Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[justbyfaith]

In order for that statement to have any bearing on anything it would need to be supported with examples of Calvinist eisegesis laid alongside correct exegesis of specific scriptures. And since you also qualify it as Calvinists (which implies all of them) compared to MOST of the rest of Christendom, you have made even a larger task of supporting you opinion with substance.

But I will give you a break. Give me two examples of eisegesis by a Calvinist, compared to the same scriptures exegesis by those other Christians. I will even accept you using yourself as an example of the correct exegesis----as long as you provide the exegesis.

You are simply not taking his word for it and in that, you are calling him a liar.

Yet, everyone else is a troll who goes about insulting people.

 

[justbyfaith]

Even Arminnenianists define them the same way except for foreknowledge, they just apply them in different ways and to different things. And in order to have a god who would never violate man's free will, the meaning of sovereignty must be changed from He rules over all and governs all, establishes and tears down kings and kingdoms, numbers the hairs on our head, knows every sparrow that falls, creates us in the womb, made all that exists, is the beginning and the end, etc. to He leaves the efficacy of the Son's death on the cross dependant on not His will, but the will of the creature. Changes sovereignty over all things to simply greater than all. It changes omniscience to only knowing all things, instead of knowing because He ordains. Even though He says He ordains all things. an 4:35; Prov 16:9; Is 46:10.

God in His sovereignty chose to give a degree of sovereignty to men and angels in that He created them in His image, making them free agents.

It does not diminish His sovereignty at all. He is ultimately in control of the final outcome of all things.

They have God electing people because He knows they will choose Him, rather that God electing people, choosing Him, and bringing them to faith.

Yes, Election is according to foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

That means He looks down the annals of history and chooses those whom He knows will choose Him.

It's like if you saw the outcome of a horse race, and then went backward in time and bet on the winning horse.

 

[makesends]

Therefore, Calvinism is to a very great extent based on the acronym TULIP.

You have that just about as backwards as you have the order of events bringing about salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

That always happens when a person tries to refute truth with untruth by using the Bible to do it.

That is an oxymoron.

 

[justbyfaith]

The will is our flesh. Our flesh does not do anything independently of our will and vice versa.

I'm sorry that this is the case with you.

As for me, my will is affected by the Spirit.

 

[justbyfaith]

Granted. But every single one of them without exception sins. Again, it is the only choice they ever make.

Apparently, according to some teachers, this is also true of the regenerated.

I would contend with this.

But it is for another day and another thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have that just about as backwards as you have the order of events bringing about salvation.

I don't have that order incorrect.

We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2).

 

[makesends]

I don't have that order incorrect.

We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2).

Already refuted.

 

[justbyfaith]

Already refuted.

No, it has not been.

If you did it before, then do it again here...

And we will see if I or @JIM don't have an answer.

 

[justbyfaith]

God in His sovereignty chose to give a degree of sovereignty to men and angels in that He created them in His image, making them free agents.

(the sovereignty of men and of angels is limited by God's sovereignty).

 

[JIM]

How does Paul, Jesus and John saying that no one could be free from sinning, translate to, "that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice."?

Neither Jesus, Paul, nor John said that no one could be free from sinning. What they said was that all have sinned. Not the same.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Just by mere serendipitous chance, I was uncaused to happen upon this thread, so I haven't read everything; but somebody said that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice?
JIM said:
Reply #120
JIM said:
Keep in mind that while Paul said that all of sinned, he never said that no one could be free from sinning.
— to which @atpollard responded, in post 120 (which you claim shows someone (Pollard) saying that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice).

Yes, Paul did. So did Jesus and John.

makesends said:
How does Paul, Jesus and John saying that no one could be free from sinning, translate to, "that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice."?

Neither Jesus, Paul, nor John said that no one could be free from sinning. What they said was that all have sinned. Not the same.

You are moving the goalposts. I didn't say that they did. I'm asking how @atpollard saying that Jesus, Paul and John said that no one could be free from sinning, somehow translates to saying: "that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice."

 

[JIM]

Frankly, I am lost in all of that, so I will just bow out and leave you to it.

 

[makesends]

Frankly, I am lost in all of that, so I will just bow out and leave you to it.

