Why I believe in free will and not sovereignty...

[Ray Berrian]

Hebrews eleven gives one of the most clear ideas as to how people were saved. 'By faith . . .' each of the heroes and fathers and sisters of the covenants believed in God. The can be no Divine cunning, as if this were possible, in offering some the more illustrious call, the "Effectual Call," and the inferior one to the poor children fit for Hell, called the "General Call."

'Without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he who comes to God, must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' In this case, the sinner goes to God and it is said of him that he persistently seeks Jesus Christ.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by TheTravelingMinstrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
Here are some reasons why I believe in free will and not sovereignty:

1. Man is not good or bold enough to ever choose Christ on his own. Ever. Abraham? Isaac? Noah? Nehemiah? Joshua? Ezra?, Ruth?, Samual?, Daniel?, Joseph?, Esther?, Jeremiah?, Ezekiel?, Micah?, Amos?, Hosea?, Nahum?, Habakkuk?, Haggai?, Zephaniah?, Zechariah?, Malachi?, Joel?, Obadiah?, Johah?, Job?, Lot?, David?, Solomon?, Levy?, etc., etc., All persons of faith in God!

And did any of these men do such on their own power.

Abram (later Abraham) was a pagan idol worshiper before God called him.
don't you get it, there is nothing good in man. I care not to hear all thew 'goodness' you see in man. I care to hear what scripture says. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes those men believed in God, placed their faith in the only one who could do anything for them.

I've got news for you, most of mankind qualifies for idol worship, especially in their early life!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Hebrews eleven gives one of the most clear ideas as to how people were saved. 'By faith . . .' each of the heroes and fathers and sisters of the covenants believed in God. The can be no Divine cunning, as if this were possible, in offering some the more illustrious call, the "Effectual Call," and the inferior one to the poor children fit for Hell, called the "General Call."

'Without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he who comes to God, must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' In this case, the sinner goes to God and it is said of him that he persistently seeks Jesus Christ.

As we have continually said, we agree with this fact that men are saved by faith. That is not at issue. Why do you bring it up?

 

[Daniel David]

1. You're right, which is why he sent Christ, appointed the apostles to proclaim the gospel, and sent his Holy Spirit who is calling all to come. You just don't think that's enough.

1. Neither does Scripture. The preacher must preach, and the Spirit must call. I would agree with you but John 6 and Romans 10 are still in my Bible.

2. You're right, he sent Christ to seek and save that which was lost and he appointed the spread of the gospel and the calling of the HS as means to continue that work until he comes again.

2. Since God is not waiting to see what will happen, there is no chance involved and people cannot change the future. Bill, God is not a God of chaos.

You're wrong, foreknowledge of an event doesn't necessate the one foreknowing to be the cause or responsible for that event. If you went to a fortune teller who told you something was going to happen, would you think that the fortune teller made that even happen? No. Plus, not all Arminians hold to a "foreknowledge" of faith view.

3. I get it now. God only knows the future. He doesn't really have any participation in it. He can only predict the future. I suppose he wouldn't want to violate the man's sovereignty.

Btw, if you believe that God looked into the future, and then called, you do not have any more "freedom". You might feel better about yourself. That should not determine your position though.

You see, if he only looked into the future and then called, the future is still set. Your choice was still set in stone before time. You still cannot change anything.

You're right, which is why he sends his Word and his Spirit to correct us. Depravity doesn't have to mean "total inability" to have faith which come by hearing.

4. Translated: I don't want it to mean total inability because I desire to brag to God that I was able to muster enough faith to save myself.

You're right, which is why he sent Christ is reconcile the world to himself.

5. The WHOLE WORLD is reconciled to God? Oh, then I don't have to witness anymore. They are already on their way to heaven. Well, that sure does free up our time. We will save alot of money by not sending missionaries either.

No, he was certain that he was saving all of those who had come before Him who were declared righteous by faith. And he knew that his plan to seek and save the lost would have its effect.

6. Not according to you. How did God know that man in all of his freedom would not turn away from God and all people reject him? Are you denying freewill? To the Arminians, God is a really good guesser. Bill, Open Theism is a heresy that no Christian holds to.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally said by Pastor Larry

As we have continually said, we agree with this fact that men are saved by faith. That is not at issue. Why do you bring it up?

My guess is that this board would wind up as only Calvinist if the Arminians did not misrepresent us Larry.

