7cworldwide

7c,

I accept that we have a sin nature, but we also have free will, that is was my point with Adam, nothing more. The quote from Matthew is that Jesus would have saved the Jews if they were willing, he wanted to save them, but they rejected him. John 1 does not disprove free will, it says that salvation cannot be worked out by the will of man, it is totally, wholly a free gift of God.

God Bless,

ArtistforChrist

Are our nature and ability the same now (after the fall) as Adam's (before the fall)?

Please read the post and the Scripture passages I just quoted in response to Diolectic on man's will. Then you'll see just how "free" it is.

Grace & Peace,

Lane

Hi Diolectic! With a name like that (assuming it's a reference to "dialectics"), I would have hoped to see a personal rebuttal to Reformed theology and not just a copy/paste job. But anyway... here goes...

Has anyone ever wondered how God could take delite in making people come to Him against their wills, by this so called "regeneration". They are really nothing more than brainwashed. when they come to Him, it is only because they had no choice. When in reality they would realy prefer to continue hating Him.

Emotional appeals... what a pitiful argument. He did get that last sentence right though. All men who are spiritually dead would really prefer to suppress their innate knowledge of God and continue in their rebellion against Him.

When the truth is to be told, they don’t really love Him, because love is dependant on choice. His converts' warm feelings toward Him are in truth, delusions that are not realy their own fealings; they are only God's own fealing for Himself implanted into the one who realy does not want them. This is equal to taking a prisoner, brainwash him or put a spell on him or even fill him with certain drugs that make him pliable, tell him to say, " I love you". Does that give you the same feeling as when your wife or child says it? And why not? Because free will has been eliminated. The priosoner is only saying what you are making him say.

I've discussed this in my previous two posts here... another poor, emotion-driven, unbiblical argument.

Furthermore, why must we preach the gospel in order for people to be saved? If man plays no part at all in his conversion, why must he hear the gospel to be saved?

Two primary reasons: 1) God said so... and 2) God uses preaching as a means for accomplishing His will. This is not a problem at all.

Man plays no part in his regeneration. But everything following that (conversion, justification, etc.) is synergistic. See this discussion (I'm "xapis" on that site): http://www.graceforums.com/topic.php?id=888

Tell me Diolectic, what is the assumed ordo salutis (order of salvation) of your system?

A true Calvinist could never say that persuasive preaching influences the unregenerate person to yield to God, because the unregenerate person will always use his freedom to resist God (Piper, p. 9, prgh. 6).

Amen. But the author you're quoting seems to be having tremendous difficulty distinguishing between the various graces involved in salvation, what they mean, what they imply, and how they come to pass.

Thus the only way an unregenerate person becomes regenerate is if God sovereignly bestows upon him His irresistible grace. So all the persuasive preaching in the world won’t make a bit of difference in the saving of anyone.

Wrong. The author does not understand Reformed theology and, therefore, is unqualified to be publishing writings on the subject. I don't mind someone disagreeing so much if they understand what their disagreeing with and why. I have a problem with someone announcing blanket "anathemas" on something about which he knows very little.

In fact, to even attempt to persuade someone is an attack on God’s supposed sovereign grace in salvation, because to do so implies that salvation rests, in part, on the hearer and also rests, in part, on the preacher.

According to true Calvinists, our preaching cannot have any persuasive power over one who is totally depraved, and if it does, then we must admit that unregenerate man can do something (be persuaded) that leads to his salvation.

If it is true that man’s free will plays no part in his salvation, if man has nothing to do with his repentance because the ability to repent is only God’s gift, then why did Paul often reason with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g., see Acts 17:2-4)? Why did he attempt to “persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11) and beg people to be “reconciled to God”? Wouldn't that be futile if it is only up to Gods sovereignity to be saved?

Clearly, Paul believed that what he said and did affected the results of his evangelism, because people’s wills played a part in their salvation.

It's called preaching. The author's argument has no base and, as you can now see, is an excursive in futility.

The author is supporting the common error of "decisional regeneration"... see John 3:8 (as well as my previous posts in this thread).

Again, If it is true that man’s free will plays no part in his salvation, if man has nothing to do with his repentance, a preacher’s attempt to persuade an unregenerate man would be an admission that man plays a part in his repentance, and it would be an affront to God’s sovereignty—if no man can be saved apart from God’s irresistible grace. In fact, to try to persuade an unregenerate person to yield to Christ is to mislead him into thinking that he is not so totally depraved after all, because he can choose to repent!

