The Elect Hear The Voice Of The Shepherd.

[Boaz]

Agreed on all because I also feel that only God does the saving.
Man cannot save himself. Ephesians 2:8
Some theologians believe that grace, faith and salvation are all 3 referred to in Ephesians 2:8.,,,all three are a gift and it's not necessary to understand exactly which one Ephesians is referring to. I like that because I do believe, as do all Christians, that we cannot be saved by works but only by faith and grace...or grace THROUGH faith.

I also believe in the sovereignty of God. Nothing happens that God does not want to happen. It's not easy to reconcile this with God giving us free will...but, of course, I do believe we have free will.....unless God wills otherwise (Mary comes to mind, Luke 2).

Also, I do not understand why some reformed persons are so aggressive....we can not agree and still be Christianly toward each other.

No doubt God's sovereignty and free will are difficult to reconcile. Reformed of course is not saying that man has NO will, just that it is not entirely free, and usually this is in reference to is it free to choose God. My understanding of Scripture and the Reformed teaching on this is that will, by the fall, is in bondage, and cannot make that decision. (Just explaining our view.) In any case, man has responsibility before God, saved or unsaved, that is also difficult to reconcile with His sovereignty. It almost seems like it is in a dimension where our finite minds can not penetrate. I'm quite sure it is in fact. And from all appearances, sometimes God allows our bad and ugly decisions to play out as they will. Sometimes simply because we are in a fallen world (reap what we sow), but always He uses it towards His own good purpose. The trials of Job are a perfect example of a peek behind the scene. Same with Joseph.

I know from our communications that you are a person who searches out the why and how and when before you arrive at what you believe. You have a need to find out for yourself and I like that about you. I'm the same way and I have not always been Reformed. I spent the first 21 years of my Christianity as free will, and the last twenty Reformed. What began that search specifically is a long story and I will spare you the agony. RDV I searched, and checked, and double checked against the Bible everything I studied. Compared everything against previous teaching and interpretation until I felt at peace with the Reformed position. And I am still learning. That is just so you are aware that I'm not simply adhering to tradition or indoctrination.

P.S. Italy sounds wonderful. The country roads and all.

 

[Boaz]

God's sovereignty incorporates human free will. For if man is not free, he cannot be punished or rewarded for his actions.

You reference Mary in Luke 2. Are you arguing Mary was not free and did not exercise her free will? It seems to me to believe otherwise would render God a rapist.

Oh please about the rapists thing. Do you actually think God asked Mary's permission concerning the birth of Jesus? And I hesitate to even say this but it goes to assumptions you seem to imply about the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a sexual act. There isn't even an argument is this scripture about free will and I don't think W was implying such, just the opposite in fact.

 

[Walpole]

Oh my goodness!
Mary said "Let it be done unto me".

However, I have discussed this visit of Gabriel.
The question arises: WHEN did Mary become immaculate?

At birth?
Then God knew she would have to say yes.

Was it her free will?
Does Gabriel sound like he's giving her a choice? Luke 2:31
Did God groom her for her future role?

This is an example of some stories that clearly show God had some part in man's free will. Did God harden Pharaoh's heart or did he already have a hard heart?
Exodus 8:21
Exodus 7:3

Did Moses volunteer or did God pick HIM?

I don't claim to understand God so well,,,as some do.
I do know that He is sovereign and I do know that I have free will.

I am going to limit my reply to the example of Mary in Luke 2 and try and show you that Mary was not forced, coerced or raped.

It is important to remember that God does not act with pure will. That is a Calvinist / Islamic version of God. Rather, He is the God of Logos and this is demonstrated beautifully in Luke's annunciation story.

The Archangel's words to Mary convey what will happen, not what did already happen. It is only after Mary receives an answer from the Archangel as to how it will be, does she give her fiat voluntatis. Let's look at St. Luke's description...

