Arminian, General, or Free Will Baptists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He reveals to us that he elects out of his mercy but does not describe the working of the Spirit in the heart by which a person is brought of his own free will to that choice. Who are we to question that? If God chooses to cede some of his sovereignty to the "free will" of man, then by definition he is no longer sovereign. You can't have it both ways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I couldn't agree with you more that God has chosen the elect and that we have no idea about how he does it.

What I disagree with you with is the idea that God is giving up His sovereignty by giving us "free will". God can be sovereign without making every decision in our lives. God can have sovereignty by judging what we do. Nobody gets away with anything when it comes to God. In being judge of all, God is sovereign over His creation.

By the way, I have been studying Romans 8. I just don't know what verses you are talking about. I see some predestination passages, just not ones that I see saying what you are saying.

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
[QB]I couldn't agree with you more that God has chosen the elect and that we have no idea about how he does it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have spent the majority of this thread arguing that arminianism is what the Bible teaches. Election in Scripture is unconditional and therefore in direct contradiction to arminianism. Once again, you cannot have it both ways. Pick a side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I disagree with you with is the idea that God is giving up His sovereignty by giving us "free will".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God did not give up sovereignty by giving us free will. We all have free will ... it is free to do whatever we want. Unsaved man simply doesn't want to come to God and until God changes him he will continue to act according to his free will ... choosing not to come.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God can have sovereignty by judging what we do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not sovereignthy or omnipotence, another word for sovereign. It is what my systematic professor called omnicompetence. God is not in control; he is just able to adjust to whatever man chose.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, I have been studying Romans 8. I just don't know what verses you are talking about<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rom 8:6-10

 

I have been responding to what John Wells said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then why is it you cannot articulate your beliefs by the scriptures? All you seem to be capable of are emotional cheap shots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There seems to be the idea that "free will" has no Biblical basis. All I have been trying to do is show where some people find the Biblical basis for free will.

Now to Romans...
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

This is just a fact. It says nothing about free will or predestination.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Once again stating a fact about the rebellious nature of the sinful nature. I don't see anything about not being able to change.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

While they are living by the sinful nature, nothing they do can please God. Going to Church every Sunday and putting some money in the offering plate does nothing for their soul.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

This is just saying that those who live by the spirit have God in their heart. If a person is not, then God is not in the heart.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

As Paul says in another place, our lives are living sacrifices. We are dead to the world, but alive in God. We are not to be of this world.

I don't see where any of this has to do with a lack of free will. I see this as just a statement of fact, depending on where you are living(in the flesh or in the spirit)

You see how I read these verses. Can you explain to me how these verses can be used to back up your statement: "Natural man goes the way he wants and God lets him go. For those who are his elect, God changes their will so that they do choose him."

As to your statement: "God is not in control; he is just able to adjust to whatever man chose."

That is not how I see it at all. He just gives us the choice to go where we want. God is in complete control as to how things will end up. We just get to choose which side we're on. I know you don't agree. Then again the Bible says that Christians don't agree on alot of things. And the Bible says we don't have to.

 

Tuor, I am not going to keep saying the same things over. I keep repeating myself in hopes that you are going to read it and understand. This is all in Scripture and you can read it there. I will only reference a couple of points.

In the Romans 8:6-10 passage, Paul is contrasting saved (those who are in teh Spirit and have life) and the unsaved (those after the flesh who have death). Now notice what he says: those in the flesh cannot please God; they are unable to do so. I do not know how much clearer it can be that they are not able to please God or to come to God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have been trying to do is show where some people find the Biblical basis for free will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Free will does have a biblical basis but not when it is defined as moral neutrality. Man is completely free to choose anything in keeping with his nature which is sinful. Just as God cannot choose to act outside of his holy nature and therefore cannot sin, so man cannot act outside of his sinful nature and therefore choose to please or seek God. You would not deny freedom to God becuase there is something he can't do would you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Once again stating a fact about the rebellious nature of the sinful nature. I don't see anything about not being able to change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. That kind of sounds like "not being able" to change does it not??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

