Blessing of Election !

[GodsGrace]

Wondering:
(Part 3 of 4)

If "determination" means "determinism", then you would be wrong in your assessment of Reformed Theology. Predestination of the elect does mean that God determines the elect to believe and be saved (Eph. 1). But it does not mean that God determines the acts of sin that men commit. I know that some people believe that, but I do not see the Bible teaching it. Men are culpable for the sins they commit, and God does not make them do it. Unregenerate mankind is autonomous, which means "self-determining," and that is the essence of the sinful nature, because he acts on the impulses of the flesh and has no regard for God's will.

Could you please explain why my assessment of reformed theology is wrong?

Predestination, in Christian theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God, usually with reference to the eventual fate of the individual soul.[1] Explanations of predestination often seek to address the "paradox of free will", whereby God's omniscience seems incompatible with human free will. In this usage, predestination can be regarded as a form of religious determinism; and usually predeterminism, also known as theological determinism.

source: Wikipedia

Can I trust John Piper or John MacArthur?
They believe God controls everything that happens...everything, even evil.

This is an interesting article:

Does God Always Control All Things?: A Response to John Piper | Free Thinking Ministries

John Piper is founder of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College and Seminary. For over three decades he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN.

freethinkingministries.com

I disagree with you. Describing who we might be slaves to or what we might choose does not constitute a teaching on free will as you use the term. Your idea of free will is that unregenerate man has the capability to make right choices in the eyes of God, which is contrary to what Paul taught in Rom. 3:10-18 and elsewhere.

John Calvin even believed that every person has some light....

1. THAT there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service.

Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book 1
Chapter 3
Paragraph 1

I also disagree with your assessment of what the Bible teaches about the will of man. In fact, the term "free will" or "freewill" in the Bible refers to a natural ability of man to choose something freely against any coercion, peer pressure, or legal obligation. That's a natural ability.

I agree on your description of free will being the ability of man to choose something freely.
So what are we debating here?

But unregenerate man is not able to make a right moral decision in the eyes of God, according to Paul in his teaching on total spiritual depravity in Rom. 3:10-18 and elsewhere. In addition to this, John denied that the will of man is involved in being born of God, according to John 1:13.

Again? The unregenerate man? I think there's a nuance to this idea of unregenerate man not being able to choose that you don't quite get. Really.
Answered before, more than once.

What do you think Paul means by "useless" in Rom. 3:12? It says "no one does good, not even one." Your assessment of "good" appears to be some relativist term compared between people. But when Paul teaches what is good in the eyes of God, it is spiritual truth he is talking about. It is the ultimate goodness of God, that only comes from God that he is talking about. It's based on Jesus saying to apparently righteous Jews "if you, being evil..." So if Jesus called them evil who thought they were righteous compared to others, then I think you might not know what you're talking about.

Jesus said only God is good.
He also said to be perfect as the Father is perfect.

I think we agree on what the term GOOD means.
It does have to be good in the eyes of God.
HE is the supreme authority on good and evil and God makes those rules. (as to what is good and what is evil).

If someone is a slave to sin, they can't get out of it by themselves, even by what seems like a strong will. The term "slave" signifies stuck and can't get out, and also signifies that the will (the power of choice) of man is in bondage.

See what Calvin wrote above.
See what John 1 wrote.
ALL MEN have some light.
Enough to know God if they want to.

I don't care what other people believe, I care about what the Bible actually says. I disagree with the corporate salvation idea, because corporations, such as the body of Christ, is made up of individuals. You cannot separate individuals from the body, otherwise you have no body or corporation.

Corporate salvation is not what other people believe. It's believed by theologians and scholars that study the bible.
Do you really think you know what Romans 9 to 11 is referring to better than they do?
Corporations are made up of individuals...agreed.
But these chapters are speaking about how God choses HIS PEOPLE..the Hebrews, Israelites and then Jews for HIS PURPOSES...
to use THEM to let the whole world know about Himself....
Did God fail?
Did the Jews fail?

These chapters are referring to this.

I do not subscribe to the idea that God saved everyone in general but no one in particular. I think that idea stinks of God not loving anyone in any special way. It makes "God so loved the world" an idea that God loves the concept of a good world, but doesn't love any individual in it enough to save any individual out of his hopeless plight. I see the NT teaching quite the contrary.

What I get from you and your cronies is a hate for Rom. 9-11, such that you have to make up something to impose on it (such as "it's talking exclusively about Israel", or "it's talking about corporate salvation"), because you just can't accept the clear simple statements that are in it.

Take up this argument with those that study the bible.


God created humanity and loves His creation...we are all His creation and He loves the whole world.
But God loves His children in a special way.
If someone loves a son of yours....you also love that person.

I don't care what this guy likes or doesn't like. I care about what the Bible actually says and teaches. It is likely that what people don't like about Reformed Theology is what they misunderstand about what the NT teaches.

(Cont'd)

Your arguing in circles. Exactly WHAT don't we understand?
Post some scripture.

Why did reformed theology not appear till 1,500 years after Jesus died?
Were all those that came before wrong?

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering:
(Part 4 of 4)


I disagree with your assessment about what Calvin envisioned. Reformed Theology envisions God in the greatest way, just as the whole Bible teaches. It makes me wonder if you have even read any of the confessions with an open mind. Have you read and studied the London Baptist Confession of 1689 for example?

You disagree with what I believe Calvin envisioned.
OK. What do YOU think Calvin envisioned?
Could you show it to me in his writings as I've done?

