Bible reasons supporting free will

[JM]

Sufficiency of Christ's death is not the issue between Arminian and Calvinist theologies, we agree that Christ's death saves, this is proven from Hebrews 10 as I quoted above. To say we need to add our faith to what Christ did on the cross for it to work isn't possible based on the explicit statements made in Hebrews.

Drew, you return to "...the un-Biblical doctrine of 'possibilities' which are also given more sovereignty than the explicit statements of Holy Scripture..." and "1) Possibilities are NOT facts. That is why they are only possibilities. 2) Where does Scripture state the possibilities or that possibilities have more authority than facts clearly stated?"

Facts are facts.

jm
PS: If I disappear from these threads for a while it's because I'm getting tired of the same ol' same ol'. I think you know what I mean.

 

[Drew]

Drew, you return to "...the un-Biblical doctrine of 'possibilities' which are also given more sovereignty than the explicit statements of Holy Scripture..." and "1) Possibilities are NOT facts. That is why they are only possibilities. 2) Where does Scripture state the possibilities or that possibilities have more authority than facts clearly stated?"

This is a strange argument. You initially claim that universalism follows "logically" from an assertion that Christ died with the goal of taking away all men's sin. I point out such an argument hinges on the sufficiency of Christ's death, a fact that has not been established.

You then claim that Arminians and Calvinists believe that Christ's death saves. I am not sure exactly what you mean here. However, if any other condition needs to be fulfilled in order to secure the salvation of men over and above the death of Christ on the cross, then, by proper use of the term "sufficient", Christ's death is not sufficient for the salvation of men. And I always thought that Arminians believe that another condition is required - a free will act of acceptance.

Regardless of what Arminians believe or do not believe, your original claim only works if the death of Christ is fully sufficient - this is shown by my counterexample where a logically possible scenario is shown where Christ can die with the intent of saving all men, and yet not all will be saved. Please point out the flaw in that counter-argument.

As to the matter of possibilities, of course they are not facts. But I am not sure who you are responding to here. When person A makes a claim X that has not been fully supported (as I believe that you have), then, by mere principles of logic, it is possible that the claim is not true. This is all I have stated - it is possible that your claim does not work and I showed how. I have never claimed that possibilities are facts.

In any event, I plan to turn to Hebrews 10 and see if it proves the sufficiency of Christ's death.

 

[jgredline]

No problem.
Logically speaking, if Christ died to take away the sins of the world, and the term “world†meaning as you suggest, every single person whoever lived, then everyone’s sins are forgiven.

John3:15-16 nkjv
15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

JM... PLEASE don't put words in my mouth and don't take the bible verses out of context... You know very well that Salvation is available to all who would believe in Him ''JESUS'' and recieve him as Lord and Saviour by Grace through faith... Are all going to believe? NO... Are all the elect ? NO,
Who are the elect? Those who would believe.... Did God know who they would be? Yes!!!, He new who would choose him....

In Hebrews 10 we see that Christ made a one time offer for sin v. 12 that always result in them being “perfected for ever them that are sanctified.†Hebrews 10:17-18 goes on to say the one time offer results in the remission of sin.

Hebrews 10:11-18
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," 17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

The Lord offered a single sacrifice for sins. None other would ever be needed!
Jesus having finished the work of ''redemption'', He “sat down at the right hand of God†.Jesus “offered one sacrifice for sins forever,†He is seated at the right hand of God, the place of honor, power, and affection.

