The Westminster Confession of Faith Blasphemy

[OzSpen]

I am saying the only free will is a will with nothing influencing it to a decision. The One with free will, simply exercises His will. That is only God. Man just has a will.

Because man's will can be influenced and coerced, it isn't free will.

Quantrill

Quantrill,

I consider you're on the wrong horse with your 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.

God has given to all human beings the power of contrary choice. We know this from verses such as Joshua 24:14-15 (NIV),

‘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.’​

Oz

References


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

 

[Quantrill]

Quantrill,

I consider you're on the wrong horse with your 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.

God has given to all human beings the power of contrary choice. We know this from verses such as Joshua 24:14-15 (NIV),

‘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.’​

Oz

References


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

That's fine. You're welcome to your horse also.

If you take away the word 'free' in every instance in your reply where 'free will' was used, and just used will, you will see that it says the same thing. No need for the word 'free'. Because man has a will then he has power to choose. And, he becomes responsible for his decisions.

I can use 'free' in a sentence concerning 'will' where it only means 'will'. For example I can be giving someone options in something. I can say you are free to choose whichever you like. That is just recognizing that the choice is yours to make.

But when you speak of man's will as 'freewill' you address the nature of his will. And it's my opinion that man does not have freewill.

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes, I know what Tulip is and that Calvin taught it

Wrong! John Calvin never believed in the L in TULIP. This has nothing to do with John Calvin, but from the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. John Calvin died in 1564.

 

[Quantrill]

Wrong! John Calvin never believed in the L in TULIP. This has nothing to do with John Calvin, but from the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. John Calvin died in 1564.

I will leave that up to Calvinist's to debate. Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter to me as it is part of the Calvinist's doctrine. And I was asked if I held to Tulip, so I replied.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

Christians should use both Old and New Testaments alot. The New Testament Scripture does not replace the Old Testament Scripture. It adds to it. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. What the Christian believes should be based upon both Old and New Testament Scripture.

I agree that we should use both the Old and New Testament...
The New Covenant does not replace the Old One (Hebrews not withstanding) but makes it better or changes it somewhat.
Every Covenant made the previous one better.

The very fact that God made Covenants with man shows free will.
Did God make Covenants with Himself if all was predetermined?
For the Mosaic Covenants,,,God said:
IF you obey me......
IF you do not obey me.....

He gave man the choice as to whether or not he would obey God.
The Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) depended on man's obedience. It was a bi-lateral Covenant.

I agree, revelation from God is progressive. (Is. 28:9-10)

My view is that the fall of man was part of the plan of God. What you call 'deterministic'. You thus say, to believe that we would just be a 'game played out'. I hear this accusation quite alot. I believe that is an unfair statement. To identify the plan of God as a childs silly game is quite insulting, to God, not to me. For, either way you believe, you have the plan of God. And either way you believe, that plan is being played out. Unless God does not have a plan and He is just reacting and, as I said before, trying to salvage as much as He can from what satan and fallen man has done. Is that your God?

Believing that if God predestined everything that happens would make us a game He plays is exactly as it would be.
You say it's insulting to God....
I believe it's insulting to God to state that HE causes evil - which is the deterministic view of God. It means He causes ALL evil, both natural and moral.

God has some final plan that we really don't know...
However, within that final plan is man's free will.
Because man has free will does not mean that God does not know what will happen or that He reacts to it.
This is open theism....mainline Christianity does NOT agree with open theism.

Concerning what 'Jesus taught', He taught mostly Old Testament. Even when resurrected. (Luke 24:44-46)

I don't believe I ever said God created evil. I have said that God created the personification of evil when He created satan, though He created him perfect. And, that He created man with the ability to sin, though he too was created perfect.

I apologize because I thought you believed in the reformed faith. They believe God created everything, which would include evil of course since that would be part of everything.

I agree with your statement above...that God created man perfectly but by man's free will, he sinned and lost the preternatural gifts God had given him.
However, it is still God's will that man be saved and He did make a plan for this.

You say my view changes the nature of God. I disagree. If all you are looking at is the fall of man, you might say that. But the fall is just the very beginning of God's plan.