As to the London Baptist Confession...No, I've never read it.
Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

We should stick to the bible and not man-made Confessions.

And such is your caricature of Calvinism. This time you boldly are showing your ignorance. Reformed Theology teaches that man is culpable for the sin he commits, just as the Bible teaches. But I suppose this doesn't change your opinion at all.

HOW could we be culpible of the sins we commit if it's God that causes all to happen?

If you can understand the following...I applaude you:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-relationship-between-divine-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility

Your ignorance of the concept of mercy is now showing. Mercy has to do with not giving people what they deserve, in regard to just punishment. It's an exception to justice. It is not the equivalence to justice.

God is not obligated to be merciful to anyone. All have sinned, therefore all deserve judgment because the wages of sin is death (it's talking about the 2nd death, which is lake of fire judgment).

If God chooses to have mercy on some, which Rom. 9 clearly states, then He is displaying a glory toward some that is different than the glory He displays in exacting just punishment on the rest of mankind who are culpable for the sins they committed. God is not obligated to have mercy on everyone equally. If He was, then it would not be mercy; it would be justice.

The above makes no sense.

Here is what MERCY means:

compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

Mercy appears in the Bible as it relates to forgiveness or withholding punishment. For example, God the Father showed mercy on us when he sacrificed his son, Christ Jesus, on the Cross to pay the price for our sins.

source: https://www.compassion.com/poverty/mercy-definition.htm

JUSTICE means giving to each person what he deserves.

If a person does NOT get what he deserves, and one has the power to make that determination, then that is mercy.

I've already replied to the idea that all have sinned and deserve hell.
So a JUST GOD would send everyone to hell
or
would not send everyone to hell
or
He gives us the choice of whether or not we want to go to be with Him in heaven or go to hell.

This reasoning leads to universalism, which we know is a false idea. But if you read Rom. 9 carefully, your question will be answered. God has various glories He wants to express to all mankind, which includes both justice and mercy. To Esau He expressed justice, but to Jacob He expressed mercy. Thus, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This clearly tells us that God does not love everyone the same.

Jesus said we're to hate our mother.
Did Jesus mean this?
That would be breaking one of the 10 commandments.

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

I leave it to you to figure this out.
However, again, in Romans 9 God is choosing to let Jacob lead Israel when it was supposed to be Esau...But God knew Esau would not be able to do this job...again, God chose due to PURPOSE - not for salvation.

Although God blessed Esau in many ways, he was excluded from grace, as we learn from Heb. 12:16 that he was a godless man - God-less; meaning that God was not with him. Yet God was with Jacob, even though he had been a deceiver. This was God's choice, as clearly stated in Rom. 9:11, before either had done anything.

In the same way, God is not obligated to bless anyone, although He does bless some more than others, and He is not obligated to love anyone, although He does love, and some more than others. "God is love" means that God does love everyone to some extent, but it doesn't mean He loves everyone the same. One could say that God hated Hitler, yet He loved him enough to let him live for a time to give him a chance to repent (for example, which he never did).

Agreed.

There is much more to "all of this" if you're talking about the full gospel and the whole council of God. But God electing some is an integral part of that whole, and after all, it's the subject of this thread, isn't it?

But your idea that it teaches that "we're serving an evil God that is just toying with us for his own pleasure" is your misunderstanding and caricature of what it is about. This response reminds me of the one-talent man who described his master as "a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed." And we all know the result of his assessment.

But what if the one true God who reveals Himself in scripture is the one I describe, which is what I say the same one that Paul describes? Are you prepared to spend eternity with this God?

No, I'm not.
I would not love that God - the one Calvin invented.
The one that does not love,
has no mercy,
and does not practice justice.

However, I know for sure that the Calvinist God is NOT the God of the bible.

1 John 4:15-21
15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
19We love, because He first loved us.
20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

 

[GodsGrace]

I feel as if I'm speaking to a wall. Every point I make just goes past you like the wind, and it's because you're obsessed with the free will idea. But "free will" as YOU ARE USING IT is defined this way:

Why do you feel like you're speaking to a wall? Because I don't agree with you?
I've answered every one of your points.

Natural man is an autonomous being who has a will that is completely disconnected from God, but man nevertheless is able by his natural reasoning and mental ability to discern the truth about God, Christ, and the gospel, and is therefore able on his own by himself to make a decision to believe the message or not, and if he chooses to believe, he then can make the choice to obey it.

Am I now cutting to the chase?

You yourself have stated that man is disconnected from God as in 1 Cor 2:14.
Some persons DO come to God by natural reasoning and their mental ability.
Some persons come to God because they have a spiritual experience.
Some because they cry out for help and God replies.
Yes, a person does make his own decision as to whether or not to believe.
BELIEVE ON JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED....is a command.
Acts 16:31


John 5:24
Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life.


John 20:31
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

1 John 3:23
And this is His commandment: that we should believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and we should love one another just as He commanded us.


Here's a question for you:

What Is The Good News?

 

[GodsGrace]

You're continuing to take scriptures out of the wider context of the whole Bible. It doesn't have to state that in the one sentence of Rom. 6:17-18, because it is taught elsewhere. For example: John 1:13
"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" - do you notice that it says "nor of the will of man"? John is saying that we are born of God, and NOT spiritually born out of man's so-called "free will". And what I'm saying about John's statement is essentially what he said. I know you will object to it, because you're obsessed with the idea of autonomy. But like I said before, the autonomy of man is the essence of the sinful nature, and not the way to salvation.