Jesus waits till His enemies are made His footstool, till the day when every knee will bow to Him, and every tongue acknowledge Him as Lord to the glory of God the Father. This will be the day of His public vindication on earth. It is after the judgement that he will take his place atop the God head
The surpassing value of His offering is seen in that by it He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Those who are being sanctified here means all who have been set apart to God from the world, that is, all true believers. They have been perfected in a twofold sense. First, they have a perfect standing before God; they stand before the Father in all the acceptability of His beloved Son. Second, they have a perfect conscience as far as the guilt and penalty of sin are concerned; they know that the price has been paid in full and that God will not demand payment a second time. JM, you see how this sounds very calvinistic? Yet it is armaninism teaching.....Wesley taught this very doctrine of perfection through sanctification....
Ok, The Holy Spirit also witnesses to the fact that under the New Covenant, sins would be effectively dealt with once and for all. He witnesses to it through the OT Scriptures. JM, one of the problems that I have had with calvinism is that there is very little spoken of the Holy Spirit. This has always bugged me.
Tke a look In Jeremiah 31:31, the Lord promised to make a New covenant with His chosen earthly people.
Then in the very same passage, He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.†It is arresting that Jeremiah 31:34 contained this promise of full and final forgiveness of sins; yet some of those who lived in the day when the promise began to be fulfilled were disposed to return to the never-ending sacrifices of Judaism!
The promise of forgiveness under the New Covenant means that there is no longer an offering for sin. With these words, no longer an offering for sin, the author (paul) closes what I call the doctrinal portion of the Epistle. He wants to have these words ringing in our hearts and minds as he now presses upon us our practical obligations.

Biblically speaking, if Christ died for the every single person that ever lived they now have remission of sin and will not be punished. This is Universalism.

JM
This is a complete distortion of what John 3:15-16 is saying and you know it. Jesus died for the world and his death and rise was the perfect sacrifice for those who would believe...

This is no differant than the Doctrine of Limited atonement, that basically teaches that the death of Christ was the perfect sacrifice for ''the elect'' (those who would believe) and there for there is no atonement for those who are not the elect.. The free will people will say, those who rejected Jesus....

These only two ways of dealing with this, and I don’t believe they’re valid or Biblical options, 1) you can ignore it or 2) you can become an open theist.

Peace,

jm

PS: Who are the "whosoever wills?" Paul tells us the natural man is hostile to God and does not seek God...so it can't be the natural man.

JM
If anything Armeinianism teaches that a person can loose their salvation;
which is very, very far from universalism.....

This teaching of Armenianism that one can loose his salvation is one of the faults of this doctrine that I do not believe and it is wrong...
If you are a child of God (or one of the elect), then you are in the lambs book of life and there is noway to loose your salvation.. None...

Now JM
Please show me how armenianainism leads to universalism?

p.s. You might do well by studing Norman Geislers systematic theology books as you will come away with a more complete understanding of the Calvinism and Armenianism... Please excuse the Typos as well. I am thinking to fast right now....

 

[Drew]

Hello JM and / or others:

You reference Hebrews 10:12 in one of your posts. Here is the text in NIV;

"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God"

The very real "technical" problem is that this statement is entirely consistent with the possiblity that the sacrifice does not suffice for the forgiveness of sins. If I were to be convinced of this, things would be different. On what basis are we expected to believe that the sacrifice, and the sacrifice alone, wipes out sins.

So there is more work to be done, I believe. Can you or anyone convince me from the Scriptures that this very act of sacrifice is the only condition required to save men?

Verse 14 seems promising in respect to your position:

"because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

It says that by one sacrifice, Jesus has indeed made perfect "some set of persons". Who are these people? They are "those who are being made holy". We cannot, as far as I can see, conclude that those who are being made holy are made that way in a manner that is contingent only on Christ's death. Their being made holy might also depend on a free will act on their part.

I suspect that someone will respond that the verse states that it is specifically Jesus , by his sacrifice, who makes these people perfect - so why assume an extra requirement for a free will act of acceptance. Not a bad point. But I would counter that any reasonable person would give credit to Jesus and Jesus alone simply because the work is overwhelmingly his, even if the act of sacrifice is not actually fully sufficient.

If I were to consider this text alone, I might actually lean to "Christ's death is fully sufficient to attain salvation position". But there are so many texts that seem to support the need for a wilfull act of acceptance, that this is the position I believe is correct.

I understand that the Calvinist will respond with the "you presume ability" argument. Let's deal with that in another post.

Another point that I suspect many on both sides of this debate will take issue with. I do think that the evidence is a bit of a mixed bag, so I think that there are texts that support the position that JM is advocating for.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

No problem.

