Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Blessing of Election !

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
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?
God is just means that God gives to every person alive what that person DESERVES.
This is what JUSTICE means.

You never answered my question:
WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS?


You think very little of God, which you say is sovereign.
MY GOD is not afraid of giving His creation free will.
YOUR GOD is afraid to give man free will --- for what reason I cannot fathom.

If you have children, perhaps you should lock them up in a room so that they can never make a choice of their own...
or do you let them out of the house and hope they will make correct choices?

Do you think you're better than God?
Do you think God doesn't even have the attributes YOU have with your children?
 

Fastfredy0

2022 Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,354
Joined
May 4, 2020
Actually, the spirit falling on some one is different from the indwelling of the spirit. The apostles received the indwelling of the Spirit before Pentecost. What happened at Pentecost was the falling on of the Spirit.
I am not familiar with this distinction. I was under the impression that the apostles had the Holy Spirit when Christ breathed on them and then lost it, only to get the same Spirit back at Pentecost. (not that this is a biggy)


Luke refers to this as the falling on of the Spirit. We see, that when the Spirit fell upon them they spoke in tongues. This was after they had received the indwelling of the Spirit from Jesus. So, this falling on of the Spirit is not the indwelling.
Again, I think this distinction is arbitrary. I googled it and couldn't find anything. Give me a URL as I am curious.


. We know from Scripture that the indwelling comes at Baptism.
I assume you mean baptism of the Spirit and not water baptism.


It's simple, Israel is God's elect. If you want to be one of God's elect, join Israel.
I believe the reference to Israel as God's elect refers the God's choosing them among nations as opposed to another separate election of God of individuals for salvation. This difference in opinion upon these different elections may be what gives us different view points. I've NEVER heard of your view point that all elections in the new testament refers to the nation ... as least I think that is what you are saying. I know you keep mentioning Israel in regards to election and I don't get what you are saying in this regard. Give me a URL.



Peter being told to go, whether chosen or elect has nothing to do with Cornelius being chosen. Let's take your argument a little further. If people were chosen to be saved before they were born God could have just said, I forgive your sins and that would be that. What need is there to send Christ to die?
Christ needs to die for propitiation and reconciliation. Aside: God determines the rules so I don't apply my thoughts to how to best do things...by definition God does everything the best way. You like to look at things from your perspective ...


Why have the Gospel message?
Ah, again ... God decides what is best. Ask Him and don't assume you have a better way.


My question: Agreed. That why I keep asking for your FREE WILL proof texts. Study to show thyself approved. Show me you Free Will proof text from your studies.
Your answer:
I don't proof text. I exegete Scripture
Ah ... that explains a lot of things. You study scripture and build a model that fits best according to you. I was hoping for proof texts, though I had little expectation of them being provided.

Well, it's been interesting. Have a good day.
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I am not familiar with this distinction. I was under the impression that the apostles had the Holy Spirit when Christ breathed on them and then lost it, only to get the same Spirit back at Pentecost. (not that this is a biggy)



Again, I think this distinction is arbitrary. I googled it and couldn't find anything. Give me a URL as I am curious.



I assume you mean baptism of the Spirit and not water baptism.



I believe the reference to Israel as God's elect refers the God's choosing them among nations as opposed to another separate election of God of individuals for salvation. This difference in opinion upon these different elections may be what gives us different view points. I've NEVER heard of your view point that all elections in the new testament refers to the nation ... as least I think that is what you are saying. I know you keep mentioning Israel in regards to election and I don't get what you are saying in this regard. Give me a URL.




Christ needs to die for propitiation and reconciliation. Aside: God determines the rules so I don't apply my thoughts to how to best do things...by definition God does everything the best way. You like to look at things from your perspective ...



Ah, again ... God decides what is best. Ask Him and don't assume you have a better way.


My question: Agreed. That why I keep asking for your FREE WILL proof texts. Study to show thyself approved. Show me you Free Will proof text from your studies.
Your answer:

Ah ... that explains a lot of things. You study scripture and build a model that fits best according to you. I was hoping for proof texts, though I had little expectation of them being provided.

