Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[atpollard]

It is my contention that the acronym is not based in the Bible, and therefore what is defined as Calvinism is also not biblically-based.

Allow me to challenge that conclusion with a SINGLE VERSE:

[John 6:44 NASB] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

• "No one can come to Me" = Total Inability ... like the corpse in Ephesians 2:1-5 "you were dead in your offenses and sins" ... we cannot go to God, God must make the first move ... "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive".
• "unless the Father who sent Me" = Unconditional Election ... the choice is of the Father, not of the man ... like Romans 9:15 says "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY"
• "the Father who sent Me draws him" = Irresistible Grace ... God draws man, man does not choose to come from a fallen will ... just as John 3:19-20 says "people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed.", so God must DRAW if any are to be saved.
• "I will raise him up on the last day." = Preservation of the Saints ... the "him" that is DRAWN by the Father will be raised by the Son, guaranteed ... because Philippians 2:13 "it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure."

That is 4 of the 5 points of TULIP in just one verse ... Look like TULIP is "biblically-based" to me.

 

[justbyfaith]

Allow me to challenge that conclusion with a SINGLE VERSE:

[John 6:44 NASB] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

• "No one can come to Me" = Total Inability ... like the corpse in Ephesians 2:1-5 "you were dead in your offenses and sins" ... we cannot go to God, God must make the first move ... "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive".
• "unless the Father who sent Me" = Unconditional Election ... the choice is of the Father, not of the man ... like Romans 9:15 says "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY"
• "the Father who sent Me draws him" = Irresistible Grace ... God draws man, man does not choose to come from a fallen will ... just as John 3:19-20 says "people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed.", so God must DRAW if any are to be saved.
• "I will raise him up on the last day." = Preservation of the Saints ... the "him" that is DRAWN by the Father will be raised by the Son, guaranteed ... because Philippians 2:13 "it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure."

That is 4 of the 5 points of TULIP in just one verse ... Look like TULIP is "biblically-based" to me.

I would contend with you that that scripture does not mean what you think it means.

No one can come to Christ unless they are drawn, that is true; however, this is not Irresistible Grace; because being drawn to Christ is not the same thing as, and does not guarantee, being given to Christ.

If it were or did, then all would be given = Universalism (heresy)...

Because all are drawn at some specific point in their lives (John 12:32).

That they will be raised up on the last day does not guarantee salvation either; because

1) that would be Universalism again; and,

2) there is a resurrection unto damnation (John 5:29, Daniel 12:2).

When the Father draws a man to Christ, he is given an opportunity and is enabled to receive Christ; whereas previously there was an inability.

Being drawn to Christ overcomes that inability; while it does not guarantee that the person will come to Christ.

The person is merely enabled to be able to make a free will decision for or against Christ (2 Corinthians 3:17); because it is the Spirit, who brings freedom, who is doing the drawing.

Therefore, in being drawn to Christ, the person is not going to not have a choice in the matter...he will be given a free will choice as to whether or not he will receive Christ.

 

[atpollard]

[1

No one can come to Christ unless they are drawn, that is true; however, this is not Irresistible Grace; because being drawn to Christ is not the same thing as being given to Christ.

You would be mistaken. [Not my opinion, but the weight of the context in which the verse occurs.]

John 6:35-45 [NKJV]
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

 

[atpollard]

Because all are drawn at some specific point in their lives (John 12:32)

Was Tizoc drawn? He was the Aztec Emperor that died in 1486 (6 years before Columbus arrived in the Americas with the Gospel). His name means "He who makes sacrifices" and as an Aztec, that would be cutting the heart out of his living enemy as a gift to the winged snake god they worshiped.

I have a problem with the "all without exception" reading of many verses when empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that to be FALSE.
Would "all without distinction" (some from every nation, tribe and language) work as an understanding of John 12:32 that would not make scripture false?

 

[Arial]

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

We could take a poll on that too. Even a quick perusal of all the threads you have started to combat Calvinism will show that those of the Calvinist are full of scriptures (not one liners out of context) brought under the scrutiny of careful exegesis. Whereas you give as a defense of your position "one liners" completely removed from their immediate context and from the consistent teachings of the whole counsel of God. When the Calvinist puts them back into their immediate context, addresses them through the whole counsel of God, they are found to be saying the opposite of what you used them to prove, or to not even be relating to the same topic.

