God's freewill vs. Mankind's election

[tribesman]

The catholics use the "history" excuse too/ As did the jews. I think it is dangerous to try to base our beliefs on what happened almost 2000 years ago, as much of what we would have had would have been destroyed by the roman church.

Lost you here. What do you mean with "it is dangerous to try to base our beliefs on what happened almost 2000 years ago"? And you really think the "romans...destroyed" all of what the apostle's taught in a day or two?

As I have said many times. God will hold me responsible for what I believe, He is not going to give me a get out of jail free card if I follow men 2000 years ago and they got it wrong.. And again, using this argument, the jews were right, and Christ was wrong, because Christ did not follow the history of the jews (non biblical) where the jews did..

You're absolutely right about that God will hold you and me and everybody else who profess Christ responsible for what we believe and teach. I just do not find ideas such as "noone got it right since the death of the first apostles until now, save for me" making much of sense.

Well considering I just said I found some flaws in the doctrines I was brought up with. so studied to see what Scripture said and changed my beliefs, so this should have answered your question

OK. Fair enough.

lol.. Again, do we do as the catholics do, Do we do as the jews did? thinking like this God Christ crucified, and the very people he have the word to did it because they followed traditions and not the word of God..

Forgive me if I refuse to buy into this false premise and risk falling as the jews did

Well...I get your point here. What I don't get is why you take the huge risk to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Traditions is not something evil in and by itself, Paul spoke about traditions in the positive in 2Thess. And the true faith is firstly a common faith, not a private matter, something which God's people have shared during the course of history.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We have fathers in the faith who fought the same fight as us, from whom we can learn a lot. Let not the fact that people get saved in spite of, and not thanks to, poor theology and poor knowledge of sound doctrine, which only shows the great mercy of God, be an excuse for us to neglect the diligence in our studies.

So I'll have to say forgive me if I don't buy into the premise of "me and the bible alone".

 

[BarlyGurl]

Faith is a trust and assurance in the promises of God based on his son.,
That is "THE FAITH" (encompassing definition)spoken of in the context of Christianity (definition #5)
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Which seems to harmonize perfectly with what I have been saying, (definition#1,2)[h=2]faith[/h] [feyth] Show IPA
noun1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Lost you here. What do you mean with "it is dangerous to try to base our beliefs on what happened almost 2000 years ago"? And you really think the "romans...destroyed" all of what the apostle's taught in a day or two?

lol.. you asume no one believed in freewill. You have not proven it. Nor have you proven the early church did not believe it. Even catholics believe in free will.

You're absolutely right about that God will hold you and me and everybody else who profess Christ responsible for what we believe and teach. I just do not find ideas such as "noone got it right since the death of the first apostles until now, save for me" making much of sense.

Well then I don;t get it. No one believed in limited atonment until the reformation.. So I guess that would count your faith out??

Well...I get your point here. What I don't get is why you take the huge risk to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Traditions is not something evil in and by itself, Paul spoke about traditions in the positive in 2Thess. And the true faith is firstly a common faith, not a private matter, something which God's people have shared during the course of history.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We have fathers in the faith who fought the same fight as us, from whom we can learn a lot. Let not the fact that people get saved in spite of, and not thanks to, poor theology and poor knowledge of sound doctrine, which only shows the great mercy of God, be an excuse for us to neglect the diligence in our studies.

So I'll have to say forgive me if I don't buy into the premise of "me and the bible alone".

Nor do I. I am not the only one who believes the way I do.. If I interpreted scripture and found my interpretation to be one no one ever believed, i would say your right. But I do not have that problem.

 

[cfultz3]

I do like the way that is worded... but I am still unclear if you are saying... the intellect/reasoning power... is the faith we are all given?

Faith deffintion one and two... can be anything... eg light switch. I am saying no spritual context is neccessary for people to exercise faith... so some hardened atheist is stilll operating faith when he goes into the loo and flips the light switch and expects the light to come on. If I get a letter my friend is coming to town on X day and will be a y place at z oclock please meet them... I am exercising faith (a belief) when I go there at xyz to meet them.

I was trying to mix several concepts together, which I know should not be done. Anyways, when I used the word conscience, I was trying to convey the concept of God using the heart (mind, conscience) as the means of leading us, as oppose to the flesh. The Law is upon our heart (conscience). The Lord love a contrite heart (conscience, mind). Conscience, heart = the seat of our affections, emotions. I hope that is clear.

 

[Abiding]

Well then if we should really listen to the church fathers then i should post
maybe 15-20 church fathers from the apostles onward that taught what foreknowledge
was and fought for over three to four hundred years that man had a free will.

The fight was mostly against the gnostics....of which Augustine came. And brought
in what had been considered heresy up till that time. Adopted by calvin later and others.
Who admit to have got it from Augustine.

