Nuts For Arminians To Crack... Free Agency... Part 1

It seems to me that anyone who claims to understands exactly how God works with/through us is a liar.

 

I am publishing a translation of the Bible (copywrighted of course) with all the difficult passages unagreeable to Arminians and other 'free-willers' removed.
Publishing costs have been astoundingly bearable so don't think I am bucking for a dime. Below I have pasted a copy of it for the preview of all; editorial suggestions are welcome:

__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________

 

While you're at it, you might as well publish one for the Calvinists too.

 

I will take up the fourth point here for the moment "4. Has any man the power to refuse to come to Christ when the Father draws him?" What did Stephen mean when he says: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" (Acts 7:51)? The word "resist" is from the Greek "antipipto" which means to "oppose" someone or something! The speach of Stephen was indeed a gospel message with a clear regard to salvation. It is clear from the above text that the hearers were opposing the work of the Holy Spirit. In what way may I ask, if not by rejecting the gospel as proclaimed by Stephen?

[Post edited for personal comments. Keep those out of this discussion.]

[ April 29, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

You break my heart. Just for that I am taking my keyboard and going home


Bro.Dallas

 

Before I begin, I start with this definition: Free agency means that a person can choose for or against Jesus Christ.

Depends on how we define the word "free." Each is free to choose to accept or reject the gift of salvation.

If man cannot come to Christ of his own free will, he ceases to be a free agent as I have defined it above.

Because all men are drawn by the power of the Holy Spirit as seen in John 1.

Yes. Jesus Christ himself mourned at the city which was wrought with people who resisted him. As was mentioned before, people resisted the Holy Spirit. Since all men are enlightened by the Spirit, yet not all are saved, we must conclude that man can, and indeed can refuse to come to Christ.

ANd from personal experience, I can say that I did say "no" to the Spirit's call for several years before following Christ.

Yes. This is speaking of the end-times, yet we do not see that they fail to have a choice to understand. Prophecy does not eliminate free will.

There is nothing in the chapter that states were they lost such agency. The verse says that they will be caught and destroyed and will perish as beasts are caught and destroyed.

The more accurate version and translation is "was written about long ago" - no loss of agency there.

Keep going and we read "28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." He is talking about what appears to be physical resurrection, because before salvation, there are none who do good.

Can you rip this one out of context anymore, please?

The passage in Habakkuk refers to God raising up the Babylons - they couldn't believe it, perhaps using it as a metaphor. Acts 13:40 says "Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you" - indeed they did have a choice to "take care" it didn't happen.

They would publish anything back then, huh?

[ April 28, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

I am reading this as if you meant to say 'If a man cannot come to Christ of his own free will, he [ceases] to be a free agent as I have defined it above.'

Is this a correct reading? or have I put words on your fingertips?

Bro.Dallas

 

I am reading this as if you meant to say 'If a man cannot come to Christ of his own free will, he [ceases] to be a free agent as I have defined it above.'

Is this a correct reading? or have I put words on your fingertips?

Bro.Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I made a mistake! I"ll go back and edit it!

 

I agree with what is being said here, it follows that if sinners are 'free agents' then they too are as free as the saint.

no.

Christ stated this because he knew the bondage of man's will and the necessity of regeneration by the Spirit, through the Will of the Father.

no.

No, regardless of the dispensation of time spoken of, men are born under bondage to sin.

2 Peter 2:12

Ver. 12. But these, as natural brute beasts,.... So far are these men from acting like the angels, that they are sunk below their own species, and are like beasts, and become brutish in their knowledge and behaviour; are like the horse and the mule, without understanding, act as if they were without reason; yea, are more stupid and senseless than the ox, or the ass, which know their owner, and their crib; and even in those things which they might, and do know by the light of nature, they corrupt themselves; and being given up to judicial blindness, and a reprobate mind, call good evil, and evil good, and do things that are not convenient, and which even brute beasts do not; and like as they are guided by an instinct in nature, to do what they do, so these men are led and influenced by the force and power of corrupt nature in them, to commit all manner of wickedness: and like them are