Well, of course we can only know what we know. I haven't added anything to Scripture. I have asked questions based upon what Scripture says.

You say the fall is the beginning of God's plan.
What do you believe His plan is?

You say the Tree in the garden might have been for a test. Why? Did God not know? You said there is nothing God does not know. If God knew they would fall, which He did, then why put the Tree and satan in there? Why didn't God destroy satan when satan rebelled in the first place? Then all of this could be avoided. Why? Because God had a plan. And the fall of man was part of that plan. And the Redemption of man was part of that plan.

What you say here is a bit confusing Quantrill.

Here's what you said:
You say the Tree in the garden might have been for a test. Why? Did God not know? You said there is nothing God does not know. If God knew they would fall, which He did, then why put the Tree and satan in there? Why didn't God destroy satan when satan rebelled in the first place? Then all of this could be avoided. Why? Because God had a plan. And the fall of man was part of that plan. And the Redemption of man was part of that plan.

God knew mankind would fall. I've always said this.
Every being in the Garden had free will...Adam, Eve and satan.
God knew Adam would sin, but Adam did not know. And with his wrong decision to listen to satan, Adam caused all humanity to fall with him.
God didn't destroy satan because He meant for man to choose whom he will serve...Deuteronomy 30:19 - Joshua 24:19 - and many more....

Even satan had the free will to abandon God (when he was an angel of light).
If none of the beings in the Garden had free will -- and God did EVERYTHING for them (as the reformed believe) then, yes, it would have been a game to be played.

And, I still don't understand what you believe God's plan to be...

God would have been just in destroying satan the moment He rebelled. Why did God 'allow' satan to live as long as he has? Your use of 'allow' doesn't free you from your accusation to me that God is unjust.

I never said God is unjust...
I make the claim that God is a just God because He gives to everyone what they deserve.
God allowes satan to live (for now) because we live in a free will paradigm.

God didn't curse Adam and Eve. He cursed satan and the ground. (Gen. 3:14) (Gen. 3:17) Again, the plan of God does not end with the fall. It ends with man being born-again as true sons and daughters of God, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, secure to live forever with God and Christ.

I remember now having this discussion with you before.
Adam was also cursed and Eve was also cursed.

Genesis 3:17-19
Adam will now have to toil to eat.
Adam will have to deal with thorns and thistles to get the good fruits of the soil.
Adam will have to sweat to eat.
Adam will return to the ground.

Before Adam was in harmony with nature...now he has to battle with it just to eat.
Things came easy to Adam...HE named the animals because he was superior to them. Now he has to work and beware of animals.
Adam was meant to live forever...now he will die and return to the ground.

Genesis 3:16

Eve will have pain in childbirth - before she didn't.
Eve was in harmony with her husband...now she will want to control him and have affection from him, but he will rule over her.


Both Adam and Eve suffered curses due to the fall.

Why is the fall necessary for God to begot true sons and daughters? The only answer is because God says so. It is a principle established by God. Life out of death. (John 12:24) Adam and Eve in the garden were perfect, but not born of God. Adam was a son of God in the same sense that the angels are sons of God. They are created by God. Out of death and resurrection we are begotten of God. (1 Peter 1:3) Sort of like the story of Pinocchio.

Everything is because "God says so" and because God allows it.
Adam and Eve were born of God....the only persons to be made by God.
The rest of humanity is made from other humans.

Yes, I'd say that 1 Peter 1:3 tells us that we are to be restored to some relationship we had with God before the fall, and soon we will have it all.
(in heaven).

You ask why wouldn't 'free will' fit better? First of all, because man's will would not work. Adam and Eve are the example of that. The impartation of the Spirit of God into man could come only by Resurrection .

You're right.
Man's free will does not work....
There is no one good in God's eyes....only those He sees through His Son are "good".
The fact that our free does not work shows that it's free...
otherwise, it is the will of God that we sin, cause evil, and suffering.
Please think about this before replying...
Something has to be causing our sinning....
Is it the sin nature...or is it God?
If it's the sin nature then we have free will...
If we don't have free will then it has to be God since the reformed states that God predestined EVERYTHING about man.

