Question for free willers

Does this mean that I am not responsible for my actions?

 

Now you're getting somewhere...

How can something future occur as the results of a man who doesn't yet exist doing something? Does that person go back in time and do something so that the future event can occur?

I'm sorry, but the Bible disagrees with you and other people who espouse this view called Open Theism.

Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

It doesn't sound to me like the God who described Himself to Isaiah had any problem with a changing future. He declared the end from the beginning. He declared from ancient times things that are not yet done. He says, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure."

This is the sovereign God of Calvinists. If you don't like it, you have a problem with Him.

</font>[/QUOTE]10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

Here's the "END" declared from the beginning.



And I don't see anything in it about who will/won't be saved.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD:

Men perishing "ISN'T" God's pleasure. (Will)

Like the "TRINITY", Jesus "IS" God, but he "AINT", he's the "SON", it depends on "CONTEXT" of scripture.

A "SURE SIGN" of "Carnal interpretation" is attempting to make Jesus "FULLY" man or "FULLY" God,

the "Differences" between the two prevents the carnal mind from accepting them as being the same.

How the future can be known yet not predestinated, is equivalent to explaining the Trinity to the carnal minded, it can't be done, there are "TOO MANY DIFFERENCES" between them, but nevertheless, it's still "TRUE".

You haven't "MASTERED" this "PRINCIPLE" of "IT IS, BUT IT AINT" to understand the Scriptures, but nevertheless, it's TRUE.

BTW, You'll find this little principle throughout scripture, as other's come to mind, I'll post them.

 

You really make me laugh! You are going to show me a chart that you developed and that is supposed to prove something??? I have quoted you Scripture. That is the only thing that proves anything.

OOOOHHH! You can do a word search. Now, explain to me how God doesn't get His will done when He says that "all my counsel will stand." And He says He works all things after the counsel of His will.

Well, at least you know a little bit about theology.

Uuuuuuhhhhh.... The last time I checked, the church had hashed this out in the 400's. If you knew anything about church history, you would know that the Council of Chalcedon stated that Jesus is fully God AND fully man. Are you suggesting something different? If you are, you are going against what everyone on this board believes.

Not sure how this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

One problem - both the Trinity and Predestination are explained in the Scripture, so your example doesn't work.

Your principle is silly. It could apply to anything. An apple IS a fruit, but IT AINT a pear. Well, duh! My 5-year old son has that figured out.

 

For Calvibaptist,
I've gone through Barnes,Henry,Gill,JFB,KJ Bible commentary,Wycliffe,The Bible Knowledge Commentary,KJ Study Bible,NKJ Study Bible,ISBE,and a few I can't remember off the top of my head.Only Gill and Henry agree with you on chapter 9 of Romans.
Am I correct in reading Calvin in the Institutes book 1 chapter 15 part 8 when he says we had free will but lost it when Adam sinned?So far this gentleman quotes Socrates and Plato a little much for my taste.

At present I am teaching myself Greek but certainly don't know enough to attempt my own interpretation of Chapter 9 of Romans or any other chapter for that matter.I will continue to check out Calvins Institutes. If there are any particular places you could reference it would be helpful.Up to the moment I have given this OP 10 hours of diligent study beginning my last entry .I think in the time that has passed that is more than a fair effort.However the deeper I dig into the Calvinist stand especially by reading in the "Institutes", the less impressed I am.I am not trying to be critical,just trying to let you know what I'm seeing so far.

 

God's will is that not any should perish, so nobody goes to hell, WHOPPEEE !!!!

 

I've got good news for you Bill. The Greek has already been translated into English, so you can read it yourself now.

 

God's will is that not any should perish, so nobody goes to hell, WHOPPEEE !!!! </font>[/QUOTE]LOL. Isn't Calvinism silly?!

"And He said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.
For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD.
And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them.
And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious.
But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee." Ez. 2:3-8

God's council is His Word, and it will stand. (Mt. 24:35) And part of His will is that we be free moral agents. But He will usher in righteousness forever someday. Until then people sin against His will, which should be evident even to Calvinists.

Just like the Jews above that sinned against His will using their own will to do so. God even commanded Ezekiel to align his will with that of God, of course showing the possibility that he could not if he so chose to. You know, like Jonah when he ran away.

When are Calvinists here going to see that the emperor has no clothes?

 

Actually He is clothed with splendor and majesty.

 

Plain Old Bill,

As far as Calvin's Institutes are concerned, I read it rather quickly, not trying to do an intense study. He did quote philosophers of all stripes and quotes Augustine quite a lot. You have to remember that up until the 1900's, to be a theologian, you had to engage the philosophical views of history. If you read Jonathan Edwards, you will find that it is loaded with philosophical arguments.