made to be taken and destroyed; or, as it may be rendered, "to take and destroy"; as beasts and birds of prey, such as lions, tigers, wolves, bears, vultures, hawks, &c. to which abusers of themselves with mankind, ravishers of women, extortioners, oppressors, thieves, robbers, and plunderers of men's properties, may be compared: or "to be taken and destroyed"; that is, they are made or appointed to be taken in the net and snare of Satan, are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and are afore ordained to condemnation and ruin: and this being their case, they

speak evil of the things they understand not; either of angels, of whose nature, office, and dignity, they are ignorant; and blaspheme them, by either ascribing too much to them, as the creation of the world, and divine worship, as were by some ancient heretics; or by speaking such things of them as were below them, and unworthy of them; or of civil magistrates, not knowing the nature and end of magistracy and civil government, and therefore spoke evil of them, when they ought to pray, and be thankful for them, and live peaceable and quiet lives under them; or of the ministers of the word, whose usefulness for the conversion of sinners and edification of saints were not known, at least not acknowledged by these men; hence they were traduced, and went through ill report among them, being as unknown by them; or of the Scriptures of truth, which heretical men do not truly know and understand, but wrest to their own destruction, or deny; and of the Gospel and the mysteries of it, which are things not seen, known, and understood by carnal men, and therefore are blasphemed, reviled, and reproached by them:

and shall utterly perish in their own corruption: of which they are servants, 2Pe 2:19, in their moral corruption, in their filthy and unnatural lusts, which are the cause of their everlasting perdition and destruction, to which they are righteously appointed of God.
[Gill]

for then the apostle would never have said that they were "of old", a long while ago, before written, or prophesied of, since according to the common calculation, that epistle of Peter's, and this of Jude's, were written in the same year; nor in the prophecy of Enoch, Jude 1:14; for Enoch's prophecy was not written, as we know of; and therefore these men could not be said to be before written in it; besides, that prophecy is spoken of as something distinct from these persons being before written, to condemnation; and after all, was a prophecy referred to, the sense would be the same, since such a prophecy concerning them must be founded upon an antecedent ordination and appointment of God; the word here used does not intend their being forewritten in any book of the Scriptures, but in the book of God's eternal purposes and decrees; and the justice of such a preordination appears by the following characters of them,

ungodly men: all men are by nature ungodly, some are notoriously so, and false teachers are generally such; here it signifies such who are destitute of the fear of God, and of all internal devotion, and powerful godliness; and who did not worship God externally, according to his institutions and appointments, and much less sincerely, and in a spiritual manner; and who even separated themselves from the true worshippers of God, and gave themselves up to sensuality, and therefore their condemnation was just:

turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness ; [Gill]

This last is sufficient to show their condemnation

They are emphatically said to be dead.

Again they are said to be receivers passively, God has said '...I shall put my law in their hearts...'

We would know if such an agent could be found.

Bro. Dallas

 

WHAT OF 2 PETER 2:1? THE TEXT THAT SIMPLY WON'T GO AWAY! LETS LOOK AT IT FROM THE GOOD 'OL KING JAMES VERSION:

"BUT THERE WERE FALSE PROPHETS ALSO AMONG THE PEOPLE, EVEN AS THERE SHALL BE FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU, WHO PRIVILY SHALL BRING IN DAMNABLE HERESIES, EVEN DENYING THE LORD THAT BOUGHT THEM, AND BRING UPON THEMSELVES SWIFT DESTRUCTION"

Now, those mentioned here are the false prophets, false teachers, which are basicaslly heretics, who teach doctrines as Paul would call them "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1), which lead men astray, and cause their sould to be damned!

But, what does the apostle Peter have to say about these people? He says that they would deny the fact that Jesus had indeed "bought" them. What exactly does he mean by this term? The Greek word used here is "agorazo", which means "to buy, to purchase". This same Greek word is used by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:20, "for you are bought (agorazo) with a price...", and 7:23 "ye are bought (agorazo) with a price...". In Revelation 5:9 we read: "...and has redeemed (agorazo) us to God by they blood..." It is very claer from these examples, that the Greek "agorazo" is used of Christ's death on the cross, wherein He "paid the price" for all of mankind. He did not actually save them, but made the provision for those one and all, to be made effective upon believing.

