Predestination??

[Wrigley]

I've never heard or sang that song in my entire life.

Wow. That's too bad. Its a excellent song.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Wow. That's too bad. Its a excellent song.

Sing it for me, Wrigley!

 

[Wrigley]

Sing it for me, Wrigley!

There isn't a computer strong enough to engineer my voice.

But fortunatly, cyberhymnal exists.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/t/hthineow.htm

 

[strengthinweakness]

As I have been reading and occasionally contributing to this thread, and others, concerning the doctrines of grace (Calvinism, if you wish to call them that, but they are really just the teachings of the Protestant Reformation, as opposed to the "free will" teachings of the Catholic Church), a thought has come to my mind again and again. Many people are spending much time and energy here, trying to "explain" and defend the doctrines of grace (which are, again, simply the historic teachings of the Protestant Reformation-- read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will) to people whose eyes and ears are clearly closed to them. I myself have spent a good bit of time here, explaining and defending Calvinism as Biblical truth. For most of my Christian life, I was an ardent defender of the concept of man's "free will to choose Christ." I hated Calvinism-- or I thought I did-- I didn't really understand it. I thought that it was some entirely man-made system that was not warranted by a clear, honest interpretation of the Bible. Over and over, I read through Exodus 4, Romans 9, and other sections of Scripture and tried to understand them. Invariably, I would find a way to "explain" them to fit them into my "free will" framework (which I already had well before I seriously began to study Scripture). The contradictions didn't matter to me, because I simply wanted to believe in sinful, lost man's free will to choose God and thus "become found." (Amazing Choice, rather than Amazing Grace!) Therefore, because I really wanted to believe in that free will, I always found a way to "read it" in the Scriptures, even when there were many verses that seemed to argue against this supposed "free will" of lost, sinful, depraved man. I also had my own, self-defined ideas about what it meant for God to be "fair" and "reasonable." They basically revolved around giving all sinners a completely free and fair and equal "chance" at, or "opportunity" for, salvation. These ideas were based on what I thought was fair, not on what the Bible taught was fair (or better, just) for lost, sinful man. Of course, I also brought these ideas to the Bible, and they colored much of what I read there. I read and read, and studied and studied, but I was so biased in favor of what I wanted to see in Scripture that I could not (and/or did not want to) see what was actually there. Finally, over a period of few weeks, God sovereignly opened my eyes. I read the same Biblical passages that I had read hundreds of times before, but this time, I saw that it is up to God to "find" lost, sinful man and free him through the sovereign granting of repentance and faith, and that God is not bound to do this in every case (or any case!), and that in some cases (the number of which we do not know and should not attempt to even guess), He sovereignly, for His own reasons, chooses not to free some people from the sin which they wickedly love. I still didn't quite feel "good" about seeing this reality so clearly in Scripture, but because God opened ny eyes to see it, I had to admit that it was there. The only question for me after that was, knowing that Scripture taught such a doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation, would I now accept it, or would I turn away from God in open hatred and rebellion, claiming that He was somewhow "unjust"? Obviously I did not turn away, because I now embrace God's sovereignty in salvation, because I saw it in Scripture, not because I read about it from some fallible theologian.

My point with all of the above "history" of mine is to say that when the time came that God decided to open my eyes to the truth of His sovereignty in salvation, I saw that truth. It wasn't because of anyone's skill in debating or persistence or vehemence in arguing with me. The truth was simply already there in Scripture, it had been there long before I was ever born, and when God opened my eyes to it, I saw it. I'm not writing any of this to say that we shouldn't have healthy discussions and debates between Calvinistic and Arminian Christians. It just saddens and disturbs me at times to see the debates becoming heated to the point of nastiness. As Calvinistic Christians, we know that we can't open anyone's eyes to the Biblical truth that God is sovereign in the salvation of men and women. God opened our eyes, and He will open the eyes of others if and when it is His will to do so. Therefore, even when Christians who do not share our convictions about certain Biblical matters become very disagreeable or even abusive with us, let us show them mercy and grace, as we were shown mercy and grace by God in coming to see certain truths in Scripture. It was all by His grace, not from our own intelligence or insight. God dragged many of us out of our stubborn resistance to the doctrines of grace. This should bring about in us the utmost humility and patience with others who do not see or understand these truths as we now have been brought to understand them, completely by the unearned, undeserved, and unmerited grace of God. Let us not become too frustrated and speak harshly with those who accept and worship Christ as God, accept his sacrifice for their sins (even if they don't see it quite as we do), turn to him in repentance and faith, and yet differ with us in exactly how some of these things came to pass. Most (possibly all) Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. May we all be civil, loving, patient, and merciful with each other as we have these discussions and debates. Not that we have not usually been so... but feelings can become tense at times, and harsh things can be said for which we may need to repent. I sincerely ask for forgiveness from anyone whom I have spoken to unlovingly. May we all stand up strongly for all that we believe, but may we be very careful to do so in Christ-like love, patience, humility, and mercy.