The author apparently believes that man has some measure of sovereignty over God. Is this belief biblical? Can anyone show me anything in Scripture to support such a belief?

If people must hear preaching in order to be saved, then people (and preachers) play a part in their salvation, because preaching persuades them to do something, and thus they must have free wills that can choose to repent. This is just one more proof that salvation is not solely the work of God. Man must play a part, otherwise there would be no need for preaching.

The author is desperately clinging to "free will." In doing so, he seems to lose (at least implicitly) the Creator/creature distinction. God's absolute ultimacy and absolute freedom is part and parcel to His being God. When man attributes ultimacy to man (and he does when he attributes absolute free will to himself), he reduces God and puts himself on a pedestal.

If you care to see a true Christian doctrine of free will and anthropology, I suggest reading these:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html

http://www.gracegems.org/28/human_nature.htm

Here's what the Bible (quoting the ESV, emphasis mine) says specifically on the subject of man's will and ability:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." —John 1:12-13

"as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'" —Romans 3:10-12

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." —Romans 9:16

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." —Philippians 2:12-13

How much more clear can it be?

Obviously, such a “gospel” leaves nothing for the hearer to cling to in faith. That is why Calvinists keep their unique doctrines secret from the unregenerate, only to reveal them at a later time to Christians when they are ready to receive the “truth.”

Not this one! ...nor any of the devout Calvinists whose works I read and respect greatly.

Truly, the five points of Calvinism are the “family secret.” Even though they are supposedly the foundational truths of salvation, they dare not be revealed to the unsaved.

The author fails to mention that some of the greatest preachers and evangelists in Christian history were Calvinists, such as George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, John Knox, etc... and John Calvin himself... to those in modern times like D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, etc. None of these men were/are ashamed of what they believe! Why not? Because they know they believe what the Bible says and there's nothing there to be ashamed of!

As for this David Servant fellow, hopefully, you now see what a deceiver this man is. I'd never heard of him before and I pray he doesn't confuse too many of God's people with these lies and misconceptions.

Grace & Peace,

Lane

7c,

I beleive the Holy Spirit reveals to us the truth and gives us the ability to choose, but we still must choose. Love is rendered meaningless if it is not from our Free Will Choice, we would just be pre-programed robots,

Really? God has loved His elect (John 6:37) since before the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8). We've looked at regeneration. Let's look now at adoption. Eph. 1:5 (ESV) says "he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." What does an adopted baby "do" to become adopted? The child has no choice in the matter. But the child is nurtured and shown great love from the adoptive parents and what happens when the child matures? The child truly loves those parents who chose to adopt, love, and raise him up. Such is the case with our Sovereign Lord.

"We love because he first loved us."

7c,

God knowing the future does not mean it is pre-determined, God is all-knowing so he knows what we will do when offered a choice, It is like offering a child a cookie or brussel sproutes, you know what the child will pick, but that does not take away his or her choice in what they want.

This is a terrible analogy but I'll follow with you on it a bit. Why does the child choose the cookie over brussel sprouts? Because it's his nature to choose that which tastes better to him. Such is the case with natural man. The unregenerate man will always give way to the flesh and will never (because he CANNOT) do that which is pleasing to the perfect Lawgiver and Judge (see Romans 3). He MUST be given new life (regenerated, born again) in order to have the ability to truly repent and believe (see John 3).

If a person is chosen and has no choice but to accept, that is not love, we are offered Salvation by God through the Holy Spirit, and we must decide to accept or reject, that is not a work,

This is irrelevant because man is wholly unable to do so without God's grace manifested through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

We can be given a gift by someone, something we did not deserve or work for, but if we lay it on a shelf and do nothing with it, it is no good to us,

What did Lazarus "do" in order to be raised from the dead? His resuscitation was a gift, indeed. But he was dead. He could do nothing but stink! Such is the case with the spiritually dead.

Salvation is the same way, it must be accepted to be usefull.

This statement tells me that you believe that God alone does not, moreover, cannot save. Can you show us some Scriptural support for such a belief? ...that is, of course, without confusing sanctification with regeneration, justification, adoption, etc.

The two positions I posted are the ones I go back and forth with, Where God looks through time and knows what each person would do with a choice, and it still be our choices, or The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to an individual and than that person either accepts or denies salvation. No way is either works based, God does all the work.