Now, I no not of any other way in which this verse in 2 Peter could be rendered. We cannot accept the meaning spun by the late Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones, who said that the word "agorazo" here meant "brought"! "Brought" from where? If we were to be honest with the Word of God, and not let our "doctrines" override the truth of the text, there can be no other meaning for this text, that this, that Jesus Christ did die also for those who are not the elect.

I challenge any Calvinist to prove me wrong here!

 

I must here add the comments of a "leading" Calvinist commentator, Dr John Gill, as his works have already been mentioned in this string.

Dr Gill says in his Exposition on 2 Peter, that the reference to Lord here is not that of Jesus Christ, but to God the Father. This is based on the use of the Greek term "despotes" (master), instead of the Greek "kurios" (Lord). Gill tries to show that the reason for the use of "despotes" is that because Peter wished to show the Father by it. Gill says that "the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance", a meaning found NOWHERE in Scripture. I suppose that this is their ONLY escape from the plain meaning intended here. But, we must deal with the issue, as to why Peter did use "despotes", and not the normal "kurios". It is indeed an error of the KJV (and other versions) to here render the Greek "despotes", by the English "Lord". The word was used from the time of Plato, for "masters" of slaves, whereby showing "“a master, lord, one who possesses supreme authority,”. A different meaning to "kurios" as the passage in question speaks for the "purchasing" of someone from anothers authority, something that "kurios" could not do!

So, Dr Gill are others like him are only trying to find their way around the meaning of the text, rather than to admit that they are indeed wrong, and submit to the plain truth of Scripture!

 

aa0310, So do you believe all men are redeemed?

Bro. Dallas

 

If having read all of my posts, which I see that you have, and you can ask such a question, then I think that we simply cannot follow what I have being saying!

There is NO way that anyone can be saved unless they fully accept the finished work of Jesus Christ fo their own life. The error of Calvinism is that they teach that Jesus "actually" saved the elect by His death; whereas it is plain from the whole tenor of Scripture that He died for all (see the argument in Romans 5) verse 15 says: "of if through the offence of one (Adam), many (the whole human race) be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift (of Salvation) by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, had abounded unto many (the whole human race)" What does Paul mean by abounded? "to have gone forth to", "to be offered to". There is NO Universal salvation taught in Scripture. Universal atonement DOES NOT require a Universal salvation. The provision is there for all, but it must first be accepted in faith for anyone to actually be saved!

 

I appreciate your reply brother. You wrote:

The question remains 'what is the source of faith'?

I believe this source is God himself and particularly his Grace. I mean then that I deny that man has a 'measure' of faith to which he can apply to believing in Christ unto salvation.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

I am aware that there are those who think that "Faith is a gift of God", that God actually so enables the will of the person, that they cannot do anything else but believe in God. If this were true, then there is no need for the gospel to be preached, as regardless, all you are to be saved will be anyway! This is complete nonsense, and is against the Word of God. "the gift of God" mentioned in Ephesians 2:8 does NOT refer to faith, but to salvation. Faith, the apostle Paul clearly tells us, comes from hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17 It is interesting to note the quotation from Isaiah in Acts 28:27, where Paul quotes the words as "...and their eyes THEY HAVE CLOSED; lest they should see with their eyes...and should be converted" Its the wilfull rejection of the gospel of Jesus, that will cause one to be damned!

 

So really it would have been possible for none to believe and thus the atonement be left to only deliver Jesus as the only man into heaven? thus making it necessary to apply the atonement even to the Son of God?

If it is possible for all to believe, it would follow that the opposite is possible, thus the atonement is worthless until man makes it efficacious.

God Bless.
Bro.Dallas Eaton

 

You sound confused!

If it were NOT possible for all to believe, then God is asking something impossible from man, when it says that He COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent! (Acts 17:30) And those who Jesus says will be damned, "who have not believed in the Name of the unique Son of God" (John 3:18), are they damed because the could not believe, or would not believe? The above passage from John clearly shows that the latter is meant! If mankind has not a free-will, then the command to repent is an unreal one. For how could God command something that was not possible?