 

[woobadooba]

look beyond the superficial and you will discover anti-predestinarian arguements are based upon a complete dislike , a vomiting if you will , of anything that desribes man as clay in the hands of the potter ....... so it seems it is fine to accept God's total control over our lives ON OUR OWN STIPULATION ..... ie , God is Sovereign if I permit it!

Here is a simple argument for you:

If God created humankind without free-will, He couldn't be omnipotent, because then He must have held back from giving man free-will for fear of something that he would choose to do outside of His will. Could a God who is fearful be omnipotent?

The truth is, God's omnipotence is disclosed in the fact that He did create humankind with free-will, for He has fear of nothing, not even our choices!

In the end, He will have the final word.

 

[Catholic Dude]

As I have been reading and occasionally contributing to this thread, and others, concerning the doctrines of grace (Calvinism, if you wish to call them that, but they are really just the teachings of the Protestant Reformation, as opposed to the "free will" teachings of the Catholic Church), a thought has come to my mind again and again. Many people are spending much time and energy here, trying to "explain" and defend the doctrines of grace (which are, again, simply the historic teachings of the Protestant Reformation-- read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will) to people whose eyes and ears are clearly closed to them. I myself have spent a good bit of time here, explaining and defending Calvinism as Biblical truth. For most of my Christian life, I was an ardent defender of the concept of man's "free will to choose Christ." I hated Calvinism-- or I thought I did-- I didn't really understand it. I thought that it was some entirely man-made system that was not warranted by a clear, honest interpretation of the Bible. Over and over, I read through Exodus 4, Romans 9, and other sections of Scripture and tried to understand them. Invariably, I would find a way to "explain" them to fit them into my "free will" framework (which I already had well before I seriously began to study Scripture). The contradictions didn't matter to me, because I simply wanted to believe in sinful, lost man's free will to choose God and thus "become found." (Amazing Choice, rather than Amazing Grace!) Therefore, because I really wanted to believe in that free will, I always found a way to "read it" in the Scriptures, even when there were many verses that seemed to argue against this supposed "free will" of lost, sinful, depraved man. I also had my own, self-defined ideas about what it meant for God to be "fair" and "reasonable." They basically revolved around giving all sinners a completely free and fair and equal "chance" at, or "opportunity" for, salvation. These ideas were based on what I thought was fair, not on what the Bible taught was fair (or better, just) for lost, sinful man. Of course, I also brought these ideas to the Bible, and they colored much of what I read there. I read and read, and studied and studied, but I was so biased in favor of what I wanted to see in Scripture that I could not (and/or did not want to) see what was actually there. Finally, over a period of few weeks, God sovereignly opened my eyes. I read the same Biblical passages that I had read hundreds of times before, but this time, I saw that it is up to God to "find" lost, sinful man and free him through the sovereign granting of repentance and faith, and that God is not bound to do this in every case (or any case!), and that in some cases (the number of which we do not know and should not attempt to even guess), He sovereignly, for His own reasons, chooses not to free some people from the sin which they wickedly love. I still didn't quite feel "good" about seeing this reality so clearly in Scripture, but because God opened ny eyes to see it, I had to admit that it was there. The only question for me after that was, knowing that Scripture taught such a doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation, would I now accept it, or would I turn away from God in open hatred and rebellion, claiming that He was somewhow "unjust"? Obviously I did not turn away, because I now embrace God's sovereignty in salvation, because I saw it in Scripture, not because I read about it from some fallible theologian.

