James White affirms Libertarian Free Will.

Oh give me a break. Look up the definition of freewill.
Charles Spurgeon -This is one of the great guns of the Armenian's, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.
 
continued -Free-will doctrine-what does it? It magnifies man into God. It declares God's purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God's will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent on human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice, it holds God to be a debtor to sinners.
 
How do they know what God's terms are? Jesus is the author and perfector of our faith. Hebrews 12:2. You have no Idea what Jesus is writing about you, so, how can you know the terms?
Jesus in the N.T. and YHWH in the O.T. over and over and over again tells people to choose to serve Him. We choose by our free will to believe the gospel, believe in the Son as per Jesus own teaching for example in John chapter 3. John 3:16-18. Its the same choice the unbelieving Israelites had in the wilderness with Moses- to look upon the bronze serpent and live or not look upon the bronze serpent and die. Jesus uses that exact analogy with Himself to look upon Him and believe in Him for salvation/eternal life and live or not to believe in Him and die.

The above it taught from cover to cover in Scripture, over and over again and again.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God” (John 3:17-18).

Its unbelief that keeps one from salvation and places them under condemnation. This is taught throughout the N.T. gospels and epistles. Here we see what Jesus and Paul declared below.

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them

Since Christ’s work is Expiation (cleansing), then it is naturally "sufficient" for the whole world because the "remedy" is offered to all, just as the Bronze Serpent was lifted up for anyone to look upon and be healed (John 3:14-15). Jesus and the Apostles taught the atonement was received by faith and unbelief excludes one from the covering made by Jesus on the cross.

Romans 11:20: Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.

Hebrews 3:19: So, we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Cf Heb 4:6- unbelief

hope this helps !!!
 
Jesus taught provisional atonement


John 3:14-18
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Above we see those who looked upon the brass serpent in the wilderness were healed/ saved. Moses provided a way for those bit by the poisonous snakes to be healed and not die by looking upon the brass serpent. Jesus compares Himself in the same way to be saved by His provision for their sins through His atonement to be received by faith. In both cases faith saved them in the OT wilderness as is the case with Jesus in the NT.

Jesus died for all

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1 Timothy 2:4–6
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

2 Corinthians 5:14–15
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

In 1 John 4:10 hilasmos/ translated as propitiation in some translations there cannot mean sooth anger and must mean something else( Expiation) than what is taught in christendom. God says love 3 times in that passage so it cannot mean anger being soothed. It means expiation as in covering for sin.

I always go to Christ who is God as my primary source of truth. His teaching must not contradict anyone else in scripture. If there seems to be a contradiction then it is with mans understanding on the topic not from Jesus teaching. He is God and He is the authority on all things. Not once did Jesus even hint His death was propitiation as taught by the reformers meaning appeasing an angry deity- that concept is pagan. That is why propitiation is not a good translation, expiation is the better translation and meaning in 1 John.
 
How did He view His own death- the atonement ?

We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation

1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom

2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom

3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15 Substitution, Ransom

4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51

5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28

6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11

7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution

8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28- Expiation

The N.T. writers' emphasis on the atonement is on the side of expiation rather than propitiation, which is only used twice in the epistle of 1 John. Gods’ wrath is still future and will judge those who reject His Sons atonement for sin. Gods’ wrath was not poured out on the Son for sin otherwise there would be no future wrath from God because of sin.

If we were to read propitiation ( appease an angry god as the meaning ) in 1 John 4:10 look at how absurd if reads.

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to appease our angry god , to appease His anger, to appease his angry self etc.......for our sins.

That makes no sense at all theologically , grammatically or contextually. It’s a contradiction, an oxymoron.

Here are the only three uses of “propitiation” in the KJV:

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation(G2435) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Rom 3:25-26)

“And he is the propitiation (G2434) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation(G2434) for our sins.” (1 John 4:10)

As we will see, this is a very poor word to use to translate the original Greek.

Here are the definitions given for the Greek words used for propitiation:

Original Word Definitions

G2434 ἱλασμός hilasmos hil-as-mos’

a root word; n m;
AV-propitiation 2; 2
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilasterion hil-as-tay’-ree-on
from a derivative of G2433; n n;
AV-propitiation 1, mercyseat 1; 2
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation
1a)
used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory
1b) an expiatory sacrifice
1c) an expiatory victim

Since G2435 comes from G2433 we should look at that word:

2433 ἱλάσκομαι hilaskomai hil-as’-kom-ahee
middle voice from the same as 2436; v;
AV-be merciful 1, make reconciliation 1; 2
1) to render one’s self, to appease, conciliate to one’s self
1a) to become propitious, be placated or appeased
1b) to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful
2) to expiate, make propitiation for

There is only one other verse that uses “hilasterion” (G2435):

“And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; (G2435) of which we cannot now speak particularly.” (Heb 9:5)

That verse suggests that “hilasterion” is a place where mercy is given – quite different from the usual meaning of propitiation.