Well, it's been interesting. Have a good day.
If the Holy Spirit was around even in O.T. times....why couldn't the Israelites obey the Law of Moses?

That's your answer.
In the N.T. we are INDWELT with the Holy Spirit.
God promised this in Jeremiah.
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I am not familiar with this distinction. I was under the impression that the apostles had the Holy Spirit when Christ breathed on them and then lost it, only to get the same Spirit back at Pentecost. (not that this is a biggy)



Again, I think this distinction is arbitrary. I googled it and couldn't find anything. Give me a URL as I am curious.



I assume you mean baptism of the Spirit and not water baptism.



I believe the reference to Israel as God's elect refers the God's choosing them among nations as opposed to another separate election of God of individuals for salvation. This difference in opinion upon these different elections may be what gives us different view points. I've NEVER heard of your view point that all elections in the new testament refers to the nation ... as least I think that is what you are saying. I know you keep mentioning Israel in regards to election and I don't get what you are saying in this regard. Give me a URL.




Christ needs to die for propitiation and reconciliation. Aside: God determines the rules so I don't apply my thoughts to how to best do things...by definition God does everything the best way. You like to look at things from your perspective ...



Ah, again ... God decides what is best. Ask Him and don't assume you have a better way.


My question: Agreed. That why I keep asking for your FREE WILL proof texts. Study to show thyself approved. Show me you Free Will proof text from your studies.
Your answer:

Ah ... that explains a lot of things. You study scripture and build a model that fits best according to you. I was hoping for proof texts, though I had little expectation of them being provided.

Well, it's been interesting. Have a good day.
First of all, we don't need proof verses for free will.
It's assumed all throughout the O.T. and N.T.

Second....we've provided many for you....you just can't seem to accept that a SOVEREIGN GOD
could give us free will....

Jesus crying over Jerusalem...THEY WOULD NOT COME TO ME.

What does He mean?
Didn't He know that God didn't choose the ones that didn't come to Him??

Free Will sacrifice.
Given with one's FREE WILL....instead of 10% or first fruits or burnt, etc.

John 5:40 AND YOU ARE UNWILLING TO COME TO ME.

Strange statement to make IF Jesus knew God chose who would come to Him.

But, of course, your compatibilist free will would explain that God MADE THEM NOT WILL to go to Jesus.
Too bad He forgot to tell Jesus about His decision.
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Christ needs to die for propitiation and reconciliation. Aside: God determines the rules so I don't apply my thoughts to how to best do things...by definition God does everything the best way. You like to look at things from your perspective ...

WHY does Jesus need to die as propitiation and reconciliation for sinners if they have nothing to do with His death?

And yes, don't apply your thought to anything because God forgot to give you a brain so that you could think....
Not being insulting...just wish you'd consider what you're saying.


Ah, again ... God decides what is best. Ask Him and don't assume you have a better way.
How does God decide what is best when things go wrong all the time?
Doesn't God know what He's doing?
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
You haven't given your definition of Free Will or a biblical reference to God giving man Free Will. Therefore, I cannot comment upon some I know nothing of. (My guess is you don't know anything of a biblical reference to God where He gave man Free Will. Free Will being your (and many others) invention. But, I stand to be corrected. Show me a biblical reference to God where He gave man Free Will. P.S. Thanks for using FredY instead of Fredi ... *giggle*



You may not say so in words, but your doctrine contradicts your words. Your doctrine (correct me if I am wrong) states that God died for everyone and offers salvation to all. Any individual can claim salvation by believing. This is a two person deal (synergism) where salvation involves the work of God and you. Definition of work: physical or mental activity to achieve a purpose. You mental access God's word and decide to believe thus achieving your purpose of salvation. Your righteousness is the deciding factor that saved you from hell. Praise you for what you have done as only 1 in 20 do what you have done. (1 in 20 in my guess-i-mate)


I asked you to restate your definition of Free Will. This is your answer?????
(Aside: the choosing is not the crux of the discussion. The crux of the discussion is WHY DID THEY CHOOSE. You say Free Will (which I am waiting for a definition of ... I say God caused them to believe for those He chose/called/appointed/predestined....