Easily explained previously today.
NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN does NOT mean that we are not born out of our own free will...
but that we cannot execute our own salvation....

 

[GodsGrace]

Wow, I'm really surprised. In the past our discussions you have been real. You hadn't lowered yourself to this level of ridiculousness. I expect it from others, but didn't expect it from you. I guess I should have since there isn't anything in Scripture to support Reformation teaching. So, this was really your only option other than simply ignoring my post.

Firstly, why do I need to find to disprove your assumption? There is nothing in Scripture that says God makes people choose Him or that He determines which individuals will or will not choose Him.

I did notice though that you completely ignored my question. It was a sincere question, how is a doctrine Biblical that doesn't show up in church history until 1500 years after Christ? The doctrine you espouse was not only not believed by the early church, they actually argued against those who held it and called it heresy. Again, how is a doctrine Biblical that the Christians, taught by the apostles, considered heresy?

God spoke to Israel and He told them that He set before them life and death and told "THEM" to choose life. He didn't say He was going to choose for them.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14 KJV)

Here Paul says that the natural man doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God. The Greek word translated receive is in the Greek middle voice which means the subject, the natural man, is both doing and receiving the action of the verb. In other words he's doing it to himself. So, the natural man is refusing the things of the Sprit of God.

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:46 KJV)

Here Paul took the Gospel to these Jews and they rejected it. Paul says "They" put it from them. Again, they are performing the action. They are rejecting.

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: (Acts 7:51-52 KJV)

Here Stephen says that these always resist the Holy Ghost. Again, he says they are doing the action. He didn't say God was causing them to do the action. I could go on, but I suspect it would be in vain.

Here's one from the early church,

Justin Martyr,

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

For so we say that there will be the conflagration, but not as the Stoics, according to their doctrine of all things being changed into one another, which seems most degrading. But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins; and that it is by the influence of the wicked demons that earnest men, such as Socrates and the like, suffer persecution and are in bonds, while Sardanapalus, Epicurus, and the like, seem to be blessed in abundance and glory. The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

The Stoics, held that everything was fated. Augustine held this view too. When he became a Christian he changed the source from fate to God. Same doctrine different source. The Reformation is Augustine's doctrine. So we see very early this doctrine was being refuted.

I could post, quote, after quote, after quote, of the early Christians talking about man's free will.

Acts 7:51 is so clear that I wonder if we're reading the same bible as the Reformed.

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.


Again we read about the teaching that faith comes by hearing.
Again we read about persons resisting the Holy Ghost. This brings to mind Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem and stating that they WOULD NOT come to Him.

IF God choses those for salvation, what would be the point of the above two ideas?
There would be no point.
The only reason verses such as Acts 7:51 could be written is because man has the free will to hear or not hear, to come to God or not come to God.

Let it be clear to those reading along that it's always God that makes the first move.
He gives to every man enough light to know Him..but it's up to man to respond to the invitation - which is also referred to as "calling" in the N.T.

 

[tdidymas]

This is a straw man. There is no one born that doesn't get some level of understanding from Christ.

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

John tells us that Christ gives light or understanding to every person that comes into the world. So there is no one who acts apart from some knowledge from God.

You guys want to play with words and define them just such as to exclude Scripture that doesn't fit what you believe. I used to be Reformed, I know how the game is played.

This passage shows beyond doubt that God gives some level understanding to everyone, even those you call unregenerate. Everyone has the ability to accept the Gospel as this passage in John shows. The purpose of Christ giving this light or understanding is so that "ALL", as in every single one, might be saved.

You're the one setting up a straw man. I gave clear evidence of a distinction between the natural and spiritual, which you refuse to acknowledge. This is found in 1 Cor. 2:14 and elsewhere. But the "free will" of man as you want it to be simply doesn't exist. Unregenerate man is slave to sin, so it takes God enacting spiritual rebirth to set a man free enough to follow Christ by believing the gospel and obeying it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much "light" (that is, truth) spoken to people; if God doesn't do something major in a person's heart, namely regeneration as described in Eph. 2:5, that truth will go into one ear and out the other.

 

[tdidymas]

A minority chose life. That minority CHOSE LIFE.
Choice denotes free will.

Wrong again, Sherlock. The minority who chooses life has God working in them to do so. The rest are in bondage, not free. I gave clear evidence of a distinction between the natural and spiritual, which you refuse to acknowledge. This is found in 1 Cor. 2:14 and elsewhere. But the "free will" of man as you want it to be simply doesn't exist. Unregenerate man is slave to sin, so it takes God enacting spiritual rebirth to set a man free enough to follow Christ by believing the gospel and obeying it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much "light" (that is, truth) spoken to people; if God doesn't do something major in a person's heart, namely regeneration as described in Eph. 2:5, that truth will go into one ear and out the other.

I agree that Romans 9:27 and 11:5 is speaking about the Jewish people...
That is what chapters 9 to 11 are about...the Jewish people.

I disagree with your conclusions about this. When Paul speaks of "vessels of mercy," he is talking about all people, not just Jews.

I've replied to the unregenerated man and will no longer do so. You do seem to be obsessed with this idea. Which is not wrong....the idea I mean.
As to unregenerate man being able to choose right...
Were you unregenerate before you chose right....
or did God drag you into salvation somehow?

1 Cor. 2:14 proves you wrong. An unregenerate person CANNOT choose to believe the gospel and obey it. God must make a person spiritual (by virtue of regeneration, that is, being born again - Eph. 2:5), BEFORE they can understand the gospel enough to believe it. Only God gives spiritual ears to hear.