If "to choose" is a verb (and it is) and regeneration is contingent upon this action in order to occur then your argument is self-defeating. Decisional regeneration leaves room for boasting and is, therefore, a false teaching—a false Gospel.

Grace & Peace...

[sigh]

Read this: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...rstandings.html

Have a listen at this: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_Whi...p?bcd=2007-8-12

bhccguy,

Thank you, bro!! I appreciate you taking the time to share that.

Another is Wayne Grudem. I just bought his Systematic Theology and I'm really looking forward to reading what he has to say on continuationism.

...I believe J.I. Packer is on our list, too.

...and until we are regenerated we are in bondage to sin. We are only liberated in Christ!

Amen, Biblicist!

I would also reiterate the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:13—"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

The logical order of God's work:

1) Election to salvation by the Father

2) The regeneration of the elect one by the Holy Spirit

3) True belief in Christ by the elect one

This is God's design and we can see the work of each member of the Trinity in carrying it out.

jamie—It is generally perceived that it is by the regenerate one's own free will that he/she comes to Christ. But it is actually the efficacious drawing of the Father through the Holy Spirit to Christ that brings his sheep to belief and repentance.

Blessings,

Lane

Even that is really not quite accurate. Luther came first, then Calvin and a host of others. If you leave it as "orthodox views of Calvinism" you would be quite accurate.

The unfortunate thing about the statement is that it dismisses 1600 or Orthodox Christianity.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this Thad. But Luther certainly believed in the full sovereignty of God and in what modern Calvinists call the doctrines of grace.

But you have changed the wording. Man has free will. He does not have autonomous will. Two different things. But since you are taking the position of Calvin and the reformed view, free will by definition is excluded from the idea of election and predestination. They are mutually exclusive terms. Thus you probably are not a true predestinarian?

When Arminians speak of "free will" they are conveying their belief that man is completely autonomous in choosing his eternal destination. That's what I meant by both terms (synonymously) as I discuss this issue with an Arminian.

I am a "predestinarian."

But that does not support the reformed view, as all men are drawn by the Father. All men are taught by the Father but not all learn from the Father. All are called, but only some answer in the positive. All men will answer, however.

Yes. All men will answer. But not all are called with the same efficacious call by which God brings his elect unto Him.

Once again, it is Luther's view and his own personal exegetical efforts. He could have done much better.

We could all do better, bro. But exegesis is exegesis and Luther gets it right when it comes to the issue of the bondage of the will (to sin).

Shalom,

I thought most calvinists didn't believe in free will, this has been my problem.

Did you read the Luther excerpt?

I agree with you here, but you need to take into account that we are drawn to Christ. It took Him years to prepare my heart to recieve His saving grace. He knew the exact moment I would be ready to surrender my life to Him.

Jesus made the preperations in my natural life, and then wooed me by His Spirit. Never once did He over-ride my free will, He prepared my heart in such a way that made me ready to live for Him, and then He revealed Himself to me.

Without Him working in my life and heart, I would have never been able to recieve His gift.

You're close. But you must understand that He did override your will by changing you... regenerating you so that you could see! "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13, KJV). Thankfully, God does change our will. Otherwise, we'd never have any hope of seeing Heaven.

Shalom,

I personally don't know how to reconcile a people having 'no' free will, with, Jesus coming for 'who so ever will'....it makes no sense and 'honsetly' sounds like heresy to me.

I never said people have no free will... nor would I. But to think that somehow it is by man's autonomous will that we are to enter into the Kingdom of God is wholly unbiblical. Man's fleshly will is at enmity with God and man in this state cannot please Him (cf. Rom. 8:7-8). Jeremiah writes (Jer. 17:9, KJV), "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" I have already shown from Jesus' own words that man is unable to come to Christ without first being drawn by the Father. I have presented questions to make you think about your views but you can only respond to say the Reformed view makes no sense. But does your view make sense? Honestly? Is it completely aligned with the witness of the many passages of Scripture I have presented?

Do I believe "calvin" or do I believe the whole context of scripture?

Calvin was a human. I am a human. You are a human. We are all fallible and finite in knowledge. All we can do is read the Bible and let the Holy Ghost teach us the mysteries of God which have been revealed to us in His Word. Mark my words. This is not about believing Calvin for I do not agree with Calvin on everything. This is about allowing ourselves to extract an honest and complete exegesis from God's revealed message to us in the holy Scriptures. That is my sole purpose... to know and to spread God's truth. Period.