"And he [Gabriel] came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!' But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.' And Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no husband?' And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.' And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:28-38)


What is going on here? First, Gabriel appears to Mary and addresses her not by her name, but rather by a title. ("Full of grace.") What is Mary's response to the Archangel? She asks him a question: "How can this be?" In other words, she brings the Archangel's message under consideration and only when he satisfies her reason does she give her consent, her fiat voluntatis. Mary's rational faculties are not suspended. She is not forced; rather, she is fully engaged as a rational human being. Mary knowingly and willingly chose the role God offered her.


St. Luke affirms this when he continues the story and describes the name given our Blessed Lord after His birth...

"And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Did you catch that? "The name given by the angel before he was conceived…” Thus, St. Luke confirms the Incarnation occurred only after Mary’s fiat, not beforehand.

 

[Walpole]

Oh please about the rapists thing. Do you actually think God asked Mary's permission concerning the birth of Jesus? And I hesitate to even say this but it goes to assumptions you seem to imply about the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a sexual act. There isn't even an argument is this scripture about free will and I don't think W was implying such, just the opposite in fact.

Yes, I do believe God did not force himself on Mary, but rather she freely cooperated with His will.

God does not act with pure will. That is a Calvinist / Islamic version of God. Rather, He is the God of Logos. Let me give an example contrasting the Calvinist / Islamic version of God with the Logos by contrasting the encounter between the Christian version of the Archangel Gabriel with the Virgin Mary to that of the Muslim encounter between the Archangel Gabriel and Mohammed. In the Islamic version, Mohammed feels a crushing, overwhelming and terrifying power that eventually commands him. He is commanded to begin reciting. (Koran means "the recitation.") He has no choice: recite or be crushed. God acted with pure will, forcing himself upon man.

By contrast, we have the Christian story of the Archangel's encounter with the Virgin Mary. The Archangel appears to Mary and addresses her not by her name, but rather by a title. ("Full of grace.") He allows Mary to ask a question, "How can this be?" Mary brings the Gabriel's message under consideration and only when he satisfies her reason does she give her consent, her fiat voluntatis. Mary's rational faculties are not suspended. She is not forced. She is not raped. Rather, she is fully engaged as a rational human being.

"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her." (Luke 1:38)

 

[Boaz]

I am going to limit my reply to the example of Mary in Luke 2 and try and show you that Mary was not forced, coerced or raped.

It is important to remember that God does not act with pure will. That is a Calvinist / Islamic version of God. Rather, He is the God of Logos and this is demonstrated beautifully in Luke's annunciation story.

The Archangel's words to Mary convey what will happen, not what did already happen. It is only after Mary receives an answer from the Archangel as to how it will be, does she give her fiat voluntatis. Let's look at St. Luke's description...

"And he [Gabriel] came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!' But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.' And Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no husband?' And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.' And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:28-38)


What is going on here? First, Gabriel appears to Mary and addresses her not by her name, but rather by a title. ("Full of grace.") What is Mary's response to the Archangel? She asks him a question: "How can this be?" In other words, she brings the Archangel's message under consideration and only when he satisfies her reason does she give her consent, her fiat voluntatis. Mary's rational faculties are not suspended. She is not forced; rather, she is fully engaged as a rational human being. Mary knowingly and willingly chose the role God offered her.


St. Luke affirms this when he continues the story and describes the name given our Blessed Lord after His birth...

"And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Did you catch that? "The name given by the angel before he was conceived…” Thus, St. Luke confirms the Incarnation occurred only after Mary’s fiat, not beforehand.

Truthfully I wish you would stop speaking for "Calvinists" as you aren't one. I have no idea what you mean by God having a pure will. Reformed believes that God and His will are autonomous, man and his will are NOT. It is impossible to have two autonomous beings that exist at the same time in the same place.

Also you haven't told me the other name that the NT calls the NT.

 

[Walpole]

I'd like to make one more point on the infancy narrative in St. Luke's Gospel (as well as St. Matthew's) that's worth considering. Given these accounts were written after the actual occurrence of the event, along with the fact that neither St. Luke nor St. Matthew were present when they occurred, the only possible source for these narratives was Mary herself, the great Mother of God.