My point with all of the above "history" of mine is to say that when the time came that God decided to open my eyes to the truth of His sovereignty in salvation, I saw that truth. It wasn't because of anyone's skill in debating or persistence or vehemence in arguing with me. The truth was simply already there in Scripture, it had been there long before I was ever born, and when God opened my eyes to it, I saw it. I'm not writing any of this to say that we shouldn't have healthy discussions and debates between Calvinistic and Arminian Christians. It just saddens and disturbs me at times to see the debates becoming heated to the point of nastiness. As Calvinistic Christians, we know that we can't open anyone's eyes to the Biblical truth that God is sovereign in the salvation of men and women. God opened our eyes, and He will open the eyes of others if and when it is His will to do so. Therefore, even when Christians who do not share our convictions about certain Biblical matters become very disagreeable or even abusive with us, let us show them mercy and grace, as we were shown mercy and grace by God in coming to see certain truths in Scripture. It was all by His grace, not from our own intelligence or insight. God dragged many of us out of our stubborn resistance to the doctrines of grace. This should bring about in us the utmost humility and patience with others who do not see or understand these truths as we now have been brought to understand them, completely by the unearned, undeserved, and unmerited grace of God. Let us not become too frustrated and speak harshly with those who accept and worship Christ as God, accept his sacrifice for their sins (even if they don't see it quite as we do), turn to him in repentance and faith, and yet differ with us in exactly how some of these things came to pass. Most (possibly all) Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. May we all be civil, loving, patient, and merciful with each other as we have these discussions and debates. Not that we have not usually been so... but feelings can become tense at times, and harsh things can be said for which we may need to repent. I sincerely ask for forgiveness from anyone whom I have spoken to unlovingly. May we all stand up strongly for all that we believe, but may we be very careful to do so in Christ-like love, patience, humility, and mercy.

I dont see you mention Church History, Documets or Fathers. The main problem I see in these forums is people turning to their own conclusions apart from consulting other sources. The simple fact is "Calvin" wasnt born till the 1500's, that means people werent called "Calvinists" then.
My challenge to you is to tell me what they were called and what major creed/confession they used.

 

[heymikey80]

I dont see you mention Church History, Documets or Fathers. The main problem I see in these forums is people turning to their own conclusions apart from consulting other sources. The simple fact is "Calvin" wasnt born till the 1500's, that means people werent called "Calvinists" then.
My challenge to you is to tell me what they were called and what major creed/confession they used.

Hm. Before I do this, I have to say I don't agree with the original poster that Roman Catholics hold a position of free will.

I think the canons on which we could probably discuss this are the Council of Orange (529). Particularly Canon 8:

"CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith."

If I understand this correctly it is something on which Catholics and Protestants agree. I'd be interested in how Protestants get from Rome agreeing with Canon 8, to Rome advocating free will. But that's another matter, you asked for the reference. I hope this will help.

 

[Catholic Dude]

heymikey80-

Hm. Before I do this, I have to say I don't agree with the original poster that Roman Catholics hold a position of free will.

What do you mean, of course Catholics believe in free will.

I think the canons on which we could probably discuss this are the Council of Orange (529). Particularly Canon 8:

"CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith."

If I understand this correctly it is something on which Catholics and Protestants agree. I'd be interested in how Protestants get from Rome agreeing with Canon 8, to Rome advocating free will. But that's another matter, you asked for the reference. I hope this will help.

We can start by first going to Reformed.org to the Council of Orange.
Next we can cite the entire canon 8 instead of part of canon 8:

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.

For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
​

The key passage in thise canon here is those who think they have the ability WITHOUT the help of God. That is correct, God's help is REQUIRED. However we clearly see free will does exist, it was just "weakened" and requires grace to lead the person to Christ.
This same council also teaches that Baptism fully restores Free Will.

 

[strengthinweakness]

I dont see you mention Church History, Documets or Fathers. The main problem I see in these forums is people turning to their own conclusions apart from consulting other sources. The simple fact is "Calvin" wasnt born till the 1500's, that means people werent called "Calvinists" then.
My challenge to you is to tell me what they were called and what major creed/confession they used.

