The Absence of Free Will

Original sin

Click to expand...

I agree up until mankind cannot choose God. That is Total Depravity out of TULIP. But the agree again that yes Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind. I read Romans 5 but definitely a poor example for defending Limited Atonement. Romans 5 has a lot of Christ died for all verses.

justification by faith alone-

Click to expand...

Agreed. Faith- divine persuasion.

faith

Click to expand...

That is only one type of faith. There are 2 words in Greek that occur dealing with faith and belief.

Ephesians 2:8
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Faith in Ephesians 2:8 is a word called

pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Definition: faith, faithfulness
Usage: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.

HELPS Word-studies
4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith.

Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it.


Romans 10:9
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

In Romans 10:9 the word for believe is

pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Definition: to believe, entrust
Usage: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.

HELPS Word-studies
4100 pisteúō (from 4102 /pístis, "faith," derived from 3982 /peíthō, "persuade, be persuaded") – believe(affirm, have confidence); used of persuading oneself (= human believing) and with the sacred significance of being persuaded by the Lord (= faith-believing). Only the context indicates whether 4100/pisteúō ("believe") is self-serving (without sacred meaning), or the believing that leads to/proceeds from God's inbirthing of faith.

Example below to show how often translations confuse belief and faith.

You don’t have enough faith,” Jesus told them. “I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible.”— Matthew 17:20 (NLT

So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.— Matthew 17:20 (NKJV

imputed righteousness

Click to expand...

- the believer's source of righteousness is the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ as an alien, forensic righteousness. This is an abiding status that forms the basis of the believers' identity. The phrase used in Paul's writings to describe this status is being "in Christ". It is talking about the legal aspect of union with Christ, and is one of the assets that the man in union with Christ has, including adoption as a son of God, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Not really seeing anything I disagree with. Kinda blunt with that one.

sinless perfectionism

Click to expand...

Yah, I totally disagree with this statement. And everything else after this paragraph I dont agree with either.

Correct, because Reformed theology IS constantly misrepresented by its' opponents.

Well, it is my position that free-willers worship free will, too, and don't give God his proper honor and glory.

If you're not familiar with Pelagianism, I'd suggest listening to this audio:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=12510125392

A lot of the remarks on this thread would be in alignment with the heresy of Pelagianism, although a lot are not. I think the focus on "libertarian free will" is distinctly Pelagian, but I find non-Reformed thought in the Church mostly merges Pelagianism with solid Christianity.

As the speaker says, Pelagianism is the religion of the natural man, so it is hard to shed, even after the person becomes a Christian.

By the way, there is an inferior faith, and a true faith. You see it in John 6, illustrated between the faith of the fickle disciples and the faith of the real disciples.

I don't know where to start with your claims, as I don't understand them.

Obviously I know Lutherans are "Reformed" in one sense, but not "Reformed" in another sense.

Luther didn't deal with theology in a very systematic way because he was too busy putting out fires.

Regarding "Baptists" they were way downstream from the Reformation. And, by the way, I am Reformed Baptist.

If you want people to stop misrepresenting you, then be more careful about how you represent Reformed theology. You are the one who claimed Reformed theology makes God worse than the "devil".

God can restrict his offer of salvation in any manner that he pleases. He doesn't owe salvation to anyone.

Regarding idolatry of free will, my point is that if you believe in libertarian free will, then ultimately your libertarian free will is what saves you, not God. It is what ultimately made the difference in your salvation.

My position would be that God effectually saves all he decides to save. He is LORD and cannot be thwarted by anything, including a person's alleged libertarian free will.

And, he doesn't have to do that by violating their creaturely free will. Instead, he changes their nature so they freely respond to him in faith and repentance.

I knew Calvinism was bad, but it seems to have gotten way worse that I thought.

First off, both Catholicism and Lutheranism are straight-up works-based. Lutheranism is just Catholic Lite. Jesus isn't needed in either doctrine because your own works are saving you.

Calvinism, which eschews free will in favor of the whacked concept of predestination doesn't need Jesus either. If you are pre-destined nothing you do matters because you are either saved or not saved, no matter what and any kind of personal choice is off the table. So Jesus' sacrifice is in no way required.

Pre-destination is only applicable in that God knows, before hand, who will choose Jesus and who will not. If free will for mankind does not exist then God cannot hold any single person responsible for their sin, including Adam, because the sin was outside of personal choice. Any person who believes in pre-destination illustrates that they have no logic skills.