"But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."

 

[GodsGrace]

I am going to limit my reply to the example of Mary in Luke 2 and try and show you that Mary was not forced, coerced or raped.

It is important to remember that God does not act with pure will. That is a Calvinist / Islamic version of God. Rather, He is the God of Logos and this is demonstrated beautifully in Luke's annunciation story.

By "pure will" I can safely assume that you mean that God does not just go ahead and do everything HIS way and allows us to make our own decisions.
Agreed. Although He can, being sovereign, do whatever He likes.

The Archangel's words to Mary convey what will happen, not what did already happen. It is only after Mary receives an answer from the Archangel as to how it will be, does she give her fiat voluntatis. Let's look at St. Luke's description...

And herein lies the problem:
DO NOT BE AFRAID MARY FOR GOD HAS FOUND FAVOR WITH YOU. Luke 2:30

God found favor with Mary.
Why?
Because she was born immaculate...
or
Because God had chosen her from the beginning for this role?

"And he [Gabriel] came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!' But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.' And Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no husband?' And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.' And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:28-38)

YOU WILL CONCEIVE.
YOU WILL CALL HIS NAME.....
HE WILL REIGN.

I don't see choice here.

And Elizabeth....
What a coincidence?
That John should be born 6 months before Jesus so as to prepare the way for Him.
What if John had been born 20 years earlier when Elizabeth was younger...or 20 years later?

It seems to me that God did some planning here.
The same can be said for Judas Iscariot....BTW.

What is going on here? First, Gabriel appears to Mary and addresses her not by her name, but rather by a title. ("Full of grace.") What is Mary's response to the Archangel? She asks him a question: "How can this be?" In other words, she brings the Archangel's message under consideration and only when he satisfies her reason does she give her consent, her fiat voluntatis. Mary's rational faculties are not suspended. She is not forced; rather, she is fully engaged as a rational human being. Mary knowingly and willingly chose the role God offered her.


St. Luke affirms this when he continues the story and describes the name given our Blessed Lord after His birth...

"And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Did you catch that? "The name given by the angel before he was conceived…” Thus, St. Luke confirms the Incarnation occurred only after Mary’s fiat, not beforehand.

Oh. I agree that the incarnation occurred after Mary agreed. I'm just wondering if it was 100% free will on her part.

I'm not following re the name of Jesus.
Gabriel told Mary His name BEFORE she agreed...
?

 

[Boaz]

Yes, I do believe God did not force himself on Mary, but rather she freely cooperated with His will.

God does not act with pure will. That is a Calvinist / Islamic version of God. Rather, He is the God of Logos. Let me give an example contrasting the Calvinist / Islamic version of God with the Logos by contrasting the encounter between the Christian version of the Archangel Gabriel with the Virgin Mary to that of the Muslim encounter between the Archangel Gabriel and Mohammed. In the Islamic version, Mohammed feels a crushing, overwhelming and terrifying power that eventually commands him. He is commanded to begin reciting. (Koran means "the recitation.") He has no choice: recite or be crushed. God acted with pure will, forcing himself upon man.

By contrast, we have the Christian story of the Archangel's encounter with the Virgin Mary. The Archangel appears to Mary and addresses her not by her name, but rather by a title. ("Full of grace.") He allows Mary to ask a question, "How can this be?" Mary brings the Gabriel's message under consideration and only when he satisfies her reason does she give her consent, her fiat voluntatis. Mary's rational faculties are not suspended. She is not forced. She is not raped. Rather, she is fully engaged as a rational human being.

"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her." (Luke 1:38)

It takes a lot of ridicule to compare Reformed and Islamic in that / fashion as though they are the same or related. Where in Reformed Theology, or Calvinism as you call it, do they say or imply that God forced Himself on Mary against her will? You must just be ASSUMING they DO think that because of your misunderstanding and bias. I'm pretty sure we don't

 

[Boaz]

It takes a lot of ridicule to compare Reformed and Islamic in that / fashion as though they are the same or related. Where in Reformed Theology, or Calvinism as you call it, do they say or imply that God forced Himself on Mary against her will? You must just be ASSUMING they DO think that because of your misunderstanding and bias. I'm pretty sure we don't

I am not arguing or being critical of your beliefs concerning your narrative on Luke 2. My beef here is ONLY your characterization of my beliefs.