What were they called? Well, there are different terms which cover the basic teachings that came to be called "Calvinism," and the people who held those teachings at different points in history. I said, in my original post, "Calvinism, if you wish to call it that... etc. etc." "Calvinism" is simply theological shorthand that is easily recognizable for many people. I am aware that there were people who held to the general teachings of so-called "Calvinism" before Calvin ever put pen to paper. The earliest ones were simply described as "Augustinian," after the theological convictions that Augustine came to hold later in his life. Absolute depravity of man, total moral inability to come to Christ on one's own, the understanding that Christ died specifically to redeem His elect, the effectual nature of grace in bringing lost sinners to belief in Christ... I think that's it... from what I understand, Augustine did not believe in the eternal security of the believer, as Calvinists always have... am I wrong? Now, what is generally known as "Calvinism" today was first systematically set out in the Canons of Dordt. The "five points" of the Canons were formulated as a refutation of the earlier "five points" of Jacobus Arminius, who was himself originally a Reformed minister who held to the teachings of John Calvin. I'm probably leaving out some details that you will remind me of, hehe. That's all that comes to mind at the moment... I am sleep-deprived though... I might do better at another time!

 

[cygnusx1]

IT WASN'T JUST LUTHER'S BONDAGE OF THE WILL , that set the stall out for the Reformed faith , it was also John Calvin , I have his book 'The Bondage and Liberation of the will ' and I think you will find William Tyndale , Bible Translator and Martyr wrote on the bondage of the sinners will also .......... ( a few hundred years later Johnathan Edwards penned the Freedom of the Will , where he argues the sinner is a slave )


anyone who doubts what the Reformation was about should look at the resulting arguements from Rome against the Reformation , you will discover anathemas on any who deny man has lost his free-will because of sin....

much of the Reformation was over Soteriology , and the difference in beliefs is clear and strong.

William Tyndale writes ;

Man’s free will decision for Christ a damnable lie​

If a man had once felt within his conscience the fierce wrath of God toward sinners, and the terrible and most cruel damnation that the law threatens: and then beheld with the eyes of a strong faith, the merciful favor and gracious taking away of the damnation of the law and the restoring again of life, freely offered us in Christ’s blood, he should perceive love, and so much the more, that it was showed us when we were sinners and enemies of God, Romans 5, and that with all deservings, without our endeavoring, enforcing and preparing ourselves, without all good motions, qualities and properties of our freewill. But [he loved us] when our hearts were as dead unto all good working, as the members of him whose soul is departed. This truth I will prove to stop the blasphemous mouths of our adversaries [who preach man’s freewill love of God]. I will from innumerable texts rehearse but one found in the beginning of the second chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul saith thus,

Ye were dead in trespass and sin in which ye walked according to the course of the world and after the governor who ruleth in the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of unbelief, among which we also had our conversation in time past, in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind (so that the flesh and the mind were in agreement to sin, the mind consenting as well as the flesh) and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. But God being rich in mercy, through the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us with Christ: for by grace are ye saved: and with him hath raised us by and with him made us sit in heavenly things through Jesus Christ, for to show in time to come the exceeding riches of his grace, in kindness to usward in Jesus Christ. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God, and commeth not of works, lest any man should boast himself. But we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, unto which God ordained us before that we should walk in them.

The text is plain. We were stone dead and without life or power to do or consent to good. Our whole nature was captive under the devil and led of his will. And we were as wicked as the devil now is (except he now sinneth against the holy ghost) and we consented unto sin with soul and body, and hated the law of God. But God of his grace only quickened us in Christ, and raised us out of that death and made us sit with Christ in heavenly things. That is, he set our hearts at rest and made us sit secure in the life of Christ’s doctrine, immoveable from the love of Christ. And finally, our second birth is God’s workmanship and creation in Christ, so that as he which is yet unmade hath no life nor power to work, neither did we until we were made again in Christ. The preaching of mercy in Christ quickened our hearts through faith, wrought by the spirit of Christ which God placed in our hearts before we were wise…….