Logically speaking, if Christ died to take away the sins of the world, and the term “world†meaning as you suggest, every single person whoever lived, then everyone’s sins are forgiven. ......

Biblically speaking, if Christ died for the every single person that ever lived they now have remission of sin and will not be punished. This is Universalism.
....jm

PS: Who are the "whosoever wills?" Paul tells us the natural man is hostile to God and does not seek God...so it can't be the natural man.

The argument that 'everyone's sins are forgiven' leaves out a few things.
Whosoever indeed includes 'everyone'.

it is the word 'will' that is the key. "whosoever wills" are those who repent of their sin, confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and become born again. These are the ones who are saved.

The whosoever won'ts ~ don't.

 

[Drew]

The surpassing value of His offering is seen in that by it He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Those who are being sanctified here means all who have been set apart to God from the world, that is, all true believers.

Hello there jg - we meet yet again at both ends of a dusty western town road, each of us ready to "slap leather" :

In defence of JM's position (and I suspect JM will probably drop his steaming mug of Ovaltine at the suggestion that I have sympathies with his position), the Hebrews text does say that it is through this one act of Jesus that these people are being perfected. So there is certainly a flavour of a "Jesus's death fully suffices for the salvation of men and therefore no free will act is needed to seal the deal" implication here.

On balance I hold to the free will view, however, as it appears that you do.

 

[jgredline]

Hello there jg - we meet yet again at both ends of a dusty western town road, each of us ready to "slap leather" :

In defence of JM's position (and I suspect JM will probably drop his steaming mug of Ovaltine at the suggestion that I have sympathies with his position), the Hebrews text does say that it is through this one act of Jesus that these people are being perfected. So there is certainly a flavour of a "Jesus's death fully suffices for the salvation of men and therefore no free will act is needed to seal the deal" implication here.

On balance I hold to the free will view, however, as it appears that you do.

Hello Drew
I would suggest you perhaps go read my post again in the context of the entirety of what I wrote.. I will say that am actually in agreement with most like 90% of what you have written in these past few posts, and yes as if it is not obvious I am a free will believer.

Now indeed Jesus death does fully suffice for the salvation of men but the men still have to choose to accept the sacrifice, therefore, having to excercise his free will, as I said in my above post in reference to John 3:15-16.....

 

[jgredline]

Verse 14 seems promising in respect to your position:

"because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

Drew
I believe you quoted the NIV

Here is the same verse in the nkjv
heb 10:14
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

14 14 μια γαρ προσφορα τετελειωκεν εις το διηνεκες τους αγιαζομενους

In the Greek language the key words here are τετελειωκεν εις (''teleioo'' and ''eis'')

The word ''teleioo'' is an active verb; it means 1 to make perfect, complete. 1a to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end. 2 to complete (perfect). 2a add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full. 2b to be found perfect. 3 to bring to the end (goal) proposed. 4 to accomplish. 4a bring to a close or fulfilment by event. 4a1 of the prophecies of the scriptures.

The word ''eis'' is a primary prepostion that means forever and it signifies an action in the past.

So let me put this together..

14 14 μια γαρ προσφορα τετελειωκεν εις το διηνεκες τους αγιαζομενους

Here is the same verse in the nkjv
heb 10:14
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever (is in the process of perfecting) those who are being sanctified.

So this act of perfection is an on going process and to to be quite honest is a Wesley teaching, but also fits the teaching in Romans as far as Sanctifcation and then Justification... There is no way this verse can be used to support universalism...

 

[JM]

Drew, Arminians and Calvinists believe that Christ’s death is suffient to save a believer. That’s a blanket statement that jg, Gabby and I agree with. It was assumed in my post that I was dealing with those who would agree with this. If you read what jg wrote you’ll find agreement.

Jg, since you resorted to the Greek I’d like to know how much Greek you’ve studied, it’s a fair question. Since no two Greek scholars agree on these subjects I’m interested in learning where you’re getting your Greek work from. What you quoted [''teleioo'' and ''eis''] supports my position and agrees with what Drew posted on Hebrews as well, even if he and I disagree to the over all plan of redemption. As for Giesler’s work…it’s not required reading by any seminary I know of, it’s a very confused mixed of Arminianism and dispensationalism, so it has two strikes against it. Norm isn’t a classic Arminian either, so it doesn’t help for me to read it, I’d have to stick to Method and Holiness works to understand Arminian theology.