I have always believed the way I do based on spiritual discernment and the whole context of scripture, concerning free-will.

I can say the same thing. In fact, I have. May God bless you in it. I will not condemn you or call you a heretic for the soteriological views you espouse. I can take comfort in knowing that God has a purpose in what He sovereignly reveals to each one in His flock.

I only recently even heard of the Arminius view, so there has been no outside influence on me. I agree with Arminius because he agrees with what the Holy Spirit has taught me.

Again, that's fine. I held strong Arminian views (way before I'd ever heard of Arminius) for years. It was only recently that the Holy Ghost led me in this direction in which I have come to know greater things about His sovereignty and grace. And I praise Him for it!

I must say that I don't think you're being honest with yourself in saying that you have had no outside influence on your beliefs. Are you saying that your parents, grandparents, preachers, teachers, et al. have never taught you anything related to Christianity that you ended up adopting as a personal belief? Really?

Maybe we are all wrong to a certain degree

A humble admission... and one that I will certainly join you in. No man has a monopoly on the truth and any that will tell you he does

I see nothing strange or hard to understand at all in the fact that there are people who respond to Gods gift of faith by way of grace, and others who reject it.

Ahhh... you just hit on something here—"God's gift of faith." If faith is a gift, and it is, then it follows that salvation is completely of God. Even our faith is a sovereign gift.

"The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen. Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of my child, I know for a fact which one is chosen, the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict my child from making a free choice when the time comes. My child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it."

Is this how it really is with salvation though? No. It's not. The cauliflower in this analogy would be likened to Christ. The child has the ability to choose cauliflower. But man does not have the ability to "choose" Christ without first being drawn by the Father. It is God that performed that act of choosing (cf. 2 The. 2:13).

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God.

This view is altogether the antithesis of Scriptural doctrine in this area of soteriology.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.

Can we reject this free gift by an act of our will? Yes

Yes. It is the only will of the unregenerate man to reject God.

In the seventh chapter of Acts Stephen, a Spirit-filled man of God, speaking before the Sanhedrin and Jewish elders. And Spirit-filled Stephen said, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.

Yes. This is further proving my point.

If we have no free will then Jesus Christ most certainly died in vain! There would have been no need for a blood sacrifice, It would have all be a farce if we are all just puppets on a string.

...and now the appeal to emotion. Here we have the common case of man deeming his system of justice to be greater than that of the perfect, omniscient, immutable God. I could write chapters upon chapters with biblical support on how terribly wrong this perception of the Reformed view is but I think it will suffice for now to respond with a brief question: How then would you interpret Romans 9:13-16?

Nothing personal, but calvinism is one of the most heretical doctrines out there, in my opinion.

Perhaps you don't know the history behind the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God... these doctrines called "Calvinism." These doctrines are the very orthodox views of the Reformation! Martin Luther sparred openly on the free will of man with Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will. If we're going to get down to the nitty-gritty on this, it was Arminius who was guilty of regressing back to the Roman doctrines of a works-based salvation and deemed a heretic. By twisting it around and calling all Calvinists heretics, you are condemning a great number of profound Christians. To name a few: Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Bunyan, John Newton (author of the hymn Amazing Grace), J.I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper... the list goes on and on. These men, true exegetical preachers and teachers, lived (and died, for those already passed) by the Reformed doctrines, knowing their full consistency with the Scriptures.

I come from an Arminian background and I would never say my family and friends in that tradition are doomed to Hell due to their flawed soteriological views. Why not? Because it is God who saves, not theological views. And "heretic" is not a word to be throwing around lightly.

I feel I have stated my belief very simplisticly and clearly, I have no desire to go on in circular arguments from this point.

The reader can take an honest look at the content of my last post and especially the questions presented that were not addressed and see the holes in the typical Arminian argument. The Bible does not lie nor does it contradict itself. Read for yourself, not glossing over the difficult passages, and God Himself will reveal these truths to you! Then you will begin to see just how amazing His grace really is!

The Lord bless you, '7cworldwide'

Thank you, jamie. May the Holy Spirit be our guide always in all things.

Greetings jamie!