 

[Boaz]

I am not arguing or being critical of your beliefs concerning your narrative on Luke 2. My beef here is ONLY your characterization of my beliefs.

On free will and God's sovereignty (this is for you too W, because I figured out a way to say what I THINK we both believe) God may allow man to do what he wills to do, when God wills to do so, but He does not give man a completely free will in an autonomous way.

 

[jerry63935]

if your going to disagree with Reformed you need to have a understanding of calvinism belief. i semi understand it to know it to a fair degree . yes i hold to free will i have been attacked by many calvinist in a different forum . i stood my ground countered scripture for scripture . how ever she has her right and it should be respected . i do have a good friend on face book that live is the u.k she is calvinist . but very level headed we talk church alot , i do a google search found this so every one can compare get a idea
Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism
God's Sovereignty
The sovereignty of God is the belief that God is in complete control over everything that happens in the universe. His rule is supreme, and his will is the final cause of all things.

Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his own planning.

Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response.

Man's Depravity
Calvinist believe in the total depravity of man while Arminians hold to an idea dubbed "partial depravity."

Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation.

Arminianism: Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through "prevenient grace," God removed the guilt of Adam's sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God's call to salvation.

Election
Election refers to the concept of how people are chosen for salvation. Calvinists believe election is unconditional, while Arminians believe election is conditional.

Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose (or "elected") some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man's future response. The elect are chosen by God.

Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him of their own free will. Conditional election is based on man's response to God's offer of salvation.

Christ's Atonement
Atonement is the most controversial aspect of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. It refers to Christ's sacrifice for sinners. To the Calvinist, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect. In Arminian thinking, atonement is unlimited. Jesus died for all people.

Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful.

Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Savior's atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe.

Grace
God's grace has to do with his call to salvation. Calvinism says God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism argues that it can be resisted.

Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted.

Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will" men are also able to resist God's grace.

Man's Will
The free will of man versus God's sovereign will is linked to many points in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.

Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own.

Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will.

Perseverance
Perseverance of the saints is tied to the "once saved, always saved" debate and the question of eternal security. The Calvinist says the elect will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. The Arminian may insist that a person can fall away and lose his or her salvation. However, some Arminians embrace eternal security.

Calvinism: Believers will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began.

Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation.

It's important to note that all of the doctrinal points in both theological positions have a biblical foundation, which is why the debate has been so divisive and enduring throughout church history. Different denominations disagree over which points are correct, rejecting all or some of either system of theology, leaving most believers with a mixed perspective.

Because both Calvinism and Arminianism deal with concepts that go far beyond human comprehension, the debate is certain to continue as finite beings try to explain an infinitely mysterious God.

 

[OzSpen]

Yeah.....
I wish our names were color coded.....

wondering,

What do these verses teach us about those who are able to believe, i.e. hear the Lord's voice?

John 1:12-13 (NIV), 'Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God'.

1 John 5:13 (NIV), 'I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life'.

Acts 16:31 (NIV), "They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household'".

Is there anything here about the 'elect' hearing His voice?

Oz

 

[Boaz]

if your going to disagree with Reformed you need to have a understanding of calvinism belief. i semi understand it to know it to a fair degree . yes i hold to free will i have been attacked by many calvinist in a different forum . i stood my ground countered scripture for scripture . how ever she has her right and it should be respected . i do have a good friend on face book that live is the u.k she is calvinist . but very level headed we talk church alot , i do a google search found this so every one can compare get a idea
Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism
God's Sovereignty
The sovereignty of God is the belief that God is in complete control over everything that happens in the universe. His rule is supreme, and his will is the final cause of all things.

Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his own planning.

Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response.

