Why Our Will Is Not Free to Choose Christ

[FutureAndAHope]

That is quite a jig you are doing.

You are picking and choosing who to believe outside the Bible, rather than using the Bible to determine what you believe. Some in the early church believed in free agency in salvation. And also some did not. None are the authority on what the Bible teaches. If someone believes in free agency in choosing whether to believe Christ or not, they will find the very scriptures that show that is not the case and reinterpret them to fit what they already believe. It is called confirmation bias. They have to adjust the meanings of the words in Romans 8:29-30 to fit their doctrine, rather than just considering the words in their plain meaning, and in harmony with the whole counsel of God, and accepting it.

If it was meant to convey what you say, one would think it would have been stated clearly in that way. Such as, "Those God knew would believe in Him, these He predestined to believe in Him, and these He predestined He also called, and those He knew at creation would believe in Him He also justified, and these He glorified." You see right after is says those He knew at creation would believe, and these He predestined to believe the whole thing becomes a nonsense sentence. Why would He need to predestine them to believe if He already knew they would believe? Etc. through the rest of the sentence.

No, all the Early Church writers, connected by generation, to the apostles speak of free will, at least all that I have read. You say I ignore the word of God, well I do not, I just choose to look at different scriptures to you, and explain anything that goes against what I see in the scriptures. The Early Church supports what I see, they do not support Calvanism.

As an example I quote the Early Church, on a scripture that you have to do circles around, to fit into your doctrine:

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

In regard to the Early Church Fathers, you say I am picking and choosing what to believe. Well, that is not the case. I have to admit I have not read every passage, from all of them. There are just too many to go over. But I have attempted to read through the earliest of them. Some of them I skimmed like Against Herasies, if you have seen it you will know why, it is very hard reading because he is fighting ideas that are no longer in the world and are not relatable.

But as for passages like Romans 9. About Jacob and Esau, I have done a thorough search, for the words Jacob and Esau. From that I was able to determine the Early Church saw the story in a figurative sense, representing the Gentiles taking the birthright from the Jews. There was a transfer that took place between the older to the younger. I studied "all" early references. Why do I say early references? Because only those connected to the apostles and the Early Church would know what the church taught.

Examples of Romans 9:

Irenaeus Against Heresies. (Cont.)
Book IV. (Cont.)

Chap. XXI. — Abraham’s Faith Was Identical with Ours; This Faith Was Prefigured by the Words and Actions of the Old Patriarchs.

2. The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: “Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,” she received answer72 from the Word, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Rom_9:10-13; Gen_25:23) From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom_9:13; Mal_1:2)

3. If any one, again, will look into Jacob’s actions, he shall find them not destitute of meaning, but full of import with regard to the dispensations. Thus, in the first place, at his birth, since he laid hold on his brother’s heel, (Gen_25:26) he was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter — one who holds, but is not held; binding the feet, but not being bound; striving and conquering; grasping in his hand his adversary’s heel, that is, victory. For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: “He went forth conquering, that He should conquer.” (Rev_6:2) In the next place, [Jacob] received the rights of the first-born, when his brother looked on them with contempt; even as also the younger nation received Him, Christ, the first-begotten, when the elder nation rejected Him, saying, “We have no king but Caesar.” (Joh_19:15) But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people has snatched away the blessings of the former from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessing of this Esau.


Barabus Epistle – Part 2
Chap. XIII. — Christians, and Not Jews, the Heirs of the Covenant.