So, if that word had been used in Romans 3:25, would that give the verse a different meaning?

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiationmercy seat …”

It literally means “a place or means of reconciliation, a place where atonement or unity and at-one-ment takes place.”

The only two verses that use “hilaskomai” (G2433) are:

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful (G2433) to me a sinner.” (Luke 18:13)

“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for (G2433) the sins of the people.” (Heb 2:17)

Those verses do not suggest anything like propitiation. What are the effects of the translation of a word meaning mercy seat as propitiation? They can’t be good.

Where did the Concept of Propitiation Come From?

Many (if not all) pagan cultures embrace the concept of propitiation and appeasement. Here is another example of modern misunderstanding:

“… Propitiation is an ancient word, which we as Christians have in common with other world religions. To propitiate a god is to offer a sacrifice that turns aside the god’s wrath. Anyone who believes in a god knows that they need some way to stay on the friendly side of that god. So they give gifts to the god, or serve in the temple, or give alms. And if the god is angry with them, they pay a price, or make a sacrifice, or find some way to soothe the god’s anger: they propitiate him.”(https://maney.us/blog/2014/03/25/trevin-wax-pagan-propitiation-vs-biblical-propitiation/)

Do we really need a way to stay on the friendly side of God? What about “God is love”?

Here are verses using “propitiation” (in the KJV):

“God presented Jesus as the way and the means of restoration. Now, through the trust established by the evidence of God’s character revealed when Christ died, we may partake of the Remedy procured by Christ. God did this to demonstrate that he is right and good — because in his forbearance he suspended, for a time, the ultimate consequence of us being out of harmony with his design for life — yet he has been falsely accused of being unfair. 26 He did it to demonstrate at the present time how right and good he is, so that he would also be seen as being right when he heals those who trust in Jesus.” (Rom 3:25-26, )

“This is what real love is: It is not that we have loved God, or that we have done something to get him to love us, but that he loved us so much that he sent his Son to become the Remedy and cure for the infection of sin and selfishness so that through him we might be restored into perfect unity with God.” (1 John 4:10, ) https://characterofgod.org/propitiation-definition/

hope this helps !!!
 
The Holy Spirit draws men to libertarianly/synergistically choose on God's terms.
However, under the basic premise of LIBERTARIAN Free Will, the draw of the Holy Spirit is not ESSENTIAL ... men are capable of naturally choosing to come on their own. Is that not the whole point of denying "Total Depravity (Inability)" from the Doctrines of Grace?
 
Jesus in the N.T. and YHWH in the O.T. over and over and over again tells people to choose to serve Him. We choose by our free will to believe the gospel, believe in the Son as per Jesus own teaching for example in John chapter 3. John 3:16-18. Its the same choice the unbelieving Israelites had in the wilderness with Moses- to look upon the bronze serpent and live or not look upon the bronze serpent and die. Jesus uses that exact analogy with Himself to look upon Him and believe in Him for salvation/eternal life and live or not to believe in Him and die.

The above it taught from cover to cover in Scripture, over and over again and again.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God” (John 3:17-18).

Its unbelief that keeps one from salvation and places them under condemnation. This is taught throughout the N.T. gospels and epistles. Here we see what Jesus and Paul declared below.

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them

Since Christ’s work is Expiation (cleansing), then it is naturally "sufficient" for the whole world because the "remedy" is offered to all, just as the Bronze Serpent was lifted up for anyone to look upon and be healed (John 3:14-15). Jesus and the Apostles taught the atonement was received by faith and unbelief excludes one from the covering made by Jesus on the cross.

Romans 11:20: Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.

