Predestination and Free Will

dcyates · #**101** 22nd August 2012, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Butch5

Acrually they don't. It's the Calvinsitic definition of predestination that cause one to negate the other.

Yes, exactly, that is what I am referring to; the Calvinist definition of predestination.

nobdysfool · #**102** 22nd August 2012, 08:44 AM

Yep, those eee-vil Calvinists insist on getting it wrong.......

Apologetic_Warrior · #**103** 22nd August 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by dcyates

Yes, exactly, that is what I am referring to; the Calvinist definition of predestination.

hey dcyates, I see from your icon that you're a Lutheran, and of course the founder of Lutheranism is Martin Luther. I wonder what Martin Luther would have to say about free will in this thread. Would he stick to his guns or shrivel up like a worm? Something tells me that he would be more dogmatic on this than any Calvinist posting in this thread in opposition to the Romish doctrine of "free will". Afterall, we only need to review one of his most important writings "The Bondage of the Will". Why would a Lutheran take a step backwards to Rome, would brother Martin not say "no, we cannot go back"?

Skala · #**104** 22nd August 2012, 04:06 PM

Luther taught predestination more often and louder than John Calvin ever dreamed of.

If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.
- Martin Luther

Butch5 · #**105** 22nd August 2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Apologetic_Warrior

hey dcyates, I see from your icon that you're a Lutheran, and of course the founder of Lutheranism is Martin Luther. I wonder what Martin Luther would have to say about free will in this thread. Would he stick to his guns or shrivel up like a worm? Something tells me that he would be more dogmatic on this than any Calvinist posting in this thread in opposition to the Romish doctrine of "free will". Afterall, we only need to review one of his most important writings "The Bondage of the Will". Why would a Lutheran take a step backwards to Rome, would brother Martin not say "no, we cannot go back"?

Being dogmatic doesn't make him right.

nobdysfool · #**106** 22nd August 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Butch5

Being dogmatic doesn't make his right.

Remember that....

Butch5 · #**107** 22nd August 2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by nobdysfool

Remember that....

I always do. Remember I give the evidence.

dcyates · #**108** 23rd August 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Apologetic_Warrior

hey dcyates, I see from your icon that you're a Lutheran, and of course the founder of Lutheranism is Martin Luther. I wonder what Martin Luther would have to say about free will in this thread. Would he stick to his guns or shrivel up like a worm? Something tells me that he would be more dogmatic on this than any Calvinist posting in this thread in opposition to the Romish doctrine of "free will". Afterall, we only need to review one of his most important writings "The Bondage of the Will". Why would a Lutheran take a step backwards to Rome, would brother Martin not say "no, we cannot go back"?

I have to admit, I'm a pretty lousy Lutheran, in that, beyond the most obvious, I have virtually no idea what Luther taught, or what Lutheranism stands for. The truth is, I'm Lutheran because when we first moved to the city where we currently reside, the closest church within walking distance of our home was a Lutheran church. Where we lived before that, the closest church was a Baptist one. Where we live now, the closest church is Christian Missionary and Alliance. So, these are the churches where we attended and worshiped.
I know this is going to sound kind of pompous, and I honestly don't intend it to, but very little of my theology is either derived from or firmly linked to any of the various and diverse denominations to which I happened to belong at one time or another, but rather from the Bible. I learned very soon after having become a Christian that there were excellent and devout believers in all denominations. Furthermore, I've had top-notch Bible teachers who were Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Alliance, Mennonite, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, you name it. If asked, I'm relatively sure each of them would simply prefer to call themselves Christians long before they would identify themselves as adherents of any particular denomination.
So, the long and the short of it is, what I believe, I believe it because it's what I understand the Bible to teach, not because Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or Simons, or Simpson, or whoever once said it.

Skala · #**109** 23rd August 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by dcyates

So, the long and the short of it is, what I believe, I believe it because it's what I understand the Bible to teach, not because Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or Simons, or Simpson, or whoever once said it.[/b]

I like what you have said here.

But at the same time I'm convinced that Calvin/Luther etc, derived their beliefs from the Bible as well. They simply taught what they thought was the truth.

I suppose its up to each person to take a look at what they are saying and see if he/she is convinced that it's true.

I am convinced that the monergistic/Calvinistic understanding of salvation is exactly what Jesus and the apostles taught: that man is helpless in his natural unregenerate state, and that God has promised to save sinners from eternity past, for the praise of the glory of His grace. Thus, it is not left up to chance and it is not possible for God to fail here.

Apologetic_Warrior · #**110** 23rd August 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by dcyates

I have to admit, I'm a pretty lousy Lutheran, in that, beyond the most obvious, I have virtually no idea what Luther taught, or what Lutheranism stands for. The truth is, I'm Lutheran because when we first moved to the city where we currently reside, the closest church within walking distance of our home was a Lutheran church. Where we lived before that, the closest church was a Baptist one. Where we live now, the closest church is Christian Missionary and Alliance. So, these are the churches where we attended and worshiped.
I know this is going to sound kind of pompous, and I honestly don't intend it to, but very little of my theology is either derived from or firmly linked to any of the various and diverse denominations to which I happened to belong at one time or another, but rather from the Bible. I learned very soon after having become a Christian that there were excellent and devout believers in all denominations. Furthermore, I've had top-notch Bible teachers who were Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Alliance, Mennonite, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, you name it. If asked, I'm relatively sure each of them would simply prefer to call themselves Christians long before they would identify themselves as adherents of any particular denomination.
So, the long and the short of it is, what I believe, I believe it because it's what I understand the Bible to teach, not because Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or Simons, or Simpson, or whoever once said it.

I'd just like to echo what Skala said so well. I understand and appreciate what you said, I would like to encourage you to consider the implications of things, and theology in a historical context as well as biblical. A person need not choose one and not the other.

One of the curses (and blessings) we all have when we approach the Scripture is the tendency to bring our philosophical/theological baggage with us as a sort of lens through which we interpret Scripture.

For example, I used be to an Arminian, a convinced one, there was no way anyone was gonna change my mind, and no one person did. I have to say God changed my mind through many different people, experiences, and sources. It really took quite an onslaught to rattle my stubbornness. I can think of at least three things that really shook me to the core.

1.) I became painfully aware of a glaring crack in my approach to defending the faith (classical/rational apologetics) with which I had been defending the faith (on a daily basis) for a couple of years. my confidence was all but shattered. To add to this, the weight of perfectionism and the possibility of falling away from the faith were heavy on my shoulders.

2.) I became painfully aware that most of my extra-biblical sources of substance (in all areas pertaining to the Bible, including commentaries and systematic theology), and indeed the greatest preachers and evangelists were Calvinists.

3.) as an Arminian, my eyes were being opened to the fact of so many difficult troublesome bible passages, I was open enough to at least see how this or that passage could be interpreted differently from the conclusion I had drawn.

Finally, for some odd reason, I suppose from my interest in apologetics and wanting to learn more, I had purchased the "The Works of Cornelius Van Til" for my (LOGOS) Libronix digital library, and I started listening to the included old recorded lectures (which are available for free download at sermonaudio btw). God used many different people, to change the lens I had been interpreting Scripture through, and how I defended the faith. God put the pieces back together, showing me things, and teaching me, and opening understanding to the distinctions and relations between things. We are like brands plucked from a fire. God shattered my pride and self-confidence and challenged my presuppositions before He shaped me into what He intended. Sometimes it is still a bit shocking, because I was born and raised into Arminianism, and I live in an area dominated with Christians of the Arminian persuasion. So my chances of ever even hearing anything contrary to Arminianism were slim. But God has ways of accomplishing His will, ways we cannot dream of.