Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

"Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations."

Calling the majority of true believers "antichrist" is not offensive? It is to me.

 

Group of people holding to free will are composed of individuals.

 

SBM is not talking about salvation.
1. He is speaking of a denial of soul liberty, a basic baptist distinctive. He may not say it in so many words, but when you basically say:
If you believe A, then you are damned and going to hell. You are following the Antichrist, Satan. Your religion is of Satan. Thus with the strongest words possible he would take away your freedom to worship if it were in his power to do so.

2. It is an implication that approximately half of all posters here are not saved.

3. It is an implication that approximately half of all posters here are followers of Satan.

4. It is an implication that approximately half of all posters here will not partake in either the rapture or the resurrection of the just, depending on your outlook.

You see, this isn't a thread about Calvinism vs. non-Cal. This really isn't a thread or debate about the validity of what the non-Cal position is about. There is not much debate here. This is a tirade against the free will position, and as the name of the thread says, it is the religion of the Antichrist. Anyone who sides with SBM in this thread really isn't thinking straight.

 

No, it is directed to about half the people on this board which makes it all that much more despicable. It is directed toward me, who happens to believe that God made man in his own image and gave man a free will to choose between good and evil; to choose whether to receive Christ or to reject him. Thus you call me a follower of the Antichrist, a follower of Satan, and condemn me to hell as well. About half of the posters here believe the same as I do. We all are not Calvinists. Your posts are to say the least ugly.

 

Why are you so terrified of a reasonable debate.
The person who calls another's position the religion of Satan or the religion of the Antichrist has lost before he has even started. You have lost this debate from the OP onward. No one here takes you seriously. Your posts are not worth debating. Calling people names or demeaning their religion simply means that you have nothing to debate. You have failed miserable and have lost. You have nothing.

If you wanted something meaningful you would post something meaningful, but you haven't.

 

I do not believe that one's belief in "free will" makes them lost. A saved person is one who is a new creation in Christ and all such have repented of their sins and trusted in Christ alone for justification. True saved persons are in a process to be conformed to the image of Christ and converted to His doctrine and the fact it is a process demands that they are still lacking in both areas.

 

I think you must be mistaken about him. He believes in eternal security of the believer. Unless he believes you must deny the doctrine of free will in order to be saved, then you have misunderstood his position.

 

Of course not. God is his sovereignty has given man a "free will" to choose to reject Christ or receive him as Savior. That is my belief and the belief of approximately half of the posters on this board. To tell us that we are followers of the Antichrist and our faith is that of the Antichrist is the most ugliest accusation I have heard on this board.

One correction here. No one has ever repented of all their sins. You can't even remember all your sins much less repent of them. The Bible does not teach any such doctrine. In fact I challenge you to find, using the epistles only repentance as a part of the gospel. It isn't there. The gospel is defined fully for us in 1Cor.15:1-4, but without repentance. There is a good reason for that.

I don't argue with that.

 

I also believe in eternal security. He denies that man has free will, the ability to choose to believe in Christ, the ability to choose to receive Christ as Savior, the ability to put ONE's Own faith in Christ. He calls it the religion of the Antichrist. That is despicable. I understand the position perfectly. He has been ranting on this for how many pages now? And I have read all of them. I know exactly what he means. The end result of his posts is that he considers more than half of the posters of this board doomed to an eternity in hell. Perhaps he is a cultist.

 

IF he he believes the "DOCTRINE" of free will is essential to embrace IN ORDER TO BE saved then you are right. However, if he is ONLY condemning the Arminian doctrine of "free will" as a false doctrine then I stand right along side of him.

 

There are too many assumptions here.
First look at Calvinism for an example.
How many "flavors" of Calvinism are represented here on this board?
Probably too many to count.
There is the Old Regular and Primitive Baptist point of view. Their view is a bit more extreme than most.
Luke 2427 includes some odd beliefs (fairly extreme) that few Calvinists would embrace.
There are some middle of the road Calvinists.
There are some Calvinists that get along quite well with non-Cals because they are not so dogmatic on all the points of Calvin.
Then there are those who unfairly categorize every non-cal on this board as Arminian which is totally false and unfair.

I am not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian. I don't subscribe to any of those men's theologies. To automatically put me in that camp therefore is wrong. But I have been put there. So that is not what is being done here.