 

[Daniel David]

1. That's right, God is free to do anything he pleases.

2. And he finds pleasure in those who have faith in Him (Heb. 11).

3. This is the plan that the SOVEREIGN God ordained.

4. He allows his control to be limited and he gives his creation over to others to rule and make decisions.

1. Except to choose to save some and not others apparently.

2. Amen! Does that cause problems with your idea of Calvinism that I agree with this?

3. Amen! Does that cause problems with your idea of Calvinism that I agree with this?

4. He actually gave his creation all kinds of freedom. Because of Adam, all of creation now bows before sin and death.

 

[Daniel David]

Yelsew, in response to your first post:

1. None of these people sought God to be saved.

2. I am trying to figure out what that has to do with my original post.

3. The "prescient" view limits foreknowledge to merely knowing the future. I hope that helps.

4. "It remains to be proven that every man is depraved." Are you serious? Do you read Romans 5? If you are in Adam, you are condemned, under the penalty of death, and destined to be judged.

Only those who have the righteousness of Christ put to their account are free from all of that.

I mean this nicely, I would encourage you to read a few more discussions, pick up a couple of theology books, or study Romans a little more deeply before you make such a statement. As long as that is your belief, you should not ever accuse anyone else of not knowing Scripture. The depravity of man is such a basic doctrine.

Think about it. If some are not depraved, then they don't need Christ. Is that your position?

5. Here is James 4:4

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Since lost people are not on God's side, they are the enemies of God.

Again, you should not be so reckless with your statements and then sneer at others.

6. That is not the point of what I said. Christ did not just die to make salvation possible. He actually did accomplish salvation for people.

 

[Daniel David]

Quoted from Yelsew

1. Disobedience is the first sin that every human commits.

2. Prior to open disobedience, no children of men sin.

3. There is no sin until there are rules, once the first rule is disobeyed, there is sin.

4. It is in our nature to disobey authority, just as it was in Adam's nature.

1. This is your assumption of course since the Scripture does not say that.

2. Are you saying that men are naturally innocent and must sin to become sinners? If so, you are making stuff up. Paul taught the opposite. Read Romans 5:12-14.

3. If you have ever read Romans 5:13-14, you could not hold that position and still keep a straight face.

Paul says that death reigned over all people (even those who lived prior to the law). Since death is the penalty for sin, they all sinned apart from the law.

4. Adam did not have a sin nature prior to his fall. I am not sure if that is what you meant.

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi Yelsew;

a quote from you;
--------------------------------------------
Disobedience is the first sin that every human commits. Prior to open disobedience, no children of men sin. There is no sin until there are rules, once the first rule is disobeyed, there is sin. It is in our nature to disobey authority, just as it was in Adam's nature.
----------------------------------------------
Exactly as I see it Amen

Romanbear

Yelsew and Romanbear, i would not agree with you in this matter, for i also believe the imputation of Adam's sin, and that each man since birth is already dead. i'll give my beliefe why this is so at another time and thread. meanwhile, i push the issue for the Calvinists.

they believe man since birth is depraved, and it is because of the imputed sin of Adam. i want to get from them clarification if, in that case, God has designed a plan where each man will have no ability to choose for God since birth because of God's design Himself in imputing the first sin to everyone, getting everyone depraved, with the way they see depravity. i want to know their explanation why man is to be blamed for his own depravity, while it is God who designed the federald headship thing of Adam and the imputation of the original sin to everyone.

 

[William C]

Sorry, double post

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
1. You're right, which is why he sent Christ, appointed the apostles to proclaim the gospel, and sent his Holy Spirit who is calling all to come. You just don't think that's enough.

1. Neither does Scripture. The preacher must preach, and the Spirit must call. I would agree with you but John 6 and Romans 10 are still in my Bible.

John 6 was Jesus speaking to Israel. Most of them were hardened and the rest were the Remnant, this should not be applied to a univeral soterilogy. You will have to be more specific about Romans 10.

2. You're right, he sent Christ to seek and save that which was lost and he appointed the spread of the gospel and the calling of the HS as means to continue that work until he comes again.

2. Since God is not waiting to see what will happen, there is no chance involved and people cannot change the future. Bill, God is not a God of chaos.