Hebrews 3:19: So, we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Cf Heb 4:6- unbelief

hope this helps !!!
I had know idea of anything in the bible when Jesus chose me. Two things I knew, Jesus saved me and I was going to heaven. I didn't own a bible or read it. So, without being Chosen by God I had no idea of any doctrine. Suffice it to say. I had no free will in God's decision. If anyone is born again from above, by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ Jesus, how did he make that decision by free will, which doesn't exist. God's will is the only will concerning man, and Man cannot know the timing or God's mind, because our finite mind cannot grasp an infinite God.
In the OT, the Holy Spirit was not poured out like the NT is. The Jewish religion was more akin to the Catholic church in the dark ages, where you confessed to the priest and the law was read in the temple. Nobody had the Holy Spirit to bring the truth out, until Martin Luther, then a revival started and bibles were printed for the people. When you bring up the OT verses, the Jews had to choose and the law was written for them, but it was useless for the majority. Paul explains it well in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. So, the Jews constantly ignored God, until they begged for help and God said enough and exiled them all and was silent until Jesus.

I think Spurgeon explains it very well. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years. There has always been a universalist, liberal think that God will accept everyone, just because of man's hope to come to God on his own terms, when he wants to. I've heard that over and over, when I'm ready I will accept Jesus, but they never do. Churches are full of unsaved people today because they think water baptism saved them. That's the works mentality, on my own terms.
 
If there is no free will, then there is no such thing as sin.
An infant is born to a mother addicted to crack and grown up to become an addict themselves. They were born with a genetic predisposition to an "addictive personality", they were "nurtured" in an environment that fostered "self medication" as a coping mechanism and before they became an "adult" they were physically addicted to drugs. Clearly, they were dealt an "unfair" hand.

When they stab a woman to steal her purse to gain money to buy drugs ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?
When they shoot a man in a convenience store ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?
When they are killed shooting at the police rather than be arrested ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?

There is no absolutely "FREE WILL" because we live in a fallen world.
  • Our fleshly appetites draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own bodies ["When the woman saw that the tree was good for food ..." - Gen 3:6]
  • Our eyes draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own eyes ["and that it was a delight to the eyes ..." Genesis 3:6]
  • Our mind draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own thoughts ["and that the tree was desirable to make one wise ..." - Genesis 3:6]
  • Living in a world in which everything (including our very selves) betray us to sin ... our "will" is "fallen" rather than "free" so we sin and draw those we "love" to join us ["she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." - Genesis 3:6]
When God calls us HOME, we follow the example of our parents: ["Now they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." - Genesis 3:8 & "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed." - John 3:20] ... like father, like son (because both are sinners: "Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest." - Ephesians 2:3)
 
An infant is born to a mother addicted to crack and grown up to become an addict themselves. They were born with a genetic predisposition to an "addictive personality", they were "nurtured" in an environment that fostered "self medication" as a coping mechanism and before they became an "adult" they were physically addicted to drugs. Clearly, they were dealt an "unfair" hand.

When they stab a woman to steal her purse to gain money to buy drugs ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?
When they shoot a man in a convenience store ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?
When they are killed shooting at the police rather than be arrested ...
  • was that a sin?
  • are they responsible for their actions?

There is no absolutely "FREE WILL" because we live in a fallen world.
  • Our fleshly appetites draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own bodies ["When the woman saw that the tree was good for food ..." - Gen 3:6]
  • Our eyes draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own eyes ["and that it was a delight to the eyes ..." Genesis 3:6]
  • Our mind draw us towards sin ... we are tempted and betrayed by our own thoughts ["and that the tree was desirable to make one wise ..." - Genesis 3:6]
  • Living in a world in which everything (including our very selves) betray us to sin ... our "will" is "fallen" rather than "free" so we sin and draw those we "love" to join us ["she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." - Genesis 3:6]
When God calls us HOME, we follow the example of our parents: ["Now they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." - Genesis 3:8 & "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed." - John 3:20] ... like father, like son (because both are sinners: "Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest." - Ephesians 2:3)
To sin is to disobey God. To disobey is a choice. Freewill is, by definition, the ability to choose between alternatives. Without freewill there is no ability to choose.
 
Charles Spurgeon -This is one of the great guns of the Armenian's, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.
You quote me Charles Spurgeon? He knows nothing of soteriology but the false teaching of Augustine.
 
Are we sure that this has ANYTHING to do with James White? I watched about a third and heard White affirm that Adam had Libertarian Free Will “for a brief time” before Leighton Flowers launches into an extended eisegetical (no scripture was given, just opinion) diatribe about what God COULD DO and man’s hypothetical ability to respond that ignores all the SCRIPTURE that states that men DO NOT and CAN NOT respond without God acting first in some supernatural way. Even Wesleyan Arminianism acknowledges the need for a supernatural “prevenient grace” to enable men to respond because even the Arminian Wesley brothers acknowledged the truth in scripture that human will is not “Libertarian Free” (100% free of outside influences and capable of choosing God unaided).

