, which was designed and imputed by God, that got each man depraved? and that since birth each man is already depraved because of that sin? and that each man, together with that imputation, was not given the chance to have the ability to choose for God? </font>[/QUOTE]Sovereignty, like grace, love, mercy, justice, and the omni-attributes of God, is just that, an attribute, something that is true of of the one possessing the attribute.

Man does not have sovereignty for an attribute and is consequently not sovereign over anything.

The sin of Adam is Disobedience of God's Law.

The law and the penalty given to Adam prior to Adam disobeying God.

Disobedience is the first sin that every human commits. Prior to open disobedience, no children of men sin. There is no sin until there are rules, once the first rule is disobeyed, there is sin. It is in our nature to disobey authority, just as it was in Adam's nature.

 

Hi Yelsew;
a quote from you;
--------------------------------------------
Disobedience is the first sin that every human commits. Prior to open disobedience, no children of men sin. There is no sin until there are rules, once the first rule is disobeyed, there is sin. It is in our nature to disobey authority, just as it was in Adam's nature.
----------------------------------------------
Exactly as I see it Amen
Romanbear

 

Notice God did not say, 'For whom He foreordained, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of the Son. . . ' [Romans 8:29] Almighty God did, however, say 'For whom He did foreknow {prognow} from the Greek (prognosis). A medical doctor makes a prognosis about his clients future health. The Lord has made an unerring forecast as to how people will respond to the Gospel. It is on this basis that He has ordained some to Heaven and the rest of rebellious people to Hades. This preserves us from making God some kind of Divine despot {selecting some to felicity and the remaining people to Hell} and also we retain His character by keeping God from becoming the Author of sin, and I say it very respectfully, from Divine puppetry. This is the more Biblical and Arminian view. A Divine despot is not the same as Biblical Sovereignty.

 

Has anyone else noticed that Calvinists demand that God is Sovereign in Salvation, but they don't allow for the possiblity that God's Sovereign plan in salvation was to allow us to make that choice for ourselves?

They even admit that certain verses lead us to believe that all people have a choice to make, but for some reason they can't concede that God Sovereignly willed that man has a will of his own because somehow in their mind they think that lessons His Sovereignty.

He gave the world over to the prince of darkness to rule, while maintaining His Sovereignty, what makes Calvinists think that God can't allow us to choose to follow Him while maintaining His Sovereignty?

 

Yes, I have noticed that!

 

So he can get a correct tally on the number of his children? It must be difficult keeping a running tally considering that free-willers beleive, now you are now you aren't.

So God knows all, but has chosen of his own free-will to keep the end of the matter of the number of the saved hidden from himself, I guess this so he wouldn't be thought of as showing favortism.

BTW, we would accept the sovereignty of God in giving man a free-will to choose, except that man's will is not free, thus he is only able to choose between more or less heinious sinfulness.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I've noticed that too and I've only been here a couple of days.

 

This is a classic case of kidnapping a text from its context. You're right. God didn't say it in vs.29. He said it in verse 28 with a full clarification in vs. 30.

Note that whom He called, He also justified. This leaves us with two basic options. God has predestined that some will be called and justified according to His will or universalism.

It is an extreme case of abuse of scripture to force the Arminian concept of 'choice' onto this text.

Yes. And according to vs. 30, He predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies "the called according to His purpose."

At the expense of making Him an impotent by-stander waiting for sovereign man to make his eternal choices for Him.

No more so than calvinism does. We believe man has free will. Just that He will always exercise that will ultimately according to his own will, not God's. This is by definition, sin.

Arminian? Yes. Biblical? No... unless you think it OK to rip scripture from its context so that God can be conformed to human reason.

One gem of truth in a mountain of non-sense... of course Calvinism doesn't teach what you accuse and having read your writings, I know that this is not the first time this has been pointed out for you.

 

Here we go back to man's ability again.

If the Bible clearly calls all mankind to consider the cost of following Christ. And certain passages obviously lead people to believe the choice is ours. Then that must me true.

Like the old sign illustration that says, On the front of heaven's gate it says, "Whosoever will" and on the inside it says, "You were chosen"

If this is true then the call of the gospel is deceptive. It leads those who hear the call to beleive that anyone and everyone is able to choose, but in reality they are not able at all. No matter how you explain it, it makes the Bible deceptive at best.

I don't beleive the Bible decieves people to believe a lie until they get to heaven and get straightened out or just so happen to get indoctrinated by Calvinistic dogma!