First, did I say anything about "chance?" Second, future is a word describing time which must involve mass or the created things, rather than the creator who is timeless or eternal. The future has to do with People and we affect the future with everything we do. God is Sovereign but that does not mean He has not Sovereignly willed that we can affect our future by the decisions we make, you are leaning toward fatalism and determinism. Third, what does chaos have to do with man having the ability to respond to God's call to repentance?

You're wrong, foreknowledge of an event doesn't necessate the one foreknowing to be the cause or responsible for that event. If you went to a fortune teller who told you something was going to happen, would you think that the fortune teller made that even happen? No. Plus, not all Arminians hold to a "foreknowledge" of faith view.

3. I get it now. God only knows the future. He doesn't really have any participation in it. He can only predict the future. I suppose he wouldn't want to violate the man's sovereignty.

No, apparently you don't get it now. He participates however and whenever it pleases Him to do so. That doesn't mean he controls everthing as you seem to assert. Man is not sovereign he only has the ability to do that which God grants him, you say he doesn't grant him the ability to respond yet hold him accoutable by eternal torture, I say God wouldn't do that, but that he enables he creatures to do what he commands of them.

Btw, if you believe that God looked into the future, and then called, you do not have any more "freedom". You might feel better about yourself. That should not determine your position though.

God calls everyone. Rev. 22:17

You see, if he only looked into the future and then called, the future is still set. Your choice was still set in stone before time. You still cannot change anything.

History proves that determinism and fatalism have a determinal effect on us. You seem to be going further than even Calvin was willing to go.

You're right, which is why he sends his Word and his Spirit to correct us. Depravity doesn't have to mean "total inability" to have faith which come by hearing.

4. Translated: I don't want it to mean total inability because I desire to brag to God that I was able to muster enough faith to save myself.

Oh brother. Get real. Were you an Arminian before you became a Calvinist? If so, did you honestly ever think that? If not, ask an honest Calvinist who was once an Arminian to tell you if they ever "desired to brag to God that they were able to muster enough faith to save themselves." Look at Romans 3:27-31, does it sound like Paul believes that Faith results in boasting? No. Its the works of the Law that does that. Don't try to equate the two, it makes you sound ignorant of the issues at hand.

You're right, which is why he sent Christ is reconcile the world to himself.

5. The WHOLE WORLD is reconciled to God? Oh, then I don't have to witness anymore. They are already on their way to heaven. Well, that sure does free up our time. We will save alot of money by not sending missionaries either.

My oh my? Hello! That is a scripture verse you are debating with. Paul said that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not me. That doesn't mean every man is going to be willing to be reconciled, but it does mean that God is allowing every man to be reconciled, otherwise He would have said, "God was in Christ reconciling the elect to himself."

No, he was certain that he was saving all of those who had come before Him who were declared righteous by faith. And he knew that his plan to seek and save the lost would have its effect.

6. Not according to you. How did God know that man in all of his freedom would not turn away from God and all people reject him? Are you denying freewill? To the Arminians, God is a really good guesser. Bill, Open Theism is a heresy that no Christian holds to.

I'm not teaching "Open Theism" the fact that you think I am just shows your ignorance of this subject. I won't be waisting my time with your posts any longer if they continue to be this far off base. I suggest you pick up a book every once in a while, start with the Bible.

 

[sturgman]

"I say God wouldn't do that"

There in lies your whole theology. You don't like where scriptures lead you so you come to it with assumptions that God should act within the manner you deem worth of God. You do not determine who God is and what makes him right, and what defines love and the like. Phrases like this cause bad interpretation of scripture.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
ScottJ,

I noticed you jumped right over what I said about 'foreknowledge,' a typical maneuver made by people who misrepresent the Word of God.

Nice try at diversion but no... I didn't jump over anything. Where you had jumped over verse 28 and stopped short of verse 30, I simply brought the context back to verse 29. I have not misrepresented anything. You were trying to isolate verse 29 from its context to make it work against God's sovereignty in predestination. I pointed out the error.

Your limited understanding must have made you say there is only Calvinism and universalism. The third view is more like a semi-Pelagian view.

It is not my understanding that is limited in this instance nor limiting. It is the direct force of scripture that makes this limitation. The verse in question says that whom God predestines He calls and whom He calls He justifies and whom He justifies He glorifies. If this verse is to be accepted as truthful as it comes to us in context then either God only gives an effectual call to some or He justifies everyone. You can believe whatever you want but you cannot reconcile it with this scripture without distorting the text beyond recognition.

