Johann
Active Member
It gets a bit tiresome @Administrator especially when it comes from these very individuals who "liked" your warning.
Johann.
An Article on free will
- Thread starter TomL
- Start date
Johann.
@synergy
You did not understand me, which does not surprise me, so please listen carefully what I meant by calling Revelation 17 Mystery Babylon a church when actually the great whore is not a single church but all of the religious so-called folks in Mystery Babylon, that claim to worship the one and True God, yet are guilty of spiritual formication, whereby the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication (lies and false doctrines).
Mystery Babylon is this world system, that has a religious sector that is part of that which make up Mystery Babylon. In Revelation 17:1-8 we see the religious part of Mystery Babylon, then starting at verse nine we see the beast which is truly the main part of Mystery Babylon, that God will cause to destroy the religious part of Mystery Babylon just before he returns again. Revelation 18 addresses the commerce and entertainment part of Mystery Babylon which God will burn up with fire in that day.
That being said, I have came out of BOTH, the religious sector and the world as we know it with all of its commerce and entertainments, etc.
We practice what you think you are doing, when nothing can be farther from the truth.
Since this thread is suppose to be discussing free will, let's see who is truly seeking to harmonizing scriptures or who is laboring to just ignore them, and the ones they attempt to address they beat them into submission by their misguided presuppositions.
In being born again, man's will has no part in the new birth according to the word of God, period, yet you, @GodsGrace, @civic @MTMattie, and many others, teach that is does, so let's us see who is the guilty party that you accuse me of doing.
John 1:13
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Not of blood.
Becoming a child of God has nothing to do with natural descent, pedigree, etc. @jeremiah1five needs to ponder this well. The Jews especially had this problem, for they trusted in Abraham (Luke 3:8). Descent and nationalism were real problems of Jews (Is 48:1-8; Ro 2:17-29). Paul declared Abraham’s children are not the children of God (Rom 9:6-8). We are the seed of Abraham, for we are Christ’s, his true Seed (Ga 3:16,29). Today there are British Israelites and similar sects that trust in vain genealogies.
Nor of the will of the flesh.
How plain is this! let us see who is truly guilty of beating scriptures into submission by their misguided presuppositions.
Becoming a child of God has nothing to do with your natural will or choice. This phrase condemns the decisional regeneration heresy of @synergy @GodsGrace @civic @MTMattie and all others who embrace this heresy.
Heretics will do anything to elicit a choice by the flesh to get saved. They talk ad nauseam about the simplicity of getting yourself born again. Prior to being born again, all you have is a flesh nature that is denied here. Not only is the will of the flesh denied, but it is impossible for it to so will. A man in the flesh cannot and will not please God; he is a depraved rebel. God’s compassion and mercy are by His own will, not man’s (Rom 9:15-16). If any ever will good to God, it is He that worked it in man to cause them to do good, otherwise it would be impossible, (Phil 2:12-13).
Only God’s will is active (John 3:8; 5:21; Ephesians 1:5; James 1:18; Hebrews 10:9-10).
What is the will of the flesh that is rejected here as the means of regeneration? You have two natures – one by first birth and one by spiritual birth (John 3:6). The will of the flesh is all you have before regeneration ~ the sinful you. Therefore, this phrase denies any choice or act of will before regeneration! Until you are born again, this is the only will you have ~ that of the flesh. Paul denied that anything you do in the flesh can please God (Romans 8:7-8).
Nor of the will of man.
Becoming a child of God has nothing to do with the will of anyone outside you. This phrase condemns parental efforts to save infants as in Roman Catholicism. By far the most popular method of salvation of Christians is infant baptism. Parents take children to some priest to be baptized to become God’s child. The parents choose godparents to guarantee the child of God will be taught. There is nothing a parent can do to assist or cooperate for salvation (Ps 49:6-9). No other man has any influence on you being born again, except for One Man! The work of salvation is all found in one man’s obedience (Rom 5:12-19). There is no place for parents, pastors, priests, or soul winners for eternal life. In Him was life! He is the Life! He is resurrection and life! He has the keys!
But of God.
Becoming God’s son by being born again is His monergistic, sovereign work. John called it being born again from Jesus (John 3:1-8; Ist John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-5,18). James also refer to it as a birth or begetting (Jas 1:18. Paul used quickening (Ephesians 2:1-3; Col 2:13), regeneration, renewing (Titus 3:5). This creative work by God’s power gives each elect person a new spiritual man. We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). This work by God Himself is compared to wind blowing by Jesus (John 3:8). This is the work of Christ Jesus raising dead souls to spiritual life (John 5:25). It is called a quickening of man from his natural state of spiritual death.
