Pelagianism

[Reinitin]

On 9/19/2017 at 12:06 AM, Robert William said:

What is free will?

 

by Matt Slick

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coercion.  There are debates as to what extent this free will is to be understood as it relates to people.  There are two main views:  compatibilism and libertarianism.

The compatibilist view is the position that a person's freedom is restricted by his nature as is described in Scripture and that his free will is consistent with God's foreordination.   In other words, he can only choose what his nature (sinful or regenerate) will allow him to choose.  Therefore, such verses as 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20 are used to demonstrate that, for example, the unbeliever is incapable of choosing God of his own free will since they say that the unbeliever cannot receive spiritual things, does no good, and is a slave to sin.

Libertarian free will says that the person's will is not restricted by his sinful nature and that he is still able to choose or accept God freely.  Verses used to support this view are John 3:16 and 3:36.  Two subdivisions of libertarian free will would be "open absolute free will" which says that man's choices are not knowable by God until they occur and "non-open absolute free will" which would state that God can know man's choices but he cannot determine them.

The biblical position is compatibilism.  Since the Bible clearly teaches us that the unbeliever is restricted to making sinful choices (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20), then we must conclude that anyone who believes in God (John 3:16; 3:36) does so because God has granted that he believe (Phil. 1:29), has caused him to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), and chosen him for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13).

All the cults and false religious systems teach the libertarian view of free will that salvation and spiritual understanding are completely within the grasp of sinners (in spite of their enslavement to and deadness in sin).  For them, salvation would be totally up to the ability of the individual to make such a choice.

1. Man Apart from God
   1. Jer. 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
   2. Rom. 5:10, "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
   3. Rom. 8:7, "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so."
2. Verses related to free will choices of sinners
   1. John 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
   2. Rom. 9:16, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
      1. "the man" is singular
   3. Rom. 9:18, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
   4. 1 Cor. 2:14, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
   5. Phil. 1:29, "For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

So are you going all the way back to the argument of the theologian Pelagius, 400 ad?

Is your arguments for or against 

Asceticism?

Because your bouncing back and forth a bit laying things out in you post that has been argued for centuries but never actually resolved.

It is a dividing sword for sure.

My thoughts on both sides of this is that it is an argument birthed from a religious spirit not much different then the pharasees Jesus confronted. considering people were so eat up with rightness men have been judged and killed as heritics by relegious judges and self appointed truth perservers on both sides of this argument. I settle this argument for myself Like this. My Lord Jesus your word says you are the way, the life and the truth allow me to walk with you so I truely know truth. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Reinitin

[Reinitin]

On 9/18/2017 at 2:16 PM, Robert William said:

Calvinism and Arminianism are two main theological perspectives that deal with salvation. Calvinism is named after the teachings of the theologian John Calvin (1509-1564). Arminianism is named after the teachings of the theologian Jacobus Arminius (1559-1609). The Calvinist perspective has been summarized in TULIP:  Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints.  No corresponding acronym is widely used for the Arminian perspective.

Calvinism emphasizes the sovereignty of God and God's right to choose people for salvation (Acts 13:48; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Arminians emphasize the ability and freedom of man to choose God (Joshua 24:15).

In Calvinism, God is the ultimate and deciding factor in the salvation of individuals. In Arminianism, man's response to God's grace is the deciding factor.

Calvinists affirm God's sovereignty over his creation (Rom. 9:22-23), sinful man's inability to freely choose God (1 Cor. 2:14), in God's electing and predestining people to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13) which is by God's choice not man's (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16), and that the saved are eternally secure because their salvation rests in Christ's work, not man's faithfulness (John 10:27-28). Arminians affirm the sovereignty of man's will and ability to choose God, that God's predestining of people is based on his foreseen knowledge of their choices, that Jesus died for all people who ever lived, and that is possible to lose one's salvation.

Calvinism and Arminianism comparison grid
	CALVINISM	ARMINIANISM
Man	Total depravity.  Man is completely touched/affected by sin in all that he is (in nature he is completely fallen) but is not as bad as he could be (in action, i.e., not all murder, etc.). Furthermore, this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own sinful free will, choose to receive Christ.	Free Will.  Man is totally affected by sin in all that he is, but with the prompting of the Holy Spirit the unbeliever is capable of freely choosing God.
Election	Unconditional election.  God elects a person based upon nothing in that person because there is nothing in him that would make him worthy of being chosen; rather, God's election is based on what is in God. God chose us because he decided to bestow his love and grace upon us, not because we are worthy, in and of ourselves, of being saved.	Conditional Election.  Election to salvation is conditioned upon God's foreseen faith in the person.
Atonement	Limited atonement.  Christ bore the sin only of the elect, not everyone who ever lived.1	Universal Atonement.  Jesus bore the sin of all people, the elect and the non-elect.
Regeneration	Irresistible grace.  The act of God making the person willing to receive him. It does not mean that a person cannot resist God's will.  It means that when God moves to save/regenerate a person, the sinner cannot successfully resist God's movement and he will be regenerated.	Resistible Grace.  The sinner can successfully resist the grace of God and not be regenerated when God convicts that person.
Security	Perseverance of the saints.  We are so secure in Christ that we cannot fall away.	Falling From Grace.  It is possible to fall away from the faith and lose one's salvation.2

could you post the website you quoting so I can verify what your source is? The post isn't your study or thoughts is it? looks like your copy and pasting someone elses work that probably took them alot of studying to articulate their positions so siting source is respect for another mans work.