Should i? best not just read our bibles alone at home right?

 

[cfultz3]

I am saying no spritual context is neccessary for people to exercise faith... so some hardened atheist is stilll operating faith when he goes into the loo and flips the light switch and expects the light to come on. If I get a letter my friend is coming to town on X day and will be a y place at z oclock please meet them... I am exercising faith (a belief) when I go there at xyz to meet them.

I agree. Faith is trusting in the unknown.

 

[tribesman]

Or against your misunderstanding of the same. What makes you more right than me?

*sighs* First off, let's not get into the "I am right, you are wrong" thingy. OK? I was just quoting scripture which refutes some of your ideas of what we are discussing here. That's all.

Scripture would disagree, we are justified BY (through the means of) Faith.. which means before we had faith, we were still dead in sin. There is no way you can get out of this one.

I agree that we were dead in sin before faith. Where we don't agree is how faith is a means. I am standing on what Eph.2 says here, that God made this work (outside of us, of course) while were yet dead. We were then quickened. As a fruit faith sprang forth. What you is saying is that we, while being dead, yet produced the fruit of having faith, which caused God to regenerate us. It was all inside of us, causing the re-creational miracle of resurrection and rebirth to happen. I am sure it is hard for you to see this until now, possibly because of some tradition of men you hold unto. Knowingly or not.

What ability? who do you think gave us, and every man who ever lived the ability to have faith? is it of our own ability, or did God give us the ability? You would understand this clearly if you did not try to twist things around and try to make faith something it is not..

Where is the scripture that says that God gave "every man who ever lived the ability to have faith"?

1. Regeneration is being quickened or being made alive, So sorry, it does mean resurrected from dead (spiritual) to life (spiritual). If we are not spiritually ressurected from death to life. then we are still dead in our sin.
2. It is all the work of Christ. The word (logos) speaks of him, proves who he would be, proves what he would do. Proves when he would do it. Is a witness to what he did, and is a witness to what happened after he left..The HS convicts us of sin righteousness and judgement. Thus giving us the means (through the word and conviction of the HS) to say yes or say no to the grace gift God wants to give us.
3. Faith is an instrument, your right. But without it, there is no salvation, and until it happens we are still dead in sin.

1. Don't get your point here. The new birth is a resurrection from the dead. When you become quickened you are translated from death to life. It is living persons who can have faith. Dead men cannot have faith. Ephesians 2 makes it clear that the transformation took place while we were yet dead in our sins.
2. Agreed until you speak of "yes" or "no". Dead men cannot believe. A sheep didn't "decide" to become a sheep. It is a matter of God's power over creation. We have as little a say in our new birth as in our natural birth. Scaring to many, threatening for some. But that's how it is.
3. Instrument, yes. Condition, no. Else you will have it that faith as such is redemptive in itself. But it is the work of Christ alone, wholly outside of us, who redeem us.

Amazing Grace is the fact that we have been given the opportunity to be saved in the first place. Non of us deserve it.. And non of us can ever deserve it, no matter how hard we work. we will still be rightly condemned if left to our own. That is grace!

It's not in the realm of the possible opportunities. Jesus said it is "impossible" for men to get saved, unless God intervenes. The work of Christ ensures the salvation for all those who receive it. And that is all God's doing, not man's doing.

 

[tribesman]

Fulfilled in me? where do you get this stuff?

Paul said we are saved through grace. by Faith not works. Faith is apposed to works. Your trying to twist it to mean something else.

No, he said by grace through faith. There's a difference there.

1. If I did not believe all the conditions were met. I could not possibly have faith in Christ alone. I would instead chose to add to the gospel. or outright deny the gospel and chose to make my own gospel
2. The very fact that I do believe Christ finished the work of salvation is the basis of my hope and faith in Christ.

1. You say it all hangs on your ability to "choose" to believe or not believe.
2. That is good and no point of dispute between us. Where we differ is on the concept of what is called ordo salutis.

Again, tell me. How can I boast when my COMPLETE TRUST and ASSURANCE lies all in Christ and not in myself?

If you believe that your salvation is conditioned on your faith, you're always at risk of having the occasion to boast, since you outsmarted other sinners who didn't believe as well as you did.

I agree. we are quickened to life, and THEN comes the fruit.

The problem is you skipped what made us alive in Christ in the first place.

LOL! Here's where we are at odds. I'd say its reverse, you skipped what made us alive in Christ in the first place: God's power to raise you from the dead!

Why are we dead? sin
How can we be made alive while still dead in sin? we can't
What makes us alive? Justification.
What makes us justified? FAITH IN CHRIST.

You are made alive, quickened, resurrected from the dead, by God. Then follows the fruit of that work.

First comes the gospel. Then comes repentance. then comes faith, then comes justification which brings about regeneration. Finally comes the fruit of our faith.