Romans 9:16
“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”Coming back and will consider this scripture from Paul.
@GodsGrace
I forgot to tag this to you, so here. I'm going to address your two posts that came this morning next.
@GodsGrace
Fran, truly why should it bother God's children ( by this I'm not saying that you are not, but only making a point) since we know that down through time, truth has always been in the minority, always. Even just before Paul left this world he said these words:
2 Timothy 4:16
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”Fran, I look down through time and I see godly men raising up with me, or, I should say, I'm rising up with them preaching the same truths, but even that can only give us a certain amount of comfort, we look to the Lord to stand with us, and to give us needed grace to be faithful to what he has been please to give us. Fran, vain is the help of man, even if there are millions of them, that will prove to be a major stumbling block to most.
Psalms 108:12
“Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.”All wise men know the truth of David's words.
See my post above to @synergy. You making that statement just shows me the strong delusion you are under ~ per 2nd Thessalonians 2.
I do not promote Calvinism as what is know as pure Calvinism, I labor to teach the scriptures and if that sound like Calvinism to you, so be it, then prove what I'm saying is wrong, by using the scriptures ~ because many Calvinist, would find fault with me.
Again, we teach unconditional salvation ~ we teach that salvation from sin and condemnation is by the obedience of ONE ~ Jesus Christ, period. We do not add to that gospel, so, it is far from being new, it is the same gospel preached by Paul and the apostles. So, if you desire to prove your gospel, used the scriptures given to us, just as I would toward you, and we both would allow the sculptures speak for us, not Calvin, not any Armenian, etc. It is just that simple.
Let me come come back and pick up here, after a meeting this morning.
Johann
Active Member
@Red Baker
FREEWILL AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE
by Brian H. Wagner, Ph.D.,
instructor of church history,
theology and biblical languages
at Virginia Baptist College
How often have I read in various Facebook theological discussions the declaration of a Calvinist – “Freewill is not taught in Scriptures”? Of course, the freedom of will to go against one’s nature, even for God, is not possible. It is impossible for God to lie or to deny Himself (Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18, 2 Tim 2:13). And it is impossible for me to fly by just flapping my arms. But the ability to freely make decisions commensurate with the limits of one’s nature and with the opportunities provided for such decision making is logically part of God’s and man’s nature and experience. The exercise of that ability by God and by man is also well documented in Scripture. And I can fly… if I decide to get on an airplane and allow its power to transport me through the air!
The following is an attempt at a rather thorough study of words used in the OT and NT that teach aspects and examples of the exercise of freewill. The reader will hopefully become convinced, contrary to Calvinistic dramatic false statements in opposition, that freewill is clearly taught in the Scriptures –
The Hebrew word [verb] נדב naw-dab’ is a primitive root that means – to impel; hence, to volunteer (as a soldier), to present spontaneously…primarily translated as an adverb “willingly” which indicates free motivation or voluntary decision. It is used 17 times in 15 verses throughout OT Scripture [also 3 times in 3 verses using the same root in Aramaic – Ezra 7:13, 15, 16]. (Most of definitions for this paper are adapted from Strong’s Concordance lexical definitions.)
Here are all the verses that translate this word, נדב naw-dab’, with the translation of it underlined. The ESV translation for each verse was chosen to accommodate Calvinist readers, so they won’t have to keep running back to their favorite translation, which is deterministically flavored.
Exod 25:2 ESV “… From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me.
Exod 35:21 ESV And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him….
Exod 35:29 ESV All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.
Judg 5:2 ESV …that the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the LORD!
Ezr 7:13 ESV – 13 I make a decree that anyone of the people of Israel or their priests or Levites in my kingdom, who freely offers to go to Jerusalem, may go with you.
—-[The verbal form in this last verse is a participle, on the Hithpael stem, which is reflexive in meaning, thus the word “themselves” should be added. This Hithpael verbal stem is used 17 times in the same reflexive way – Jg 5:2, 9; 1Ch 29:5, 6, 9(2x), 14, 17(2x); 2Ch 17:16; Ezr 1:6, 2:68, 3:5, 7:13, 15, 16; Neh 11:2]. The reflexive action only helps to emphasize the non-compulsory action of the person’s will in the decision made in each context—-
The noun נדבה ned-aw-baw’ is used 26 times in 25 verses, mostly in connection with a voluntary – “freewill” – offering to God. With all these verses one cannot help but ask “How can you have a freewill offering without a freewill?” Calvinists reject its normal meaning, but the Bible literally uses the word 26 times. Even the Calvinist translators of the KJV and ESV freely chose “freewill” as a suitable translation. Their translation choice is telling of what they believed this original word meant.
