Free Will Baptists on Predestination & Election

[Humble Disciple]

Yeshua1 said: ↑
are you even a Baptist?
"No one knows about that day or hour...nor the Son" Mark 13:32

Free Will Baptist is a denomination and group of people that believe in free grace, free salvation and free will. The movement can be traced back to the 1600s with the development of General Baptism in England. Its formal establishment is widely linked to the English theologian, Thomas Helwys who led the Baptist movement to believe in general atonement. He was an advocate of religious liberty at a time when to hold to such views could be dangerous and punishable by death. He died in prison as a consequence of the religious persecution of Protestant dissenters under King James I...

Free Will Baptist congregations believe the Bible is the very word of God and without error in all that it affirms. Free Will Baptist Doctrine teaches that God desires salvation for all and sent Jesus to die for everyone.[8] Still, He has given man the freedom of choice to accept or reject Christ’s sacrifice.
Free Will Baptist - Wikipedia

Free Will Baptist roots can be traced to England as early as 1611. The first FWB church in America was begun by Paul Palmer in 1727 in Perquimans County, North Carolina...

Who Can be Saved? – It is God’s will that all be saved, but since man has the power of choice, God saves only those who repent of their sin and believe in the work of Christ on the cross. Those who refuse in this life to repent and believe have no later chance to be saved and thus condemn themselves to eternal damnation by their unbelief.
What We Believe – National Association of Free Will Baptists, Inc

The NAFWB is the largest of the Free Will Baptist denominations.
National Association of Free Will Baptists - Wikipedia

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:

When Calvinists point to John 6:44 as an example of particular irresistible “drawing”, Arminians will often quickly refer to John 12:32 to demonstrate that the drawing of John 6:44 cannot be a reference to regeneration. The reason is that Jesus states in Jn. 12:32 that he will “draw all men” to himself. The same Greek word is used here as in Jn. 6:44. The implication is that if Jesus was speaking of irresistible regeneration in John 6:44, then his statement in Jn. 12:32 would lead to the conclusion that Christ will irresistibly regenerate all men. This would be a plain case of universalism (the teaching that all will be saved), a teaching that both Calvinists and Arminians reject (Luke 13:24)...

I have no problem with their consideration of John 12:20-22, nor with their statement that he includes the Greeks in “all men”. The part I take issue with is their conclusion that when Jesus says “all men” he means only “all without distinction” or “all kinds of people”. This is a conclusion that Peterson and Williams have read into the passage based on the necessities of their Calvinist theology. There is no exegetical justification for reading “all men” as “some men” from among “all men” in this passage. It makes just as much sense to say that because Jesus’ drawing power would go out to “all men” (without exception), that the Gentiles of Jn. 12:20-22 could then rest assured that they too would have access to the gift of God’s salvation. To say that the presence of Greeks in vss. 20-22 necessitates that Jn. 12:32 must be understood in a restrictive sense is a huge leap in logic, and a conclusion which the un-biased reader of Scripture would likely never come to on his or her own.
Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

 

[Reynolds]

I have heard of cage state Calvinists. I think you are a cage state antiCalvinist. It's OK. CALVINISTS are not the Boogie man.

 

[AustinC]

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:



Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

The main difference is whether man reigns supreme in salvation or whether God reigns supreme.
Free-will is a philosophy based on the assumption that God is evil if he chooses rather than giving humans the sole right to autonomous choice. It's a very selfish and self-centered philosophy that truly seeks to make God weak and dependent upon human will.

 

[Brightfame52]

The main difference is whether man reigns supreme in salvation or whether God reigns supreme.
Free-will is a philosophy based on the assumption that God is evil if he chooses rather than giving humans the sole right to autonomous choice. It's a very selfish and self-centered philosophy that truly seeks to make God weak and dependent upon human will.

God is never dependent on human will, if anything, human will is dependent on God James 4:13-16

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

 

[Marooncat79]

Free Will ism leads to Open Theism

after all, if God is not in charge of salvation, His inerrant plan can be supposedly oppressed

 

[Yeshua1]

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:



Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Neither Charles Finney nor Open Theism of Boyd should be held by any Baptist!

 

[Yeshua1]

Free Will ism leads to Open Theism

after all, if God is not in charge of salvation, His inerrant plan can be supposedly oppressed

Its the logical end for full free willism Gospel!

 

[AustinC]

God is never dependent on human will, if anything, human will is dependent on God James 4:13-16

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

Indeed, yet free-will philosophy demands God be subservient to the will of man lest God be labeled a tyrant or puppet master.

 

[AustinC]

Neither Charles Finney nor Open Theism of Boyd should be held by any Baptist!

My son attended a Baptist University where Boyd was an adjunct for one theology course. A friend of my son, who holds to Reformed theology was in the course. Boyd apparently berated this young man and went into an angry tirade because the young man dared to question his open theology with biblical observations of God's Sovereignty. The young man learned to stay silent under the tyranny of Boyd.

This University was one where John Piper once taught, as well as Thomas Schreiner. Both saw the trend of the Baptist General Conference (now Emerge) going the way of heretical open theism. Piper actually debated Boyd and soundly defeated him at the University, yet the powers that be still chose the slope of heresy. Boyds church even kicked him out as pastor because of his path toward liberalism, yet this University still persists. Since my wife is an alum, we get better financial aid, but the administration at this baptist university has gone the way of philosophy as it abandons the the supremacy of God in its core component for life.

 

[Yeshua1]

My son attended a Baptist University where Boyd was an adjunct for one theology course. A friend of my son, who holds to Reformed theology was in the course. Boyd apparently berated this young man and went into an angry tirade because the young man dared to question his open theology with biblical observations of God's Sovereignty. The young man learned to stay silent under the tyranny of Boyd.

This University was one where John Piper once taught, as well as Thomas Schreiner. Both saw the trend of the Baptist General Conference (now Emerge) going the way of heretical open theism. Piper actually debated Boyd and soundly defeated him at the University, yet the powers that be still chose the slope of heresy. Boyds church even kicked him out as pastor because of his path toward liberalism, yet this University still persists. Since my wife is an alum, we get better financial aid, but the administration at this baptist university has gone the way of philosophy as it abandons the the supremacy of God in its core component for life.

When one gets to the point of being an Open theist, really have to wonder what God now following!

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed, yet free-will philosophy demands God be subservient to the will of man lest God be labeled a tyrant or puppet master.

Just picture God as a cheerleader, pleading with someone, anyone, to accept Jesus and get saved and make His death worth it!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As the OP is now perma-banned, this thread is now closed.