The Doctrine of Free Will

[civic]

Dr. White and Dr. Flowers still arguing from ditches on both sides of the road both reject preceding grace.

Yet we see this preceding grace literally written on every page of the Bible.

The grace of God appeared to all men!

Leighton teaches grace precedes.

 

[civic]

@dizerner

Leighton below says the following:

First, we all agree the initiative in salvation is God’s, not man’s. We disagree as to the means and sufficiency of God’s initiative. So, none of us meet Dr. Olson’s definition of “semi-Pelagianism.”

Second, the term “prevenient grace” probably needs to be defined in more specific terms so as to draw out the distinction between us, because I would argue that the gracious gospel (along with all of God’s self-revelatory means) would be considered “enabling” and an “assisting grace that goes before conversion.” I would also consider anything that the Holy Spirit does to ensure these means are brought to pass a “supernatural and a special work of the Holy Spirit.”

“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

This penetrating work into the “soul and spirit” sounds like the work of “prevenient grace” described by my Arminian brethren, yet the author of Hebrews simply refers to “the word of God” as accomplishing this work, not some extra working of grace that aids the otherwise incapacitated nature of fallen man. Do God’s gracious means really need more grace to work?

Here are other passages that seem to teach that the scriptures, God’s inspired words, are sufficient even for the lost:

“…you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:15-16).

“Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

And

“The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63)

The Early Church Fathers likewise seemed to agree with this understanding:

Athanasius wrote, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth.”

Irenaeus, (130-202) wrote, “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1)

Dr. Olson continues,

It seems to me that the Bible does teach that the sinner [is] incapable of responding to the offer of saving grace with repentance and faith without a supernatural work of God, the Holy Spirit, enabling him or her to do that. “Dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2) seems to imply that.

Again, the inspiration and sending of the gospel itself is set up as being something other than “a supernatural work of God” and I’m simply asking is that a biblical idea or one created by a faulty theological system?

Also, in our discussion, I did address the idiomatic use of deadness in the scriptures and have yet to see any indication that the biblical authors mean to suggest an innate moral incapacity to respond to God’s life-giving truth. That is discussed more in depth here.

Finally, Dr. Olson asks an important question:

How important is this difference? Is it a distinction without a difference? Are both really Arminians? Is the “Arminian umbrella” large enough to shelter both classical Arminians (who follow Arminius himself about supernatural prevenient grace) and non-Calvinist “traditional Baptists?” Sometimes it seems to me that if two Christians who seem to agree about something talk long enough they will inevitably find that they disagree about it on some point—however minor. But is this a minor point? I have to admit that sometimes it seems so to me and other times it seems major.

In my conversation with Dr. Olson, it certainly seemed that I considered the distinction more significant than he did, as he did not seem to want to “get into the weeds,” which is understandable. But, the reason I have written and spoken about our differences a number of times is that I do believe it is a point worthy of our consideration, whereas the Arminians I’ve encountered thus far seem to want to play down the differences or pretend they are unimportant. I’m happy to hear that Dr. Olson would like to further explore the importance of this distinction.

I could be mistaken, but it seemed to me that Dr. Olson’s views on this issue were more driven by tactical and historical motivations than biblical ones. When I would bring up the scriptural arguments he would either appeal to the necessity of avoiding the Calvinistic boogeyman label of semi-Pelagianism (a label created by Beza in the 16th century to silence dissenters), or the historical teaching of Arminius himself – neither of which have much influence on me. While there is value in understanding the historical debates over these matters, I consider it a weakness to allow the leftover baggage of 16th-century debates to keep us from seeking the original intention of the biblical authors in their first-century context. I suspect that Dr. Olson would agree with me in principle on this point, but will he demonstrate that by addressing our differences exegetically rather than just historically? I hope so.

Prevenient Grace: Is this a minor point?

I recently had Dr. Roger Olson, of Truett Seminary, on the program to discuss his work on soteriology and some of our theological differences, which you can watch here. Dr. Olson is a scholar I hav…

soteriology101.com

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The Bible explains our inability keep the law and what to do because of that.

Where does the Bible explain your idea of an inability to hear Christ and what to do because of that?

John 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

 

[synergy]

John 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

Now where is that verse that all Calvinist-leaning cohorts run away from like plague? Ah, here it is. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). That means that God will enable all to come to Christ so as not to perish any.

Therefore every lost person has the ability to hear Christ if they so choose to do so.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Now where is that verse that all Calvinist-leaning cohorts run away from like plague? Ah, here it is. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). That means that God will enable all to come to Christ so as not to perish any.

