Predestination or "Free Will?"
- Thread starter In Christ
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wormwood
Chaps
I dont know how else I can say this but it seems no one is grasping the concept. One can believe someone is totally depraved and must be drawn by God and still believe in free will. Really, this is part of the doctrine of Arminians...God must draw people because they are totally depraved. Total depravity and God's drawing are not evidences for Calvinism as both Calvinists and Arminians believe this to be true.
Well I am not sure how you are using the term "free will" but this is not how the scriptures describe salvation, nor the process of walking in the truth of salvation. If you have brought together the doctrines of Calvin and Arminians then you have done a great work, so please explain in detail your understanding, that I might judge it or point to the post in which you have made your understanding known?Wormwood said:
Joh 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It seems fairly clear there is probably some misunderstanding there, (although I do not presume to speak for anyone else and especially not a super moderator). Your question was a little difficult to follow; perhaps you should have used "do without" rather than "forgo"?Purity said:
Just sayin' :)
- Omit or decline to take (something pleasant or valuable); go without.
- Refrain from.
BB
Yes indeed it is. So then; are you saying you can forgo both the Spirit and the Truth? ;)Angelina said:
[please note that I am a lateral thinker and you must be absolutely precise when asking me a question - thanks]
That is why I suggested there must have been a misunderstanding, (I cannot imagine anyone here saying such a thing).Angelina said:no...I would forgo both Calvinism and Arminianism?
[please note that I am a lateral thinker and you must be absolutely precise when asking me a question - thanks]
Ok, I'll let ya'll get back to the topic of the twain anthropon man-faced coming from the one same lump of clay. :)
AngelinaAngelina said:
no...I would forgo both Calvinism and Arminianism?
[please note that I am a lateral thinker and you must be absolutely precise when asking me a question - thanks]
I would forgo the same (Calvinism and Arminianism) but that was not the question being proposed.
The question, if answered incorrectly the first time was, which of these would you forgo, "Spirit and the Truth"?
I apologise I was not very clear in my question but it was in response to this aspect of your comment:
Spirit and Truth must be a reasoned message; one of understanding.Angelina said:
:)
The Spirit is the truth....understanding perhaps but not necessarily wisdom. If all biblical interpretations were reasoned messages then there would not be any opposing positions... but there is :huh:
Bless you!
Bless you!
AngelinaAngelina said:
Understanding and wisdom is likened to my Chicken Avocado Fettuccini recipe - you cannot remove any of the ingredients, else we have grumpy children!
Purity
Perhaps that is why there are opposing positions to some of these interpretations then...as stated :)
Shalom!
Shalom!
When the Master returns he will state what is true and what is error.Angelina said:
Our discussions only prove "our" need for his presence.
Rev 22:20
Purity :)
There does not seem to be any relevance to our conversation...in fact I kinda think that it is just floating so I am assuming that you want to have the last say...okay :) go ahead and BB
Angelina said:no...I would forgo both Calvinism and Arminianism?
[please note that I am a lateral thinker and you must be absolutely precise when asking me a question - thanks]
That's gotta be better than thinking in circles, right?
There is no truth to the above statement at all. If you were correct,then salvation would be a parable? a parable for what?
Testament:
tes·ta·ment
noun \ˈtes-tə-mənt\
Definition of TESTAMENT
1
a archaic : a covenant between God and the human race
b capitalized : either of two main divisions of the Bible
2
a : a tangible proof or tribute
b : an expression of conviction : creed
3
a : an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b : will
— tes·ta·men·ta·ry adjective
I have provided a dictionary defintion of the word in question. The word testament does not mean what you are attempting to make it mean.
Otherwise, I pretty much have the same objections to your post as does Wormwood.
I'm not taking sides. I am flabbergasted at how you appear to think that the word testament actually means 'parable'. That really has me going. :blink: (I'll survive though)
edited for spelling...I'm not a great proof reader
Wormwood
Chaps
HiddenManna,HiddenManna said:
I am not combining Calvinism and Arminianism. I would consider myself Arminian. I believe you are thinking of Pelagianism. Pelagianism would argue that man is not totally depraved and is born with a clean slate. This is not classical Arminianism. If you are really interested in understanding the views of Arminians, I would suggest you do some research as a short post here hardly does justice to the issue. However, people like John Wesley taught preventing grace (which "preventing" in his day meant "to go before.") Prevenient grace is God's grace which enables a person to hear and have the capacity to respond to the Gospel. However, Arminians do not believe (as Calvinists do) that God's grace is irresistible. God has to empower someone to respond to the Gospel, but that person has the ability to refuse that grace or cooperate with that grace.
As far as your quotes in John go, I don't know how they prove Calvinism. Arminians do not believe that they enact their own salvation or that the saved are not born of God. God works in us, therefore we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. If all choices are controlled by God and salvation is given to some and destruction is given to others by God's own arbitrary will, then this is not faith. Faith is human response to God's word and work, it is not God imposing a work on a person that they are unable to resist. Calvinism teaches double predestination. This means God chooses people for both salvation and destruction from before the creation of the world. This is not the image of God in Scripture and does not mesh with plain Scriptures that display God as wanting all to be save and grieving disobedience and hard-heartedness. Why would he grieve if it is he who is preventing their hearts from softening by his irresistible grace?
It depends on the information given Niki and thanks for your kind response..
Hi Wormwood!
I would also consider myself leaning toward Arminianism but Like Wesley, do not agree on everything that Jacob Arminius's believed.
Shalom!
Wormwood
Chaps
Hey Angelina,
Glad to hear you are searching these things out. A book I would recommend is Perspectives on Election: Five Views. It provides a range of different views on these issues from various scholars. Dr. Cottrell's chapter on "The Classical Arminian View of Election" is one of the best and thorough presentations on classical Arminianism I have read. The book can be a bit technical, but the authors generally do a pretty good job defining terms.
Glad to hear you are searching these things out. A book I would recommend is Perspectives on Election: Five Views. It provides a range of different views on these issues from various scholars. Dr. Cottrell's chapter on "The Classical Arminian View of Election" is one of the best and thorough presentations on classical Arminianism I have read. The book can be a bit technical, but the authors generally do a pretty good job defining terms.
Similar threads