I didn't say evil was to God's glory. I don't attribute evil to God. God's plan for the fall of man was not evil. It was holy, righteous, and good. As all that God does is. Again, the fall is just the start of God's plan for man.

Again, if you attribute Adam sinning and the fall To God...
then you make God guilty of sinning..

If you don't believe God 'reacts' to anything, then your use of 'allow' makes the Fall part of God's plan also.

Quantrill

Why would God react to anything?
There is nothing He does not know.
Because He KNEW Adam would fail does not mean God CAUSED him to fail.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wrong! John Calvin never believed in the L in TULIP. This has nothing to do with John Calvin, but from the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. John Calvin died in 1564.

No one here said Calvin invented the acronym TULIP.
This is a recent acronymn.

What is the acronym tulip?

The theological approach advanced by Calvin has come to be known as 'Calvinism. ' To explain this complex doctrine, theologians often make use of the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

askinglot.com

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

What's your understanding of the difference between recognizing something as false teaching and something being heretical?

Oz

Great question Oz.

A false teaching is heretical.
The word FALSE implies to me that it is done purposefully.

An incorrect teaching that is part of an overall view of God as represented in the bible would not be heresy.

Heresy is a belief which is not in keeping with what a majority believe to be true and what has been established to be true.

For instance...some believe Jesus is present in the eucharist. Some do not. Either could be supported by scripture.

I believe calvinism (reformed theology) is a heresy because it teaches a God that does not exist and goes against every principle that is accepted
by mainline Christianity and the first, early Christians that were close to the Apostles teachings.

What do you believe?

 

[GodsGrace]

That's fine. You're welcome to your horse also.

If you take away the word 'free' in every instance in your reply where 'free will' was used, and just used will, you will see that it says the same thing. No need for the word 'free'. Because man has a will then he has power to choose. And, he becomes responsible for his decisions.

I can use 'free' in a sentence concerning 'will' where it only means 'will'. For example I can be giving someone options in something. I can say you are free to choose whichever you like. That is just recognizing that the choice is yours to make.

But when you speak of man's will as 'freewill' you address the nature of his will. And it's my opinion that man does not have freewill.

Quantrill

I think the problem here is that you speak of free will in the philosophical sense...
in that sense the discussion of free will does indeed become very complicated.

For the BIBLICAL sense,,,free will just means the choice between the two options of choosing good or evil,,,,God or satanic influences.
It is a MORAL free will.

Man has a will....and he is free to choose to sin or not sin...to do good or to do evil....
That choice DOES HAVE outside influences....

 

[SolaScriptura]

No one here said Calvin invented the acronym TULIP.
This is a recent acronymn.

What is the acronym tulip?

The theological approach advanced by Calvin has come to be known as 'Calvinism. ' To explain this complex doctrine, theologians often make use of the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

askinglot.com

I was referring to the words in #160, which are incorrect

"Yes, I know what Tulip is and that Calvin taught it"

Calvin never believed in "limited atonement", which is the L

 

[GodsGrace]

I was referring to the words in #160, which are incorrect

"Yes, I know what Tulip is and that Calvin taught it"

Calvin never believed in "limited atonement", which is the L

The reformed faith believes in the limited atonement of Christ.
Generally, these are the tenets of "calvinism", which is used in a broad term representing the reformed.

The following is a detailed writing on the beliefs of Calvin on the Atonement.
Indeed, it does seem that JCalvin believed that Jesus' death was sufficient for all mens salvation.

John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[SolaScriptura]

The reformed faith believes in the limited atonement of Christ.
Generally, these are the tenets of "calvinism", which is used in a broad term representing the reformed.

The following is a detailed writing on the beliefs of Calvin on the Atonement.
Indeed, it does seem that JCalvin believed that Jesus' death was sufficient for all mens salvation.

John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

John Calvin's own words from his commentaries:

On John 3:16

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life” (emphasis mine)

Romans 5:18;

“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him”

Here Calvin clearly says that Christ’s suffering for “the whole world” is “offered…to ALL”, but the “ALL” of the “human race” do not receive this gift from the Lord. Nothing could be plainer of the Universal Atonement as taught by Calvin.