We believe that God offers the gift of everlasting life, not by decree, but by way of belief and trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

The Bible says both. We come by faith but we are also called or else we will not seek God.

Just as God made Adam and Eve sovereign over the Garden, so too God makes us regnant as to whether or not we will receive Christ or remain in rebellion and unbelief.

Not according to the scripture we have been discussing.

Mr. Harold Camping, a Calvinist, also has a similar Pharisaic attitude

I don't have a Pharisaic attitude toward you or the others here and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bring name calling into this.

That is why Calvinism is so bizzare because it doesn't make sense or even have to be on the scope of human sensibility.

Human sensibility is not autoritative when it comes to God's ways and means. Scripture is.

Additionally, whatever intelligence we have was not intended to explain away the clear implications of scripture. Calvinism effectively reconciles scriptures concerning man's will and declaring the requirement for faith. Non-calvinists unduly promote man's free will in violation of scripture's that declare divine election.

...ultra-Calvinistic view and denomination, said that 'some will be elected without being called through the Gospel.

This view is even more contrary to scripture than arminianism as is the notion that God chooses hell for the non-elect. I have no interest in stopping short of what scripture says (arminians et al.) nor going further than what scripture says (hypercalvinists).

 

[Scott J]

So you rejected it based upon a passage that describes mankind before the introduction of the new righteousness which comes by faith and not the works of the law? Why don't you keep reading Rom 3 and you will see that is introduced for you in verse 21.

Actually, you might want to re-read Romans 3 for yourself. The text makes a clear transition in verse 9. There it broadens to include Jew, Gentile, and "we". This text also follows Romans 2:14-15 where Paul expands "the Law" to indict the Gentiles who are convicted by their conscience.

You assume because man was unable to fully submit to the Law of God and thus obtain that righteousness that they must not be able to obtain the "new righteousness" which comes through faith in Christ. That is absurd.

I don't assume anything. It isn't necessary as long as Gal 3:22, Rom 5:6-14, Eph 1:3-2:1-3, Eph 4:22, Col 1:13&21, Titus 3:3-5 together with numerous others show that man is corrupted by his sin nature with no desire to "seek God."

So if "no one is righteous" how could it be that Abraham was declared righteous? Because of his faith, not because of his works.

Did Abraham go out looking for God or did God call Him first? Was Abraham's obedience (that was necessary for Christ's lineage) a happy occasion of a man's good choice or does the Calvinists' contention that he believed because God enabled him apply? The latter reconciles the record of Abraham with the divine plan of God. The former leaves God's plan at the mercy of someone who made some pretty sinful choices even after being visited by God directly.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Man certainly does have a choice to make but due to his sin nature he will never "do good" (Romans 3:12) with that choice unless God quickens him.

You are correct, natural man can never be good enough or please God. Unless he has FAITH.</font>[/QUOTE] You are correct and unless man is in fact "good" in contradiction to scripture- that faith is a gift of God so that no man may boast. If indeed man were able of his own accord to make the "good" choice of faith then it would be no minor good work. It would be a good work of soul saving proportion fully equal in value to Christ's sacrifice. You might object to this direct statement but consider what good Christ's death would accomplish without the power of man's "good" choice of faith under your system.

"Without faith no one can please God."

"Only that which procedes from faith is good."

And faith is the means by which God gives us a new Spirit or regenerates us.

"so by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

No argument with any of these statements. However, I reject your premise that the source of this faith is man's goodness rather than God's grace and mercy.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
"I say God wouldn't do that"

There in lies your whole theology. You don't like where scriptures lead you so you come to it with assumptions that God should act within the manner you deem worth of God. You do not determine who God is and what makes him right, and what defines love and the like. Phrases like this cause bad interpretation of scripture.

Sturgman, your kinda handling my comment like you handle the scripture--pulling it out of context.

I was saying I don't think God would intentionally be depective, either you think he would be deceptive or you have another way of explaining the apparent contradictions that your view presents, either way you ignore the point.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Actually, you might want to re-read Romans 3 for yourself. The text makes a clear transition in verse 9. There it broadens to include Jew, Gentile, and "we". This text also follows Romans 2:14-15 where Paul expands "the Law" to indict the Gentiles who are convicted by their conscience.

I am not disagree that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of breaking the law of God and therefore both seen as sinful, but you add to that your assumption that faith is not within man's God given capasity. Every man has the capasity for faith, so no one is with excuse.