These two statements contradict each other. Your 'logic' is based on tradition. Are you an R.C.?
Aside: Acts 15 is about the early church with much of it thinking one had to be circumcised to be saved. Initially, many go it wrong. This is an example of the early church taught by apostles GETTING IT WRONG. This shows your tradition is fallible and thus your logic is fallible.


You used logic based on tradition. Perhaps you should look up the definition of tradition.
Aside: Some tradition is true ... but it is fallible. The Westminster Confession is tradition. I think most of it is correct. I also think it is fallible.

Wife calling me ... I have to obey....
Fredy,
So far you have rejected, logic, reason, tradition, history, the apostles, and now you're throwing common sense out the window. If God tells the Israelites that He set before them life and death and told them to choose life. Then He's leaving it up to them. That's their choice. To say God is choosing for them is ridiculous. No one without an agenda would ever draw that conclusion. Can you not see the extremes you're going to to try to defend your doctrine? You really have no basis for anything you say now. You can't make an argument based on logic because you've rejected it. You can't make an argument based on reason, you've rejected it. You can't claim the apostles as the source of your doctrine as you've rejected them. All you're left with is, I believe it because I believe it.

Now, if you're willing to be intellectually honest we can have a conversation. But to just reject everything that doesn't fit your beliefs isn't going to help. Rather than jumping all over the place an orderly discussion is better. You keep asking for my definition of free will. Is there more than one definition? I know why you're asking for it. As I said, I was a Calvinist and I know how the game is played. But, I'm not going to debate a straw man. For purposes of discussion, I'll say it is the ability to choose between options without coercion.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
WHY does Jesus need to die as propitiation and reconciliation for sinners if they have nothing to do with His death?

And yes, don't apply your thought to anything because God forgot to give you a brain so that you could think....
Not being insulting...just wish you'd consider what you're saying.



How does God decide what is best when things go wrong all the time?
Doesn't God know what He's doing?
Hi Wondering,

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that when the Reforners translated our English Bibles they changed stuff. They reworded phrases to fit their beliefs. This is one reason why Calvinists think they have so much support in the Bible. A good bit of the support they think they have doesn't really exist in the original languages. For instance, 1 Peter is one they often use.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Perer 1:2 KJV
)

The KJV and others read, elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Calvinists will point to this passage as proof that God chose people. However, let's look at a more accurate translation of the Greek text.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! (YLT 1Peter 1:1-2)


In the YLT translation the word translated elect is choice. Elect in the KJV and choice in the YLT are the same Greek word, eklectos. However, notice in the YLT translation it's in verse one. In the KJV it's in verse two. In the Greek text it's in verse one just as the YLT translation. Peter is addressing the elect sojourners or pilgrims of the dispersion. He's NOT saying they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God. The elect sojourners of the dispersion were the believing Jews among all of the dispersed Jews. The Reformers changed the wording in this verse to fit their theology. They also changed words. Take the word propitiation. It appears about three times in the NT. That Greek word that is translated propitiation is everywhere else in Scripture translated, mercy seat. And, if we translate it mercy seat in those three places it works fine. The word propitiation fit better with the Reforners theology so, they used it.
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Hi Wondering,

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that when the Reforners translated our English Bibles they changed stuff. They reworded phrases to fit their beliefs. This is one reason why Calvinists think they have so much support in the Bible. A good bit of the support they think they have doesn't really exist in the original languages. For instance, 1 Peter is one they often use.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Perer 1:2 KJV)

The KJV and others read, elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Calvinists will point to this passage as proof that God chose people. However, let's look at a more accurate translation of the Greek text.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! (YLT 1Peter 1:1-2)

In the YLT translation the word translated elect is choice. Elect in the KJV and choice in the YLT are the same Greek word, eklectos. However, notice in the YLT translation it's in verse one. In the KJV it's in verse two. In the Greek text it's in verse one just as the YLT translation. Peter is addressing the elect sojourners or pilgrims of the dispersion. He's NOT saying they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God. The elect sojourners of the dispersion were the believing Jews among all of the dispersed Jews. The Reformers changed the wording in this verse to fit their theology. They also changed words. Take the word propitiation. It appears about three times in the NT. That Greek word that is translated propitiation is everywhere else in Scripture translated, mercy seat. And, if we translate it mercy seat in those three places it works fine. The word propitiation fit better with the Reforners theology so, they used it.
Yes, actually elect just means to choose,,,just like when we elect a President.