[GandalfTheWise]

Fundamentally, it come down to these points.

1.  Calvinists believe that the Bible teaches that God determines each individual's eternal destination; Arminians believe that the Bible teaches that God has given each individual the capability to choose for themselves.

2. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe the human logic that one or the other is correct and the other is wrong.  Therefore, both sides believe that the Bible teaches EITHER one or the other; not both.  Any passages which seem to support the other side have to be dismissed or properly "explained".

I've come to believe that we need to treat this the same way we treat the Trinity and the Deity/Humanity of Christ.  We look to the scripture passages that point to Christ's divinity and believe them.  We look to scripture passages that point to His humanity and believe them.  We do NOT use the passages pointing to His deity to disprove His humanity nor do we use passages pointing to His humanity to disprove His divinity.  We comfortably refer to Jesus has being human and being God at the same time.  We approach the Trinity the same way.  We can comfortably speak of one God and 3 persons.  We can say the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but we are not tritheists.  It is if we deny scriptures teaching God's unity or 3 persons that we run into trouble.

I think that the Bible fairly clearly teaches both the God determines an individual's destination and that each individual does as well.  I look at passages such as in Exodus 8-10 (where God hardens pharaoh's heart and pharaoh hardens his own heart) simply take them at face value that the Bible teaches both.  I feel comfortable pointing to passages showing God's sovereignty and human free will.  Where I don't feel comfortable is denying one or the other.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Because it is true.  If you disagree, start another thread about it.

Last thing we need is yet another thread on the topic, where people start out passionate, and become ugly. Lot's of smoke, a bit if heat, but too little light!

[Robert William]

1 hour ago, Reinitin said:

could you post the website you quoting so I can verify what your source is? The post isn't your study or thoughts is it? looks like your copy and pasting someone elses work that probably took them alot of studying to articulate their positions so siting source is respect for another mans work.

It's a great site to learn from.  https://carm.org/

[Reinitin]

2 hours ago, Robert William said:

It's a great site to learn from.  https://carm.org/

thank you so much.

[Guest shiloh357]

12 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Last thing we need is yet another thread on the topic, where people start out passionate, and become ugly. Lot's of smoke, a bit if heat, but too little light!

I don't see that anyone is being ugly.   All I said was that Calvinism is a false teaching.  And it is.   The only one getting upset, is you. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

11 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I don't see that anyone is being ugly.   All I said was that Calvinism is a false teaching.  And it is.   The only one getting upset, is you. 

Okay, if you think I was upset, fine. I was not the one (well, maybe I was also) accused of scripture twisting, he had a right to be upset, while you are allowed to be rude, and feel justified in it I guess. I think I will exit this thread, and not comeback, unless I am quoted or asked a question.

So, you can have the last word if you like, or not, your choice. However, if you use the quote function, I might return. You can just quote me by actually typing what I said (or copy/pasting), without using the quote feature, and you can still respond to something I said, it that is your desire. That way you can do so without drawing be back here. Those choices, put you in charge of merely responding or choosing to argue. See you around the Forums!

[Guest shiloh357]

6 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Okay, if you think I was upset, fine. I was not the one (well, maybe I was also) accused of scripture twisting, he had a right to be upset, while you are allowed to be rude, and feel justified in it I guess.

I wasn't rude.   I was the one being accused of heresy.   But you don't really care about that, even after both I and Luftwaffle brought it up to you. 

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

Okay, so you decided you want to argue some more. You can deny calling a person a scripture twister is being rude. I guess we just disagree. I suppose that you thing that is treating someone with love and respect? We obviously have different dictionaries, not just different interpretive rules.

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I was the one being accused of heresy.

Maybe that was so, and if so, I never saw it, I did not read the thread. If that is the case then yes, that could have been addressed. Question, did you report it? Or were you just thinking that the admins were mind readers or that we read every post. Well, we are not, and we do not. If a user is out of line, report it, don't react in kind.

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But you don't really care about that, even after both I and Luftwaffle brought it up to you. 

Not sure that I even read that. It is possible I did, I lose bits of memory frequently, my short term memory has suffered after several strokes. I am sorry, if I forgot. In any case, I ask again, did you report it? Did Luftwaffle report it? That is the system in place, to get attention needed of issues like this, not turning a thread into a battle of egos and insults, even if you are in the right theologically. use the system that is set up for this, and someone will respond. it might be me, it might be another, it might be several of us. That way, you do not have to depend on my poor memory, or what you think are my biases, you will go through proper channels, and not degrade the forums further.

Again, if you are ready to be through arguing, then don't quote me. In fact, just to be fair, I will ask you to cease with these tactics, you have been given a means to just stop this dialogue. If that is not in your interest or in the best interest of the forum, then I will report this instead, and let others decide what should me done.

At this point, my patience is growing shorter, and the time wasted by me in reaction to your trying to push my buttons, is not appreciated. My recommendation, and my resisted temptation, is to just ban you from the topic, not as a censorship of your opinion, but in an effort to make this place, a more pleasant and dignified experience for all who are interested in actual topic discussion in the thread.

Past my bedtime now, good night!