I find it comical that the only people who believe in predestination are the ones who are convinced that they are one of the lucky ones who are predestined. If you aren't predestined, the doctrine isn't so cool to believe.

thats not misrepresentation. thats my opinion of what you guys teach. i said reformed theology makes God worse than the devil and i believe it. its not misrepresentation to call spade a spade. thats how i see it and thats how many other christians see it.

i have heard all the arguments and the contradictions in the confessions of God decreeing everything yet there is no darkness in Him only light and secondary causes and all that.

i know all the arguments from the reformed side i know all the changing of nature so they freely respond i know all that, i just dont agree thats all.

i wish you reformed people would understand that if i say God chose some to hell some to heaven you say no thats misrepresentation thats double predestination we dotn believe that oh no. we just believe God elected certain ones to salvation out of grace, rest are given the just penalty for their sins and left in their sins. the reason we us who oppose calvinism say it like that is because thats what it is we call a spade spade. we have heard tha arguments we are just not convinced its all.
if i can save all people in a boat thats sinking and i choose to only save two that always means i decided to not save the rest, sealing their fate. double-predestination. your creeds dont matter its how it is. thats what even john calvin believed and hilarious i hear calvinist say we dont care what calvin said he isnt the bible.
nobody teaches free will saves you. just like when you are drowning and you are thrown a rope you dont say you saved yourself. thats crazy nobody says it. if God effectually saves all he decides to save then all should be saved because God wants all men to come to knowledge of truth and to be saved. and yes all men, not all kinds of men like james white try to deceived us with so-called context. no one understood it like that and most still dont. thats what calvinists do everytime there is something to do with all men, they look for verses or chapters that say about classes of men and try to make it that. BBC international channel (not the british channel but bible believers) on youtube has entire playlist on youtube debunking calvinism deals with all the poor arguments reformed have.

Wrong. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting Reformed theology. In Reformed theology, God ordains both means and the end.

In other words, believing and repentance are the means by which salvation occurs.

The difference is that Reformed theology teaches that God regenerates the person prior to faith and repentance, and the change in nature is what causes the faith rand repentance.

Additionally, those who deny biblical repentance are simply saying that they chose God, rather than God choosing them. No matter how you word it, that is the reason.

As a result, they glory in themselves for being the cause of their own salvation. They were wise enough to make the right decision, therefore they have room for boasting.

God doesn't simply foreknow the event of the person accepting Him by faith. He foreknows the person in terms of fore-loving them.

If a person would exegete the Scriptures carefully, they would know that, because it is INDIVIDUALS God foreknows, not EVENTS.

And, the word "know" implies an intimate relationship in Scripture.

Reformed theology is very deep and rich, and shallow Christians will never understand it, because they won't humble themselves in order to understand their part in salvation isn't the determining factor. It is the mercy of God that extends itself to a helpless and rebellious sinner. It would take humility to acknowledge that, though.

I realize I am NOTHING of myself, and all my salvation belongs to God and is to HIS GLORY. Non-Reformed people are double jointed and love to pat themselves on the back for their salvation.

Sickening. Disgusting.

OK..my opinion is that freewillers are idolaters and rob themselves of God's glory.

Did God do something wrong when he killed the firstborn of the Egyptians, and not the Israelites? Was it not his choice what he does with those he rejects?

By the way, your rope analogy doesn't work. Reformed people believe that the sinner is dead, laying on the bottom of the ocean, and God recovers and resurrects him to life again. There is no concept of a weakened unbeliever who just needs to hold on. We believe that the sinner is dead and at the bottom of the ocean, and requires resurrection. This is what Ephesians 2 teaches.

I know about the anti-Reformed guys on Youtube too as well..they are about as articulate as the anti-Reformed people on here. I am not impressed.

What it comes down to is this, does God choose who he saves, and who he gives to Jesus, or NOT? Scripture is CLEAR on this that he DOES choose and he DOES give only certain people to Jesus.

The rest are passed over, and go to eternal punishment. Just like the Egyptians at the Exodus, and those who drown in the Flood.

this same channel has good videos on the topic going thru many calvinism arguments

I am a sinful person who in no way deserves God's salvation.

It's funny, because your bloated post above actually deals with absolutely none of the salient points I made when it comes to the flaws of Calvinism and predestination. Such is the methodology of those pushing a self-favored doctrine they already know to be false.

God clearly says, throughout the Bible, that mankind has a choice. We can choose Him, or we can choose to reject Him. You say the exact opposite. That He picks us out, like favorite flavors of Jelly Belly's in a bowl. Really? Of course, you are one of the lucky ones that got chosen, right? Or else you wouldn't be here pedaling your favorite doctrine. You wouldn't be so fervent if you weren't one of the people God hand-picked, would you?

I've seen some firmly entrenched Calvinists in my time. But they had some grasp on basic logic. You, not so much. You cling to a doctrinal position that cannot be supported, Biblically in any way, shape, or form. You come right out and say that God hand-picks saved people from unsaved people ahead of time.

If that were so, there would be absolutely no need for the Gospel at all. Figured out that wrinkle yet, Genius?