I allowed myself to engage in the same type of eisegesis for years. Then the Spirit of God opened my eyes to some great truths. If I may show you the simple errors in this interpretation...

God foreknew those who would eventually use their will to serve Him. This determined their predestination.

Their will determined their predestination? Respectfully, jamie, this makes no sense. It is God who is doing the act of predestining. He did this in eternity past and it had nothing to do with any quality within those predestined. Let's follow this line of thinking to its logical terminus though. You and many others assume that God's foreknowledge of those men who by nothing but their own free will will come to Him is all that is meant by predestination. From whom did they receive their will? Was this will to come to God somehow inherent in them? God is the Creator and Designer of all. I think you will agree with that. So you would have to think that the God-given will in those who choose to accept Christ is of a greater moral capacity than that of the man who never accepts Him. So why did God give to some (and not all) a will that is more apt to accepting Him? No matter how you slice it, it always ends up back in God's court.

We must take the Bible at face value on this. He determined in eternity past whom He would adopt and call His sheep.

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.

If you read the whole of Romans, the context is clear. You emphasize "those who love God." But how can a man who is depraved by his very nature love God. The unregenerate man hates the law that proceeds from God. Hence he hates God. Romans 3:11 (ESV) says "no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 8:7 (ESV, emphasis added) says "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." See there. It cannot. It is wholly unable. Lest God moves into the picture to draw the man to Christ (cf. John 6:44) and change his fleshly will, there is no hope. Man cannot (and will not) come to Christ without being drawn to Him. Christ said, "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65, ESV). The Father chooses those whom He would efficaciously draw to Christ. The act of grace upon the elect has nothing to do with any of their human acts or attributes that were foreseen by God. It cannot be so. For if God judged solely on these things from eternity past, all mankind would be doomed to the same dreadful fate.

You place emphasis on "foreknew" in Romans 8:29. First off, in this passage, it's all about whom he foreknew... not what he foreknew about them. It's personal. This point alone destroys the Arminian view of this passage. But if that's not enough, I would encourage you to read this short study which expounds on this point and more: http://www.founders.org/FJ40/article3.html

When we remove tradition and the doctrines of men and take the Bible for what it says, the evidence is clear on predestination. It means what the Word of God says it means... nothing more, nothing less.

May God richly bless you and may we all grow in His grace.

Shalom,

Lane

Interesting. Thanks for your reply, CSLewis.

Shalom,

Incredulous. One point is quite clear: it's certainly not based on plain biblical declarations concerning, real, national, earthly dialects. Surely you must be aware that the very word, "tongue" refers to meaningful human speech. The very word "interpretation" (used seven times in 1 Cor.12-14) in such a context refers to translation of intelligible human languages. Modern glossolalia (since 1901) out of Azusa, California, can be rejected on this very basis alone.

First off, thanks a lot for hijacking the thread which had been a decent conversation.

Let me ask you a this: Would Arabic have been an intelligible language to the church at Corinth? How about Urdu or Cantonese? So what difference does it make to the church in Corinth if the need for an interpreter is from one of these unintelligible (to them) earthly languages or if it's the heavenly tongue (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1)? And why, pray tell, is it a requirement that the interpretation be of and by the Spirit? ...the answer is in the Scriptures. The gift of tongues is a supernatural, Spiritual gift. Interpretation of tongues is a supernatural, Spiritual gift. And if you will allow yourself a thorough and honest study of 1 Cor. 14 you will see that this gift has several different applications.

Your reference to the misrepresentations and false manifestations of the gifts in the modern charismatic movement does not prove or disprove anything. There are liars and false prophets in most every flock these days.

If you disagree with me, fine. But again, your condescension, mockery, and sarcasm absolutely turn my stomach. You should, as a Christian (exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit, cf. Gal. 5), should at least start out introducing your dissenting opinion with some love and respect. I respect the fact that you cannot be convinced with my personal empirical evidence. But the biblical evidence, whether or not you will see it and admit it, is conclusively on the side of the non-cessationist.

But why emphasis a Pentecostal-charismatic "heavenly gibberish" when ALL biblical "tongues" (better, languages) are known, understood, national, earthly dialects as clearly outlined by the twelve national language-groupings in the classic Acts Chapter Two portion of Holy Writ? Jehovah God well understands prayer, praise & worship in any of ten thousand dialects of Planet Earth, whether Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Latin, whatever, does he not?