The gospel is all about what God HAS DONE. Not about what we do or what we are to do, not even about our experience.

Thats funny, James disagrees with you. We can believe and still not be saved, Because we do not have faith. many people believe. Even arminians and other people who do not place full trust in Christ believe. According to what you just said, they could not believe. it would be impossible.

In many posts I've stated that man can indeed have false faith and belief in the lie, of course no signs of salvation in these. For those on the other hand who are saved, faith in Christ alone as the only source for their salvation follows.

 

[tribesman]

lol, there is a HUGE difference between following men (doctrines written over 10000 years ago) And saying this is what I believe in a discussion forum. and trying to discuss it..

What the issue boils down to is that we all, sooner or later, have to get into the (hard) work of interpreting scripture. You do it too, and you're also a man. So, this circular reasoning you're into about this is superfluous.

Can I ask you how else one would interpret it? Also. do not forget eph 4. Where paul tells us men (which men) blind themselves in ignorance (not they type we think of, but the knowing and yet hiding it in their heart) You know. The very thing Paul is telling them, and us, not to go back to??

Are you saying that "the whole world" are sodomites (as Rom.1:26-28 says)?

As for Eph.4, its says in v. 18 the gentiles are "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart". Doesn't sound too much like these same people have the law of God written on their hearts.

 

[Abiding]

faith is not a fruit of regeneration faith comes from God through the word. Although the Spirit causes the fruit of faith
As we grow in grace and knowledge.

‘How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? … So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.’ Romans 10:14-17.

But until a person believes its a dead faith.

 

[tribesman]

lol.. you asume no one believed in freewill. You have not proven it. Nor have you proven the early church did not believe it. Even catholics believe in free will.

Ah, so this is the sound now? All of a sudden "early church" and their traditions are of some importance. I have never denied that the ante-nicene fathers spoke of free will. But to say that they spoke of (and meant with) that in the same wise as semi-pelagians or arminians is another kettle of fish altogether. And, yes, the catholics had their take on these things in the council of Trent, in opposition not only to the reformation but also to their own older creeds.

Btw, if you want to have an honest and consequent approach to the early fathers, you should also look at what quite a few of them taught about the trinity and the atonement. I am quite sure you'd find no support for your views in that. "The earlier the more reliable" is not always correct.

Well then I don;t get it. No one believed in limited atonment until the reformation.. So I guess that would count your faith out??

We are not discussing limited atonement here. It's not necessarily a goes hand in hand thing. Just because you reject the concept of free will in spiritual matters it doesn't mean you have to believe in limited atonement.

Nor do I. I am not the only one who believes the way I do.. If I interpreted scripture and found my interpretation to be one no one ever believed, i would say your right. But I do not have that problem.

So, who else believes like you for instance about the restoration of Israel?

 

[tribesman]

I agree, the condition isnt changed by the stated mechanics of the condition. Im just using your words to explain. Why would any creed state an obvious thing like an act of the will? The elders of the early church over and over talked of mans free will vrs forms of gnosticism.

Yes, free will was spoken of, but not in the sense that the arminians, far later, would speak of it. Such things as "prevenient grace" for example is their invention. I don't know how much of the early fathers you have read. But reading the ante-nicene fathers is quite some task. There are some arminian blogs out there who quote some early fathers, out of context usually, and say: look, its the same as we believe. It is a very dishonest approach to church history (which usually arminians are less interested about otherwise). John Gill on the other hand made a similar expose which really seemed to be in favor of the fathers sharing his views. The truth about it is something else.

If the ante-nicene fathers are of great importance to you, do you agree on all they taught? I guess you'd have some issues with some of their views on the atonement and sometimes even the trinity. The articulation of beliefs and doctrines was something that evolved during time. The fathers were not always 100% in agreement with each other, one can browse through their writings and find support for a little of just about everything together with some absurdities. The important will be to look at what the church taught as a whole and no other document than the creeds serve as reliable basis for that.

But as far as harmony, im not seeing that it would change hebrews 11:6 unless we put our doctrine
ahead of the text as some do. For instance what is the difference between hebrews 11:6 and the
parables of the kingdom? like the lost coin etc. seek, knock, ask...etc one could glean much to see
harmony between Jesus words and heb 11:6. So faith is not passive and IS something to fulfill.
Thats how i see it.

That's how you see it. That's not really how scripture sees it. I gave many scriptures where Jesus is clear on the condition of fallen man. You wish to look for scriptures that seems to support things as you see them and counter these scriptures or you want to try find a way where you can harmonize them. Your choice (!).

When the man with the withered hand obeyed then both worked out.(both meaning the mans act and Gods power)
He didnt receive wholeness then stretch forth his hand as would be your model. He obeyed by faith
just like heb 11:6.