As you stated, God does know who will choose him and who will not, and he tells us what he saw by his foreknowledge in Psalms 53:2, and he saw that no one, no, not one would seek him, that is why he choose a people before the foundation of the world and had his Son to die for them, because sin has to be paid for and he predetermined that Jesus would pay the price. God did let man have a free will in choosing how he wants to live his life here on earth and he choose to live it sinfully, but God does not give man a choice in choosing his eternal destination, Eph 2, that is by God's sovereign grace. The natural man cannot discern spiritual things, 1 Cor 2:14, so, therefore, if you are worshiping a spiritual God, because God is a Spirit, then you are one of his elect, that would probably include you.

The inspired words of the bible are written to God's elect. Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach unto the lost sheep (God's elect) of the house of Israel (Jacob)( Matt 10:5-6 ) for the purpose of instructing them haw to live their lives here on earth and to teach them, by the Gospel, the knowledge of how they have been eternally saved by Christ's death on the cross. God changed Jacob's name to be called no more Jacob, but to be called Israel.( Gen 32:28 ) Thereafter, when the scriptures mention Israel, most of the time it has reference to Jacob, who is the representative of his elect. Joining the church does not save (deliver) you eternally, but it does deliver (save) you from associating yourselves with the world. God adds to the church such as should be saved (delivered here on earth) Acts 2:47.

The Gospel has a purpose and that is, it is to be preached to his elect, the lost sheep of the house of Israel (God's elect) instructing them as how he wants them to live their lives here on earth and to preach to them the knowledge of how that Jesus has already saved them eternally by his death on the cross. God saw, by his foreknowledge, that no one would seek him (Psalms 53:2) which made him choose an elect people and have his Son to pay the price of their sins, to make them holy and without blame, so he would have a people that would praise and honor him.

I have already told you that God ordains both the end and the means. The gospel is the means, the end is salvation of the elect. Jesus' death was the necessary means to reconcile the elect to God.

For instance, God has decreed that a given person will be healed, as the result of the prayer of a believer and God's response to it. The end is the healing of the man. The means is the prayer of the believer and God's response to it. Are the two separate? NO.

God decreed the healing but it was through answering the prayer of the believer. Both the means and the end are essential.

If you cannot understand that, I don't know what to say. You might think about the difference between MEANS and END.

Additionally, I have already said that man has CREATURELY FREE WILL. He does not have LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL.

I also said that God changes the NATURE prior to faith and repentance, and the changed nature is the reason why the elect accept Christ and his sacrifice. The unbeliever does not believe in a saving sense because he has a stony heart. There is a "choice" but it is the result of the person's nature. The unregenerate man refuses Christ, and the regenerate man accepts Christ, due to the changed nature. Decisions flow from the nature, whether regenerate or unregenerate.

I do not believe in decisional regeneration. In other words, I don't believe the person is born-again due to their own decision, but they are born-again in order to make the right decision.

I know that doesn't fit with your synergistic beliefs. I don't hold them, though. If my position seems illogical to you, I would suggest that you form your theology on the Bible and it's teachings rather than your philosophical presuppositions.

In particular, read John 6, 10, Ephesians 1,2, and all of Romans.

I known that Reformed people are hated, because people don't generally like the idea that they are not sovereign in their salvation, but God is. I used to believe this nonsense myself, but I know it is not biblical now, and I give God full glory for my salvation.

I am not double-jointed and cannot pat myself on the back for my salvation.

I would suggest that if you cannot understand what I am saying, don't claim that I am illogical. Normally people don't claim this about me, so you might consider whether you are intentionally trying to discredit me, or whether your presuppositions are interfering with your understanding.

Regarding why God chooses particular individuals (which he most assuredly does), I would simply answer, GRACE. He extends grace to one individual and does not extend it to another.

It is PLAINLY taught in Scripture that God elects individuals to salvation. I Cor 1 would be one set of Scriptures. John 6, 10 say that God has given certain individuals to Jesus, and not others. Jesus' priestly prayer in John 15-17 indicates the same thing..there are certain individuals given to the Son by the Father.

Free-willers twist this around and claim that God doesn't really choose; that the person chooses and God chooses based on this choice. Well, the end result is that God doesn't choose in their theology. And, this is plainly anti-Scriptural.

I will ask you again not to use the word Calvinist because I don't identify with John Calvin. The word "Reformed" or monergist is acceptable.

By the way, I want people to notice that in essence, you have violated Christ's commandment by calling me a fool.

How? You called me a Genius, with the inference that I am a fool or idiot.

Your tone shows that your intention was to call me a fool or an idiot. In one sense, I don't really care because I don't submit my reasoning or biblical understanding to anyone here for evaluation, and I realize that I am more articulate than most. But, I do want to make you aware that I notice your contempt, which was evidenced in the tone by which you used the word.

Matthew 5:21-22 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
(ESV)

Additionally, I realize that Reformed people violate the understanding of various cliques on this site, and since they can't reason with me, they will resort to name-calling.

Here's a song for the free-willers. Perhaps it will cheer you all up and relieve your sour stomachs.

This song makes me crack up.

So would you agree then that this makes God morally ambiguous?