Man's Depravity
Calvinist believe in the total depravity of man while Arminians hold to an idea dubbed "partial depravity."

Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation.

Arminianism: Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through "prevenient grace," God removed the guilt of Adam's sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God's call to salvation.

Election
Election refers to the concept of how people are chosen for salvation. Calvinists believe election is unconditional, while Arminians believe election is conditional.

Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose (or "elected") some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man's future response. The elect are chosen by God.

Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him of their own free will. Conditional election is based on man's response to God's offer of salvation.

Christ's Atonement
Atonement is the most controversial aspect of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. It refers to Christ's sacrifice for sinners. To the Calvinist, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect. In Arminian thinking, atonement is unlimited. Jesus died for all people.

Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful.

Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Savior's atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe.

Grace
God's grace has to do with his call to salvation. Calvinism says God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism argues that it can be resisted.

Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted.

Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will" men are also able to resist God's grace.

Man's Will
The free will of man versus God's sovereign will is linked to many points in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.

Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own.

Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will.

Perseverance
Perseverance of the saints is tied to the "once saved, always saved" debate and the question of eternal security. The Calvinist says the elect will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. The Arminian may insist that a person can fall away and lose his or her salvation. However, some Arminians embrace eternal security.

Calvinism: Believers will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began.

Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation.

It's important to note that all of the doctrinal points in both theological positions have a biblical foundation, which is why the debate has been so divisive and enduring throughout church history. Different denominations disagree over which points are correct, rejecting all or some of either system of theology, leaving most believers with a mixed perspective.

Because both Calvinism and Arminianism deal with concepts that go far beyond human comprehension, the debate is certain to continue as finite beings try to explain an infinitely mysterious God.

Thank you. And I'm glad the points of both systems are laid out and by someone from the "other side" . That is the other side of what I believe. There is absolutely no

 

[OzSpen]

Arminianism: Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through "prevenient grace," God removed the guilt of Adam's sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God's call to salvation.

Jerry,
To which group of Arminians do you refer? Classical/Reformed Arminians or Wesleyan Arminians? In my understanding, you gave a view of 'prevenient grace' that is not in an Arminian understanding where 'God removed the guilt of Adam's sin' (as you stated). Here's why (from an evangelical Arminian):

One of John Wesley’s finest contributions to theology was his understanding of prevenient grace. Broadly speaking, this is the grace that “goes before”—that grace which precedes human action and reflects God’s heart for his creation. It testifies to God’s being the initiator of any relationship with him and reveals him as one who pursues us. While prevenient grace is an orthodox teaching held by the historic church, it becomes distinctly Wesleyan in its reach and scope. For John Wesley, prevenient grace is available to all, such that there is no “natural man” left in a purely fallen state without a measure of God’s restorative grace. Furthermore, prevenient grace is salvific in direction.

This means the Spirit of God works not just to restore certain faculties of humanity or to limit human sin, but ultimately directs people to the work of Christ. This is one of the marks that sets Wesley apart from Augustine and John Calvin. Prevenient grace reaches beyond Reformed common grace since it involves all of the preparatory work of the Spirit before a person accepts the gospel.

The foundation for God’s prevenient work as initiator is firmly grounded in Scripture. The narrative of Scripture bears witness to a God who calls and pursues persons. He called Adam in the garden while he was hiding from the shame of sin (Gen. 3:9), Abraham out of his father’s house at Haran (Gen. 12:4), and Moses while he was busy tending his flock (Exod. 3:4). Jacob and Israel were chosen to bless the earth because of a promise to Abraham, not because they were significant (Rom. 9)

The New Testament is replete with passages that testify to the character of God as loving initiator, especially as revealed in Jesus Christ. Luke 19:10 says, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” We can only love because he first loved us, and this he did while we were still weak (Rom. 5:6; 1 John 4:10, 19; John 6:44). If left to ourselves, and here one should think of Wesley’s theoretical “natural man,” we would be absorbed in sin that leads to utter self-destruction and eternal separation from God.