Do you ever acknowledge this or even address it? No. Do you give your own exegesis of your "proof Text" when asked to? No. Usually you just claim to have already done so in other threads and lay your responsibility to present your evidence on them to go find. You can say it is there all you want, but we know it is not. A person genuinely concerned with presenting their position and establishing it as true would happily do so. Someone who could do that would happily do so. Someone who thought they could destroy the doctrines of Calvinism simply by making straw man arguments against it, would not. Hopefully, even though secretly since you began as one having all the knowledge and tools necessary, and found you did not, hopefully you see the difference between what the Calvinists are able to do and what you are not able to do; even though you find it impossible at this point to admit that. And evidently consider part of not admitting it is trying to reinforce your not being wrong by continuing in repeating yourself, insulting the posters, not addressing posts or answering questions, but casting all blame for all you are doing on the opposition, rather than actually dealing with what is presented to you.

This entire post I am responding to is a case in point. Where in there did you address the issue, which was your statement about the Calvinism coming from the acronym TULIP? Instead you whaa whaa whaaed about yourself.

 

[Arial]

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).

This is all irrelevant to the topic. It is nothing more than self defense, and once again the logical fallacy of basng your rightness on yourself.

 

[Arial]

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

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

Let's go back and see what you said, what I said in response to it, and how this response to what I said, completely changes the subject, avoids what I said, and comes up with a derogatory accusation instead. One that includes a bit of glorifying yourself.

By grace through faith...which is a function of the will (of the spirit, not the flesh).

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

To which you said, "I'm sorry that is the case with you. As for me, my will is affected by the Spirit."

 

[Arial]

That is an oxymoron.

I don't understand. How is it an oxymoron? I will requote it so you don't get confused and lazy and simply reply off the top of your head not bother to care whether it relates to anything or not.

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

 

[Arial]

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.

Is that a presupposition or does the Bible tell us that? BTW it never tells us that angels were created in His image.

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.

THAT is an oxymoron. And completely backwards to what the Bible says, which is that God chooses us, we do not choose Him. We love Him because He first loved us.

And your analogy bears no resemblance to the God as He reveals Himself in the Bible. It is a completely humanistic view of Him.

 

[Josheb]

Well, I am sorry for wasting your time.

I doubt that since this is the second time it has happened.

I suggest that when you see anything posted by me from here on out, you simply skip over it.

I usually do.

That way you won't have wasted your time.

How do you know I don't enjoy pointing out your nonsense? Is it thought you're the only one who can waste others' time?

 

[justbyfaith]

Is that a presupposition or does the Bible tell us that? BTW it never tells us that angels were created in His image.

When we receive our glorified bodies, do we cease to be made in the image of God?

See Matthew 22:30.

I guess I know more of what the Bible says than you do.

It doesn't make me special or anything.

What makes me special is that I love the Lord.

Knowledge puffeth up; but love edifieth (1 Corinthians 8:1-3).

THAT is an oxymoron.

Nope.

And completely backwards to what the Bible says,

Again, nope.

which is that God chooses us, we do not choose Him. We love Him because He first loved us.

Yes, we love Him because He first loved us; however, His love for us does not guarantee that we will love Him in return.

And He chooses us on the basis of foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

And your analogy bears no resemblance to the God as He reveals Himself in the Bible. It is a completely humanistic view of Him.

Again, nope.

 

[justbyfaith]

[1


You would be mistaken. [Not my opinion, but the weight of the context in which the verse occurs.]

John 6:35-45 [NKJV]
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

Again I say to you, and verily, that not all who are drawn to Christ are necessarily given to Christ.

If that were the case, Universalism (which is heresy) would be the truth of the matter; because of John 12:32.

 

[justbyfaith]

Was Tizoc drawn? He was the Aztec Emperor that died in 1486 (6 years before Columbus arrived in the Americas with the Gospel). His name means "He who makes sacrifices" and as an Aztec, that would be cutting the heart out of his living enemy as a gift to the winged snake god they worshiped.

I have a problem with the "all without exception" reading of many verses when empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that to be FALSE.
Would "all without distinction" (some from every nation, tribe and language) work as an understanding of John 12:32 that would not make scripture false?

I think that I will take your tactic to my own plate and say that this has already been addressed.

Except that I will also repeat my answer so that it is plain for all to see in the present conversation.

Tizoc was given the light of creation (Romans 1) and the light of conscience (Romans 2). If he would have obeyed those lights, he would have been presented with the light of Christ.