Now adays, you don't have to really engage anything to call yourself a theologian. So, it makes reading theological works from the 1600's a little difficult. At least it is for me.

 

Albert Barnes - "The chapter, therefore, has not reference to national election, or to choice to external privileges, but has direct reference to the doctrine of the election to salvation which had been stated in Rom. 8."

Adam Clarke (takes a corporate election view) - "The Jews were rejected and reprobated; the Gentiles were chosen and called, or elected. As this is most obviously the apostle’s meaning, it is strange that any should apply his doctrine to the particular and unconditional reprobation and election of individuals."

There are obviously many different ways that many people take this passage. In another post, I believe, someone mentioned that we all have our preconcieved notions about the Bible and usually interpret in that manner. If you have a preconcieved notion that God has left salvation up to man's free-will, then you are going to interpret this passage in a way that maintains man's free will.

I would say, spend most of your time observing and interpreting the passage yourself, then go see what other people think. This is the passage that changed me from a free-willer to a calvinist (without really paying attention to any of the names).

 

From my understanding it is chapters 9 thru 12 in Romans that go together.
I am trying to work with you guys to at least get a good look at your point of view. Now between Joseph,npeterely,and you I have been told to get my answer read Romans chapter 9,then told to only read ch9:14-21,then told to read what calvin has to say and now to put it with chapter 8.

Now I don't mind putting in the effort. I think I am giving your side a fair shot.I do think it was kind of Npetreley to not only provide us with the questions, but then after honest attempts to answer him to be ridiculed and then later he supplies his version of the only answers that would be acceptable to him.

I read Aristotle,Plato,and Sacrates when I was 17. Don't ask me why.At that age for me it was philosophy and anthropology.

In any event if you would like to continue in a serious vien let me know what you think I should look at, be inclusive.I think I will read all of the "Institutes" just so nobody can pull the wool over my eyes again.

Here is a question for you. If calvin thinks man lost his free will after Adam sinned, why did'nr man lose his free will after eve sinned?What if eve sinned and Adam did'nt?What about free will Then?

 

Bill, just so you understand. I call myself a Calvinist because that is the term that is used to describe someone who believes in TULIP. I have often said that I really don't care what John Calvin had to say. I respect him as brilliant theologian who engaged both political, social, philosophical, and theological dilemmas. I don't agree with everything he said, believed or did.

My belief system comes from what I read in the Scriptures. I tend to gather around others who believe as I do. I read MacArthur. I read Piper. I read Sproul. I read Calvin. I read Edwards. I read Spurgeon. But I don't agree with everything that all of these men say.

Please do read Calvin's Institutes. It will give you a lot of insight into the type of man that Calvin was, the type of rhetoric that was used in that time period when talking about those you disagreed with (you think my sarcasm is harsh), and the types of things that he believed. But it will give you only a little insight into what the people on this board believe. To understand that, you have to interact with us, which I think you are doing.

I would dare say that, although I feel a kinship with some of the other Calvinists on this board, there are going to be many things that we disagree on. That is because we are all imperfect humans. We won't discover the full truth until we get to heaven.

Then, and only then, will we discover that I was actually right! (obviously, just kidding)

 

I just spent another 6 hours studying about Calvin and calvinism.The more I learn about the man and his theology the less I am inclined in his direction.His thoughts on the perseverance of the saints and irresistable grace seem to be way off base.You all may be familiar with this site but if you have not read this please do so.

http://biblelife.org/calvinism
I am pretty much in line with this article in all five parts.You will have an understanding of my position and the why.We may never agree but we could at least have an intelligent understanding of each others views.

I think I will wait until tomorrow before attacking the "Institutes" any further.I would say in regards to the TULIP dealthere are places I find him being close....but no cigar.

 

I will read the article, Bill. Although I doubt that I will find a fair treatment from an article that is subtitled "False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva."

 

npetreley,
First thanks for fixing the URL. Second feel free to post a site which is critical of Arminius,I will be glad to go to the article you point out.In my own mind I am not an Arminian or a Calvinist.

 

http://biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

I must say that Kent R. Rieske and Bible Life Ministries sure didn't think much of John Calvin!! If true?

 

Well they go a bit overboard.But I say get to know what all of the views on a subject are,friends,enemies,and the tweeners.From my view there are hyper-calvinists,calvinists, moderate(1,2,3,4 point)calvinists.All sorts of calvinists and they like most baptists all disagree with one another it's the baptist way.The interesting point is in the whys.