Does God want persons that have to be DRAGGED....which is what DRAW means in some instances but not in others.
Love that is freely given is love.
Love that is not freely given is not love.
Would God, the infinite being, want love from humans that HE programmed?
Would that love be true love?

People such as myself who were once intense haters of God and atheists have to be literally threatened with eternal fire judgment by God Himself before they can begin fearing God (this is dragging). Such a person can't possibly love God until some spiritual rebirth and growth starts happening, which begins with a hope in Christ. John 3:36 indicates to us that one not believing (already) in Christ has the wrath of God hanging over his head. And until a person has received spiritual knowledge, understanding, and wisdom from God to pay attention, such people can't know that the wrath of God is real. Finally, God must also supernaturally change a person's disposition of heart and grant them to hear the gospel spiritually, in order for that person to have hope to be reconciled to God through Christ.

Done above. Free will is no mystery to understand...but it works as a distraction for those that don't really want to discuss it.

You've yet to define it clearly, which tells me you're the one not wanting to discuss it.

The free gift of God refers to the gift of salvation.
The gift that God prepared for us before time because He knew we would fail and need salvation.

In Matthew 5 to 7 Jesus teaches the Beatitudes. Jesus teaches this because God does not automatically infuse man with this knowledge, as you seem to believe.

In Matthew 5:21 Jesus states exactly WHO will go to heaven.
NOT those who call out LORD, LORD...
but those WHO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

Those who do the will of the Father are those that are saved.
The will of the Father is doing all those things that Jesus taught throughout His ministry on earth.

Matthew 28:19 Jesus gave this command:
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”


cont'd

"Those who do the will of the Father are those that are saved." I have no argument against this. But the issue is not this idea. The issue is that you seem to think that a person does the will of God by means of his own will that God has nothing to do with. Your idea of "free will" is that a person's will is not God's will, isn't it? After all, "free" equates a disconnection from something, that is, a freedom from something else. And the way you are using the term makes the definition of "free will" as being free from God.

 

[Butch5]

You're the one setting up a straw man. I gave clear evidence of a distinction between the natural and spiritual, which you refuse to acknowledge. This is found in 1 Cor. 2:14 and elsewhere. But the "free will" of man as you want it to be simply doesn't exist. Unregenerate man is slave to sin, so it takes God enacting spiritual rebirth to set a man free enough to follow Christ by believing the gospel and obeying it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much "light" (that is, truth) spoken to people; if God doesn't do something major in a person's heart, namely regeneration as described in Eph. 2:5, that truth will go into one ear and out the other.

Ok, so for starters, you reject what John said? He stated plainly that Christ gives light to every person who is born that they might be saved. The whole purpose of Christ giving this light is so the person might be saved. Instead you claim that doesn't matter, but rather, God has to make this person spiritually alive, correct?

You brought up 1 Cor 2:14. As I mentioned to FastFredi, the Greek word translated received is in the middle voice. That means the subject is both doing and receiving the action of the verb. In other words, he's doing it to himself. When it says the natural man doesn't receive the things of God, it's not saying they're not given to him. It's saying that he is not accepting them. He is refusing them. In order to refuse something it has to be offered to one. One cannot refuse that which isn't offered. So Paul isn't saying that the things of God aren't coming to the natural man, he's saying the natural man is refusing them. Paul said they're foolishness to the natural man. Do you know why Paul said that? If we look at the context, knowing that the Greeks believed that the body was a prison for the soul and their goal was to escape the body and go on as a ghost and ascend into the heavens we'll see why. Paul was preaching the Resurrection. If someone believed that the body was a prison of the soul, they surely wouldn't want to go back into it once they left it. Yet that's exactly what Paul was preaching that the person would once again be in the body. That is why the Greeks called it foolishness. It went against their very basic beliefs. So, in context, the natural man here is the Greek.

I'm not sure what you mean by unregenerate man. Eph 2.5 doesnt seem to explain it. Paul was talking to the Gentiles in the church and said God made them alive even when they were dead in sins. Have you considered that Paul is referring to when they beleived? They were dead in sin. Then they believed the Gospel and God made them alive. However, dead in sin is metaphor for their inability to do anything about their sinful condition. Alive is a metaphor for their condition after they beleived, their sins were forgiven and not longer condemned them.

Are you saying that unregenerate man equals an unbeliever?

 

[Butch5]

You're the one setting up a straw man. I gave clear evidence of a distinction between the natural and spiritual, which you refuse to acknowledge. This is found in 1 Cor. 2:14 and elsewhere. But the "free will" of man as you want it to be simply doesn't exist. Unregenerate man is slave to sin, so it takes God enacting spiritual rebirth to set a man free enough to follow Christ by believing the gospel and obeying it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much "light" (that is, truth) spoken to people; if God doesn't do something major in a person's heart, namely regeneration as described in Eph. 2:5, that truth will go into one ear and out the other.

I do have a simple question for you and Fredi. How do you address the problem that your doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the Reformation?

 

[tdidymas]

The wider context of the bible teaches us that God is LOVING, MERCIFUL and JUST.

John Calvin removed all these attributes from God Almighty.
As I've stated, this is why I disagree wholeheartedly with the reformed faith...it changes the nature of God.

And herein is your error, since you judge Calvin wrongly. Have you even read anything he wrote? I'm certainly no expert on Calvin, but from what I've read of things he wrote, I assess that he was an intense lover of God, and he taught his students to love Christ with all their heart. Your assessment of Calvin is wrong, and constitutes slander against a godly leader. You're doing the very thing Jesus said not to do when He said "judge not, lest you be judged."

