The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[jasonc]

Those who are in covenant with the Elect One.


“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 42:1

the word elect means to choose in ,and that is a messianic prophecy,tie it to the word moshaic ,the annoited one

 

[jasonc]

The American Indian did not read the bible.
They knew about God....but did not know Him from the bible.

so did I who was,And read the bible in the kingdom hall .

they teach ,Jesus died for your sins .
only he saves
he did heal ,he will judge
yet are they wrong ?

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe that Romans 1 shows us that after the fall, man still retained knowledge of God, but chose to suppress the truth they knew (vs 18), and to not glorify God as God, thus causing their thinking to become futile and "their foolish hearts" to be darkened.

It is obvious, that man has always had an awareness of the reality of God, and they have always sought to please whatever concept of God that they had. Thus, the knowledge of God is not non-existent, but rather deliberately suppressed and forgotten (2 Pet 3:5) to the place that spiritual knowledge became futile and the true God abandoned and replaced by facsimiles.

I can agree to a point...but not all men suppressed the knowledge of God.
Even 2 Peter 3:5 is speaking of the lost.

There is a part of man, corrupted indeed, but active and possessed of a remnant of "knowledge" that there is a greater and ultimate authority and ruler called "God", and that there is a sense of moral authority that differentiates good from bad, right from wrong. This remnant is an irreducible, though corrupted, aspect of the image of God that incessantly seeks to find its home in things other than God, but recognizes that there is something else needed to fulfill the integrity of their being. It is the " God shaped void" that is seeking after God, but is led astray by the sinful nature to try and fill it by "things" that cannot succeed, that tries to put material square pegs into spiritual round holes.

Again...I can't agree fully.
Are you saying that ALL men (that never heard of Jesus) have sought to fill their lives with useless experiences/things/material goods?
I agree that, as Augustine said, there is a heart shaped hole in man that only God can fill. This refers to fulfillment of life...only God can make
us feel complete or fulfilled. That South American tribal person may not know about the Holy Spirit or how God could help him to live a better life...but he certainly knows that there is a greater being than himself and that he can worship that being.

I believe that God sees the hearts of men that, while imperfect, are truly seeking truth and he sends his message of truth to them by various means to enlighten and enable them to follow. That message is always about Christ, and ultimate salvation is only found in belief in Christ.


Doug

I agree that God knows the heart of men and those that are seeking Him will receive some message from Him.
And if that message is Jesus, then certainly those of God will accept that message.

 

[GodsGrace]

so did I who was,And read the bible in the kingdom hall .

they teach ,Jesus died for your sins .
only he saves
he did heal ,he will judge
yet are they wrong ?

They have been offered Jesus....
but they don't believe Jesus is God.
They have an incorrect vision of God since Jesus was God incarnate.

 

[jasonc]

They have been offered Jesus....
but they don't believe Jesus is God.
They have an incorrect vision of God since Jesus was God incarnate.

ah so ,if no one offered them they are lost ?

to assume that in ole America a teenager will be told the gospel by,your church isn't always true .

I was invited to Christmas things and never was told to repent .

there are stories of Indians living in my,state in isolation and never marrying outside the tribe ,I can post the worry over a 4th seminole war over murders of Indians in,my,county .

1930s ,1920s,the Seminoles would walk to my town to buy goods and not use a car at all ,10 to 20 miles .!

this was long enough that my wife remembers them ,in the mid 60s!

I have no knowledge if any mission to them existed ,there exists a cult that seldom leaves its yard in my county

no internet ,no outside influence for years and semi isolated now .

see these exist ,to assume that your idea wont apply to the jw.must assume that the churches are busy ,they aren't .thus

old churches that died

pioneer Baptist ,
treasure coast assembly aged 50 to 60 years
forest park Baptist ?
im sure there is more if I hear it I will post .I know of a few buildings that were churches but on the tax page i can't make the name .