Gabbylittleangel, you must of missed this: “Who are the "whosoever wills?" Paul tells us the natural man is hostile to God and does not seek God...so it can't be the natural man.â€Â

You know very well that Salvation is available to all who would believe in Him ''JESUS'' and recieve him as Lord and Saviour by Grace through faith...

See what I wrote to Gabby. As Drew already mentioned, you assume ability to believe but haven’t offered proof of this ability.

Whoa!

Looks like I’m the only Calvinist on the forum, I just don’t have the time to keep re-writing my posts since most of what I’ve written has already answered many of the same questions that keep getting restated. Besides, many have express they did not like my posts due to length, there would be no way to respond to so many posters without lengthly posts...

Thanks for the give and take.

jm

 

[Drew]

Drew, Arminians and Calvinists believe that Christ’s death is suffient to save a believer. That’s a blanket statement that jg, Gabby and I agree with. It was assumed in my post that I was dealing with those who would agree with this. If you read what jg wrote you’ll find agreement.

Jg does not agree with this, not if he is using the word "sufficient" correctly. Note exactly what Jg wrote:

Now indeed Jesus death does fully suffice for the salvation of men but the men still have to choose to accept the sacrifice, therefore, having to excercise his free will, as I said in my above post in reference to John 3:15-16.....

I do not want to seem pedantic, but what jg has written here cannot be correct, if he is using the word "sufficient" properly.

In order for condition "X" to be sufficient in respect to attaining result "Y", no other condition needs to be fulfilled in order for "Y" to be fulfilled. That is the word "sufficient" means. So, when jg states that "men still have to choose to accept the sacrifice" in order to achieve salvation, he is adding an additional condition over and above Jesus' act on the cross. So jg does not really believe that Jesus death fully suffices for the salvation of men - or he misunderstands the meaning of the word "sufficiency" and such a misunderstanding is no crime - it is a rather technical point. But technical precision is very important in these matters and it is a discipline that all should cultivate if we want to advance in this challenging area.

See what I wrote to Gabby. As Drew already mentioned, you assume ability to believe but haven’t offered proof of this ability.

This is a valid point that needs to be addressed. An argument for "ability" needs to be provided - it cannot just be assumed.

 

[golfjack]

reply

Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship ( the church) is chosen by God to be His very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come aboard the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship's Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and His ship. Predestination tells us the ship's destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ.


May God bless, golfjack

 

[RJS]

Re: reply

Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship ( the church) is chosen by God to be His very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come aboard the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship's Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and His ship. Predestination tells us the ship's destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ.

Who on earth taught you that? So the church is elect but God did not choose anyone to actually belong to it? God chose to save individuals.

Recommended reading:
http://www.reformed.org/books/institute ... 3ch21.html

 

[Judy]

RJS, you might want to check the link you gave.

 

[jgredline]

Jg, since you resorted to the Greek I’d like to know how much Greek you’ve studied, it’s a fair question. Since no two Greek scholars agree on these subjects I’m interested in learning where you’re getting your Greek work from. What you quoted [''teleioo'' and ''eis''] supports my position and agrees with what Drew posted on Hebrews as well, even if he and I disagree to the over all plan of redemption. As for Giesler’s work…it’s not required reading by any seminary I know of, it’s a very confused mixed of Arminianism and dispensationalism, so it has two strikes against it. Norm isn’t a classic Arminian either, so it doesn’t help for me to read it, I’d have to stick to Method and Holiness works to understand Arminian theology.
jm

JM
This is exactly my point... If you read my posts correctly, the point I am making is that the truth is in the middle. This is why I have intertwined both the Armeniast view and the Calvinist view.
I am not supporting the calvinist or armeniast view..... In my opinion they both have problems....
That passage in Hebrews is used by both Calvinist and Armenianist....
or reformed and holiness folks...