You changed "no one [can] be free from sinning]" to "...we are forced to sin, and...obedience is not a choice." You are mistaken in doing so. You have mischaracterized what @atpollard said.

 

[Arial]

If anyone today departs from the acronym they are said not to be a Calvinist.

Therefore Calvinism is today based on the acronym.

Calvinists affirm that if one does not believe in the doctrines that have been reduced to the acronym, they falsely claim to be Calvinist. That is because the acronym expresses precisely one thing of necessity leading to the other. If you take one out, you have broken the chain in that theologies presentation of election and salvation. In that the acronym flows accurately.

When you say Calvinism today is based on the acronym you are once again defining something from you point of view and saying that is the correct no matter what you are told. A person who can never admit they are wrong, and will fight even to the point of foolishness to maintain that they are never wrong, is a person that never learns anything and swims in a stagnant pond.

Those who hate Calvinism and who are not Calvinists base Calvinism on the acronym, deriving their feelings about the theology, their opinions on what the acronym means and is saying, on the acronym; and going by their gut reactions, calling their gut reactions the truth about the theology, doing none of their own work of study and examination or checking anything against the actual scriptures, but rather only their own feelings and preferences and presuppositions.

Then thinking themselves to be well informed and equipped to do battle against Calvinism they do so with an army of straw men, and finding oh, wait a second, before them is an army wielding swords of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are moving the goalposts.

A term that is often used in debate.

Yet debate is a sinful mode to be in.

Rom 1:28, And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29, Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32, Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2Co 12:19, Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.
2Co 12:20, For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
2Co 12:21, And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

 

[makesends]

A term that is often used in debate.

Yet debate is a sinful mode to be in.

So what are you doing here?

And, btw, that is no argument against my point.

 

[justbyfaith]

Calvinists affirm that if one does not believe in the doctrines that have been reduced to the acronym, they falsely claim to be Calvinist. That is because the acronym expresses precisely one thing of necessity leading to the other. If you take one out, you have broken the chain in that theologies presentation of election and salvation. In that the acronym flows accurately.

When you say Calvinism today is based on the acronym you are once again defining something from you point of view and saying that is the correct no matter what you are told. A person who can never admit they are wrong, and will fight even to the point of foolishness to maintain that they are never wrong, is a person that never learns anything and swims in a stagnant pond.

Those who hate Calvinism and who are not Calvinists base Calvinism on the acronym, deriving their feelings about the theology, their opinions on what the acronym means and is saying, on the acronym; and going by their gut reactions, calling their gut reactions the truth about the theology, doing none of their own work of study and examination or checking anything against the actual scriptures, but rather only their own feelings and preferences and presuppositions.

Then thinking themselves to be well informed and equipped to do battle against Calvinism they do so with an army of straw men, and finding oh, wait a second, before them is an army wielding swords of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

I have found that it is not the word of God that is leveled against me in response to my caring exhortation to Calvinists...

And also, you don't know my overall disposition and history. I have admitted myself to be wrong on many occasions; and on those occasions I have changed my point of view to fit closer with the truth.

For that reason I believe that my overall theology is closer to the truth than what it in fact used to be.

I find that I do not have to admit that I am wrong half as much as I used to; because in changing my pov to fit the truth, I have conformed my doctrine to the truth.

The only time I will ever admit that I am wrong is if the Bible shows me that I am wrong.

I am one who loves the Lord; and because I do I am ever being renewed in knowledge. I am known of God because I love Him.

I do not rest in knowledge that I obtained 20 years ago but I read the scriptures daily.

I read through all of the epistles once/week, through the gospels, Acts, and Revelation about one/month, and through everything in the OT at smaller rate; while I read through both Psalms and Proverbs twice/month each.

I say this not to boast; but to let you know that I am constantly checking and re-checking my doctrine by the word of the Lord. If anything is wrong in it, it will be discovered and much of it has already been discovered so that my overall understanding is very close to the unadulterated truth of the Lord, if not exactly in accordance with it (not to mention I have an unction and anointing from the Holy One, 1 John 2:20,27).

 

[justbyfaith]

So what are you doing here?

evangelizing.

 

[justbyfaith]

And, btw, that is no argument against my point.

My point is that we ought not to be arguing except to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.