 

[Fastfredy0]

Tell me what you believe libertarian free is

Not fair (said in fun, teasing way) ... Hospes asked you for a definition and it was like pulling teeth. Eventually, he had to make a guess and ask if you were OK with it. I will let you give a definition as I don't wish to debate myself and you are a proponent of the concept. All I ask is that you don't define it by what it IS NOT. We all know it is not determined by God and not a banana. What is it?

and tell me what you believe compatible free is.

I am familiar with "compatibilism" and how a reformed person defines "free will", but I'm not sure what "compatible free" means.

Compatibilism, in contrast to Libertarian free will, teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature). Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all. Unknown author (I concur)

Johnathon Edwards Definition of Free Will - A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires [greatest perceived pleasing of chooser], or desires anything contrary to his Will. The Determination of the Will, supposes an effect, which must have a cause. (I concur)

It would be helpful to know if you're reformed because you don't SEEM to know the meaning of some words
which the reformed use.

Well, we have a difference of opinion on that. At least one of us is incorrect. I am reformed.

OK.
God has a plan.
What is that plan?

I don't know what his future plan is and eschatology is a guessing game. All of history reveals God's plan to us from a reformed point of view. You brushed your teeth last night ... that was part of His plan. I suppose from an Arminian point of view, God just sits back eating popcorn and watched the future movie and made notes to enable him to be omniscient; His knowledge being dependent upon the creatures that at that time were NOTHING. But this contradicts logic: Ex nihilo nihil fit is the Latin for 'out of nothing, nothing comes'. So, since nothing is not something, it is not possible for even God to see into the future to determine what NOTHING would do.

HOW do you understand that God depends on man to make HIS plan?

The question is built (IMO) on an incorrect premise; specifically, that God is dependent upon man. God depends upon man for nothing IMO. God by definition IMO cannot be needing something from anyone. it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us. Job 35:7-8; Romans 11:34-35

God depends on us in the sense that it is WE who will go out and preach to the unsaved.

Depend: be controlled or determined by
Hmmm.... I think we are agreed that God does not depend on us if I am understanding you though the sentence above seems to contradict that thought. But God being independent of man conflicts with the Arminian point of view that states that God's knowledge of the future is dependent of the "libertarian free will" of man (God looks into the future). Since God didn't determine what we do according to libertarian free will, He is dependent upon man's actions to determine what God will or won't do next. Example: Man believes in God, God responses by adopting man. (I need your definition of "libertarian free will" which I hope is in sync with the Arminian view ... so I may not be representing your view and I apologize for my possible short comings in that area.)

Omniscience means that God is all-knowing. He knows all and everything. He doesn't need to look into the future to know what will happen.

Conditional election states that God only “chooses” those whom He knows will choose to believe. This belief says that God looks down the long hallway of time into the future to see who is going to choose Him. https://biblereasons.com/what-is-arminianism-theology/
Or there is the open theists, branch of the arminians IMO and thus found in wikipedia under arminianism
The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events). As such, open theists resolve the issue of human free will and God's sovereignty by claiming that God is sovereign because he does not ordain each human choice, but rather works in cooperation with his creation to bring about his will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
So, in eternity past, how did God know what we would do for at the time we were NOTHING and for NOTHING, NOTHING comes because NOTHING is not something??

Thanks for your correspondence ... I can tell you've pondered on these matters

 

[JLB]

the word elect means to choose in ,and that is a messianic prophecy,tie it to the word moshaic ,the annoited one

Jesus Christ is the Elect One.

Those who are “in Christ” are the elect.

These were written in the Lamb’s book of Life from the foundation of the world.


It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:7-8



JLB

 

[jasonc]

Jesus Christ is the Elect One.

Those who are “in Christ” are the elect.

These were written in the Lamb’s book of Life from the foundation of the world.