END​

​

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/docs/tyndale/part1.htm​

 

[Catholic Dude]

cygnusx1-

anyone who doubts what the Reformation was about should look at the resulting arguements from Rome against the Reformation , you will discover anathemas on any who deny man has lost his free-will because of sin....

much of the Reformation was over Soteriology , and the difference in beliefs is clear and strong.

I wouldnt say the reformation was entirely about the issue of free will, but it was a important issue.

As I have pointed out the Council of Orange states free will was weakened and more fully restored through Baptism. That was a council that took place in about 500AD.

The Catholic Church never said free will was NOT weakened, and never said grace was not required.

William Tyndale writes ;

Man’s free will decision for Christ a damnable lie​

If a man had once felt within his conscience the fierce wrath of God toward sinners, and the terrible and most cruel damnation that the law threatens: and then beheld with the eyes of a strong faith, the merciful favor and gracious taking away of the damnation of the law and the restoring again of life, freely offered us in Christ’s blood, he should perceive love, and so much the more, that it was showed us when we were sinners and enemies of God, Romans 5, and that with all deservings, without our endeavoring, enforcing and preparing ourselves, without all good motions, qualities and properties of our freewill. But [he loved us] when our hearts were as dead unto all good working, as the members of him whose soul is departed. This truth I will prove to stop the blasphemous mouths of our adversaries [who preach man’s freewill love of God]. I will from innumerable texts rehearse but one found in the beginning of the second chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul saith thus,

Ye were dead in trespass and sin in which ye walked according to the course of the world and after the governor who ruleth in the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of unbelief, among which we also had our conversation in time past, in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind (so that the flesh and the mind were in agreement to sin, the mind consenting as well as the flesh) and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. But God being rich in mercy, through the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us with Christ: for by grace are ye saved: and with him hath raised us by and with him made us sit in heavenly things through Jesus Christ, for to show in time to come the exceeding riches of his grace, in kindness to usward in Jesus Christ. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God, and commeth not of works, lest any man should boast himself. But we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, unto which God ordained us before that we should walk in them.

The text is plain. We were stone dead and without life or power to do or consent to good. Our whole nature was captive under the devil and led of his will. And we were as wicked as the devil now is (except he now sinneth against the holy ghost) and we consented unto sin with soul and body, and hated the law of God. But God of his grace only quickened us in Christ, and raised us out of that death and made us sit with Christ in heavenly things. That is, he set our hearts at rest and made us sit secure in the life of Christ’s doctrine, immoveable from the love of Christ. And finally, our second birth is God’s workmanship and creation in Christ, so that as he which is yet unmade hath no life nor power to work, neither did we until we were made again in Christ. The preaching of mercy in Christ quickened our hearts through faith, wrought by the spirit of Christ which God placed in our hearts before we were wise…….

END​

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/docs/tyndale/part1.htm

This is exactly what Im concerned about.
People turning to St William Tydale while 110% excluding the previous saints. The Early Church Fathers believed in free will, that doesnt mean they didnt believe it was weakened or didnt require grace.

It is very uncalled for when people call free will a myth or a damnable heresy when thats simply not the case.

Were the men known as the Early Church Fathers orthodox or unorthodox? Did they know what they were talking about or were they so wrong that after the death of the last apostle the world was in darkness until the year 1500? This is an important issue.
As a Catholic I call most of those men Saints and they worth quoting and looking to for information.

(this post is going off topic so I wont go into anything more)
http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/docs/tyndale/part1.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

Rome says: "If anyone says that man's free will moved and
aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way
cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the
grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it
wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever
and is merely passive, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent,
Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 4.).

*anathema means accursed!

Rome says: "If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man's
free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in
name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into
the Church by Satan, let him be anathema" (Canon 5.).

Rome says: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by
faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in
order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in
any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of
his own will, let him be anathema" (Canon 9.).