Colissians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"

Commenting on Mark 14:24, where Jesus says that His death is a “ransom for many”. Calvin says:

“Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”

the last reference is The Lord's Supper, where, as Luke tells us, Judas was still present, and took the Bread and Wine!

 

[GodsGrace]

I came in when SolaScriptura said in post #(16) that God didn't plan the fall of Adam and that the sin of man was not part of His plan to bring glory to Himself.

Yes, I know what Tulip is and that Calvin taught it. I don't know what all else he taught, as I really haven't studied Calvin at all. I'm sure we agree in some areas and there are areas we don't agree.

The only one in Tulip that I would be 'totally' against would be limited atonement. But there are things in the others that would also need some explanation. As to the 'Reformed Faith' it is a bit too legalistic for me.

Actually, many of the reformed faith do not agree with Limited Atonement.
They would say that the atonement is Sufficient For All,
Efficient For The Elect. (in the bible ELECT means God's chosen people which would be the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews)

No, no comments. I am not trying to defend or prosecute Calvinism.

God doesn't look anyone over. He knows everyone. You seem to have a very limited understanding of God's election. God isn't looking down and saying, oh I like this one and this one. But this one I don't. So He just chooses randomly. Elementary.

I have a very good understanding of the word ELECT.
In the reformed faith, they believe that God DOES look down and choose as He wills,,,based on nothing at all except His own will.
(and this is unjust because He does not give to each as they deserve).

When Adam and Eve fell, another 'seed' line was produced within the human race. The seed of the serpent. (Gen. 3:15) In other words, when God created Adam and Eve and made them to procreate, He knew those who He made them for, to be born by them, would be His sons and daughters. But at the fall, the serpents seed now travels through the human race also. We don't know, but God knows who they are. (John 8:23) (John 10:26) God knows those Who are 'of Him'. And He knows those not 'of Him'. Those who are born into Adams race and 'of Him', are His lost sheep. Those that are not 'of Him' and born into Adams race, are not lost as they were never His to lose. They are perfectly at home in this world of whom satan their father is the prince of.

Quantrill, I do remember that we've spoken of this other seed.
I have to say that your beliefs are too particular for me to address.
I refer to what you state as "seed" as the sin nature.
I do agree, as do all Christians, that we live in the home of satan and he is the prince of the air.

God would be just in sending all to Hell, those that are of Him and those not of Him. But He saves his own. And that is not unjust. Those who are not of Him, don't want Him. They have a different father, satan. They don't want Hell, but Heaven would be Hell for them also. They are not of God.

I agree with your assessment but I still don't know what you mean by "OF HIM"...
but I never will so no need to reply to that.

Well, quit bringing up God's injustice for either giving or not giving what man deserved, if you don't want to hear about the Cross. I asked you questions concerning the justice of it. Concerning what man really deserved, what Christ deserved. Those were telling...weren't they?

I explained why the cross does NOT figure into any conversation about free will, predestination, or anything else.

Then you agree that the fall of Man was part of the plan of God. If it's not a plan, then God's response is just a reaction by God to something outside of His control and will.

I would like to say, and I say this to all when I come across this error. It is a common mistake. You should refer to Christ as the Last Adam only. Not the 2nd Adam. He is never called the 2nd Adam. Only the Last Adam. (1 Cor. 15:45) It's a very important point.

There won't be anymore "Adam's"!
Agreed.

As to 'predestination' I believe that only pertains to the children of God being brought into the sonship of God. God created satan who was the personification of evil. God created man with the ability to sin. It naturally follows that man will sin. God places satan in the garden with Adam and Eve. With the law to break. Is God guilty of sin for creating those? Is that God 'causing me to sin'. That is certainly what we have been arguing. As I keep saying, the Fall of Man was part of the plan of God. And those are all good verses you present. God hates sin.

You still haven't told me what God's plan is...

Because you sin of your own volition, just like everyone does, then you prove that man's 'will' cannot be used to form or create the true sons and daughters of God.

I am saying the only free will is a will with nothing influencing it to a decision. The One with free will, simply exercises His will. That is only God. Man just has a will.

Because man's will can be influenced and coerced, it isn't free will.