Here are the verses in which this noun is used:
Exod 35:29 ESV All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD. —-[The idea in this verse of a sacrifice made as a free-will offering, one not commanded as an obligation, is also found in – Ex 36:3; Le 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23; 23:38; Nu 15:3; 29:39; De 12:6, 17; 16:10; 2Ch 31:14; Ezr 1:4; 3:5; 8:28; Ps 54:6; 119:108; Eze 46:12(2x); Am 4:5]
Deut 23:23 ESV You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth.
2Ch 35:8 ESV And his officials contributed willingly to the people, to the priests, and to the Levites….
Ps 68:9 ESV Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad; you restored your inheritance as it languished;
Ps 110:3 ESV Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.
Hos 14:4 ESV I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them.
—All these OT verses clearly confirm that man, even an unregenerate man, can exercise a free-will in a manner pleasing to God. Even God is said to exercise His freewill in Hos 14:4. The translation in Ps 68:9 was obviously determined with some subjectivity. It could easily be translated – “A shower of freewill gifts, O God, you have shed abroad…”
Here are some NT words and verses to consider that also speak to the issue of the freedom of the will. A Calvinist may try to attribute all of the following examples as a result of regeneration, but that does not seem to fit this first example –
Acts 17:11-12 ESV Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
—-[from προθυμια proth-oo-mee’-ah, meaning predisposition. See also – 2Co 8:11, 12, 19, 9:2;] The Calvinist may endeavor to suggest this willing predisposition of the Bereans was a result of regeneration, which they think is before faith is expressed. It is very difficult to convince them otherwise when their loyalty to Calvinism is so strong that they refuse to see the gospel of John clearly teaches light is freely received before faith which is before new birth life is given. See John 1:4-13, 12:35-36, 20:30-31.
Other NT verses to consider that speak to the issue of freewill are these –
1Cor 7:37 ESV But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. —-from μη ἔχων ἀνάγκην , literally – “not having a necessity”, which would be impossible if everything was predetermined eternally and immutably, making every event a necessary result of God’s decree. Notice also the verse says this man “having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart.”
1Cor 9:17 ESV For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. —- from εχων hek-own’ meaning willingly.
2Cor 8:3 ESV For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, and 2Cor 8:17 ESV For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. —-from αυθαιρετος ow-thah’-ee-ret-os – meaning self-chosen, and by implication – voluntary.
2Cor 9:7 ESV Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. —- from προαιρεομαι pro-ahee-reh’-om-ahee – meaning to choose for oneself before another thing, to prefer and by implication, to intend.
Phlm 1:14 ESV but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. —- from εκουσιος hek-oo’-see-on – meaning willingness.
1Pet 5:2 ESV shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; —-from εκουσιον hek-oo-see’-ose – meaning willingly.
The existence of a free will, even post regeneration, runs counter to the idea of an eternally immutable divine will that had completely determined everything forever into the future before creation began. Calvinism is based upon that philosophical premise, making the exercise of any free-will for God or man impossible, before creation and especially after it. That premise makes a falsehood out of these clear Scriptures shared here. These Scriptures and many others clearly show that free will does exist and is being exercised by God and man.
Freewill as Taught in Scripture
Freewill as Taught in Scripture by Brian H. Wagner, Ph.D., instructor of church history, theology and biblical languages at Virginia Baptist College How often have I read in various Facebook theolo…
soteriology101.com
J.
Johann
Active Member
Given the syntactical structure of John 3:1-8, the broader Johannine theology, and cross-referenced passages, I am confident that this passage does not explicitly teach that regeneration must precede faith in a temporal or logical sequence. However, I will approach the question with even greater scrutiny, examining both grammatical and theological nuances.
1. Detailed Grammatical and Syntactical Analysis
Key Verse: John 3:3 (TR)
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
ἐὰν μή (ean mē) + subjunctive – This conditional construction expresses a necessary requirement but does not specify temporal sequence. It establishes a requirement for seeing the kingdom, not necessarily a process.