John 1:9-13 Your verse:
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Verse 9 The true light came into the world and ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN. Every man receives light, some accept and some deny it.

Verse 12 But those that received Him...TO THEM He gave the right to become children to God. It states that those that received Him....It does NOT state that God chose those that would receive Him.

Verse 13 Not of Blood: One is not saved because He is Jewish.

Not the will of the flesh: One is not saved because he is born physically into a family, but spiritually into God's family.

Not the will of man: One is not saved because he wills it, but because He follows Jesus and His commandments.

But of God: We are saved by the gift of God, the gift of salvation, which God provides for everyone who wishes it. Man has enough light to accept God's gift, IF he wants it. And with the help of the Holy Spirit, man is changed into the "likeness" of Jesus.

"One is not saved because he wills it, but because He follows Jesus and His commandments." Your statement is true only from a natural point of view. A person who thinks only with natural human reasoning says to himself, "I must follow Jesus and obey His commandments, then I can be saved."

Yet, the apostle Paul gives us insight into the work of God in that matter in Eph. 2:5. God must first raise a spiritually dead person from spiritual death to life. Then that person has ears to hear the gospel being preached, and then has the wherewithall to obey it by following Jesus and His commandments. "He who has ears to hear" is talking about spiritual ears, and therefore is talking to spiritually alive persons. Those who are spiritually dead can't hear it, and their response will be to not follow Jesus and His commandments (from a spiritual standpoint, and therefore permanently).

This is in total agreement with Peter's statement that God caused us to be born again by means of hearing the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23). Only those whom God chooses to bring to life in that way will be born again, and that also in God's time for each individual. All others are left to follow their own devices. Hearing the gospel preached with natural hearing doesn't automatically make a person born again. Regeneration is a supernatural act that only God does in the spiritual realm to individuals He chooses.

The bible is very clear about who is saved and how to become saved.
Nowhere is it stated that God chooses who will be saved.

Your argument "Nowhere is it stated that God chooses who will be saved" is a straw man. It is only those slandering Calvin who claim that Calvinists claim to know who will be saved. This is a straw man argument. No one knows who will be saved. Yet, this does not in any way negate the fact that God does choose some and not all for salvation. If you are intellectually honest, then you will agree with this statement, that God chooses some and not all. And so the debate between us has to do with the basis, or the reason, for God's choice.

 

[tdidymas]

Ok, so for starters, you reject what John said? He stated plainly that Christ gives light to every person who is born that they might be saved. The whole purpose of Christ giving this light is so the person might be saved. Instead you claim that doesn't matter, but rather, God has to make this person spiritually alive, correct?

You brought up 1 Cor 2:14. As I mentioned to FastFredi, the Greek word translated received is in the middle voice. That means the subject is both doing and receiving the action of the verb. In other words, he's doing it to himself. When it says the natural man doesn't receive the things of God, it's not saying they're not given to him. It's saying that he is not accepting them. He is refusing them. In order to refuse something it has to be offered to one. One cannot refuse that which isn't offered. So Paul isn't saying that the things of God aren't coming to the natural man, he's saying the natural man is refusing them. Paul said they're foolishness to the natural man. Do you know why Paul said that? If we look at the context, knowing that the Greeks believed that the body was a prison for the soul and their goal was to escape the body and go on as a ghost and ascend into the heavens we'll see why. Paul was preaching the Resurrection. If someone believed that the body was a prison of the soul, they surely wouldn't want to go back into it once they left it. Yet that's exactly what Paul was preaching that the person would once again be in the body. That is why the Greeks called it foolishness. It went against their very basic beliefs. So, in context, the natural man here is the Greek.

I'm not sure what you mean by unregenerate man. Eph 2.5 doesnt seem to explain it. Paul was talking to the Gentiles in the church and said God made them alive even when they were dead in sins. Have you considered that Paul is referring to when they beleived? They were dead in sin. Then they believed the Gospel and God made them alive. However, dead in sin is metaphor for their inability to do anything about their sinful condition. Alive is a metaphor for their condition after they beleived, their sins were forgiven and not longer condemned them.

Are you saying that unregenerate man equals an unbeliever?

The whole debate is about the basis (the reason) why God saves a person, and has to do with whether a person chooses to accept Christ before or after they are born again. Is this the real issue or not?

 

[Fastfredy0]

It is God who sovereignly chooses the elect, so that Paul says, "He has chosen you," and not "He has approved of your choice." If God does little more than accept our choice, then he does not choose us in any real sense of the term. But Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Therefore, Arminianism is false. Vincent Cheung – Ultimate Questions

Psalm 65:4 Blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to dwell in Your courts. We will be filled with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple.

1. Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted and delivered to Me by My Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son deliberately wills to make Him known. [the will of the Son determines who knows God]
2. Matthew 13:11 And He replied to them, to you it has been given to know the secrets and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
3. Matthew 22:14 For many are called (invited, summoned), but few are chosen.”
4. Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose [for Himself], He shortened the days.
5. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed (decided on beforehand; designated) for eternal life believed.
6. Who does God elect and why: 1 Corinthians 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called [effectual call]. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
7. Yahda, yahda, yahda ...

