What you call argue, I call a conversation.
You do seem to be AFRAID of conversation.
So I guess this is the end.
Always an end with you because you don't TALK.
When, where, or how was free will taken away?
- Thread starter atpollard
- 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!
You do seem to be AFRAID of conversation.
So I guess this is the end.
Always an end with you because you don't TALK.
A, we could discuss ideas all day long, but this I know FOR SURE:
We do NOT KNOW, why God did anything He did,,,we could speculate from scripture, but that's about it.
So, you told me I'm wrong and there's a lot to fix.
Asked your questions which I answered.
And now you tell me to go look for my own answers.
You are one odd character.
What about the Synod of Dorf?
No explanation?
No problem...
Do as you wish.
Chapter 9, items 4 and 5
Westminster Confession
Section 4.) When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,(1) and by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;(2) yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.(3)
(1) Col 1:13; Jn 8:34,36. (2) Php 2:13; Ro 6:18,22. (3) Gal 5:17; Ro 7:15,18,19,21,23.
------------------------------------
Section 5.) The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.(1)
I would like to tell you that the CC does agree to the above, except for "when God converts a sinner". Only because it's monergistic instead of synergistic.
Everything else is totally true. Man is not truly free until he is saved and in God's grace.
I say the CC because I learned a lot from both the CC and protestantism.
St Clement of Rome (born AD 35 and Died AD 99)
Apostle Peter (born AD 1 and died AD 64)
Apostle Paul (born AD 5 and died AD 64)
When St Clement was born, Peter was 34 years old and Paul was 30 years old.
St Clement was 29 years old when Peter and Paul died in prison.
St Clement was 61 years old when he wrote the only writings (a letter to Corinth) that we have from him.
So for the BEST of the ECF references, YOU are trusting the 30+ year old memories of an Apostle to reinterpret the actual writings of that same Apostle? No thanks.
Even granting that THESE ECF knew some very old Apostles when they were very young (in their 20's), are these the ECFs that you like to quote most? Does the letter from St Clement to the Church at Corinth concerning the authority of the elders to rule over the Christian laity answer many questions from the writings of Peter and Paul that support your beliefs?
You don't LISTEN, you just WAIT TO SPEAK.
I do not care what the ECF wrote (especially a single sentence or two taken out of context), I care about what the Bible says.
I do not care about your opinions on "FAIR", I care about what Scripture teaches is TRUE.
You do not wish to engage in a discussion (extended talk) on some specific section of Scripture (like all of John Chapter 3), and I do not want to exchange long lists of isolated verse references that prove nothing except we can both do a word search.
Synod of Dort: (from wikipedia)
The Synod of Dort (also known as the Synod of Dordt or the Synod of Dordrecht) was an international Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618–1619, by the Dutch Reformed Church, to settle a divisive controversy initiated by the rise of Arminianism. The first meeting was on 13 November 1618 and the final meeting, the 180th, was on 29 May 1619. Voting representatives from eight foreign Reformed churches were also invited. Dort was a contemporary English term for the town of Dordrecht (and it remains the local colloquial pronunciation).
The Synod concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views, and set forth the Reformed doctrine on each point, namely: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (arguing that Christ's atoning work was intended only for the elect and not for the rest of the world), irresistible (or irrevocable) grace, and the perseverance of the saints. These are sometimes referred to as the Five points of Calvinism. The nomenclature never inferred that all of Calvinism could be reduced to a mere five points, but that TULIP--the acronym that was later developed for the teachings of Dort in the English-speaking world--summarized the Calvinist position regarding the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God in salvation. It is The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, popularly known as the Canons of Dort, is the explanation of the judicial decision of the Synod. In the original preface, the Decision is called:
The Synod concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views, and set forth the Reformed doctrine on each point, namely: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (arguing that Christ's atoning work was intended only for the elect and not for the rest of the world), irresistible (or irrevocable) grace, and the perseverance of the saints. These are sometimes referred to as the Five points of Calvinism. The nomenclature never inferred that all of Calvinism could be reduced to a mere five points, but that TULIP--the acronym that was later developed for the teachings of Dort in the English-speaking world--summarized the Calvinist position regarding the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God in salvation. It is The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, popularly known as the Canons of Dort, is the explanation of the judicial decision of the Synod. In the original preface, the Decision is called:
a judgment, in which both, the true view agreeing with God's word concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained and, the false view disagreeing with God's Word is rejected.