It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:7-8



JLB

you do know its taught , well ,

its taught that somehow without the Holy spirit on the earth that these keep themselves from temptation.

pre trib ,post trib,mid trib all day that .

yet those days are shortened for the elects sake,funny you,mentioned God not choosing ,and yet rreinvent the word chose from the exact same context of God choosing who will be saved and by the very means !

now i ask,if God knows you name ,your prayers ,long before you believed and exists before ,now and in the future ,how can he not plan the places prepared


Jesus didn't pray ,God of these that you gave me I lost one ,he said of those you gave I lost none

he also didn't say i go to prepare a place for you ,knowing you might not make it .

notice he uses the word implying I have not lost anyone who believed and the 12 then were not faithful .

 

[jerry63935]

The American Indian did not read the bible.
They knew about God....but did not know Him from the bible.

how do you know that? i mean seriously i have no clue one way or the other

 

[jerry63935]

This seems to insinuate that you believe God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation.

there is a way that seemeth right

Proverbs 14:12

King James Version

​

12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

once again I AM NOT CALVINIST i am free will this si the last time i say this... i think this makes the third time.. i would like to think as a admin you could see. ya all delete my post block me from posting at random times . when i say i am not calvinist and you keep coming back with a imply that i am.. this does not set well with me

 

[jerry63935]

So I’m asking you Jerry, the individual that made this statement.

i am telling you go join caarm forum they have a section on calvinism , you can argue with them

 

[JLB]

Jesus didn't pray ,God of these that you gave me I lost one ,he said of those you gave I lost none

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:12


This refers to these whom the Father gave Jesus as disciples.


JLB

 

[JLB]

there is a way that seemeth right

Proverbs 14:12​

​

King James Version​

​

​

12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

once again I AM NOT CALVINIST i am free will this si the last time i say this... i think this makes the third time.. i would like to think as a admin you could see. ya all delete my post block me from posting at random times . when i say i am not calvinist and you keep coming back with a imply that i am.. this does not set well with me

i am telling you go join caarm forum they have a section on calvinism , you can argue with them

I don’t care if you are a Calvinist or not. I asked you a question based on your statement to me. I don’t plan to go to another website to try and get a straight answer from you.


Jerry, you engaged me in conversation with me, by responding to my post with your statement. So I asked you a question, and as usual you just want to argue and not discuss anything. Very typical of you.


If you refuse to answer another persons question and clarify what you mean, then please don’t engage the person.


Certainly don’t engage me if you intend the same old tired argumentative behavior that has caused problems.


Have a nice day, sir.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Not fair (said in fun, teasing way) ... Hospes asked you for a definition and it was like pulling teeth. Eventually, he had to make a guess and ask if you were OK with it. I will let you give a definition as I don't wish to debate myself and you are a proponent of the concept. All I ask is that you don't define it by what it IS NOT. We all know it is not determined by God and not a banana. What is it?

Good morning Fastfredy
Hospes asked me my definition of free will. I didn't make up the definition.
I told it to him, but then he brought in words which are not biblical but are, instead, taught from books like the WCF. The words were:
Necessity and Autonomous. So now we have to stop to make sure we understand each other.

This is why it's better to use biblical terms...we all know those even though some might give a different meaning to some of them.

Libertarian free will is the free will spoken of in the bible.
It simply means what anyone would understand by the words free will -- without having extra explanations or definitions attached to it.
Biblically it means to have the ability to make a choice with no coercion or outside force.
One is able to make a decision between two moral choices,,,but he could have made the other choice just as freely.

I am familiar with "compatibilism" and how a reformed person defines "free will", but I'm not sure what "compatible free" means.

Compatibilism, in contrast to Libertarian free will, teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature). Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all. Unknown author (I concur)

Johnathon Edwards Definition of Free Will - A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires [greatest perceived pleasing of chooser], or desires anything contrary to his Will. The Determination of the Will, supposes an effect, which must have a cause. (I concur)

Compatible free --- I left out the word will.