Problem is,,,what is the election based on?
Nothing, as calvin believed, or on a plan God has for us, as all of Christianity has believed from the time of Jesus...

As to propitiation, this theory of atonement was indeed proposed by the reformers. It teaches a God that is mad at the human race and requires vindication. The theory of penal substitution.

As to 1 Peter 1:1-2 -
Great post!

Even the JW have their very own version of the bible...
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Yes, actually elect just means to choose,,,just like when we elect a President.

Problem is,,,what is the election based on?
Nothing, as calvin believed, or on a plan God has for us, as all of Christianity has believed from the time of Jesus...

As to propitiation, this theory of atonement was indeed proposed by the reformers. It teaches a God that is mad at the human race and requires vindication. The theory of penal substitution.

As to 1 Peter 1:1-2 -
Great post!

Even the JW have their very own version of the bible...
Yeah, Penal Atinement is also a Refirmation doctrine. They took Anselm's Satisfaction model, a Catholic who changed from the original Ransom model that had been the teaching of the faith for 1000 years, and tweaked it into what we have today, Penal Atonement.
 

Fastfredy0

2022 Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,354
Joined
May 4, 2020
For purposes of discussion, I'll say it is the ability to choose between options without coercion.
LOL, well .. given the definition of Free Will you propose I would concur. God does not FORCE anyone to believe or not believe salvificly.
We are not FORCED to receive eternal life and the blessings of heaven. Most of us freely choose hell. It is not rational to chose suffering over blessing. Someone else must be influencing (not forcing) the decision. The Bible says that someone is God and his influence for His chosen is efficacious.

Aside: Wow, I am a free willer (given your definition) ... you've converted me
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
LOL, well .. given the definition of Free Will you propose I would concur. God does not FORCE anyone to believe or not believe salvificly.
We are not FORCED to receive eternal life and the blessings of heaven. Most of us freely choose hell. It is not rational to chose suffering over blessing. Someone else must be influencing (not forcing) the decision. The Bible says that someone is God and his influence for His chosen is efficacious.

Aside: Wow, I am a free willer (given your definition) ... you've converted me
That's just word games. God "influences" doesn't force, but, whatever He wants they do. So, they can't choose no, thus there is coercion
 

Fastfredy0

2022 Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,354
Joined
May 4, 2020
That's just word games. God "influences" doesn't force, but, whatever He wants they do. So, they can't choose no, thus there is coercion
The definition of FREE WILL is yours. It's your word game. I played along. I agreed that if your definition is valid I am in agreement with you; that our 'free will' saves us according to your definition.

We chose according to our greatest desire (free will) in a given situation and circumstances. There's always going to be a reason behind why you choose what you choose. If a choice is truly an unforced choice then it must be that you choose according to your greatest desire in that circumstance. Anything less than your greatest desire would be by definition a coerced choice, a choice against your will. So if you're going to affirm a truly unforced choice you must affirm that you chose according to your greatest desire in the moment and the given circumstances.
I agree with you.
We chose according to our greatest desire in regards to salvation. We are not coerced. Our desires or molded by our evil nature (depravity) unless God intervenes via regeneration to change of desires such that we freely choose to believe in a non-coerced manner.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
The definition of FREE WILL is yours. It's your word game. I played along. I agreed that if your definition is valid I am in agreement with you; that our 'free will' saves us according to your definition.