Determinism causes something to occur outside of ones control. Self-determinism, or freewill, means one makes choices independent of God and any other influence. This is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for the thought process, making a choice would be impossible. To be self-determined, one must be eternal. The determinative cause cannot be self-determined, without influence of past experience, state of mind or knowledge. Freewill contradicts this; it says you can reach up into the eternal realm and grab self-determination (uninfluenced); this is not possible.
When one who supports the idea of Freewill or self-determinism if asked “why you did something he has no answer”. He will resort to a non-answer like “because I wanted to”. When asked why he wanted to he responses “because I choice to want to”; when asked why he choice to want to, he responses “because I wanted to choice to want to” … and on and on the circular reason goes.
Thus, FREEWILL is not taught in the Bible (save the FREEWILL of God) as it is an impossibility. Freewill is man's sovereignty over God; the belief man's wisdom in certain circumstances has supremacy over God's will. As Martin Luther writes, "But our question is this: whether he has 'free-will' God-ward, that God should obey man and do what man wills, or whether God has not rather a free will with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills, and be able to do nothing but what He wills and does."

Free will Christian adherents believe God created all things except man's FREEWILL. They believe individual man created their own Free Will. This is insanity from a ontological stand point. The doctrine of Freewill in man is the illegitimate denial of God's sovereignty and constitutes the praise of man in an attempt to take partial credit for one's salvation to the glory of man. May it never be so.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I do have a simple question for you and Fredi. How do you address the problem that your doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the Reformation?

I adhere to sola scriptura. To the degree that reform theology, Roman Catholic theology, Islam or what ever correctly interprets scripture, I agree with that aspect of their theology.

 

[Butch5]

I adhere to sola scriptura. To the degree that reform theology, Roman Catholic theology, Islam or what ever correctly interprets scripture, I agree with that aspect of their theology.

Ok. So basically, you're relying on man's interpretation, correct? It seems to me that you would have to conclude that the apostles failed in their mission since the overwhelming evidence in the early church states that man has free will.

 

[Butch5]

It is God who sovereignly chooses the elect, so that Paul says, "He has chosen you," and not "He has approved of your choice." If God does little more than accept our choice, then he does not choose us in any real sense of the term. But Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Therefore, Arminianism is false. Vincent Cheung – Ultimate Questions

Psalm 65:4 Blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to dwell in Your courts. We will be filled with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple.

1. Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted and delivered to Me by My Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son deliberately wills to make Him known. [the will of the Son determines who knows God]
2. Matthew 13:11 And He replied to them, to you it has been given to know the secrets and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
3. Matthew 22:14 For many are called (invited, summoned), but few are chosen.”
4. Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose [for Himself], He shortened the days.
5. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed (decided on beforehand; designated) for eternal life believed.
6. Who does God elect and why: 1 Corinthians 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called [effectual call]. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
7. Yahda, yahda, yahda ...

Determinism causes something to occur outside of ones control. Self-determinism, or freewill, means one makes choices independent of God and any other influence. This is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for the thought process, making a choice would be impossible. To be self-determined, one must be eternal. The determinative cause cannot be self-determined, without influence of past experience, state of mind or knowledge. Freewill contradicts this; it says you can reach up into the eternal realm and grab self-determination (uninfluenced); this is not possible.
When one who supports the idea of Freewill or self-determinism if asked “why you did something he has no answer”. He will resort to a non-answer like “because I wanted to”. When asked why he wanted to he responses “because I choice to want to”; when asked why he choice to want to, he responses “because I wanted to choice to want to” … and on and on the circular reason goes.
Thus, FREEWILL is not taught in the Bible (save the FREEWILL of God) as it is an impossibility. Freewill is man's sovereignty over God; the belief man's wisdom in certain circumstances has supremacy over God's will. As Martin Luther writes, "But our question is this: whether he has 'free-will' God-ward, that God should obey man and do what man wills, or whether God has not rather a free will with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills, and be able to do nothing but what He wills and does."

Free will Christian adherents believe God created all things except man's FREEWILL. They believe individual man created their own Free Will. This is insanity from a ontological stand point. The doctrine of Freewill in man is the illegitimate denial of God's sovereignty and constitutes the praise of man in an attempt to take partial credit for one's salvation to the glory of man. May it never be so.

I don't have time at the moment to address these. However, I will when I have a few minutes. Each of these passages when understood in context can be shown to be saying something other than what you're suggesting.

 

[tdidymas]

Could you please explain why my assessment of reformed theology is wrong?

Predestination, in Christian theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God, usually with reference to the eventual fate of the individual soul.[1] Explanations of predestination often seek to address the "paradox of free will", whereby God's omniscience seems incompatible with human free will. In this usage, predestination can be regarded as a form of religious determinism; and usually predeterminism, also known as theological determinism.

source: Wikipedia

I don't know whether you naively misunderstand what you read, or if you PURPOSELY MISREPRESENT it.

This is what the article says: "in Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone He must predestine, call, elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, indeed is incapable of choosing God." This is the correct idea, not the idea you are claiming. Therefore, you are misrepresenting what the article actually states.

Can I trust John Piper or John MacArthur?
They believe God controls everything that happens...everything, even evil.

This is an interesting article:

Does God Always Control All Things?: A Response to John Piper | Free Thinking Ministries

John Piper is founder of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College and Seminary. For over three decades he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN.

freethinkingministries.com

I don't have enough information to discern what MacArthur and Piper believe about that subject, but apparently you think you do. All I know is that I don't believe everything they say. And besides that, I really don't care what other people teach or claim, if their teaching doesn't adhere to what the Bible teaches. I only care what the Bible teaches, and I studied the Bible exclusively for over 20 years, because during that time I was suspicious of other peoples' teachings because of the controversies. What I have discovered since, after I began to read writings on Reformed Theology, is that most of what is written from a Reformed Theology POV is true to the scriptures.