Calvinism: (from wikipedia)
The namesake of the movement, French reformer John Calvin, converted to the Reformed tradition from Roman Catholicism only in the late 1520s or early 1530s as it was already being developed. The movement was first called Calvinism, referring to John Calvin, by Lutherans who opposed it. Many within the tradition find it either an indescriptive or an inappropriate term and would prefer the word Reformed to be used instead.
So just FYI (since you could not even be bothered to go to wikipedia to learn about the Synod of Dort for yourself and see your own errors):
- Calvinism was not founded by John Calvin, that name was given to the Reformed movement by its enemies as an insult.
- When you claim Calvinism is based on the teachings of John Calvin, you are being perceived as deliberately insulting our beliefs.
- When you are repeatedly TOLD that Calvinism was not founded by John Calvin but continue to perpetuate a known lie, you ARE deliberately insulting our beliefs.
- John Calvin died in AD 1564.
- The origin of what you would call Calvinism in the Arminianism vs Calvinism debate is the Synod of Dort (1619) which wrote the Canons of Dort in response to the publication of the (Arminian) Remonstrances.
- The Canons of Dort are the origin of the 5 points of Calvinism, but not the acronym T.U.L.I.P.
Even if you say something that I agree with (like 'God does not save all') and I say that I agree with you (because God really does not save all), you KNOW that I don't agree with you?
You ARE wrong in your claims about what others (like "Calvinists") believe. We do not believe that God forces people to commit evil acts, nor do we believe that God is responsible for making people commit acts of sin. So when you claim that Calvinists teach God makes everyone a puppet and forces some to do good things and forces others to do evil things, you ARE wrong about our beliefs.
I apologize if I said you are wrong in your interpretation of scripture, that is not usually my style. I will often point out that people are adding words and the actual verse does not say what they claim without those added words. For example John 3:18 is a statement of fact. It says nothing about who is or is not able to believe or why they are or are not able to believe. So anyone claiming that John 3:18 proves choice is just as wrong as anyone claiming that John 3:18 proves no choice. John 3:18 just proves "some are judged and some are not" and "belief in Jesus" is the difference between the two.
First of all, I don't quote the ECFs..or very rarely.
I know no one on these threads believe they were inspired...
Of course Luther was inspired, Calvin was inspired, Augustine was inspired, Piper is inspired, etc.
I trust the bible and quote from that.
MY POINT was that I do trust the Apostolic and ECFs MORE than I trust someone in the year 1,500 AD who comes up with an entirely new idea that DID NOT exist in all of Christianity for 1,500 years as if the old theologians were dumb, stupid and blind.
THAT WAS MY POINT.
You must be getting me mixed up with someone else.
I don't ever use the word FAIR and don't really know what you mean.
I don't post long lists of verses and have even requested another member that is of your belief system to please use one verse at a time.
You do word searches? That's nice.
Do you know that the computer did not always exist?
Wonder what persons did back then to know what they believed?
I don't do word searches,,,I have verses in my mind.
The computer DOES HELP ME in that it's easier than using a concordance.
Remember what a concordance is?
YOU asked me if I knew about the Synod of Dorf...I didn't bring it up.
I told you I don't know about it.
WHY should I look it up?
I don't use google to learn theology...I guess YOU do.
John Calvin must have had a strong influence in Luther's ideas if it's called CALVINISM.
If anyone that doesn't know all of your beliefs is perceived as being deliberately insulting --- well, maybe that's why it's so difficult to speak to calvinists. Why should anyone know anything but the basics about your theology?
You're the one very concerned with Pelagius, Arminius, Augustine....
I like to stick to the bible and have asked you at least a couple of times to do this.
I'm familiar with the 5 points of Calvinism and do NOT AGREE with ANY of them.