The good news is that God acted in Christ and works through his Spirit in bringing us salvation. Wesley’s theology of prevenient grace teaches us that God is at work long before the church evangelizes, quickening people’s hearts to become the people he intends. His favorite reference was perhaps John 1:9, which reads, “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.”

One notices that Wesley takes seriously the universality of the blessings afforded by Christ and actualized by the Holy Spirit (see also John 12:32; Titus 2:11-14). This particular grace is that which Paul speaks of in Acts 17:26-27, where the purpose of God’s providence in history is that persons would seek him and know him. In this way, prevenient grace is the presence of God in time and space—in all places and all times—preparing the world for the hearing of the gospel (Andrew Dragos, What is prevenient grace?)

Oz

 

[Boaz]

if your going to disagree with Reformed you need to have a understanding of calvinism belief. i semi understand it to know it to a fair degree . yes i hold to free will i have been attacked by many calvinist in a different forum . i stood my ground countered scripture for scripture . how ever she has her right and it should be respected . i do have a good friend on face book that live is the u.k she is calvinist . but very level headed we talk church alot , i do a google search found this so every one can compare get a idea
Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism
God's Sovereignty
The sovereignty of God is the belief that God is in complete control over everything that happens in the universe. His rule is supreme, and his will is the final cause of all things.

Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his own planning.

Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response.

Man's Depravity
Calvinist believe in the total depravity of man while Arminians hold to an idea dubbed "partial depravity."

Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation.

Arminianism: Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through "prevenient grace," God removed the guilt of Adam's sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God's call to salvation.

Election
Election refers to the concept of how people are chosen for salvation. Calvinists believe election is unconditional, while Arminians believe election is conditional.

Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose (or "elected") some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man's future response. The elect are chosen by God.

Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him of their own free will. Conditional election is based on man's response to God's offer of salvation.

Christ's Atonement
Atonement is the most controversial aspect of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. It refers to Christ's sacrifice for sinners. To the Calvinist, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect. In Arminian thinking, atonement is unlimited. Jesus died for all people.

Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful.

Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Savior's atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe.

Grace
God's grace has to do with his call to salvation. Calvinism says God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism argues that it can be resisted.

Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted.

Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will" men are also able to resist God's grace.

Man's Will
The free will of man versus God's sovereign will is linked to many points in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.

Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own.

Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will.

Perseverance
Perseverance of the saints is tied to the "once saved, always saved" debate and the question of eternal security. The Calvinist says the elect will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. The Arminian may insist that a person can fall away and lose his or her salvation. However, some Arminians embrace eternal security.

Calvinism: Believers will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began.

Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation.

It's important to note that all of the doctrinal points in both theological positions have a biblical foundation, which is why the debate has been so divisive and enduring throughout church history. Different denominations disagree over which points are correct, rejecting all or some of either system of theology, leaving most believers with a mixed perspective.

Because both Calvinism and Arminianism deal with concepts that go far beyond human comprehension, the debate is certain to continue as finite beings try to explain an infinitely mysterious God.

Sorry, I accidentally cut myself off. There is no reason for these two sides to be constantly at war over these issues. I've said it before elsewhere and I'll say it again. If you make the choice for Jesus, you are saved. If the reason you made that choice is because God, because you are one of the elect, made you willing and able to make that choice, you are saved. Why fight about it?

I know Reformed start and continue many of these fights but the free will folks do exactly the same thing and I don't think they recognize that they do it. When I first came on this site I was immediately attacked because of my user name. Thankfully we've gotten past that.

What I will not let go is false accusations from people who, like you say, don't know what they are talking about. Problem is they ALWAYS think they do. To make a statement about Calvinism/Islam, like they are the same or closely related in beliefs is unconscionable. And then to metaphorically run away after saying such a thing is even worse.

But. Peace.

 

[Boaz]

Sorry, I accidentally cut myself off. There is no reason for these two sides to be constantly at war over these issues. I've said it before elsewhere and I'll say it again. If you make the choice for Jesus, you are saved. If the reason you made that choice is because God, because you are one of the elect, made you willing and able to make that choice, you are saved. Why fight about it?