John Calvin even believed that every person has some light....

1. THAT there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service.

Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book 1
Chapter 3
Paragraph 1

I agree with this. But having some light doesn't constitute being born again, nor does it constitute enough light to make some kind of choice to believe the gospel.

I agree on your description of free will being the ability of man to choose something freely.
So what are we debating here?

Your concept of "free will" is wrong. You admitted that you agree with the definition of "free will" is exactly as I stated it, did you not? And I'm saying that man does not, and CANNOT on his own choose to believe and obey the gospel. I'm saying that natural man's will is NOT free, but is in bondage to sin and Satan. Are you now so confused, that you don't even know what we're debating about?

Again? The unregenerate man? I think there's a nuance to this idea of unregenerate man not being able to choose that you don't quite get. Really.
Answered before, more than once.

Unregenerate = not born again. Regenerate = born again. Agree?
So if you acknowledge that unregenerate man is not able to choose belief and obedience to the gospel, then why do you have a problem with regeneration before belief?

Jesus said only God is good.
He also said to be perfect as the Father is perfect.

I think we agree on what the term GOOD means.
It does have to be good in the eyes of God.
HE is the supreme authority on good and evil and God makes those rules. (as to what is good and what is evil).



See what Calvin wrote above.
See what John 1 wrote.
ALL MEN have some light.
Enough to know God if they want to.

The problem is that a person doesn't want to until they are born again.

Corporate salvation is not what other people believe. It's believed by theologians and scholars that study the bible.
Do you really think you know what Romans 9 to 11 is referring to better than they do?
Corporations are made up of individuals...agreed.
But these chapters are speaking about how God choses HIS PEOPLE..the Hebrews, Israelites and then Jews for HIS PURPOSES...
to use THEM to let the whole world know about Himself....
Did God fail?
Did the Jews fail?

These chapters are referring to this.



Take up this argument with those that study the bible.

I study the Bible, and I assume that you claim to also. That's completely beside the point. God using the Jews to let the world know about Himself does not negate the clear statement in Rom. 9 that God chooses what individuals He wants to have mercy on, and the fact that it's talking about individuals everywhere, not just Jews.

God created humanity and loves His creation...we are all His creation and He loves the whole world.
But God loves His children in a special way.
If someone loves a son of yours....you also love that person.

So then, you admit that God loves some more than others. Then God has to make some His children to love them in a special way. This is what John is talking about in John 1:13. But you oppose the idea that God is the one who chooses that, or you oppose the idea that God has His own reason for it. You seem to think that God chooses to make someone His child only after (and because) that someone chooses to obey Him first. Isn't this what you think?

Your arguing in circles. Exactly WHAT don't we understand?
Post some scripture.

It's the thing we are debating about. 1 Cor. 1-2, Eph. 2:1-5, etc.

Why did reformed theology not appear till 1,500 years after Jesus died?
Were all those that came before wrong?

Why did the doctrine of the Trinity not appear until the 4th Century? Were all those who came before wrong? You believe in the Trinity, don't you? Again, you're setting up a straw man. Reformed Theology and the confessions thereof were written because of the doctrinal corruption of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. Before that, it wasn't debated, and didn't need to be debated. But the corruption in the church and the blatant false teaching of indulgences made the occasion to clarify what the Bible teaches. But in fact, 200 years earlier, John Wycliffe was debating that same doctrinal corruption of the RCC, and was the reason why he was hated by the religious leaders. Later John Huss did the same thing, and was murdered for it.

 

[tdidymas]

You disagree with what I believe Calvin envisioned.
OK. What do YOU think Calvin envisioned?
Could you show it to me in his writings as I've done?

I said I'm not a Calvin expert, and besides that, I'm not here to debate Calvin's teachings, as apparently you are. So, I think we're not even on the same page. I envision a God much greater than apparently you envision, since I envision man as much lower than you envision. I envision man exactly as Paul describes in Rom. 3:10-18.

As to the London Baptist Confession...No, I've never read it.
Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I've read the Catechism of the RCC. But you appear to make many assertions on what you know nothing of. Why don't you try speaking less and doing more reading?

We should stick to the bible and not man-made Confessions.

My point was that you try to debate Calvinism, which you don't even understand, and then when I try to convince you of truth using scripture, you reject it. I think we're not even on the same page.

HOW could we be culpible of the sins we commit if it's God that causes all to happen?

Your misunderstanding.

If you can understand the following...I applaude you:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-relationship-between-divine-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility

The above makes no sense.

Ok, I see that you are admitting that you don't understand what is being said. This is what I've been saying from the start, that you aren't understanding it. You ought to ask questions and listen, rather than to make assertions about what you're not understanding.

Here is what MERCY means:

compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

Mercy appears in the Bible as it relates to forgiveness or withholding punishment. For example, God the Father showed mercy on us when he sacrificed his son, Christ Jesus, on the Cross to pay the price for our sins.

source: https://www.compassion.com/poverty/mercy-definition.htm

JUSTICE means giving to each person what he deserves.

If a person does NOT get what he deserves, and one has the power to make that determination, then that is mercy.

I've already replied to the idea that all have sinned and deserve hell.
So a JUST GOD would send everyone to hell
or
would not send everyone to hell
or
He gives us the choice of whether or not we want to go to be with Him in heaven or go to hell.

I'm in agreement with what you're basing your conclusion on, but your conclusion is still wrong. Giving someone the choice of going to heaven or hell doesn't constitute "free will" as you are using it. The unregenerate are given that choice ("many are called"), but all of them choose hell (indirectly), because "there is none who understands."