Quantrill

OK. I answered about how you understand free will in my post just before this one.
You speak of philosophical free will and we here speak of biblical free will....thus the confusion.
If you want other Christians to understand you, I'm afraid you should change your understanding of free will.
It just means the power to choose between 2 or more alternatives regarding moral issues.

 

[OzSpen]

That's fine. You're welcome to your horse also.

If you take away the word 'free' in every instance in your reply where 'free will' was used, and just used will, you will see that it says the same thing. No need for the word 'free'. Because man has a will then he has power to choose. And, he becomes responsible for his decisions.

I can use 'free' in a sentence concerning 'will' where it only means 'will'. For example I can be giving someone options in something. I can say you are free to choose whichever you like. That is just recognizing that the choice is yours to make.

But when you speak of man's will as 'freewill' you address the nature of his will. And it's my opinion that man does not have freewill.

Quantrill

You are not responding to the definition I gave.

 

[Quantrill]

Actually, many of the reformed faith do not agree with Limited Atonement.
They would say that the atonement is Sufficient For All,
Efficient For The Elect. (in the bible ELECT means God's chosen people which would be the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews)



I have a very good understanding of the word ELECT.
In the reformed faith, they believe that God DOES look down and choose as He wills,,,based on nothing at all except His own will.
(and this is unjust because He does not give to each as they deserve).



Quantrill, I do remember that we've spoken of this other seed.
I have to say that your beliefs are too particular for me to address.
I refer to what you state as "seed" as the sin nature.
I do agree, as do all Christians, that we live in the home of satan and he is the prince of the air.


I agree with your assessment but I still don't know what you mean by "OF HIM"...
but I never will so no need to reply to that.



I explained why the cross does NOT figure into any conversation about free will, predestination, or anything else.



There won't be anymore "Adam's"!
Agreed.



You still haven't told me what God's plan is...


OK. I answered about how you understand free will in my post just before this one.
You speak of philosophical free will and we here speak of biblical free will....thus the confusion.
If you want other Christians to understand you, I'm afraid you should change your understanding of free will.
It just means the power to choose between 2 or more alternatives regarding moral issues.

As to what God's plan is, I have spoken of it a couple of times. I guess you missed it.

I have described my position as best I can. To answer your posts now is just to repeat it again.

Take from it or reject it what you will.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You are not responding to the definition I gave.

Was I supposed to?

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

As to what God's plan is, I have spoken of it a couple of times. I guess you missed it.

I have described my position as best I can. To answer your posts now is just to repeat it again.

Take from it or reject it what you will.

Quantrill

I have to agree.
'Night

 

[Quantrill]

I have to agree.
'Night

Good night.

Quantrill

 

[Fastfredy0]

‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ ...

It is not rational to think a person could make a different choice if all the circumstances going into that decision are the same. One will always do what one desires to do most in the same set of circumstances. In other words, if all the circumstances are the same (all the causes that go into a choice) then the decision (effect) will always be the same. If you disagree, tell us why one would choose to do something differently if all the inputs going into the decision were the same?