We chose according to our greatest desire (free will) in a given situation and circumstances. There's always going to be a reason behind why you choose what you choose. If a choice is truly an unforced choice then it must be that you choose according to your greatest desire in that circumstance. Anything less than your greatest desire would be by definition a coerced choice, a choice against your will. So if you're going to affirm a truly unforced choice you must affirm that you chose according to your greatest desire in the moment and the given circumstances.
I agree with you.
We chose according to our greatest desire in regards to salvation. We are not coerced. Our desires or molded by our evil nature (depravity) unless God intervenes via regeneration to change of desires such that we freely choose to believe in a non-coerced manner.
This is why I said I wasn't going to debate a straw man. I disagree with your premise. We don't always choose our greatest desire. There are many days I'd desire to go photograph a waterfall, but instead I go to work. Thus, I haven't chosen my greatest desire.

You've also added to the equation. For clarification could please explain what you mean by regeneration? The word regeneration only appears twice in Scripture. It is used once by Jesus to refer to the Resurrection and it is used once by Paul referring to water Baptism. Both of these occur after one believes so they could not be what you are referring to, since what you are referring to happens prior to belief. Since you've made this regeneration, which we don't see in Scripture, a foundation for your claim can you elaborate?
 

Fastfredy0

2022 Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,354
Joined
May 4, 2020
This is why I said I wasn't going to debate a straw man.
Yeah, you present the argument and quickly run away from defending it. I even agreed with your definition of "free will" and you run away from it.

I disagree with your premise. We don't always choose our greatest desire. There are many days I'd desire to go photograph a waterfall, but instead I go to work. Thus, I haven't chosen my greatest desire.
LOL ... and why did you chose to do what you did not want to do.
Premise 1: I went to work
Premise 2: I desired most to photograph a waterfall, but I didn't do it (I went to work instead)
Conclusion: I chose to do what I didn't want to do most (ridiculous)
In other words, you freely chose amongst competing desires and decided by pick something you didn't desire as much. This brings up the question, why did you chose what you didn't desire the most? ... and so the circular logic never ends.

Free will advocates try to say all the time, not merely that you're choosing what you want but that you somehow chose what to want, that you choose from amongst these general desires that are out there. This puts your choice before the desires. Desire determines choice, not choice determines desires.
If you're the determiner of your own determinations, as illogical as that saying is, then just say you did it because you did it. Everything you do is because of something. Granted, there may be many somethings affecting your desire.


Hmmm, should I jump off this 50 story building to the concrete below?
I answer, my greatest desire is to live so I don't jump.
You answer, "my choice determines my desire...I am the determiner of my determinations". I may choose to jump today and if so my free choice determines my desire. RIDICULOUS.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Yeah, you present the argument and quickly run away from defending it. I even agreed with your definition of "free will" and you run away from it.


LOL ... and why did you chose to do what you did not want to do.
Premise 1: I went to work
Premise 2: I desired most to photograph a waterfall, but I didn't do it (I went to work instead)
Conclusion: I chose to do what I didn't want to do most (ridiculous)
In other words, you freely chose amongst competing desires and decided by pick something you didn't desire as much. This brings up the question, why did you chose what you didn't desire the most? ... and so the circular logic never ends.

Free will advocates try to say all the time, not merely that you're choosing what you want but that you somehow chose what to want, that you choose from amongst these general desires that are out there. This puts your choice before the desires. Desire determines choice, not choice determines desires.
If you're the determiner of your own determinations, as illogical as that saying is, then just say you did it because you did it. Everything you do is because of something. Granted, there may be many somethings affecting your desire.


Hmmm, should I jump off this 50 story building to the concrete below?
I answer, my greatest desire is to live so I don't jump.
You answer, "my choice determines my desire...I am the determiner of my determinations". I may choose to jump today and if so my free choice determines my desire. RIDICULOUS.
Let the straw man arguments begin. You're making an argument here that ones desire determine their choice. However, that is just an assertion on your part. As I've pointed out, I can choose to do that which isn't my greatest desire. Your determiner of determinations is a straw man. The reasosn why a person makes a choice doesn't affect their ability to make that choice.

