Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34502 | ||
Zach: I must say that in typical Arminian fashion, you quote all of the "whosoever will" passages, which do not present the slightest problem for the Reformed theologian; and completely ignore those passages which explicitly speak of man's inability and unwillingness to come to Christ unless persuaded to do so by the Holy Spirit. Those persuaded to do so will willingly embrace Him, and those not persuaded to do so will willingly reject Him. Our wills are constrained by our nature, and our sinful natures must be changed supernaturally so that we will indeed love God instead of hate Him. 'And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."' --John 6:65 (not "The Father accepts whomever decides on this/her own initiative to come to Him.") "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." --John 6:44 (not "you are free to accept or reject Jesus") "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." --John 6:37 (not "God accepts whoever comes to Christ on their own"; notice in all of these verses who is initiating and causing the activity) We can play "quotation ping-pong" all day long if you wish Zach, with every Arminian quoted being contradicted by a Reformed theologian. Those of us in the other camp understand the Arminian view far better than you seem to understand the Reformed one, so it really doesn't contribute to the discussion to hear from any Arminian scholar unless the Arminian view is being misrepresented by us. I contend that it isn't being misrepresented here, only challenged. In closing, you write: "How can man be held accountable to God for his actions in judgment without freewill?" We do have free will, and our depraved nature makes us want nothing but sin (Romans 3:10-18). Until God changes us, that is all we will ever want, and we are unable to want anything else (Romans 8:7-9). Paul anticipates your question, however, and answers it in Romans 9:19 ff. "Is it fair to send someone to hell for sins he was forced to commit having no freewill?" No one is forced by God to be a sinner (James 1:13). Thanks to the Fall, that is what we WANT to do. It is our nature. Sin itself is a willful rebellion AGAINST God's will. That is the category in which we all have found ourselves. The difference between us and the non-Christian is that God has allowed some to continue down the sinful path to destruction, and has rescued some of us, changing our natures and causing us to WANT to embrace Christ. Just to clear up your understanding of effectual calling, here is the Westminster Shorter Catechism's rendering of the doctrine: "Q31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our will, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel." So, according to our view, it is God who enlightens our minds (not us), God who enables us to embrace Christ (not us), and God who renews our wills (which were previously contrained by our fallen, depraved natures), and God who persuades us to trust in Christ (we trust, but it is God who must persuade us to do so, and He accomplishes this perfectly). --Joe! |
||||||
2 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hecameforu | 34520 | ||
If you will allow me to interject, Reformed - Calvanist, Calvanism, protestanst protestanism, Arminian, Arminianism "Arminian quoted ", "Arminian fashion", "Arminian scholar ","Reformed theologian", "Reformed one", "Armenian view" "Westminster Shorter Catechism's rendering" Whew, that's almmost making me dizzy reading all that. The only ism in the KJV is Baptism. Only Judaism and Baptism are in NASB. There is niether "theologian" nor "theory" in the Word of God. The Bible is not a "theory" and Christianity is not an "ism". How about, " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" :) yes it is God that draws the person, but does this mean that the one that is being drawn has to accept the gift of Salvation? I don't think so. It is also clear that Salvation is by grace and not by works but according to Rev 3:20.... "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me".... we have to open the door. This opening of the door is not a work but an action that we must do. This verse cannot be for believers because Jesus is already in us and supping with us and we with him. Love in Christ Barry |
||||||
3 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34527 | ||
I am sorry if the terms I use make you uncomfortable because they are not found in Scripture. Does this mean that the word "Trinity" disturbs you as well? What about the term "deity of Christ"? There are lots of terms that are very biblical even though the exact term is not employed in Scripture. Words like "Reformed" are very good to describe a particular understanding of the Bible, distinguishing it from other interpretations (such as the Catholic and Arminian views). If the labels bother you, then I apologize in advance for continuing to use them. It simply makes life much easier than reciting everything that I hold that the Bible teaches every time someone asks me where I stand on an issue. "Reformed" sums a lot of it up in one word. Likewise, a confession of faith or a catechism is a very useful tool for defining what a particular communion understands the Bible to be teaching. You have a creed or confession as well, whether it is written or not. Every time you say, "the Bible teaches __________," you are reciting from your own confession of faith. Are you against theology, too? Then please never make another statement about God again, because as soon as you do, you have made yourself a theologian. Everyone who says anything about God is a theologian. The question is whether one is a good theologian or a bad one. You wrote: 'How about, " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" :)" Didn't see THAT one in the NASB nor the KJV... You wrote: "yes it is God that draws the person, but does this mean that the one that is being drawn has to accept the gift of Salvation? I don't think so." Thanks for sharing what you think. The question is whether it matches up with what the Bible teaches or not. That seemed to be the point of the first part of your post, in any case REVELATION 3:20 IS NOT AN EVANGELISTIC VERSE! Go back and read it in its context. Jesus is talking to a church congregation, not to an unbelieving individual. The point is that the church was NOT supping with Christ and that their attitudes and actions had left Christ "outside the door." I find the notion of Jesus standing in the cold outside the door of the sinner's life, begging for the sinner to PLEASE open the door, to be quite insulting to the King of Kings. If Jesus wants in, He will kick the door down. Ask Saul of Tarsus. --Joe! |
||||||