I know Reformed start and continue many of these fights but the free will folks do exactly the same thing and I don't think they recognize that they do it. When I first came on this site I was immediately attacked because of my user name. Thankfully we've gotten past that.

What I will not let go is false accusations from people who, like you say, don't know what they are talking about. Problem is they ALWAYS think they do. To make a statement about Calvinism/Islam, like they are the same or closely related in beliefs is unconscionable. And then to metaphorically run away after saying such a thing is even worse.

But. Peace.

What I thought I posted too soon isn't there. I thanked you for your wonderful post and for having my back.

 

[jerry63935]

Jerry,
To which group of Arminians do you refer?

i dont think i referred to any i only posted a basic belief of both sides. i was saved Long before i ever knew about either side

 

[jerry63935]

What I thought I posted too soon isn't there. I thanked you for your wonderful post and for having my back.

look we dont have to agree %100 on everything to have all things in common .like in the early church . i have a buddy who is independent baptist i am not a big fan of the independent baptist.. see as preacher not of that flavor. my credentials as a ordained minister is not welcome.. as a christian i am. i have been to his church heard some good preaching.. . i have a friend more close to like sister she is full blown pentecostal preacher charismatic . we get along just fine . only one thing creates a bad stir in me that is the attitude they are right i am wrong

 

[Walpole]

By "pure will" I can safely assume that you mean that God does not just go ahead and do everything HIS way and allows us to make our own decisions.
Agreed. Although He can, being sovereign, do whatever He likes.


And herein lies the problem:
DO NOT BE AFRAID MARY FOR GOD HAS FOUND FAVOR WITH YOU. Luke 2:30

God found favor with Mary.
Why?
Because she was born immaculate...
or
Because God had chosen her from the beginning for this role?


YOU WILL CONCEIVE.
YOU WILL CALL HIS NAME.....
HE WILL REIGN.

I don't see choice here.

And Elizabeth....
What a coincidence?
That John should be born 6 months before Jesus so as to prepare the way for Him.
What if John had been born 20 years earlier when Elizabeth was younger...or 20 years later?

It seems to me that God did some planning here.
The same can be said for Judas Iscariot....BTW.



Oh. I agree that the incarnation occurred after Mary agreed. I'm just wondering if it was 100% free will on her part.

I'm not following re the name of Jesus.
Gabriel told Mary His name BEFORE she agreed...
?

Here's Mary's choice, after Gabriel satisfies her reason and question...

"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her.” - Luke 1:38

 

[OzSpen]

On free will and God's sovereignty (this is for you too W, because I figured out a way to say what I THINK we both believe) God may allow man to do what he wills to do, when God wills to do so, but He does not give man a completely free will in an autonomous way.

Reformed05,

Do you think that is genuine free will or manipulated free will by God?

I consider there is another alternative and that surrounds our definition of free will.

Simply stated, the nature of human free will or of human free choice is, according to Norman Geisler, ‘the power of contrary choice’ (Geisler 2003:444). This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

This was demonstrated under the Old Covenant with examples such as:

• Adam & Eve had the genuine choice of eating or not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; 3:1-7).
• In the time of Joshua we see this 'power of contrary choice' as free will: '
• ‘Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshipped beyond the River Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord’ (Josh 24:14-15 NIV)
• We can go throughout the OT and find the same emphasis of genuine free will choices given to human beings. See my article: What is the nature of human free will?
• In the NT there are verses such as Matt 23:37 (NIV), '‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing'.
• Acts 16:31 (NIV), 'They replied, ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’

The view of human free will, the power of contrary choice, is not only evident when I choose Pepsi over Coke, it's at the core of Christian commitment. Paul and Silas answered the Philippian jailer's question, 'What must I do to be saved?' with a free will response, 'You believe'.

However, salvation is provided by the Lord (Eph 2:8-9) but that doesn't exclude saying 'yes' or 'no' to Jesus' offer.

Oz

Works consulted:
Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.