But let us see if this people134 is the heir, or the former, and if the covenant belongs to us or to them. Hear ye now what the Scripture saith concerning the people. Isaac prayed for Rebecca his wife, because she was barren; and she conceived. (Gen_25:21) Furthermore also, Rebecca went forth to inquire of the Lord; and the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples in thy belly; and the one people shall surpass the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen_25:23) You ought to understand who was Isaac, who Rebecca, and concerning what persons He declared that this people should be greater than that. And in another prophecy Jacob speaks more clearly to his son Joseph, saying, “Behold, the Lord hath not deprived me of thy presence; bring thy sons to me, that I may bless them.” (Gen_48:11, Gen_48:9) And he brought Manasseh and Ephraim, desiring that Manasseh135 should be blessed, because he was the elder. With this view Joseph led him to the right hand of his father Jacob. But Jacob saw in spirit the type of the people to arise afterwards. And what says [the Scripture]? And Jacob changed the direction of his bands, and laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, the second and younger, and blessed him. And Joseph said to Jacob, “Transfer thy right hand to the head of Manasseh,135 for he is my first-born son.” (Gen_48:18) And Jacob said, “I know it, my son, I know it; but the elder shall serve the younger: yet he also shall be blessed.” (Gen_48:19) Ye see on whom he laid136 [his hands], that this people should be first, and heir of the covenant. If then, still further, the same thing was intimated through Abraham, we reach the perfection of our knowledge. What, then, says He to Abraham? “Because thou hast believed,137 it is imputed to thee for righteousness: behold, I have made thee the father of those nations who believe in the Lord while in [a state of] uncircumcision.” (Gen_15:6, Gen_17:5; comp. Rom_4:3)

 

[makesends]

No, all the Early Church writers, connected by generation, to the apostles speak of free will, at least all that I have read. You say I ignore the word of God, well I do not, I just choose to look at different scriptures to you, and explain anything that goes against what I see in the scriptures. The Early Church supports what I see, they do not support Calvanism.

As an example I quote the Early Church, on a scripture that you have to do circles around, to fit into your doctrine:

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

You do realize, do you not?, that Iranaeus wrote against heresies. That means that there were false teachers, just as Peter and Jude etc wrote about, already before YOUR church father wrote. Those too were EARLY CHURCH. Are we to take what they thought as rightly interpretive of Scripture? Even Peter, and Apostle, had to be reined in by Paul.

This means that Iranaeus was not an authority. But it also means that Iranaeus was writing in reaction to something, just as Luther and Calvin did. If Iranaeus was right, those he spoke against were wrong, and as heresies always are, they were wrong by taking a truth farther down a trail than is true. My personal opinion, from what you and a few others have posted that he wrote, is that he was explicit in his words to definitely exclude theirs. Calvinism does no different, and I can take what Iranaeus has written to mean something he did not mean just as easily as you can take something Calvin, Luther and others have written to mean something they do not.

Calvinists do not deny voluntary obedience/ disobedience. In fact, they insist on it being voluntary. Iranaeus says no different.

 

[Arial]

No, all the Early Church writers, connected by generation, to the apostles speak of free will, at least all that I have read.

Hmmm. Some think the Bible does too, but it doesn't. And keep in mind this discussion of our will is concerning our will being in a condition of freely choosing Christ.

The Early Church supports what I see, they do not support Calvanism.

Calvinism didn't exist as an ism in what you call the Early Church. So why don't we set that aside, and while we are at it, set aside the Early Church, as points of argument and defense, and focus on what is found in the Bible. There were those in the NT church that had things wrong, even Peter in one instance and was corrected by Paul, so how close someone was to the apostles is not the criteria to the truthfulness of their teaching. Jesus taught that it was God who softened or hardened hearts, that it was He who opened deaf ears to hear and believe, and opened blind eyes. Jesus taught that no one could even see (discern it)the kingdom of heaven, let alone enter it, but by an act of God in a person's heart.

As an example I quote the Early Church, on a scripture that you have to do circles around, to fit into your doctrine:

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

What precisely was Irenaeus dealing with when he wrote that? What heresy? Was Irenaeus an apostle appointed by Christ? Did he have that authority and equipping to establish church doctrines as Jesus gave to the apostles? And why do you depend entirely upon a select few, long dead, to determine what you believe, as though God did not give us the only Book and writings that contain His authority? Why not find for yourself what you believe? And why don't you begin by finding in His word who He is, and learn from who He is, who we are?

 

[donadams]

No “free will” no faithfulness!
No faithfulness no reward of the crown of Life!

Matt 24:45
Matt 25:21
Lk 16:10
Acts 16:15
1 cor 4:2
1 cor 4:17
1 cor 7:25
Gal 3:9
Eph 1:1
Eph 6:21
Col 1:2
Col 1:7
Col 4:7
Col 4:9
1 Tim 1:12
1 Tim 3:11
1 Tim 6:2
2 Tim 2:2
Heb 3:5
1 pet 5:12
Rev 2:13
Rev 17:14

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.