The issue is not Arminianism, and has never been defined as Arminianism. There is no one here who believes they can lose their salvation, an essential tenet of Arminianism--not that has been participating here. The issue here has been strictly that of free will--the ability of man to either choose to receive Christ or to reject him as one's Savior. The one who started this thread demands that belief in that doctrine is of the devil, the Antichrist, a Satanic religion.

Do you really believe that man's ability to choose to receive Christ as Savior--as so many believe--that one basic doctrine can be construed to be a doctrine worthy of being called a religion of the Antichrist? That is what is going on here. Nothing has been mentioned of any other doctrine--only the free will of man. I find this despicable, and any who sides with it, are not thinking straight.

 

I believe the free choice to receive Christ for justification originates from a mind and heart that has been changed from enmity towards God to submission to God and changed from love of sin to repentance of sin and that change is called regeneration.

I do not believe anyone goes to hell for simply holding to the doctrine that the unregenerated heart and mind is able to freely choose to receive Christ. If this is the position being proposed by this poster then I stand with you against it. In fact, I would say that many who believe my position were brought to this by their study of the scriptures and from personal reflection upon their salvation experience but formerly held to the doctrine of "free will." I know I defended the doctrine of free will with a passion previous to being challenged to a more intent study of God's word on this subject.

 

The position that you once held and I do hold is the same position that this poster is calling a religion of the Antichrist. Yes, that is correct.

 

I have bluntly asked him on another thread "eternal security". I will await his honest response.

 

Are any of you familiar with the 39 Articles of Religion from the CoE circa 1571? Wesley's 25 Articles are an adaptation of the same and still exist in the current United Methodist church though widely ignored. The point being; you don't get any closer to a classic Arminian understanding than these two works.

From the 39 Articles:

Certainly not the understanding of Free will presented by the OP. George Whitfield went toe to toe with Wesley regarding this. In his letter to Wesley he wrote,

The letter in its entirety explains Whitfield's understanding of the Doctrine of Election (obviously contrary to Wesley's free grace). What I find interesting is Whitfield's assertion that preaching to the elect they " shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe." By SBM's definition being quickened and enabled to believe are works of the will. That doesn't leave many options unless you subscribe that God's redeems His elect and then He gives faith.

 

Obviously, Wesley believed that God provided enabling grace [prevenient grace] for all mankind and the nature of this enabling grace was to somehow neutralize the depraved nature of man and thus free the human will from the power of indwelling sin as well as from the power of God to act independent from all inward and outward influences. Thus the "LOVE FOR SIN" and the "ENMITY TOWARD GOD" condition of the mind and heart of the unregenerate was somehow neutralized, thus bringing every human being back to a pre-fall condition. Thus a temporary reversal of the consequences of the fall upon the human nature freeing them from the LOVES and HATES of indwelling sin and yet at the same time not providing them with any LOVES and HATES that characterize the nature of God.

However, even the pre-fall condition of Adam did not have this NEUTRAL condition of human nature as Adam was made "upright" or with inclination to righteousness. So we are talking about something unique to human nature never before characteristic of man and never again characteristic of man. They are talking about a SUPERNATURAL change in every man that somehow neutralizes the internal consequences of the fall yet falling short of real salvation from sin but only temporary salvation from sin.

This position is totally a PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION without any scripture to support it. This kind of theory is the necessary logical speculation for all who reject unconditional election.

 

I asked him bluntly on the thread "eternal security" and he dodged the question. He dodges the issue on this thread. I have to assume your assessment of him and his position is correct since he only dodges the question on both threads.

Any way you look at it, the elect choose to believe in Christ regardless of what or what may not be the cause of that choice. Anyone who makes salvation dependent upon a CORRECT or INCORRECT view of what that cause may or may not be is preaching/teaching "another gospel" as the scriptures do not attribute salvation to the beleif or failure to believe in a proper doctrine of the role of the human will in salvation but rather in the Person and work of Jesus Christ as presented in the gospel. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or demand that one must believe in a proper doctrine about the role of the human will in salvation IN ORDER TO BE SAVED!

His title "freewill religion is the man of Sin" betrays that this must be his position as well. Some may agree that "freewill religion is consistent with the man of sin" but to say "freewill religion IS the man of sin" is to make the man of sin a type of religion instead of a real authentic historical person. The man of sin is no doubt the head of a religion but he IS not religion of any kind but a historical person.