As far as Norm goes, What you say is just opinion and its cool. We all have opinions on differant theologians...

Now as far as My Greek goes..and yes it is a fair question.
I had studied Greek for 2 years back in 99-2001...I am / was using Mounce., basics of biblical Greek Work book along with his Greek Grammer book. I also have his Greek NT with Dictionary 4th ed...
Now about a year ago I enrolled in a more advanced class at Calvay Chapel bible college.
For this past year I have also been studing Newberry's Greek NT based on the 1550 textus Receptus...and Zerwicks-Grossvener Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT....
While there are some differances, between liberal translations and theologians, There is great consitancy between Scholars whos work is based on the 1550 textus Receptus...
So after about three years, I can read Koine biblical Greek and started to write it about 6 months ago. I can't read classical Greek.. Maybe someday..

One thing that really helped me to understand the Greek is that I am fluent in Spanish. The way the Grammar is laid out is in the same way as to what I am used to..Infact Spanish is really my Language, which is why my english does not make sense sometimes... In english often times I have to write things two, three or four times (Thank God for spell checkers), where most can get it the first time, but I manage.

As for computer, I use http://www.blueletterbible.org
There I have an online lexicon, concordance, and Greek Dictionary....along with many other cool tools...

So does this make me a Greek expert? NO!!!
Does my little knowledge of the Greek help me to understand the bible in a more richer way? Yes....you bet it does....

Oh and I forgot to mention. I posted this before in the Plugs section; My Church also has a Bible Institude where we use Masters College
Curliculam and one of the Classes we offer is ''Greek'' These classes are eligable for college credit at a reduced cost.... Our Professors also teach at Masters College and Fuller Seminary and we get pastors and students from all over Southern CA. to come and learn with us....

Again, if anybody is intersted in taking the class, send me an e mail or PM and I can get you the info...
Thanks Jg

 

[jgredline]

JM wrote:
Drew, Arminians and Calvinists believe that Christ’s death is suffient to save a believer. That’s a blanket statement that jg, Gabby and I agree with. It was assumed in my post that I was dealing with those who would agree with this. If you read what jg wrote you’ll find agreement.

Yes JM, Thank you. This is is exactly what I meant and by Reading Little Angels post, she meant the same thing......

Jg does not agree with this, not if he is using the word "sufficient" correctly. Note exactly what Jg wrote:
jgredline wrote:
Now indeed Jesus death does fully suffice for the salvation of men but the men still have to choose to accept the sacrifice, therefore, having to excercise his free will, as I said in my above post in reference to John 3:15-16.....

I do not want to seem pedantic (Why don't you just say ''Picky''?), but what jg has written here cannot be correct, if he is using the word "sufficient" properly.

Drew
I am not even going to address your ridiculous post.... As always you break out with your lame analogies and no bible.. And please don't quote the NIV...If you want to read it, cool, but since you are the one who is pedantic you should know that the NIV is a word for thought bible..
Then again this is why you quoted it right :

 

[JM]

Re: reply

Who on earth taught you that? So the church is elect but God did not choose anyone to actually belong to it? God chose to save individuals.

Recommended reading:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.ht ... nstitutes/

RJS, if folks are not willing to read my posts, they probably won't read your links.

Thanks jg for you reply. I've looked at the Greek but no training worth mentioning so I'm at the hands of the translators.

jm

 

[Drew]

I am not even going to address your ridiculous post.... As always you break out with your lame analogies and no bible.. And please don't quote the NIV...If you want to read it, cool, but since you are the one who is pedantic you should know that the NIV is a word for thought bible..

Lighten up dude, if you are going to use a word, use it properly. Asking for a word to actually be used properly is not being picky.

 

[jgredline]

Lighten up dude, if you are going to use a word, use it properly. Asking for a word to actually be used properly is not being picky.

I ppologize for offending you. JM knew what I meant and I suspect you did as well....

 

[JM]

Wasn't offended at all!

 

[jgredline]

Wasn't offended at all!

Sorry JM, I was speaking to Drew.