While they are living by the sinful nature, nothing they do can please God. Going to Church every Sunday and putting some money in the offering plate does nothing for their soul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God is pleased by our worship, by our coming to him in faith, by trust, etc. Man is unable to do any of these things. That is the point. You have greatly trivialized the issue by equating it to putting money in the offering. The point is that unsaved man can do NOTHING to please God, not even come to him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't see where any of this has to do with a lack of free will. I see this as just a statement of fact, depending on where you are living(in the flesh or in the spirit)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is about "cannot," "are not able," etc. that you are missing? This is not about a Christian living in the flesh or the Spirit. It is about salvation or not. When it says Man cannot do something, that means it is outside the purview of his ability.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can you explain to me how these verses can be used to back up your statement: "Natural man goes the way he wants and God lets him go. For those who are his elect, God changes their will so that they do choose him."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These verses were not cited in support of that. These verses were cited in support of the fact that unsaved man does not seek God and cannot (is unable) to please God in any way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God is in complete control as to how things will end up. We just get to choose which side we're on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you not see how these two statements are incompatible. If God is in complete control of how things will end up, then how are we in control of which side we are on? Does "complete" mean "everything but who is on what side"? Surely not. Complete is complete. If God is in complete control, then it includes how things end up, specifically what side has who.

 

Michael I believe your last statement was rather offensive also. We all do it. I wish we didn't, but we do.

As I said before, the problem with this issue is that there is scripture on both sides. Furthermore, there is borderline scripture that can be understood to support either side. Then to top it all off, we have people being attacked and therefore defensive about their positions. Once the defenses go up, compassion goes out the window.

Michael,

If you believe that the Calvinist's view is all wrong, explain Romans 9:10-21

Larry,

If you believe that we don't have free will, explain Romans 11:17-21

I don't believe anyone can explain with perfect understanding the ways of God. Predestination vs Free Will (to do either good or bad) is not tied to our ways, it is tied to God's. To say that any of us have it all figured out is arrogance. To say that I must pick one of man's camps on this issue is arrogance. The only camp I need to join is God's. God's camp is not a camp of division but unity.

***Nils now steps off the soap box***

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You continue to exhibit the usual Calvinist arrogance which says that anyone who disagrees with Calvinism is ignorant and just does not understand. How is it possible to have a serious discussion with someone who has that attitude?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does this apply to me and not you? You keep saying I am ignorant and don't understand. Isn't that a double standard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You say that man doesn't want to come to God; I say that man is incurably religious--that is, he has a religious bent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually agree with you on the second. Man does have a religious bent. I agree with myself on the first: Man does not want to come to God. False religions stemmed from the second because of the first. Man wants the concept of God but not the God of the Bible. Scripture is clear that man does not seek God. How does your position that man is seeking God reconcile with Rom 3:10-12 where it explicitly says that man is not seeking God and he does not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These truths, based on scripture and on religious experience in humanity, prove the doctrine of prevenient grace and that the Light of Christ is in all and demonstrates the true meaning of God's sovereignty in a way that Calvinism's distorted and warped definitions of that term do not, and cannot ever do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a false statement. Prevenient grace is nowhere talked about in Scripture. The Light of Christ is something entirely differen than prevenient grace. According to Rom 1, the innate knowledge of God is suppressed.

How about starting by dealing with Rom 3:10-12. Tell me how man seeks for God when Paul expressly says otherwise.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you believe that we don't have free will, explain Romans 11:17-21<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you want me to explain? I don't see how this passage contributes to this discussion at all. This passage discusses the relationship between Israel and the Church and leads into showing there is still a future for Israel. I see no relation to this subject.

 

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the noursihing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches

I believe this is saying that Paul is saying that there are Jews who have lost their salvation and now Gentiles are now being saved, replacing those Jews who are lost.

If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

Don't be boastful because salvation doesn't come from you, but from God.

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grfted in."