So here is what compatible free will means, simply put:

God makes us want what He wants. We THINK we might have chosen, but in reality we have not.
We think this because it's what we desire at the time....but really it is God that has DETERMINED what our choice will be.
In calvinism man DOES NOT freely make a choice. I don't know who your unknown author is for the above, and I don't know what your church teaches you,
but if one is going to call themselves reformed...they should understand that they have no free will because they believe that God determines everything.

The above sounds different in the WCF,,,however, we must, at some point, concede that if God determines EVERYTHING that is to happen,,,
then whatever choice we make will never be our own but will be God's choice for us.

Thus, your definition of compatibilism above is not logical.

Well, we have a difference of opinion on that. At least one of us is incorrect. I am reformed.

This is certain.

I don't know what his future plan is and eschatology is a guessing game. All of history reveals God's plan to us from a reformed point of view. You brushed your teeth last night ... that was part of His plan. I suppose from an Arminian point of view, God just sits back eating popcorn and watched the future movie and made notes to enable him to be omniscient; His knowledge being dependent upon the creatures that at that time were NOTHING. But this contradicts logic: Ex nihilo nihil fit is the Latin for 'out of nothing, nothing comes'. So, since nothing is not something, it is not possible for even God to see into the future to determine what NOTHING would do.

You may not know the future...but God does.
The bible teaches that we can be saved and gives us that hope.
What is the hope if it's God that chooses, unconditionally, who will be saved and who will not?
In the reformed theology the meaning of words changes.
ALL becomes those that are chosen by God.
THE WORLD becomes those that are chosen by God.
ALL MEN becomes those that are saved only.
etc.

Meanings must be changed or reformed theology makes no logical sense.
The meaning of one of the most awe-inspiring verses in the N.T. is made meaningless:
John 3:15-18
15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Where is the good news if the above refers ONLY to the already saved??

The question is built (IMO) on an incorrect premise; specifically, that God is dependent upon man. God depends upon man for nothing IMO. God by definition IMO cannot be needing something from anyone. it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us. Job 35:7-8; Romans 11:34-35


Depend: be controlled or determined by
Hmmm.... I think we are agreed that God does not depend on us if I am understanding you though the sentence above seems to contradict that thought. But God being independent of man conflicts with the Arminian point of view that states that God's knowledge of the future is dependent of the "libertarian free will" of man (God looks into the future). Since God didn't determine what we do according to libertarian free will, He is dependent upon man's actions to determine what God will or won't do next. Example: Man believes in God, God responses by adopting man. (I need your definition of "libertarian free will" which I hope is in sync with the Arminian view ... so I may not be representing your view and I apologize for my possible short comings in that area.)

I explained for what God depends on man.
He depends on man to spread the gospel, as Jesus stated - to every nation. Not necessary in the reformed view since God will do the choosing.
He depends on us to feed the hungry and take care of the sick. Matthew 25
God DOES NOT depend on man to hold up the universe --- only God can do God's work.
God knows what each man will choose -- He does not depend on any choice to act.

Think of this: If God KNOWS what I will choose...it's exactly the same as God determining what I will choose, as far as His "actions" go.
(I'm not sure what actions you're speaking of).

Conditional election states that God only “chooses” those whom He knows will choose to believe. This belief says that God looks down the long hallway of time into the future to see who is going to choose Him. https://biblereasons.com/what-is-arminianism-theology/
Or there is the open theists, branch of the arminians IMO and thus found in wikipedia under arminianism
The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events). As such, open theists resolve the issue of human free will and God's sovereignty by claiming that God is sovereign because he does not ordain each human choice, but rather works in cooperation with his creation to bring about his will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
So, in eternity past, how did God know what we would do for at the time we were NOTHING and for NOTHING, NOTHING comes because NOTHING is not something??

Thanks for your correspondence ... I can tell you've pondered on these matters

I never said I'm an open Theist.
If God is God, I don't see how open Theism would even work as a theory.