and it [free wo;;] is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

1. God’s liberty of action (sovereignty) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”.
2. Does it not seem to represent the blessed God, as a Being of vast understanding, as well as power, and efficiency, but still to leave him without a Will to choose among all the objects within his view? In short, it seems to make the blessed God a sort of Almighty Minister of Fate, under its universal and supreme influence; as it was the professed sentiment of some of the ancients, that Fate was above the gods.
3. Sovereignty assumes God’s ruling purpose for individuals and nations. The alternative—that human volition is equal to or is, in some meaningful sense, greater than the divine will … that when God created human beings with volitional freedom He accordingly divested Himself of absolute sovereignty. Man controls God.
4. If God's will is steadily and surely determined in everything by supreme wisdom, then it is in everything necessarily determined to that which is most wise. And, certainly, it would be a disadvantage and indignity, to be otherwise. For if the Divine Will was not necessarily determined to what in every case is wisest and best, it must be subject to some degree of undesigning contingence; and so in the same degree liable to evil. To suppose the Divine Will liable to be carried hither and thither at random, by the uncertain wind of blind contingence, which is guided by no wisdom, no motive, no intelligent dictate whatsoever, (if any such thing were possible,) would certainly argue a great degree of imperfection and meanness, infinitely unworthy of the Deity.
5. God’s love must he traced back to His sovereignty or, otherwise, He would love by rule; and if He loved by rule, then is He under a law of love, and if He is under a law of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law.
6. If God have a sovereignty over the whole world, then merit is totally excluded. His right is so absolute over all creatures, that he neither is, nor can be, a debtor to any. Are not the faculties, whereby they and we perform any act of obedience, his grant to us? Is not the strength, whereby they and we are enabled to do anything pleasing to him, a gift from him? Can a vassal merit of his lord, or a slave of his master, by using his tools, and employing his strength in his service, though it was a strength he had naturally, not by donation from the man in whose service it is employed? God is Lord of all — all is due to him; how can we oblige him by giving him what is his own, more his to whom it is presented, than ours by whom it is offered? He becomes not a debtor by receiving anything from us, but by promising something to us. 1 Corinthians 4:7b What do you have that you did not receive [from another]? And if in fact you received it [from God or someone else], why do you boast as if you had not received it [but had gained it by yourself]? Luke 17:10 So you too, when you have done everything that was assigned and commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants [undeserving of praise or a reward, for we have not gone beyond our obligation]; we have merely done what we ought to do.’”
7. If God be not sovereign in regards to salvation then believers would have no sufficient warrant to pray to God for salvation.
8. If God be not sovereign then we should degrade God's almighty work of grace, into an equal contention between Him and His doomed rebel slave, Satan, in which the latter succeeds at least as often as God!
9. 1 Chronicles 29:14 "Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee".
10. Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or governed by God and therefore he is dependent on God for all things including FAITH?
11. Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out). [puppets. It is God’s purpose that decides our fate]
12. Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.
13. Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? [puppets … our steps are directed by God and not ourselves. We therefore cannot autonomously believe God]
14. Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it whichever way He wishes. [puppets .. God controls us.. His purpose (not ours) will be accomplished]
15. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Because of this God will send upon them a misleading influence, [an activity of error and deception] so they will believe the lie,
16. Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect.

Various authors

 

[OzSpen]

Great question Oz.

A false teaching is heretical.
The word FALSE implies to me that it is done purposefully.

An incorrect teaching that is part of an overall view of God as represented in the bible would not be heresy.

Heresy is a belief which is not in keeping with what a majority believe to be true and what has been established to be true.

For instance...some believe Jesus is present in the eucharist. Some do not. Either could be supported by scripture.

I believe calvinism (reformed theology) is a heresy because it teaches a God that does not exist and goes against every principle that is accepted
by mainline Christianity and the first, early Christians that were close to the Apostles teachings.

What do you believe?

wondering,

I understand false teaching, based on departure from the Bible, as synonymous with heresies


In NT Greek, the term from which we get the English, ‘heresy’ is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadducees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5; of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘destructive heresies’ ESV, NIV). This latter verse uses ‘haireseis (plural) of destruction’.

The Oxford dictionary gives these meanings of heresy:

(a) ‘Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine’;

(b) ‘Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted’ (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v heresy).

From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, and every wind of doctrine (I Timothy 1:3; 4:1; 6:3; Ephesians 4:14). This is in contrast to sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, and the doctrine of God (I Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

For much of this analysis on Arianism, I’m indebted to systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem (1994:243-245).

I do not regard Calvinism as a heresy but as a different interpretation that needs to be challenged by Scripture.

Oz


Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4th ed). London: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition to Zondervan Publishing House).


Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.



Oz

Works consulted


Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Was I supposed to?

Quantrill

Qantrill,

A good conversationalist is one who replies to the items in the discussion. You did not do that with me, thus committing a red herring logical fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I was referring to the words in #160, which are incorrect

"Yes, I know what Tulip is and that Calvin taught it"

Calvin never believed in "limited atonement", which is the L

Sola,

I suggest you do some study in historical theology. Calvin did not teach TULIP. It emerged from the teaching of the Synod of Dort (1618-19). "Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants" who were not Calvinists.

Oz