Protestant Arminianism (doctrine of free will) has its roots
in Rome. This should not come as a great shock, if we remember
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic who championed free will against
Martin Luther during the Reformation.
The Bible teaches men about salvation. Man does not will
himself into the Kingdom. Man does not cooperate with God to be
born again. Man does nothing because, as the Bible says, "Salvation
is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).
That is, man does nothing until he is able, and man is not
able to believe until God gives the ability to believe. Man is
spiritually dead and must first be resurrected to walk in newness
of life with Christ (Rom 6:4-11; Eph 2:1; Jn 6:65; Phil 1:29).
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom 9:16).

http://www.skepticfiles.org/aj/inablity.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

"God, through His sovereign Holy Spirit, must intervene and
grant repentance and belief to sinners. "And he said, Therefore
said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given
unto him of my Father" (Jn 6:65; and see II Tim 2:25; Acts 11:18;
Phil 1:29).
Without God giving man the eyes to see, man cannot see the
Kingdom of God, let alone enter it. "Therefore they could not
believe, because that Isaiah said again, He [God] hath blinded
their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and
I should heal them" (Jn 12:39-40 & Isa 6:9-10; also see Jn 3:3; I
Cor 2:14).
Therefore, to teach that man is capable within himself of
initiating any move toward God is totally heretical. Only a salva-
tion by works can allow man to initiate or "know how to bring such
a renewed condition about."
The Pharisees thought they were free to initiate moves to God
that bring about a renewed condition, but Jesus told them they were
slaves to sin. In fact, the Bible shows they were incapable of
spiritual understanding: "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even
because ye cannot hear my word" (Jn 8:43).
A man must first belong to God by spiritual regeneration
initiated by God in order to hear the words of Christ. "He that is
of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye
are not of God" (Jn 8:47).
Those who teach man's ability or that man is "capable within
himself of instituting (or even desiring) any action that would
result in his salvation" do not understand the fall of Adam and the
first five chapters of Romans. One man's sin has made all men
spiritually dead and unable to come to God in their own ability.
Can man institute or desire an action that results in
salvation? The Bible says one man's action has resulted in sal-
vation for his people: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou
shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their
sins" (Matt 1:21).
But what about other men? Can they bring about such a renewed
condition as salvation from sin? The Bible says if a man is saved,
it is by God's grace and not by any act or desire instituted by the
man. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it [faith] is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9).
Surely, there must be a great cry for God in the hearts of
men, right? Wrong--the Bible says "As it is written, there is none
righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is
none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they
are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good,
no, not one" (Rom 3:10-12).
We know, of course, that men make choices daily. Therefore,
men must have the ability to seek and to choose God for their
salvation. Is this not obviously true? Obviously not--the Bible
says "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the
flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for
it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then
they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:5-8).
Commercial religion does not like the idea that a man in the
unregenerate state cannot know God. Commercial religion fights the
notion that God is SOVEREIGN in choosing men to come into a saving
knowledge of Christ.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him
in love" (Eph 1:4).
There are no mega bucks to be made if a TV evangelist cannot
teach a man how to be saved. The TV evangelists plead and beg for
men to know God and tell those men that everything rests on their
personal decisions to accept Christ. Essentially, viewers are told
they hold the key to their own salvation.
But the Bible says salvation belongs to and comes from God.
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth
the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Matt
11:27).
Commercial religion does not like the idea that the whole
human race was represented in Adam. Instead, the TV religious
movement teaches that Adam was the father of mankind and because of
his fall in the garden the rest of us are suffering in a fallen
world.
Few popular preachers will teach that Adam's sin was imputed
or accounted to his descendants. To do so would require them to
teach that likewise the righteousness of the second Adam, Christ,
is imputed to His people in the same way. That is, men are not
personally guilty of Adam's sin, but they receive the punishment
for Adam's sin and are born now as sinners. And men are not
personally meritorious of the righteousness of Christ, but Christ
freely gives His people His righteousness without them personally
doing any work to earn it.
The righteousness of a Christian is not his own; it is the
righteousness of another. It is an alien righteousness; it is the
righteousness of Christ credited to the Christian's account.
Many examples of religious entertainers could be made;
however, one TV evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, epitomizes the delusion
and apostasy that permeates the professing church today.
Jimmy Swaggart, in his booklet "False Doctrines in the
Church," teaches "that there is a great cry for God in the hearts
of most people. They may not understand it, they may not know how
to bring such a renewed condition about, but at the same time we
feel that most people feel this desire" (FD p.6).
This "feeling" could be heartburn or the same thing Mormons
"feel" in their heart about their false beliefs. But what does the
Bible say? "There is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God" (Rom 3:11).
http://www.skepticfiles.org/aj/inablity.htm

 

[humbleservant1408]

Cygnusx1,

Wow and Amen!! I can't believe I've actually run into someone on this site who truly understands the total depravity of the human heart. Very well stated. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thank you.