 

[GodsGrace]

how do you know that? i mean seriously i have no clue one way or the other

You think the American Indian had bibles?
How did they get them?

I hope you understand that I'm referring to the A.I. BEFORE our land was discovered and the "white man" brought
the news...including the good news.

I hope you remember learning about the first Thanksgiving...giving thanks to God for survival of the first pilgrims.

 

[jasonc]

You think the American Indian had bibles?
How did they get them?

I hope you understand that I'm referring to the A.I. BEFORE our land was discovered and the "white man" brought
the news...including the good news.

I hope you remember learning about the first Thanksgiving...giving thanks to God for survival of the first pilgrims.

actually,the Spanish in Pensacola and then st .augustine before the pilgrims even landed by some 5 decades

 

[Fastfredy0]

Biblically it means to have the ability to make a choice with no coercion or outside force.
One is able to make a decision between two moral choices,,,but he could have made the other choice just as freely.

Good morning to you also. Thanks for the definition.

Definition of coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats
Question 1: So, God threatening eternity in hell doesn't count as coercion? (or eternity in heaven)

Question 2: "One is able to make a decision between two moral choices, but he could have made the other choice just as freely."
How does one determine what is moral given one with libertarian free will has no "outside force" to determine the definition for him? Seems like an outside force (God) is determining morality to them to some degree. ( Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. )

Question 3: So, there seems to be biblical evidence of "coercion" and "outside forces". How is "coercion" and "outside forces" eliminated so one can exercise Libertarian Free Will?

Question 4: Re: "he could have made the other choice just as freely." To me this implies 'indifference' but anyways, if one can decide just as likely choose "A" or "B" (like a coin flip), why do so few chose the way to salvation? There is empirical evidence that something is "tipping the scale" so to speak.

....sorry for 'dirty' questions. Interesting to think upon IMO

o here is what compatible free will means, simply put:

God makes us want what He wants.

A little simplistic, but I agree. Simple is good.

We THINK we might have chosen, but in reality we have not.

By the definition of Libertarian Free Will, I agree we have not chosen because outside forces (God) forced us to do as He desires.
By the definition of Free Will that Reform people use, we have "chosen what we desire most at the time".
I want to be convinced to do what is right and you want to decide without outside influence (indifference).

So, when you hypothetically pray to God to help you be good you believe your Libertarian Free Will will ignore His help for then your conduct would not be free. (maybe putting words in your mouth, just the way I see it)
When I hypothetically pray to God to help to be good I hope His Spirit does change me so I comply.

but if one is going to call themselves reformed...they should understand that they have no free will because they believe that God determines everything.

Again, you have a different definition of Free Will than those that are reformed. I gave you the definition of Johnathan Edwards who was reformed.
R.C. Sproul was reformed ... He said free will is: we always choose according to our inclinations, and we always choose according to our strongest inclination at a given moment. Yes, I agree that God convinced (if you want to use the word "forced" I can live with that I suppose) us to do what He wanted. We do it willingly due to outside forces.

The above sounds different in the WCF,,,however, we must, at some point, concede that if God determines EVERYTHING that is to happen,,,
then whatever choice we make will never be our own but will be God's choice for us.

Agreed with one exception. The choice we make will be out of our will when we define "free will" as "we always choice what we desire most at the time".
If I apply your definition of Libertarian Free Will then I agree with the statement entirely.

The crux of our difference is what definition of Free Will to use. Again, reformed doctrine obviously does not apply the Libertarian Free Will definition to their doctrine; yet, you insist on applying your definition when describing reformed doctrine. We (reformed) get to define the words we use to explain our doctrine. When you describe arminian doctrine I am sure you don't use reforms definition of "free will" and you should expect Reformed doctrine to use yours.

Where is the good news if the above refers ONLY to the already saved??