I haven't run away from anything. You've added to the argent I made. However, you didn't address the rest of it. What is this regeneration that you speak of. As I said, Jesus used the word once in reference to the Resurrection and Paul used it in reference to water Baptism. They are the only two occurrences of the word in Scripture. Since both of these occur after belief they cannot be what you're referring to
 

Fastfredy0

2022 Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,354
Joined
May 4, 2020
, I can choose to do that which isn't my greatest desire.
In other words you contend that you can determine to do what you don't desire most strongly to do. Ridiculous.

So, hypothetically, a Christian can have NO DESIRE for Christ ... he just chose to follow Him and love Him because he determined to want to do so despite his desire not to follow and love Christ. One could love and follow Christ though it is not necessarily a desire to do so, you just chose to do it anyway. (This would make a unique testimony. I think you need to think more about the consequences of what you are saying.)

Your version of "free will" is interesting. So, when one marries a spouse one could say: "I don't desire to love you in sickness and health, but I have determined that I will do so despite my desire to do the contrary".

Of course, the question still remains (and always will remain) ... why did you determine to do something you did desire to do most????

What is this regeneration that you speak of.
Born Again/New Creature/Spiritually Alive/New Nature are synonyms
Regeneration is the instantaneous impartation of eternal life by the Holy Spirit to the spiritually dead; it is to be “born again”… it is to be a new creation, renewing of the mind, a dying to sin and living to righteousness, a translation from darkness to light; for the old has passed away, and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). One’s dominant motives are transformed from darkness to light and from death to life. God is the author (John 1:13; John 6:63), the Holy Spirit is the agent (John 3:8) or efficient cause and the Word of God is the instrument (John 15:3; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23). God’s work of regeneration reaches into our hearts to bring about a response (faith/repentance) that is absolutely certain—even though we respond voluntarily. It is certain because of our new nature which has been given believers via regeneration; we are spiritually alive and responsive to the will of God.
 

tdidymas

God watches over us
Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
618
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
My name is not Sherlock.
You keep bringing up 1 Corinthians 2:14....are there no other verses in the bible?

This is the big problem with calvinism....
The discussion always falls back to two calvinistic ideas:

1. Free will.....easier to blame me of not understanding it since you are UNABLE to show from biblical scripture that it does NOT exist.
2. Total Depravity of Man...another idea which is not biblical.
All men are born depraved...but not so depraved as to be UNABLE to hear the calling of God from the grace God gives to all persons.
I disagree, because the idea that man is not so depraved comes from Pelagius and pagan philosophy. Further, your idea that God gives grace to all persons is a confusion between two different graces. Common grace is given to everyone, where everyone receives benefit from the atonement of Christ and God's blessings, but is not salvific. Special grace is given only to those God chose for salvation, as Paul describes in Eph. 2. But Paul's description of the depraved man in Rom. 3:10-18 applies to every unregenerate person.
Hebrews 4:16
16Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