Therefore every lost person has the ability to hear Christ if they so choose to do so.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

Your scripture quote has nothing to do with the plain reading of this:

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

The most important thing missing from Scripture is your opinion. And my opinion. And anyone else's opinion. When it says no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them, that's exactly what it means. Your opinion that man can come to Christ of his own free will is refuted by that scripture alone, and there's no other scripture to contradict that.

 

[civic]

Your scripture quote has nothing to do with the plain reading of this:

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

The most important thing missing from Scripture is your opinion. And my opinion. And anyone else's opinion. When it says no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them, that's exactly what it means. Your opinion that man can come to Christ of his own free will is refuted by that scripture alone, and there's no other scripture to contradict that.

Jesus is only talking to the 12- context is king and down goes tulip. Jesus called the 12, His sheep who literally heard His voice.

You have never seen Jesus nor heard His voice.

"No one can come to Me" [Total Inability of the 12]
"unless the Father who sent Me" [Unconditional Election of the 12]
"draws him;" [Irresistible Grace of the 12 ]
"and I will raise him up on the last day." [Preservation of the Saints -the 12 ]
- John 6:44

That leaves you out since it doesn't apply to you.

hope this helps !!!

 

[brightfame52]

Do you believe 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish"? Yes or No?
If yes then 2 Pet 3:9 combined with your "God is Sovereign over all wills!" statement confirms your Universalism.
If no then you do not believe 2 Pet 3:9. That confirms that you allow TULIP to override the Bible wherever TULIP conflicts with the Bible.
Which is it?

It's interesting that Calvinist sites do not allow for the mention of Universalism. That's because they want to avoid situations like this.

Yeah I believe 2 Pet 3:9 and God is sovereign over every mans will.

 

[civic]

Yeah I believe 2 Pet 3:9 and God is sovereign over every mans will.

then you must be a universalist or your God is not Sovereign since He cannot save them all. Mans will must be stronger than Gods will.

It says God is not willing that anyone should perish - thats EVERYONE.

 

[brightfame52]

then you must be a universalist or your God is not Sovereign since He cannot save them all. Mans will must be stronger than Gods will.

It says God is not willing that anyone should perish - thats EVERYONE.

Bearing false witness, thats sin, deceit

 

[civic]

Bearing false witness, thats sin, deceit

scripture is a true witness which I quoted. Why would you say that about the bible.

God is not willing ( GODS WILL ) that anyone should perish.

So either God cannot overcome mans will to be saved and man can resist Gods " irresistible grace " and thwart Gods will or there really is a free will in man to say no to Gods call.

You see your God forces man to be saved from his dead state by giving them a spiritual birth (regenerating ) him so that he says yes to God. That is the very definition of a robot, its unloving to make someone love you, to force yourself on them. Its nothing but a puppet with the puppet master at work.

 

[brightfame52]

scripture is a true witness which I quoted. Why would you say that about the bible.

God is not willing ( GODS WILL ) that anyone should perish.

So either God cannot overcome mans will to be saved and man can resist Gods " irresistible grace " and thwart Gods will or there really is a free will in man to say no to Gods call.

You see your God forces man to be saved from his dead state by giving them a spiritual birth (regenerating ) him so that he says yes to God. That is the very definition of a robot, its unloving to make someone love you, to force yourself on them. Its nothing but a puppet with the puppet master at work.

You are bearing false witness, not scripture.

 

[civic]

You are bearing false witness, not scripture.

I'm pointing out the false doctrine and dichotomy in your systematic.

The fact is Sovereignty in calvinism is unbiblical. Man indeed has a free will to resist and reject God. Steven testifies this in Acts with the stiff necked Jews who always resist Gods call through the Holy Spirit upon their life.

hope this helps !!!

 

[brightfame52]

I'm pointing out the false doctrine and dichotomy in your systematic.

The fact is Sovereignty in calvinism is unbiblical. Man indeed has a free will to resist and reject God. Steven testifies this in Acts with the stiff necked Jews who always resist Gods call through the Holy Spirit upon their life.

hope this helps !!!

Again you bearing false witness, and your opposition to the Truth.

 

[synergy]

I'm pointing out the false doctrine and dichotomy in your systematic.

The fact is Sovereignty in calvinism is unbiblical. Man indeed has a free will to resist and reject God. Steven testifies this in Acts with the stiff necked Jews who always resist Gods call through the Holy Spirit upon their life.

hope this helps !!!

@brightfame52 sounds like he's a believer of F. Scott Fitzgerald's thought pattern that goes as follows:

Before I go on with this short history let me make a general observation—the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.

So even though @brightfame52's position is clearly one of Universalism to whomever practices logic, he will continue to believe conflicting ideas in his mind. Hopeless as his situation is, he will remain determined to make it otherwise by doing the only thing a Calvinist has been taught to do: stigmatize the messanger.