The good news is that many of us (you and I) don't get what we deserve.
The idea that God looks into the future (your concept IMO) and sees 5 of 100 people saved ... or ... God chooses 5 out of 100 people to be saved ... the news is the same, 5 of 100 people were saved.

I never said I'm an open Theist.
If God is God, I don't see how open Theism would even work as a theory.

Agreed. I was just trying to cover all of the Arminian doctrines as best I could.

Thanks for the discussion.
Just about given up one changing you into a REFORMED CONVERT .... (*winks*, just fun teasing in loving way)

 

[jerry63935]

ou think the American Indian had bibles?
How did they get them?

i dont know if they did or did not.. but avery good chance at some point and time they MAY (note may ) have . maybe some body witnessed to them .like the apostle paul did

 

[GodsGrace]

Good morning to you also. Thanks for the definition.

Definition of coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats
Question 1: So, God threatening eternity in hell doesn't count as coercion? (or eternity in heaven)

Well, I'm happy to hear that you understand the very simple libertarian definition of free will.
When we bring "book theology" into our discussion and wander from the bible, we just complicate things.
I believe John Calvin's Institutes is about 1,000 pages long.
I believe the bible is about the same length!

As to your question 1:
No. Hell does not count as coercion.
We're all Christian here and I'm sure we all sin every now and then.
This is the whole point Fastfredy....we're free to choose heaven or hell.
Even those that chose heaven are assured their salvation if they sin...so - no coercion.

Question 2: "One is able to make a decision between two moral choices, but he could have made the other choice just as freely."
How does one determine what is moral given one with libertarian free will has no "outside force" to determine the definition for him? Seems like an outside force (God) is determining morality to them to some degree. ( Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. )

We know moral choices because we know God.
Even atheists know that murder is wrong...this is know as the natural law which is known instinctively by all civilized mankind.
Libertarian free will does have outside forces INFLUENCING a decision. I've said several times that our experiences/moral values/Christianity, and more, will influence a choice. But we are not coerced by any outside agent --- God.
Compatibilist free will is a decision made by God - whether or not a person such as yourself understands this...it must be TRUE.
If God determines everything (which a true Calvinist believese) then God also determines a choice you make.

Question 3: So, there seems to be biblical evidence of "coercion" and "outside forces". How is "coercion" and "outside forces" eliminated so one can exercise Libertarian Free Will?

Please state the verses that make you believe we are coerced into a decision.
I don't see any in the bible. I could have missed it.

Coercion does not have to be eliminated.
It's what every Christian denomination believes --- that coercion does NOT exist in Christianity and that man has free will (libertarian).
It's only the reformed that have wandered from the Christianity that existed after Jesus died and through the ages.
Yes, I do mean wandered.

Question 4: Re: "he could have made the other choice just as freely." To me this implies 'indifference' but anyways, if one can decide just as likely choose "A" or "B" (like a coin flip), why do so few chose the way to salvation? There is empirical evidence that something is "tipping the scale" so to speak.

Where is the emperical evidence that something is tipping the scales?
Everything is just as Jesus said it would be.
He said that the road is narrow leading to the gate of life and that few would find it.
He said that the gate is broad leading to the way of destruction and many are those that enter it.
Matthew 7:13-14

Ephesians 1:13 Could give us a clue as to what can save a person.
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,


Acts 3:16: 30-31 will give us another clue:
30and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,


Romans 10:11-12
11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

A little simplistic, but I agree. Simple is good.

By the definition of Libertarian Free Will, I agree we have not chosen because outside forces (God) forced us to do as He desires.
By the definition of Free Will that Reform people use, we have "chosen what we desire most at the time".
I want to be convinced to do what is right and you want to decide without outside influence (indifference).

See Fastfredy,,,
this is a problem.
I speak to different reformed persons and I get different answers.
Now, we have Sproul, for instance, that softens the message of calvinism.
But the above description that you offer of compatible free will is not what it is....