This is to saved persons...and yet Paul states that it is WE who must draw near...free will at work once again.
I agree that this is to saved persons, who have a will that is (to some extent) freed from the sinful nature, and is no longer in bondage to sin. This command doesn't apply to unregenerate souls, since they won't hear it anyway.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
[who accept God's conditions]
To qualify "all people" by a statement of your bias, and then to reject my qualification that "all people" means all nations, not just the Jews, you judge by a double standard. But "all people who accept God's conditions" is a no-brainer, as it is saying WHO has salvation brought to them, not HOW it is brought. The issue is, who determines the salvation of an individual. Is it the sovereign God, or is it man by himself? This is the real issue. Salvation of an individual determined by the sovereign God is Augustinian (and Pauline and Johannine), whereas salvation of an individual determined only by that individual is Pelagian (the heretic).
Joel 2:13
And rend your heart and not your garments.”
Now return to the Lord your God,
For He is gracious and compassionate,
Slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness
And relenting of evil.
Those who are already God's people hear this, and those who aren't don't.
Ezra 8:22
“The hand of our God is favorably disposed to all those who seek Him, but His power and His anger are against all those who forsake Him.”
"All those who seek Him" are the elect, and born of God already, because the apostle Paul described every unregenerate person this way "there is none who seeks for God." Therefore, what you are trying to argue is patently wrong, since it poses contradiction in scripture. How can unregenerate man use a "free will" to seek God, when Paul clearly states "there is none who seeks for God"? Your view of natural man is not biblical.
And not everyone that comes to God does so out of fear of hell...
I can attest to that.
It is possible you didn't need the warning of hell fire. I don't know your situation, and I certainly did not say or imply that everyone has to be motivated by fear. Nevertheless, the writer of Hebrews speaks of the fear of death in Heb. 2:15 in such a general way, that it appears to me that there is some level of fear of eternal condemnation that everyone has that motivates them to try to please God in some way. All religions have some basis in that. And that book speaks of overcoming the fear of death (that is, the 2nd death) as a state of "sabbath rest." If you were in this sabbath rest (because you always trusted in Christ) as far back as you remember, then you might not think that a person needs to fear death before having a relationship with God. I'm just asking you not to judge scripture according to your experience, but according to what it actually says. Jesus commanded people (in a general way) to fear God by saying:
"Do not fear him who can destroy the body and afterward can do nothing to you; but rather fear Him who can destroy both your body and soul in hell. I tell you, that's whom you should fear." (Luke 12:5)
You can say a person is wrong all you want to...
that does not make it so,
and you're not very good at proving your points using scripture.
I say, you're just not good at understanding what you read.
 

tdidymas

God watches over us
Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
618
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
You're too funny T,,,
I'm going to have to stop this because you're not being very serious.
I've TOLD YOU that I read the Institutes....Ummm, didn't John Calvin write those books?
SLANDER?
You haven't ever shown me that what I've QUOTED FROM HIS WRITINGS is wrong...you just continue to say it's wrong but that does not let it be so.
I was responding to this statement of yours:
The wider context of the bible teaches us that God is LOVING, MERCIFUL and JUST.
John Calvin removed all these attributes from God Almighty.
Therefore this response of yours leads me to believe that you PURPOSELY MISREPRESENT what you're reading.

You have not quoted ANYTHING by Calvin that proves your statement, therefore you are misrepresenting my response to you. No, it is YOU who are not sincere, and I'm just about to abandon this conversation, because it appears you just want to argue.
And it also seems like you don't know what Jesus meant about judging...
Actually, I understand it well. Your assertion is pointless, since it is without basis.
JESUS said we must follow His commandments in order to be saved.
Have you really read the N.T. ??

Matthew 7: THE LAWLESS WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
Matthew 5: I HAVE NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW, BUT TO FULFILL IT. (what does fulfill mean??? Is Jesus contradicting Himself??)
John 3:18 ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HIM (GOD) HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDGED. What does BELIEVE mean, anyway??
John 12:26 ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SERVE ME MUST FOLLOW ME.......AND THE FATHER WILL HONOR ANYONE WHO SERVES ME.
John 12:36 PUT YOUR TRUST IN THE LIGHT WHILE THERE IS TIME......Put your trust in the light (sounds like free will).
John 3:36 ANYONE WHO DOESN'T OBEY THE SON WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE ETERNAL LIFE.
John 15:14 YOU ARE MY FRIENDS IF YOU DO WHAT I COMMAND.
John 15:1 MY FATHER CUTS OFF EVERY BRANCH THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE FRUIT.

There's plenty more.
Does that sound like a "natural point of view" to you (as you stated)
or does it sound like what Jesus wants from us?
Commands of Christ does not constitute "free will" in the way that you are using it.
Oh for goodness sake.
Now you want to discuss regeneration coming before salvation.
You're all over the place.
You haven't proved ONE POINT yet, and you're on to the next.

If those who are spiritually dead can't hear then why would the verses I have already quoted be in the N.T.??
The ones about how HEARING brings one to salvation....
FAITH COMES BY HEARING THE WORD OF GOD.