γεννηθῇ (gennēthē, aorist passive subjunctive of γεννάω) – The aorist tense often expresses undefined or punctiliar action, meaning the birth happens at a point in time but does not indicate whether it precedes faith logically or temporally.
οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν (ou dynatai idein) – "He is not able to see" does not necessarily mean an inability to believe but rather a lack of perception or participation in God's kingdom apart from new birth.
The conditional structure (ἐὰν μή + subjunctive) shows that new birth is necessary for seeing the kingdom, but this does not inherently mean that it occurs before faith.
2. Logical Flow in John 3:1-8
Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for misunderstanding spiritual birth (John 3:4), then clarifies that being "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5) is necessary to enter the kingdom.
John 3:6 states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," contrasting human effort with divine transformation.
Jesus compares this to the wind (John 3:8), showing the sovereign work of the Spirit but not establishing a precise sequence with respect to faith.
John 3:14-16 immediately emphasizes faith in Christ as the means of receiving eternal life.
3. The Broader Johannine Context
John 1:12-13 – "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born (ἐγεννήθησαν) not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
The perfect passive verb ἐγεννήθησαν (were born) does not require that regeneration precedes faith.
The structure suggests believing grants the right to become children of God, not that one must first be born again in order to believe.
John 6:40 – "Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life."
This verse links seeing and believing with eternal life, rather than making new birth a prerequisite for faith.
John 20:31 – "These things are written that you may believe... and that believing you may have life in His name."
If regeneration preceded faith, the verse would be expected to say, "That you may have life and thus believe."
4. Theological Considerations: Is Faith the Result of Regeneration?
Arguments for Regeneration Preceding Faith
Proponents (e.g., Reformed theology) argue that the natural man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-5), and thus cannot believe without prior regeneration.
John 3:8 states the Spirit moves as He wills, suggesting sovereign regeneration.
Arguments Against Regeneration Preceding Faith
Faith is consistently the means of receiving eternal life (John 3:16; John 6:47).
The word regeneration (παλιγγενεσία, palingenesia) is never explicitly linked to a prerequisite for faith in Scripture.
Ephesians 1:13 states believers were sealed with the Holy Spirit after believing, not before.
5. Cross-References on Faith and New Birth
+ Ephesians 2:8-9 – "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God."
+ Acts 16:31 – "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."
+ Titus 3:5 – "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit."
Final Conclusion
John 3:1-8 does not teach that regeneration temporally precedes faith. It establishes the necessity of the new birth for entering God's kingdom but does not define the order. The broader Johannine framework suggests that faith and new birth occur together, with faith being the means by which one receives new life.
Johann.
Hath is old English for "has". The word "has" is present tense, not past tense. So it does not refer to those that already have a spiritual ear, whatever a "spiritual ear" might be. It certainly is not speaking of the born again, since to be born again is a decidedly New Covenant concept and the New Covenant, established with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and inaugurated at Pentecost, had not yet come.
So who is it that Jesus is speaking about in verse 15? Who is the "he that hath ears" that Jesus is referring to? The answer is an easy one. Verse 14 says explicitly who they are; they are those who "are willing" to accept that John the Baptist is the Elijah who is to come.
Worthy is the Lamb!!! Praise Jesus, Lord and Savior!!!
Another post tightly bound to the Word of God.
Johann
Active Member
Your claim that “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” is addressing only those already born again and that the verb hath (ἔχει) is in the past tense needs careful morphological and syntactical analysis.
Key Verse (Matthew 11:15, TR)
ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
1. Morphological Breakdown
ὁ ἔχων (ho echōn)
ὁ (ho) – Definite article, nominative singular masculine (the one who).
ἔχων (echōn) – Present active participle, nominative singular masculine of ἔχω ("to have").
Meaning-
ἔχων is a present participle, not past tense. It describes an ongoing or characteristic action, “the one who is having” or “the one who possesses” ears to hear.
If it were referring to past possession, we would expect a perfect or aorist participle, such as ἑσχηκώς (perfect active participle of ἔχω, meaning "having obtained").
ὦτα (ōta)
Accusative plural neuter noun meaning "ears."
ἀκούειν (akouein)
Present active infinitive of ἀκούω (akouō, "to hear").
Functions as an epexegetical infinitive, explaining the function of the ears—"ears for hearing."
ἀκουέτω (akouetō)
Present active imperative, 3rd person singular of ἀκούω.
Imperatives are commands or exhortations.
Present tense imperative suggests continuous action, meaning "Let him continue hearing" or "Let him be attentive."