We ALL choose what we desire most at a time.
If I desire at any time to commit any particular sin,,,then that's what I or you will do.
You DO NOT want to be convinced to do what is right.....
You will do what God determines that you will do.
You, as a calvinist, must believe in determinism or you should not call yourself a calvinist.
If you believe in determinism and God makes all the choices for you...then how can you say
that you choose what you desire most at the time?
Please reconcile these two ideas for me.

And libertarian free will is NOT indifferent.
We who sin are sorry for it but know we are not perfect.
I'm certain the same is for you.

BTW,,,I hope you also understand that in your theology God creates every evil situation that happens
every single day. If you don't think so, explain the logic.

Also, please explain how God could be a deterministic God and yet SOME calvinists theologians will state that,
nonetheless, we are responsible for our sinning!

So, when you hypothetically pray to God to help you be good you believe your Libertarian Free Will will ignore His help for then your conduct would not be free. (maybe putting words in your mouth, just the way I see it)
When I hypothetically pray to God to help to be good I hope His Spirit does change me so I comply.

Don't worry: in your theology God is not only changing you...
He's determining every move you make. Including sinning.

And yes, in libertarian free will, what every other christian believes, God helps us but He does not force us to take any action against our will.
This is what free will is ---


page 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0


page 2 of 2

Again, you have a different definition of Free Will than those that are reformed. I gave you the definition of Johnathan Edwards who was reformed.
R.C. Sproul was reformed ... He said free will is: we always choose according to our inclinations, and we always choose according to our strongest inclination at a given moment. Yes, I agree that God convinced (if you want to use the word "forced" I can live with that I suppose) us to do what He wanted. We do it willingly due to outside forces.

If you do anything because of an outside force...it is not free will.
And yes, RC Sproul made a lot sound good that really isn't.
Study John Calvin's Institutes or the Westminster Confession of Faith and find out for yourself.

Agreed with one exception. The choice we make will be out of our will when we define "free will" as "we always choice what we desire most at the time".
If I apply your definition of Libertarian Free Will then I agree with the statement entirely.

Replied to the above.

The crux of our difference is what definition of Free Will to use. Again, reformed doctrine obviously does not apply the Libertarian Free Will definition to their doctrine; yet, you insist on applying your definition when describing reformed doctrine. We (reformed) get to define the words we use to explain our doctrine. When you describe arminian doctrine I am sure you don't use reforms definition of "free will" and you should expect Reformed doctrine to use yours.

I don't know if I'm Arminium. I never studied him...I like to study the bible, the written word of God.
And I insist on using my definition of compatible free will because that's what the calvinist definition is.
It's kind of like speaking to different Catholics and they all tell you a different concept of a doctrine of theirs.
If I want to know what they teach, I have to go to their written words which are in the CCC,,,
Same for calvinism. Different calvinists believe different meanings of words...what is one like myself to do?
I have to rely on what Calvin or Knox or those persons taught since this is where calvinism comes from.

The good news is that many of us (you and I) don't get what we deserve.
The idea that God looks into the future (your concept IMO) and sees 5 of 100 people saved ... or ... God chooses 5 out of 100 people to be saved ... the news is the same, 5 of 100 people were saved.

Not the same Fastfredy.
What about the other 95?
How is it grace if only 5 are saved and God "passes over" (another new term) the other 95?
It is only grace if God extends His grace to all who may want it.
Otherwise it's a dictatorship.

And I don't believe God "looks into the future".
God is all -knowing. He sees everything all at once.
He's outside of time.

Agreed. I was just trying to cover all of the Arminian doctrines as best I could.

Thanks for the discussion.
Just about given up one changing you into a REFORMED CONVERT .... (*winks*, just fun teasing in loving way)

Oh my.
And I thought I would change YOU out of calvinism!!


Yes. Nice conversation.
It's good that we understand each other, even though we don't agree.