 

Not only do Calvnaists allow for it, Calvanists require just that! No one is justified apart from choosing.

But the question is and always has been where the will to choos in this instance comes from. Calvanists maintain, rightly, that it is a result ofthe effectual Call of God.

For all that Ray seems to think he has been terribly clever, he has simply repackaged an old fallacy, namely that Calvanists deny will, which is not true. We do not even deny free will. We simply deny, as does Scripture, that the will is free to choose God in the way free-willies suggest.

 

Considered it, read the scriptures (ie. Romans 3:10-13), determined that this view would lead to no one being saved, read scripture's promise that some would be saved,... therefore I rejected it.

It is a possibility- just not one that can be reconciled with the whole of scripture.

Man certainly does have a choice to make but due to his sin nature he will never "do good" (Romans 3:12) with that choice unless God quickens him.

 

And did any of these men do such on their own power.

Abram (later Abraham) was a pagan idol worshiper before God called him.
don't you get it, there is nothing good in man. I care not to hear all thew 'goodness' you see in man. I care to hear what scripture says.

 

Could it be that Paul is merely stating the order of events that take place in the life of ones who those who have expressed their love for God (it is in past tense).

He may not have mentioned man's response to God's call in this text, but there are many texts that don't mention God's Grace in the process of one being saved. Does that mean that we assume that it doesn't exist within the process? Of course not. Paul in just two chapter later says, "How can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without a someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?"

Nothing in this senquece is mentioned about God's effectual call or even his grace. Are we to assume that neither of these play a part? No text stands alone. Just because Paul doesn't mention every part of the process doesn't mean it's not involved.

If you look at Romans 8 you can see that Paul is focusing on what God does, not on what man's response is, so for Paul to not mention man's faith in response to God's calling in no way proves that it's not necessary. Even Calvinist teach that no one will be saved apart from faith in Christ, therefore we must all admit that faith has to fit in the Romans 8 sequence somewhere.

The argument is what part does faith play and what is its source, which we have been debating under other topics and using scripture that actually mentions faith as a condition for salvation and even the receiving of the Spirit.

 

Considered it, read the scriptures (ie. Romans 3:10-13), determined that this view would lead to no one being saved, read scripture's promise that some would be saved,... therefore I rejected it. </font>[/QUOTE]So you rejected it based upon a passage that describes mankind before the introduction of the new righteousness which comes by faith and not the works of the law? Why don't you keep reading Rom 3 and you will see that is introduced for you in verse 21. You assume because man was unable to fully submit to the Law of God and thus obtain that righteousness that they must not be able to obtain the "new righteousness" which comes through faith in Christ. That is absurd.

BTW, later Paul explains its not a new righteousness at all for Abraham was declared righteous by his faith and not from obeying the law. So if "no one is righteous" how could it be that Abraham was declared righteous? Because of his faith, not because of his works.

You are correct, natural man can never be good enough or please God. Unless he has FAITH.

"Without faith no one can please God."

"Only that which procedes from faith is good."

And faith is the means by which God gives us a new Spirit or regenerates us.

"so by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

 

ScottJ,

I noticed you jumped right over what I said about 'foreknowledge,' a typical maneuver made by people who misrepresent the Word of God.

Your limited understanding must have made you say there is only Calvinism and universalism. The third view is more like a semi-Pelagian view. We believe that God offers the gift of everlasting life, not by decree, but by way of belief and trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Just as God made Adam and Eve sovereign over the Garden, so too God makes us regnant as to whether or not we will receive Christ or remain in rebellion and unbelief.

Mr. Harold Camping, a Calvinist, also has a similar Pharisaic attitude about all Arminian theologians and Christians being persons who reason their views into existence, while Calvinists take it straight from Scripture, without 'human reasoning.' That is why Calvinism is so bizzare because it doesn't make sense or even have to be on the scope of human sensibility.

But sense we are made in the image of God [Genesis 9:6 & James 3:9] and are many ways like Him, one must hold to a Biblical view that, with the aid of the Spirit, shows some kind of human intelligence and responsibility for the use of words and expression of Biblical theology.

This is why Calvinism has in its arsenal ideas like, 'the dead corpse theory' {about human inability to accept Christ,} [say what you mean the first time ... there is an edit button for correction] "Unconditional Election, a limited atonement for the few, and one Calvinist who represents an ultra-Calvinistic view and denomination, said that 'some will be elected without being called through the Gospel.

[ March 03, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]