I think you've mentioned this before. Same principle there, he believed because he was one of the sheep. He didn't choose to become one.

 

[tribesman]

There was no need in the earlier creeds to state free will. Noone doubted that.

The creeds were to be drawn on the absolute essentials, the issue of free will or not is not mentioned in these. The issue of free will was also not yet articulated properly.

Depends what definition you have of an arminian.

I have no other definition of that than the objective and commonly known.

Im not so much in line with any party as of now
maybe more lutheran whatever. Im not too much in love with calvinism as you can see, at least 5 pt'ers
then again what other kind are there? Its all much removed from Calvin in many ways according to what
ive read in the institutes.

Lutheran? Your views, at least in this issue, are far from lutheran. As for your obvious dislike of calvinism it is evident, yet some times the occasional calvinist teacher seems to be OK. What is it that has "much removed from Calvin", as you see it? Bezaism conspiracy?

Ill repeat. Regenertion before belief is not biblical. The order is believe, repent, then regeneration.
The atonement was for all men. Men aided by God to accept or reject. Their nature doesn hinder things
their will does. And that harmonizes all of what Jesus said.

None of the above is scriptural. Just sayin'.

 

[PS]

​Jesus believed in free will!!! Thats why He prayed so much.

Jesus surrounded His will and said not my will but thine be done.

 

[PS]

well, of course it is
and was.
what i am saying is that apparently my faith was not a gift from God.

Your salvation was a gift from God which you accepted in faith.

 

[tribesman]

Faith is an act of the will
some claim they dont have a will.

We all have wills. The question is if this will (for natural man) is "free to choose" in spiritual matters or not.

 

[PS]

The highlighted part shows where faith comes from. It comes from a trust God is a rewarder of those who seek him. If you do not trust God, then you will not trust him.

Faith is yours yes, you must chose. But it comes from God.

Think of it this way, If God did not do what he did, and promise what he promised. could you have faith?

I had faith in my parents because they gave me a reason to trust them.

Here we are again. You knew your parents who gave you a reason to trust them, but the unbeliever does not know God and has no reason to trust Him, so firstly we need to believe that He is. (Underlined)

Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Let me illustrate like this: -

"But without [we believe] it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

 

[Abiding]

The creeds were to be drawn on the absolute essentials, the issue of free will or not is not mentioned in these. The issue of free will was also not yet articulated properly.



I have no other definition of that than the objective and commonly known.



Lutheran? Your views, at least in this issue, are far from lutheran. As for your obvious dislike of calvinism it is evident, yet some times the occasional calvinist teacher seems to be OK. What is it that has "much removed from Calvin", as you see it? Bezaism conspiracy?



None of the above is scriptural. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Im well aware of antics Tribesman, see it all the time, i prolly see them come from calvinists
more than others and i dont play that. I know then that fishing for documents and taking
stuff out of context etc is the rules of the game when fighting for you team. But i dont have
a team yet.

To be fair and i almost did this a couple days, but i could get the columns to work out right
because im a caveman when it comes to computers. But i imagined 2 columns left side Jesus
commands based on free will and teachings He taught showing the need to use free will.

Then on the right a column of texts that show the necessity of the Holy spirit and the Father
working drawing etc. Ive done it at home before and with a picture with both sides i think
gives the whole truth on the matter.

FYI im not totally against the 5 points just enough to reject them. What i meant about the institutes
was that Calvin who i think was a wonderful scholor said in many writings things that contradict
teachings and positions i see today. But then im sure you knew that.

By the way since youve said it a few times now can you tell what you mean here "Yes, free will was spoken of, but not in the sense that the arminians" Im not aware what you mean. I know all arminians are not the same.

 

[Abiding]

We all have wills. The question is if this will (for natural man) is "free to choose" in spiritual matters or not.

Well good question. The answer is, on his own no. But is he on his own?
question: if a man hears the gospel and chooses to believe it...will he, meaning all that do, be received?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What the issue boils down to is that we all, sooner or later, have to get into the (hard) work of interpreting scripture. You do it too, and you're also a man. So, this circular reasoning you're into about this is superfluous.

yet more attacks.. By the way, Your the one who opened up the interpretation argument not me. So now your blaming me for going there?

Are you saying that "the whole world" are sodomites (as Rom.1:26-28 says)?

It does not say the whole world is this way, It says the whole world has hardened their hearts to truth, Turned God into their own God, Loved sin more than God. Come on, you were that way before you came to christ. are you denying it?

As for Eph.4, its says in v. 18 the gentiles are "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart". Doesn't sound too much like these same people have the law of God written on their hearts.

Ah, But in the greek, the word ignorant does not mean unknown as you may think. there are two greek words translated ignorant in the english text. This one speaks of one who knows, but hides the truth in their heart, thus becoming darkened to truth. Which is exactly what the passage says..

You should look it up!