In being given those two lights he was in fact being drawn to Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

We could take a poll on that too. Even a quick perusal of all the threads you have started to combat Calvinism will show that those of the Calvinist are full of scriptures (not one liners out of context) brought under the scrutiny of careful exegesis. Whereas you give as a defense of your position "one liners" completely removed from their immediate context and from the consistent teachings of the whole counsel of God. When the Calvinist puts them back into their immediate context, addresses them through the whole counsel of God, they are found to be saying the opposite of what you used them to prove, or to not even be relating to the same topic.

Do you ever acknowledge this or even address it? No. Do you give your own exegesis of your "proof Text" when asked to? No. Usually you just claim to have already done so in other threads and lay your responsibility to present your evidence on them to go find. You can say it is there all you want, but we know it is not. A person genuinely concerned with presenting their position and establishing it as true would happily do so. Someone who could do that would happily do so. Someone who thought they could destroy the doctrines of Calvinism simply by making straw man arguments against it, would not. Hopefully, even though secretly since you began as one having all the knowledge and tools necessary, and found you did not, hopefully you see the difference between what the Calvinists are able to do and what you are not able to do; even though you find it impossible at this point to admit that. And evidently consider part of not admitting it is trying to reinforce your not being wrong by continuing in repeating yourself, insulting the posters, not addressing posts or answering questions, but casting all blame for all you are doing on the opposition, rather than actually dealing with what is presented to you.

This entire post I am responding to is a case in point. Where in there did you address the issue, which was your statement about the Calvinism coming from the acronym TULIP? Instead you whaa whaa whaaed about yourself.

Excuse me, missy, but I am not the one who called you a troll. on more than one occasion.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is all irrelevant to the topic. It is nothing more than self defense, and once again the logical fallacy of basng your rightness on yourself.

It is always "this logical fallacy or that one" with you...

which indicates that you are in debate mode;

which is a sinful mode to be in (Romans 1:29 and context, 2 Corinthians 12:20 and context).

I am not here to debate personally, I am here to evangelize.

If you want to debate, then I do not find you such as I would, and I am found to you such as ye would not; because debate is the atmosphere and this is not conducive to edifying discussions.

 

[justbyfaith]

Let's go back and see what you said, what I said in response to it, and how this response to what I said, completely changes the subject, avoids what I said, and comes up with a derogatory accusation instead. One that includes a bit of glorifying yourself.


To which you said, "I'm sorry that is the case with you. As for me, my will is affected by the Spirit."

It is not to my glory that my will is affected by the Spirit (and you apparently do not believe that this is true of anyone, that their will is affected by the Spirit; based on your statement). It is to the glory of the Lord.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Arial said: That always happens when a person tries to refute truth with untruth by using the Bible to do it.
I don't understand. How is it an oxymoron? I will requote it so you don't get confused and lazy and simply reply off the top of your head not bother to care whether it relates to anything or not.

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

There are no untruths in the Bible; so no one would ever be able to refute a truth with an untruth in the Bible.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Arial said:

Let's go back and see what you said, what I said in response to it, and how this response to what I said, completely changes the subject, avoids what I said, and comes up with a derogatory accusation instead. One that includes a bit of glorifying yourself.

To which you said, "I'm sorry that is the case with you. As for me, my will is affected by the Spirit."

deleted

 

[Arial]

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,

Evidence of looking up a word via an internet search engine, in this case "debate", then using what is found to accuse opponents of sin rather than address actual issues. Then quoting a series of scripture that that word is found in to give the appearance of keeping it in context. Adding to that the use of the KJV as their authority on the matter, as though the KJV is the best and only correct rendering of anything. The problem with that in this case is that no actual exegesis is given and the "context" in which it is used is not remotely related to the context it is in.
Romans 1:29
New King James Version
being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

New American Standard Bible
people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips,

English Standard Version
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

So I ask you, who is it that is filling up these Calvinist debate threads with unrighteousness, strife (some translations translate this as quarreling, which it is) and slander (verse 30 in most translations)?

Not to mention the context of Romans 1 is not redeemed mankind but unredeemed mankind, and its need for a Savior, and is being used against the redeemed.

 

[Arial]

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

Of course I do not take his word for something that provides no support or evidence. Would you? Is that calling someone a liar, or are you just adding more strife, and slander to the thread instead of dealing with the issues presented. An example of doing that would be to give your own evidence of what was asked for.

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

I call those who are trolls a troll who never answer questions or address posts or issues but simply go around stirring up strife, quarrelling, slandering accusing. Your post right here is a prime example. You are still on thin ice.