Those Jews were rejected so that I could be saved.

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

True, but it was their actions that led to their rejection. If they had been faithful, they would be saved, but they weren't. You are only saved because you are faithful.

Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either

You shouldn't feel superior because you are now saved and the rejected Jews are not. On the contrary, you should be fearful. If God rejected members of His own people, He will surely reject you too if you should lose your faith. Your salvation is not secure. It is dependant upon your continued faith.

[ September 09, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the noursihing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches

I believe this is saying that Paul is saying that there are Jews who have lost their salvation and now Gentiles are now being saved, replacing those Jews who are lost<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This passage is not talking about individual salvation per se but rather national blessings. The Gentiles are not replacing Jews who lost their salvation. To assume that one can lose salvation is contradictory to passages the declare salvation to be grounded in the faithfulness of God who cannot change. Therefore, salvation cannot be lost. The point of this passage is that the Church is being built while the Jews are under a state of partial hardening. When the church is complete, the Jewish nation will be restored. You cannot divorce this passage from its context of the relationship between the Church and the nation of Israel.

You are right that salvation is from God. Yet the Jews were rejected as a nation for corporate unbelief, not as individuals. This passage just doesn't address the issue of this thread.

 

If this is not talking about individuals, then why does Romans 11:17 say:

If some of the branches have been broken off

If Paul were only talking about Israel as a nation, then wouldn't all of the branches have been broken off?

Notice in verse 23 Paul writes:

And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

Is Paul not saying that if an individual turns back to God, through faith, although he had lost his salvation, he will be saved?

What other nations are represented by the remaining, unbroken branches of the vine?(If the Israel as a whole is represented by the broken branches)

By the way, I think you will have to admit, even if this is only talking about Israel as a whole. Israel was rejected because of what it did, and Paul is saying that Israel has the ability through a decision that it makes to be saved. Israel lost its salvation, but it was possible to regain it.

 

Wow, go away for a weekend, and this thread balloons by three pages. I am still waiting, Michael, for your reply regarding the person of Calvin. You have yet to name anyone other than the heretic Severtus who was put to death in Geneva at the same time Calvin was Pastor there. You have yet to show how Calvin is a murderer, when it was the city council that put Severtus to death. You have yet to say why you have so much venom for Calvin, and not even more for King David and a host of other Biblical charaters guilty of sins far beyond what Calvin ever did. I am also waiting for your interaction with the verses that Chris Temple put up which support Biblical Soteriology commonly known as Calvinism.

Regards,

Chick

 

And yet you still have not answered my queries.

Compared to John Calvin, do you have more venom towards King David? YES or NO

How was Calvin to prevent the death of Severtus short of changing his theological convictions to that of agreement with the heretic Severtus, and then pursuading the city council in open debate that the change in his convictions was a change toward truth?

Please list those other than Severtus that were put to death by the City of Geneva while Calvin was Pastor there.

___________________
___________________
___________________

(add as many blanks as needed)

Please provide any comment that Calvin recorded that indicated pleasure or participation in the death of Severtus.

Thank you.

Chick

 

Michael, I think part of the problem, at least from my perspective, is that you are talking about Calvin himself (with whom I disagree on many things), while I am trying to talk about biblical texts and theological ideas. The name Calvinism does not identify me with Calvin himself. Indeed, he would have nothing to do with me because of what I believe. I simply think on soteriology, he capsulized what Scripture teaches.

Calvin himself should not be the issue in this debate.

 

If he takes that to heart, maybe this debate will go somewhere!

 

Mike, did you know that Arminius was a strong Calvinist who studied under Beza (I think)? He was so well regarded that he was appointed to counter anti-Calvinism "heresies" popular in his day. He undertook his task by carefully and prayerfully examining the arguments of Calvinism and it's opponents in light of Sacred Scripture. You probably know his conclusion.

(BTW - before anyone jumps all over me and sends nasty email, please at least take enough care to notice that I did not judge the Calvinism v Arminianism debate)