 

[MarkT]

"God, through His sovereign Holy Spirit, must intervene and
grant repentance and belief to sinners. "And he said, Therefore
said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given
unto him of my Father" (Jn 6:65; and see II Tim 2:25; Acts 11:18;
Phil 1:29).
Without God giving man the eyes to see, man cannot see the
Kingdom of God, let alone enter it. "Therefore they could not
believe, because that Isaiah said again, He [God] hath blinded
their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and
I should heal them" (Jn 12:39-40 & Isa 6:9-10; also see Jn 3:3; I Cor 2:14).

So far so good.

Therefore, to teach that man is capable within himself of
initiating any move toward God is totally heretical.

You just contradicted the scripture that says God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. The scripture says, "that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and
I should heal them".

So it's not such a lie as William Tyndale wrote. If a man can not initiate a move towards God then why would God have to blind men and harden their hearts? If God did not blind them, He would have to heal them, 'according to His Word'. So it is for this reason that God blinds them. God is governed by His Word.

Obviously God knows who they are and He blinds them. He blinds them because they don't belong to him. So God blinds the sons of the evil one and He gives sight to his sons.

This does not change the fact that God has to draw men to his Son. He does. He draws some, as the scripture says, "God directs his steps" and he blinds others. It is all God's will.

Of course no one can choose what they believe. That would be a contradiction in terms. When God reveals the truth, it's no longer something you can deny.

But I think man has freewill in a sense.

We know 'a man plans his ways, but God directs his steps' from scripture.

However a man does have self control; mind over body. He can overcome the temptation to sin. He can resist the devil and the devil will flee from him. However this would only apply to the Christian who knows God's will and does it.

It could be a man only has freewill when he believes in God and God gives him his Spirit. Then he is free to resist the devil. On the other hand, the ones who don't know God are not exactly free. They are bound by their nature to serve their passions.

As far as predestination goes, it follows that no prophecy would ever come true if it wasn't predestined.

 

[Normann]

John 1:7
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.


2 Cor. 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[Normann]

WEll, I'm moving on...

I leave you with scripture...


Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[R.J.S]

WEll, I'm moving on...

I leave you with scripture...


Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Oh I agree, its just that:

Act 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

 

[ContraMundum]

The key passage in thise canon here is those who think they have the ability WITHOUT the help of God. That is correct, God's help is REQUIRED. However we clearly see free will does exist, it was just "weakened" and requires grace to lead the person to Christ.

This same council also teaches that Baptism fully restores Free Will.

Then the guy who posted this canon was right- that you are in agreement at that point. The Reformed are not crass determinists,as many mistake their position to be. It should also be noted that the developed Lutheran position (eg. not just Dr Luther) is the same as what you have stated, in particular towards the grace given in baptism, so again there is some unity to be found.

Having said that, it would be clumsy of us not to note that there has always been a huge divergence in opinion about this within Romanism too. There has been some pretty hefty stauches over this in church history in every part of the world.

That's why we should always treat it ultimately as a mystery. This has always been a source of controversy.

 

[ContraMundum]

Oh I agree, its just that:

Act 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

It's been pointed out more than once on this thread that this text is not a good proof-text for selective salvation. The Greek parsing is not above debate, making who did the "ordaining" an open quesion (eg. the gentiles themselves may have put themselves in order), the Greek word for "ordained" is not the same as the word for "decreed" or "foreordained" (meaning had Luke intended that to be the meaning he would have used it) and lastly the context best used for the word translated "ordained" in this case means "set in order", a military term, thus lending the meaning to be preparing the heart for the Gospel.

...but that's just one way to look at it!