2. Is This Referring to Born-Again Believers Only?
The phrase does not explicitly restrict itself to those already born again. Instead, it refers to those who have the capacity to hear, which may include those willing to respond to Jesus' words rather than only regenerated believers.
Key Observations-
The present participle (ἔχων) describes ongoing possession, not a past event (i.e., "having ears," not "having had ears").
Jesus frequently uses this phrase when addressing mixed audiences, including unbelievers (e.g., Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8, Revelation 2:7).
It functions as a call to heed his words, which would be unnecessary if all who heard it were already regenerated.
3. Cross-References to Similar Usage
+ Matthew 13:9 – "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
+ Revelation 2:7 – "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
+ Deuteronomy 29:4 (LXX) – "Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."
The OT background suggests that ears to hear can refer to spiritual receptivity, not necessarily an already regenerated state.
4. Conclusion
The verb ἔχων ("having") is a present participle, not past tense, meaning the phrase refers to those currently possessing the capacity to hear, not those who were previously regenerated.
The imperative ἀκουέτω ("let him hear") is a command to act rather than an observation about a specific group.
While spiritual perception is necessary to understand Jesus’ words, this phrase does not exclusively refer to only born-again believers, as even unbelievers can be called to heed the message.
Johann.
@Johann, I liked all of that except the "Final Conclusion". It does not suggest "that faith and new birth occur together"; rather, it suggests only that faith precedes the new life.
civic
Active Member
All of mine are so thanks
Johann
Active Member
I appreciate the clarification @Jim and I agree that the Johannine framework does not present faith and new birth as occurring simultaneously.
Rather, the text consistently presents faith as preceding new life. John 1:12-13, John 3:15-16, John 5:24, and John 20:31 all indicate that belief results in receiving life, rather than regeneration being a prerequisite for faith.
Therefore, it is more precise to say that faith precedes new birth rather than the two occurring together.
J.
Jay
Active Member
Matthew 13:11-13
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
Jesus appears to be telling his disciples that his use of parables is two-fold. The first reason is so that his disciples could learn the kingdom's secrets, while others, who were not among his disciples, would be left in the dark.
The first reason that Jesus gave for using parables was to impart "the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven" to his disciples. The parables were a teaching tool to help them understand what he had to say to them.
More challenging to understand is the second reason Jesus gave for teaching in parables. Jesus taught in parables to keep some people from understanding what he was teaching. Jesus’ use of parables served to divide his listeners into two groups: his disciples, and everyone else. His disciples would be able to learn from them. But to those who were not his disciples, their meaning was obscure. By using parables, his disciples would be enriched, but others would be further impoverished.
Why Did Jesus Teach in Parables? - Topical Studies
On the surface, the parable was just an interesting story, one that was easily understood by the listeners and based on things within their own experience. But the parable also had a deeper meaning, illustrating a spiritual truth. In Jesus' use of parable...
Last edited:
synergy
Active Member
Even if you came out of that church, you are ignoring once again verses like 1 Tim 3:15 that explicitly declare the eternal truth that the "Church of the living God, is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth". You are showing very little fauth in believing that the Church of the Living God can be preserved throughout all ages as the Pillar that God claims it is.
You're like someone who tasted a bad batch of ice cream and has sworn off all ice creams, convinced that all ice creams are bad across the world.
Johann's and Jim's preceeding posts do an excellent job of eliminating the "regeneration before belief" heresy propagated by the Babylon churches you mentioned earlier.
BTW, you still don't believe that Jesus' righteousness, as manifested by him at his Baptism, does envelope infants even though 1 Cor 7:14 tells us that children can be "holy"? To contradict that verse is to fall into the doctrine of demons that you were part of in your former worshiping place called Babylon..
synergy
Active Member
I just want to make clear that it's always a choice on the part of the hearer as to whether or not he is willing to listen and learn from Christ's words. We are entrusted with God-given minds that need to be used properly. Of course the Holy Spirit has a direct hand in this synergistic process.
Johann
Active Member
I know we are going to disagree.
The process of hearing, believing, and responding to Christ's words involves both divine initiation and human responsibility, but it is not a fully synergistic process in the way that some theological traditions define it. Instead, it aligns with God's sovereignty in drawing individuals and man's responsibility to respond.
1. Divine Initiative: The Holy Spirit Enables Understanding and Conviction
John 6:44 – "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 16:8 – "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment."
Acts 16:14 – "Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."