I've tried to speak to you about free will because calvinism stands and falls on free will...but you reject this because it cannot be proven from scripture that we DO NOT have free will. Scripture shows that we DO HAVE free will and I've posted verses regarding this.
As to John 3, I'm not about to exegete a whole chapter...
Maybe John 3:16, 18 is a declaration to you...
To me and all other theological beliefs in Christianity, it is an exhortation.
John 3:11
Jesus tells Nicodemus that he does not believe Him and does not accept His witness.
Please explain why Jesus would say these words IF He knew that everything is predestinated?
Do you believe everything is predestinated?
WHERE in all of john 3:10-21 does it mention that God chooses WHOEVER will be saved?
In verse 22 Jesus and His disciples came to Judea and He was baptizing.
Was Jesus baptizing ONLY those He knew GOD HAD CHOSEN?
How did Jesus do that?
Did He turn some away?
Had God preplanned that only the ones HE wanted to save would be at the site?
Calvinism leaves too many questions that make no sense...
and the replies would make no sense.
I've used a lot of other scripture to show choice and free will...
Even if you say something that I agree with (like 'God does not save all') and I say that I agree with you (because God really does not save all), you KNOW that I don't agree with you?
You ARE wrong in your claims about what others (like "Calvinists") believe. We do not believe that God forces people to commit evil acts, nor do we believe that God is responsible for making people commit acts of sin. So when you claim that Calvinists teach God makes everyone a puppet and forces some to do good things and forces others to do evil things, you ARE wrong about our beliefs.
I apologize if I said you are wrong in your interpretation of scripture, that is not usually my style. I will often point out that people are adding words and the actual verse does not say what they claim without those added words. For example John 3:18 is a statement of fact. It says nothing about who is or is not able to believe or why they are or are not able to believe. So anyone claiming that John 3:18 proves choice is just as wrong as anyone claiming that John 3:18 proves no choice. John 3:18 just proves "some are judged and some are not" and "belief in Jesus" is the difference between the two.
but I don't get answers.
Philemon 14 (1:14)
Paul wants him to act of HIS OWN FREE WILL.
Why does Paul say this if he teaches we DO NOT HAVE free will?
Libertarian free will of course.
You really are funny.
God’s sovereignty is not about man’s ability to make any choices at all. No one that I know believes that people are incapable of choosing fish or chicken for dinner without God deciding for them. I do believe that God already knows whether you will choose fish or chicken, but that is not the same as forcing you to make that specific choice.
What I believe is that the “natural man” (that would be unsaved people) cannot (is not able to) choose God when forced to choose between God and sin. That is because the “natural man” is a slave to sin (I think I remember scripture saying something like that, but I must be wrong because you are so SURE that we have Libertine Free Will). I also believe that God draws (an irresistible force that compels obedience; the term was used when Paul was drawn to court by an angry mob) people to Christ (something else found in scripture) and Jesus gives his sheep (presented to the Son by the Father) eternal life. I believe that after God the Father has drawn and God the Son has saved, that one becomes a slave to righteousness (also something I read in scripture). No man can serve two masters, the slave to sin will obey his sin nature and choose sin. The slave to righteousness will obey his new nature (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Laws of God written on his new heart) and walk in the good works prepared in advance by God (another thing found in scripture).
- Were Paul, Philemon and Onesimus unsaved natural men that were slaves to their sin nature whom we would expect to be incapable of choosing God over sin?
- Were Paul, Philemon and Onesimus born again children of God, slaves to righteousness, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Law written on their new hearts, whom we would expect to walk in the good works that God had prepared for them?
- Does the book of Philemon really have anything at all to do with the ability or inability of an unsaved heart to choose God over sin?
And it took a lot of time too.
The net helps us...but I don't like to depend on it for learning....
which is why I ask questions to learn the beliefs of others instead of going to the net.
It's not because I'm lazy....
Hey *at*, how come you have not honestly and frankly admitted that your theory about free will is TOTALLY BOGUS, and that you have decided to stick with the Bible after being enlightened?
Similar threads