If men are capable of choosing God without a suprnatural act of God, then the incarnation was not needed … men could have obeyed the LAW and been saved.
James White is a calvinist, so would never affirm that as truth
 
To sin is to disobey God. To disobey is a choice. Freewill is, by definition, the ability to choose between alternatives. Without freewill there is no ability to choose.
I agree, however not ALL choices are possible (did you choose to live a sinless life? or choose to be an NFL quarterback?)
No one DOES choose God (irrespective of whether they CAN or CAN NOT, the Bible is clear that people DO NOT choose to be Holy). (see Romans 3)
 
You quote me Charles Spurgeon? He knows nothing of soteriology but the false teaching of Augustine.
That's ignorance. Also, using words like soteriology and exegesis are Latin words that do can't save a soul; Only trying to make someone using them seem smarter than they are. Spurgeon was a great preacher and as influential as Augustine. So, you try to elevate yourself above the famous of the Faith. How many books have you written to show your expertise? The doctrines of Faith are solid biblical teaching. The church needs more of that today.
 
You quote me Charles Spurgeon? He knows nothing of soteriology but the false teaching of Augustine.
Quote from autobiographer Jerry Harmon, teaching Pastor at Grace Baptist Church: Spurgeon openly confessed his utter commitment to the Bible. He preached God’s Word as he found it. He built his soteriology on the Word of God. At times, when his theology seemed to be paradoxical, he rested on revelation rather then reason. Drummond wrote: But in this sense, he ministered much in the tradition of Calvin himself. Calvin preached the Bible as he found it. For Spurgeon authority rested in sola scriptura, although from time to time he would attempt to corroborate his position by tradition, experience, reason, even the creeds. Still, primarily, as an absolute believer in the infallible Word of God, he built his theology on the Bible as he understood it. Spurgeon depended completely upon the Scriptures to do the work of revealing Christ to the sinner. He viewed the Scripture as the “wonderful library about God.” He held to verbal inspiration all his days and every sermon was based on Scripture. Spurgeon’s theology also revolved around the Lord Jesus Christ and rested on His life, death, and resurrection. This naturally resulted in a God-centered theology rather than a man-centered approach to truth.

Spurgeon - The system of truth is not one straight line but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once…Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there is no precedence of God overhits actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free to be responsible, I am driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. There are some who read the Bible, and try to systematize it according to rigid logical creeds; but I dare not follow their method, and I feel content to let people say, ‘How inconsistent he is with himself!’ The only thing that would grieve me would be inconsistency with the Word of God. As far as I know this Book, I have endeavored, in my ministry, to preach to you, not as a part of the truth, but the whole counsel of God; but I cannot harmonize it, nor am I anxious to do so. I am sure the truth is harmonious, and to my ear the harmony is clear enough; but I cannot give you a complete score of the music, or mark the harmonies on the gamut, I must leave the chief musician to do that.
 
That's ignorance. Also, using words like soteriology and exegesis are Latin words that do can't save a soul;
Neither does Charles Spugeon
Only trying to make someone using them seem smarter than they are. Spurgeon was a great preacher and as influential as Augustine. So, you try to elevate yourself above the famous of the Faith. How many books have you written to show your expertise? The doctrines of Faith are solid biblical teaching. The church needs more of that today.
I don't really care about the "famous of the faith" if they are wrong. And both Spurgeon and Augustine were wrong in their version of soteriology which was and is, to use your word, ignorance.
 
I agree, however not ALL choices are possible (did you choose to live a sinless life? or choose to be an NFL quarterback?)
No one DOES choose God (irrespective of whether they CAN or CAN NOT, the Bible is clear that people DO NOT choose to be Holy). (see Romans 3)
But people can choose to believe the word of God and thus believe in God. In doing so and obeying the gospel of God, God then makes the believer a saint, that is holy ones.
 
But people can choose to believe the word of God and thus believe in God.
No they cant, not the True God, they are dead to Him. They may choose to believe in the god of their darkened understanding, but thats about it. The True God must be spiritually revealed to us, as well as the True Christ Matt 11:25-27

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
 
Neither does Charles Spugeon

I don't really care about the "famous of the faith" if they are wrong. And both Spurgeon and Augustine were wrong in their version of soteriology which was and is, to use your word, ignorance.
You are welcome to your own opinion of course, but do not disparage others for their beliefs that God led them to. God Bless.
 
Back
Top Bottom