These passages show that God initiates the process by drawing, convicting, and opening the heart.
2. Human Responsibility: The Call to Respond in Faith
Matthew 13:9 – "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
John 5:39-40 – "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
Hebrews 11:6 – "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
These passages demonstrate that man has the responsibility to seek, hear, and believe.
3. Is This Synergism?
In strict synergism (as in some Arminian views), God and man cooperate equally, with man's faith being an independent act of the will.
In monergism (as in some Calvinist views), God alone regenerates, and faith is entirely the result of this regeneration.
The biblical view appears to affirm that God initiates, enables, and calls—but does not force. Man must respond, but without God’s enabling, he would not respond rightly (John 6:44, 1 Corinthians 2:14).
This is not pure synergism, as man does not contribute to his salvation apart from God’s work.
However, it is not pure monergism either, because man is called to respond.
Instead, Scripture presents a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, where God initiates and enables, and man must freely respond in faith.
In the 16th century, Protestant reformer Theodore Beza coined the term, "Semipelagianism," targeting Roman Catholicism. Just being honest, even though Augustine was Roman Catholic, Beza recognized that infant sprinkling didn't leave its object with only an inclination to sin. Semipelagianism to Beza attributes salvation partly to God’s grace and partly to human effort, which is a doctrine of Roman Catholicism. He was targeting a Roman Catholic perversion with his term. As a reaction, certain Roman Catholics embraced a late fifth century modification of John Cassian, a Syrian monk who moved to Marseilles, France and staked out a middle position between Augustine and Pelagius that was widely accepted, in essence accepting Beza's analysis.
"Semipelagianism" was weaponized after Beza to label any degree short of complete or hard determinism. Using logic as an explanation, they work anything smacking of "synergism" back all the way into Pelagianism, barely slowing down at Semipelagianism. The line follows: no one can make a decision or it is actually Pelagianism, which is a type of salvation by works because then someone not totally depraved can then be saved by works. With Beza, semipelagianism was the invention that original sin could become just an inclination to sin with water sprinkled on a baby's head.
Today I've noticed that Calvinists are fine with people who behave like Pelagians and call themselves Calvinists. This is widespread. Does the grace of God actually change someone or is he left with only an inclination to sin?
If a person is not a Calvinist, a lot, probably a large majority, of Calvinists would call him a Semipelagian. This would be one of those weaponized usages of the term several iterations after Beza. In my reading of Calvinists, someone is a Semipelagian if he is the ultimate decider (with the crucial adjective, "ultimate")? There can be only one ultimate decider and that is God, so if someone thinks a person needs to or can decide to be saved, then he's Semipelagian.
I think someone has to decide to be saved. And I'm saying I'm not Pelagian or Semipelagian. I can agree to original sin. I reject infant sprinkling. Total depravity. I don't believe man initiates salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. Faith isn't a work. We love God because He first loved us. I don't seek after God, but God works in me to will.
God gets all the credit and the glory for my salvation. But I still will. I still decide. I turn from idols to serve the living and true God.
J.
civic
Active Member
No works for justification in my life its good works/fruit thats a direct result of abiding in Christ- in the Vine as a branch. Faith produces works as per Ephesians 2:8-10 and James 2:18-20.
hope this helps !!!
praise_yeshua
Active Member
At so many levels, the false doctrine of individual predestination of only certain individuals to redemption is offensive to the work of God in Jesus Christ. It is so offensive to the sensibilities of the righteous that those who believe such nonsense should be openly rebuked at every turn. I have tried to do this for many years and it has cost me many "friendships". You can't take these people seriously at all. I once tried forcing myself to believe they were "brothers" in Christ but every experience I've had since that moment with them proves otherwise.
Just start talking about the Goodness of Jesus Christ to all mankind and the "fangs" will come out of the "best of them".
This obsession they have with "infant baptism" is nothing more than a distraction. Even Baptist practice "dedication services" for infants. They do the same things but are certain to "classify" the practice with their own words.....
I once had a man tell me that he was wanting to be "assistant to the Pastor" and not "Assistant Pastor". I just simply asked him to explain the difference and he has hated me ever since.
The mind is a "funny thing". People live in their own imaginations. Few can actually separate themselves from their own interests.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Leave out "James 2:18-20" and you got it perfect...
The "fruit of our lips" to the praise of Jesus Christ is perfected fruit in believers. I rather hear words that magnify and exalt Jesus Christ above all others than anything else in this world. It gets my "motor running".....
Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