Arthur,

Since I don't think your sarcasm and your condescension deserves its own comprehensive response, I will direct you to read my thoughts on this particular subject here: http://www.graceforums.com/topic.php?id=237#p1331

Take it or leave it...

Shalom,

Very interesting topic here.

I've done some extensive research in the writings of Calvin, and I don't see anything in there about holy spirit baptism or speaking in tongues.

So how can a person choose whether to be a cessationist, if Calvin didn't emphasize it?

Steve

LOL

Good observation, Steve. Since Calvinism deals primarily with soteriology (though it extends to several other areas such as Theology Proper and anthropology), it's somewhat understandable that he did not deeply address the specific pneumatological issue of the charismata. Calvin's is not a true systematic theology as we see from theologians today.

It is interesting to note that the Huguenots (early French Calvinists) exhibited the gift of tongues.

Shalom,

Lane

Man, oh man...

You sound EXACTLY like I did about a year ago.

God bless ya. It's a struggle and I know that firsthand. Just let me know if there's ever anything I can help you with... and in the meantime, let the Holy Spirit be your teacher.

Shalom,

I struggle with OSAS. Just not sure. I do believe that salvation is not based on any works, so loss of salvation cannot be due to works, but I struggle with some of the Scriptures which appear to say that works can cause a loss of salvation

...which Scriptures exactly? I want to reassure you that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

I struggle a bit with predestination, although I see the evidence of it all through the Bible. Struggling with this idea makes me feel like I am questioning the wisdom of G-d, which is quite an uncomfortable thought.

Indeed. I did, too. But the more you understand the biblical Truth behind the Reformed position, the easier it gets to accept.

Blessings,

Hello all,

If I may, I'd like to interject something here. Bible.org has a fantastic session on Free Will. All different views on Free Will are explained. It's like a college course or seminary. Wonderful.

Anyway, there free will is explained, abbreviated here of course, Adam and Eve had free will, they chose not to obey God. Since then no man has had free will to accept or reject Christ. AFTER salvation our free will is restored and we have the choice to live for him or not! Remembering that children of God will be punished for disobedience.

This made total sense to me. Considering what I have read and studied in God's word. Therefore, BOTH beliefs are true. God's will is perfect.

In His Mighty Grip,

Bib

Check out this chart: http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles...ll.html#history

There are links to many good articles on free will on this page, too.

Blessings,

I don't have any other doctrinal questions right now. I do wonder though, are you part of a Primitive Baptist Church, and are they spirit filled?

No. I attend a non-Calvinist, non-denominational church (the one I've been in all my life) at the moment. The church is open to the operation of the gifts, as am I.

I hope to find (or start) a church in my area that is both Reformed and non-cessationist where the gifts are concerned.

Blessings,

I do want to ask you if when you speak of being a follower of Calvin, does that mean you believe in the pure doctrine of Calvin, including the idea that God chose who he will to be saved and to be lost before the foundation of the earth, or the watered down brand of Calvanism found in most Baptist Churches today that tries to have it both ways, believing in free will to accept or reject Christ, but also holding to unconditional eternal security of the believer?

Hi Butero!

I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not a "follower of Calvin." I am a follower of Jesus Christ. As for the theology of it all, I would be identified as a five-point Calvinist.

If you believe in the original doctrine of Calvin, while I have my doubts about it's validity, it makes far more sense in light of scripture than what most modern followers of Calvin teach. At least, if you believe God chose you before you were created to be saved or lost, you can understand how a person could be eternally secure. Those who are chosen will leave this world having lived a holy life before God. Those who were created to be lost will be the sinners, lukewarm, and backsliders. At least that makes logical sense. The biggest hang up I come up with under this doctrine is why the need for missionaries and evangelists, as the chosen will be saved anyway. Maybe you can clear some of those things up?

I agree. It does make far more sense. The belief in "eternal Security" and the belief in the soteriologically libertarian free will (that man has a choice in the matter of his salvation) are totally incompatible.

Why the need to preach the Gospel? Simple. We're commanded to do so. God uses His children in the work of fulfilling His eternal will. Consider this:

"And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

While I accept most of Calvinism, I still have a few reservations.

Greetings Sideir!

I come from a "Holiness" background, too.

I'm curious to hear what your remaining reservations are.

I think it was Moody who said "election" is a doctrine only for the Church and it never should be discussed with the unbeliever.

I would have to agree with that.