What came first?
HEARING OR FAITH??
You claim to understand Reformed Theology, and yet you don't get what I'm saying. No, you really don't understand it. God works on individuals whom He chooses. He does not work on everyone the same. When a person believes, it's the gift of God, not the "gift of free will".
You never answered my question:

WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS?
I'm wondering if you actually know what it is, since you have lots of trouble understanding what you're reading. But ok, let's get back to basics. The good news is to be reconciled with God. It means that unregenerate man is not reconciled, and therefore his will is in bondage to sin (which is the bad news). So the good news is that Christ came to save us from our sins, and that takes an act of God. It is the fact that God is acting for our salvation that's the good news. Do you agree?
Could you PLEASE post some verses that show that God chooses us?
And could it not be Romans 8:28 or Ephesians 1:5,11 ?
Ps. 139:16, Prov. 20:24, Jer. 10:23, Jn. 1:13, Jn. 3:21, Jn. 6:29,37,65, Jn. 15:16, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:16, 1 Cor. 1:30, Phil. 2:13 in addition to the ones you cited. I also have 80 other verses that show God's sovereignty over man. However, I just don't think it will solve anything, because you will find some way to discount those verses as applying to an individual's belief and choice for obeying the gospel. Therefore, a whole book about it won't convince you. I think this may be my last ditch effort.
I've listed tens of verses supporting what I say...
Could YOU do the same please.

This request is not a strawman....
or you don't know what strawman means....
if you do, please post some scripture instead of just telling me I'm wrong.
I've quoted scripture many times, with and without references, but you just reject them all.
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I was responding to this statement of yours:

Therefore this response of yours leads me to believe that you PURPOSELY MISREPRESENT what you're reading.

You have not quoted ANYTHING by Calvin that proves your statement, therefore you are misrepresenting my response to you. No, it is YOU who are not sincere, and I'm just about to abandon this conversation, because it appears you just want to argue.

Actually, I understand it well. Your assertion is pointless, since it is without basis.

Commands of Christ does not constitute "free will" in the way that you are using it.

You claim to understand Reformed Theology, and yet you don't get what I'm saying. No, you really don't understand it. God works on individuals whom He chooses. He does not work on everyone the same. When a person believes, it's the gift of God, not the "gift of free will".

I'm wondering if you actually know what it is, since you have lots of trouble understanding what you're reading. But ok, let's get back to basics. The good news is to be reconciled with God. It means that unregenerate man is not reconciled, and therefore his will is in bondage to sin (which is the bad news). So the good news is that Christ came to save us from our sins, and that takes an act of God. It is the fact that God is acting for our salvation that's the good news. Do you agree?

Ps. 139:16, Prov. 20:24, Jer. 10:23, Jn. 1:13, Jn. 3:21, Jn. 6:29,37,65, Jn. 15:16, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:16, 1 Cor. 1:30, Phil. 2:13 in addition to the ones you cited. I also have 80 other verses that show God's sovereignty over man. However, I just don't think it will solve anything, because you will find some way to discount those verses as applying to an individual's belief and choice for obeying the gospel. Therefore, a whole book about it won't convince you. I think this may be my last ditch effort.

I've quoted scripture many times, with and without references, but you just reject them all.
As you reject mine.
I'm finished speaking to you since you're unable to be serious about this.
Your insults are personal and I will no longer respond to you.

I said, you said...
I have no time for this nonsense.

:wave2
 

wondering

CF Ambassador
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,922
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I'm wondering if you actually know what it is, since you have lots of trouble understanding what you're reading. But ok, let's get back to basics. The good news is to be reconciled with God. It means that unregenerate man is not reconciled, and therefore his will is in bondage to sin (which is the bad news). So the good news is that Christ came to save us from our sins, and that takes an act of God. It is the fact that God is acting for our salvation that's the good news. Do you agree?
No. I don't agree with your interpretation of the good news.
YOUR good news only applies to the saved persons God chooses.

The REAL good news is for EVERYONE who wishes to spend eternity in heaven with God.

Jesus told the Apostles to go into all nations and teach what He commanded.
He didn't tell them not to have a care in the world because God would decide who was going to be saved.

It's good news because it's for EACH INDIVIDUAL.

No need to reply to this.
 
Top