 

[armylngst]

Anyone teaching mans freewill is an apostate from the jump, dont believe them !

Or they just don't get it yet.

 

[Diserner]

CHOOSE YE THIS DAY

vs.

I HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN FOR YE THIS DAY

 

[armylngst]

Now where is that verse that all Calvinist-leaning cohorts run away from like plague? Ah, here it is. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). That means that God will enable all to come to Christ so as not to perish any.

Why do those who read this verse ignore who the audience is, and who God is talking about? He is longsuffering towards US, not willing that any [of us] should perish. Who is the us? The elect. Believers. Those who were, are, and will be a part of the church, by the good pleasure of His will.

Therefore every lost person has the ability to hear Christ if they so choose to do so.

This explains why Jesus explicitly took the time to speak in parables so that those who want to hear, can't. Why? So they can't hear about Christ, lest they may hear, understand, and repent. Right?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

That is good. The sentence is to us-ward, even the "not willing that nay should perish", but that all should come to repentance. The constraint is that this is directed to the "us" that Peter is writing to. Believers past, present, and future. For the time this is written, Peter is speaking of those who would be saved in the future. God has not ended the world, because He is not willing for future believers to perish, but that they come to repentance as well as the believers in Peter's present time.

 

[Diserner]

Calvin taught that everything depends upon the mere will of God. Calvinist R. C. Sproul Jr. writes, “God wills all things that come to pass...God desired for man to fall into sin...God created sin” (Sproul Jr., Ibid., 275) Another Calvinist adds, “God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen....He has foreordained everything ‘after the counsel of his will’: the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist—even sin” (Palmer, Ibid.). Think for a moment about the implications of what these men have said, and what multitudes of other Calvinists who agree with them likewise teach. Do they truly believe that God is the author of every wicked act of mankind? If so, and I can’t see how they can rationalize their way around such a conclusion, it is the ultimate blasphemy directed at the character of God. My mind-boggled reaction is how men who profess to know and love God and are highly esteemed in Christendom, could even think that, let alone preach it? Has their “intellectual reasoning” blinded them to the clear and overwhelming number of Scriptures that contradict their theology? I don’t get why they don’t get it.​

​

The Enigma of Calvinism

Calvinism, from my first exposure to its teachings and practices to and through today, has not ceased to be an enigma to me. In fact, the more I have learned about it, the more perplexing I find it to

www.thebereancall.org

 

[armylngst]

Calvin taught that everything depends upon the mere will of God. Calvinist R. C. Sproul Jr. writes, “God wills all things that come to pass...God desired for man to fall into sin...God created sin” (Sproul Jr., Ibid., 275) Another Calvinist adds, “God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen....He has foreordained everything ‘after the counsel of his will’: the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist—even sin” (Palmer, Ibid.). Think for a moment about the implications of what these men have said, and what multitudes of other Calvinists who agree with them likewise teach. Do they truly believe that God is the author of every wicked act of mankind? If so, and I can’t see how they can rationalize their way around such a conclusion, it is the ultimate blasphemy directed at the character of God. My mind-boggled reaction is how men who profess to know and love God and are highly esteemed in Christendom, could even think that, let alone preach it? Has their “intellectual reasoning” blinded them to the clear and overwhelming number of Scriptures that contradict their theology? I don’t get why they don’t get it.​

​

The Enigma of Calvinism

Calvinism, from my first exposure to its teachings and practices to and through today, has not ceased to be an enigma to me. In fact, the more I have learned about it, the more perplexing I find it to

www.thebereancall.org

One thing I have come to believe, is that part of the problem is the "Me" culture of the day. We don't separate humanity from God, and actually attempt to view and understand God from a human standpoint, even though God is not human. God is nothing like us, except in what we retain from having been created in His image. We can create, though not from nothing, and all pales in comparison to what God can create. We are creative. We can reason. We can design. We can make decisions and choices. We can even determine things. However, in all of that, God trumps all. Why? Because He is God the Creator, who owns us, having created us. It is the old "His house, His rules" paradigm that many do not want to accept. When you approach the idea of the relationship between man and God, one must divorce man from God, and deal with each part on its own. The argument of either side must NOT intrude on the other side. So you have man on one side, God on one side, and Calvinism in the middle. But it makes man robots. Invalid argument. That is pushing God onto the human side. Keep them separate. Once you have fully dealt with each side on their own, then you can beging to bring them together. Why? At that point, one should be able to clearly see and understand each side to the point that one knows where each part should fall.

 

[brightfame52]

Or they just don't get it yet.

They could turn about to be one of Gods elect, and that would be great, but at this point theyre apostate.