Verse 21 transitions from sin due to the law to a righteousness that comes through faith, it mentions faith 8 or 9 times in this small passage--funny it never once speaks about man's inability to possess it. (until he get to chapter 10 and 11 and speaks about Israel being hardened, now there is a group that unable to believe, at least for a time)

I don't assume anything. It isn't necessary as long as Gal 3:22, Rom 5:6-14, Eph 1:3-2:1-3, Eph 4:22, Col 1:13&21, Titus 3:3-5 together with numerous others show that man is corrupted by his sin nature with no desire to "seek God."

Because man has no desire to seek God doesn't mean that when God seeks him through the spreading of the Gospel and the universal calling of the Spirit that he is unable to respond in faith!!! I get so tired of hearing the Calvinists say that "man has no desire to seek God." As if that must mean that when God produces the means to seek and save that which is lost that the man also doesn't have the ability to respond. This is silly.

Did Jesus tell the disciples "wait and the people will seek you, then make them disciples." No. Why? Because he knew they wouldn't seek Him. He said "Go and make disciples." That involves seeking and saving that which is lost. God has ordained the means to seek men, ITS CALLED THE GOSPEL. Its your assumption, based upon verses that never discuss man's inability to have faith, that man in unable to respond to the call of the HS through the powerful gospel message.

What does man's lack of desire to seek God have anything to do with man's lack of ability to respond to God's means of seeking him?

So if "no one is righteous" how could it be that Abraham was declared righteous? Because of his faith, not because of his works.

Did Abraham go out looking for God or did God call Him first? [/QB][/QUOTE] Here we go again assuming that because God initiates the contact that man must not be able to respond. There are a lot of people in the OT that God speaks to through his prophets who don't express faith and believe, some do but most don't.

You are correct and unless man is in fact "good" in contradiction to scripture- that faith is a gift of God so that no man may boast. If indeed man were able of his own accord to make the "good" choice of faith then it would be no minor good work. It would be a good work of soul saving proportion fully equal in value to Christ's sacrifice. You might object to this direct statement but consider what good Christ's death would accomplish without the power of man's "good" choice of faith under your system.

You assume that Eph. 2:8-9 must be refering to faith when it speaks about it not being not of yourself. But look at Romans 3:27 and following . Paul doesn't think faith is worth boasting about. Why? because its a gift of God? No. becasue its not a work of the Law. Grace throughout scripture is put up as the opposite of the works of the law, therefore Paul's intention in Eph. 2 is clearly saying that Grace or Salvation is not of yourself or its not of your works of the law so that no one can boast.

It would be contradictory of Paul to say that faith is not of yourself when throughout the scripture he refers to faith as being "your faith." While at the same time he refers to Grace as being in God's possession, "His grace."

Don't get me wrong, I do believe faith is a gift of God's grace. But I believe it's a gift of his common grace given to all men seen in Rom 1. It our responsiblity to exercise that faith in Christ.

"Without faith no one can please God."

"Only that which procedes from faith is good."

And faith is the means by which God gives us a new Spirit or regenerates us.

"so by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

No argument with any of these statements. However, I reject your premise that the source of this faith is man's goodness rather than God's grace and mercy.

Who ever said our faith in Christ was a result of our goodness? Faith comes from hearing the good news of God's word (Rom. 10:17).

Once again you assume that man's response of Faith is seen as a work or merit and the scripture never teaches that. In fact, it teaches just the opposite in Roman 3:27 and following.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I suggest you pick up a book every once in a while, start with the Bible.

Okay Brother Bill, you win the argument. I surrender. This was just too creative for me to counter. Props to you for originality.

 

[Jimmy J.]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Okay Brother Bill, you win the argument. I surrender. This was just too creative for me to counter. Props to you for originality.

Wow, Brother Bill, that's the second one who has surrendered to you in the last week. They must be scared they might have to actually respond to one of your arguments for a change.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Just curious; do Calvinist pastors allow their congregations to sing, "I Surrender All." Not that the hymn is Divinely inspired, but to think of the words of the song might suggest that the sinner has to bow his will before the Almighty God as known in Jesus Christ. Apparently, the offer to surrender is found in John 3:16. ' . . . that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish . . . ' To remain in disbelief is to remain under His eternal condemnation until that surrender takes place.