Therefore, in order for a person to believe and obey the gospel ("few are chosen"), they must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they have spiritual ears to hear the message (and be wise enough to believe and obey it), since the gospel "is spiritually appraised."

Jesus said we're to hate our mother.
Did Jesus mean this?
That would be breaking one of the 10 commandments.

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

I leave it to you to figure this out.
However, again, in Romans 9 God is choosing to let Jacob lead Israel when it was supposed to be Esau...But God knew Esau would not be able to do this job...again, God chose due to PURPOSE - not for salvation.

Paul is using Jacob/Esau as an example, not as a concluding point. I think this is where you misunderstand it. Whoever taught you that is wrong, and you should abandon that person as someone to follow.

Paul uses the Jacob/Esau narrative as an example of what God does in choosing people for salvation. God bases His choice on His own purposes and His own will, not the will or actions of the person He chooses. This is the point Paul is making in Rom. 9.

Agreed.

I'm surprised that you agree with anything I say.

No, I'm not.
I would not love that God - the one Calvin invented.
The one that does not love,
has no mercy,
and does not practice justice.

However, I know for sure that the Calvinist God is NOT the God of the bible.

1 John 4:15-21
15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
19We love, because He first loved us.
20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

Again, your assertions are wrong, and you don't understand what you're talking about. As long as you take this stand, I'm done conversing with you.

 

[tdidymas]

Why do you feel like you're speaking to a wall? Because I don't agree with you?
I've answered every one of your points.

No, you haven't. You continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what I say, disregard the scriptures I cite, disagree with my exegesis without explanation, and accuse me, Calvin, and everyone holding to Reformed Theology as being heretics. As long as you take that stand, making assertions about what you don't understand, I think I'm done with you.

You yourself have stated that man is disconnected from God as in 1 Cor 2:14.

Are you disagreeing with this? Do you disagree with Paul?

Some persons DO come to God by natural reasoning and their mental ability.

This is where you are completely wrong, and in disagreement with Paul according to Rom. 3:10-18.

Some persons come to God because they have a spiritual experience.

Everyone who comes to God had a spiritual experience. This is what being born again means, and it's what Paul meant in Eph. 2:5.

Some because they cry out for help and God replies.

Anyone who cries out to God for help had a spiritual experience and already believes in God enough to pray to Him.

Yes, a person does make his own decision as to whether or not to believe.

This is where you're wrong. To claim that a person can make a decision on his own to believe something he doesn't believe is nonsense. This is especially true for something as deep, complex, and mysterious as the gospel of Christ, which Paul clearly states is spiritually discerned. Such can't happen with spiritually dead people. They must be raised to spiritual life according to Eph. 2:5.

Claiming that an atheist can just suddenly decide to believe in God (and then actually believe in the way that the NT uses the term), on his own, without any help from God (this is what "free will" means, according to you), is like saying the universe created itself. It's like saying a child decided to exist before it existed.

It's saying that a person, in the state of unbelief, can simply decide to believe, without any supernatural or spiritual input. Nonsense!

BELIEVE ON JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED....is a command.
Acts 16:31


John 5:24
Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life.


John 20:31
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

1 John 3:23
And this is His commandment: that we should believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and we should love one another just as He commanded us.


Here's a question for you:

What Is The Good News?

A command to believe does not constitute "free will" as you are using it.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It seems to me that you would have to conclude that the apostles failed in their mission

You don't define what the apostles mission was. If their mission was not to be killed then they failed their mission. But this is of no matter. It is God's mission (purpose) that is relevant. I say God predetermines all things (Eph. 1:11) and therefore He is TOTALLY successful by definition. Your theology of man's Free Will determining things threatens God's mission (unless God's mission is to serve man's Free Will). Does God want 5% (or whatever the number is) to be saved as determined by man per your system or does God want 5% to be saved as determined by Him. Your doctrine is anthropocentric; mine is theocentric. You praise, to some extent, man and I praise God.

overwhelming evidence in the early church states that man has free will.

Again, you praise man and man's interpretation of scripture (re: the church). There is no mention of Free Will in the bible (except 'free will' offerings) so the church's unbiblical doctrine is of little interest to me. Whereas, my sole authority is scripture though I am willing to consider interpretive opinions of scripture presented by man. (Sola Scriptura)

 

[tdidymas]

Easily explained previously today.
NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN does NOT mean that we are not born out of our own free will...
but that we cannot execute our own salvation....

I disagree. It DOES mean that. "Nor of the will of man" is in contrast to "of God." It means that God decides, not man. And yes, it also means we cannot execute our own salvation, in addition to we cannot decide for it, because our unregenerate will was enslaved to sin. Rom. 3:10-18 describes unregenerate man, so unregenerate man can't decide to believe the gospel. That takes an act of God. It means not only that we cannot execute our own salvation, but also that we cannot decide to be born again. Deciding to be born again is the same as executing our own salvation.

Belief in Christ is the gift of God to those individuals who have received the grace of God. Those individuals whom the Holy Spirit has brought to life spiritually, and that's how "faith comes by hearing..." It takes having to have ears to hear, which only God gives, and only He decides who will have them. And the rest are left to their own devices. This is how "God is just, and the justifier of the one having faith in Christ."

Do you believe that God's forgiveness is meritless or not? If God forgives someone of their sins (which means justified), do you think that such forgiveness is merited by a free will decision to believe and obey the gospel? Is this what you mean by God is just?