SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What the Early Christians Believed About the FREE WILL & PREDESTINATION

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

For clarity, it should be noted that Clement of Alexandria was born well after Paul died, same for Justin Martyr - both of which appeared to have strayed from the truth concerning salvation.


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/11/14 15:40Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

Quote:

TaylorOtwell wrote:
For clarity, it should be noted that Clement of Alexandria was born well after Paul died, same for Justin Martyr - both of which appeared to have strayed from the truth concerning salvation.



clement ofalexandria is not sameas clement of rome, thinking of clarity of first page

Alexandrian Clement lived somewhere between 150-200

Justin Martyr 110-165

so to say they lived long after is some what over the edge, to say the german munk lived long after thereof his limited understanding of salvation i can understand, a lot of things happend in 1400 something years. but seeing Justin martyr lived 20 years or so after the last apostle left this world, there where still people who was taught directly by the apostles, heard them preach, and as i said, these people read the scriptures, they read Pauls letters, in greek, thought in greek lived in the same area same time period.


Yet many think, a german munk 1400 years later understand salvation as taught in the scriptures better?

come on!


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2008/11/14 15:52Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Hi brother,

I think if you go look through the recent predestination thread, you will find we quote Luther and Calvin zero times. However, we do quote the Lord and the Apostles a lot.

Also, I suggest you speak a little more graciously of Martin Luther, even if you disagree with him. If the Lord didn't use him in the Reformation, it is likely you would be worshipping bread this Sunday in mass.

Grace to you,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/11/14 16:16Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:


TaylorOtwell wrote:

Quote:


Also, I suggest you speak a little more graciously of Martin Luther, even if you disagree with him. If the Lord didn't use him in the Reformation, it is likely you would be worshipping bread this Sunday in mass.




That is the best thing said on this thread so far. Thanks for the goofs. :-)


_________________
Christiaan

 2008/11/14 16:31Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

Quote:
I think if you go look through the recent predestination thread, you will find we quote Luther and Calvin zero times. However, we do quote the Lord and the Apostles a lot.



Amen.

I find the doctrines of grace in the Bible.


_________________
TJ

 2008/11/14 16:39Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

Quote:

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Hi brother,

I think if you go look through the recent predestination thread, you will find we quote Luther and Calvin zero times. However, we do quote the Lord and the Apostles a lot.

Also, I suggest you speak a little more graciously of Martin Luther, even if you disagree with him. If the Lord didn't use him in the Reformation, it is likely you would be worshipping bread this Sunday in mass.

Grace to you,
Taylor



I have followed the thread, it is mostly same arguments that has been flying back and forth throughout the centuries of debate.

I do appologize for my ungracefull speach about Luther. Yes we owe him some things, even thou i disagree on his interpretation of scripture, or most of it. But he did some good , he did.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2008/11/14 17:34Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

Quote:

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Also, I suggest you speak a little more graciously of Martin Luther, even if you disagree with him. If the Lord didn't use him in the Reformation, it is likely you would be worshipping bread this Sunday in mass.

Grace to you,
Taylor



No sir brother Taylor, friend, I must disagree with you. The elect definitely would not worshipping bread and doing mass for the scriptures are clear concerning the elect. It would have to be only the non elect that would be still worshipping bread and going to mass.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 2008/11/14 17:57Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Well observed, Roger!

Thank you for correcting my mistake.

Grace to you,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/11/14 18:48Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2042


 Re: Freedom in Christ alone

Vincent Cheung on Eph. 1:3-14

The biblical doctrine of predestination opposes the popular assumption that man has free
will.

Now, in theological and philosophical literature, free will is rarely defined, and almost
never defined in a correct and relevant way.

Since freedom is a relative concept – you are
free from something – in defining free will, we must ask, "Free from what?"

If by "free will" we are referring to freedom from God in any sense, then we must reject it. In this sense, only God possesses free will, since he alone is free from all influences other than
or outside of himself.

But if we are referring to freedom from any other thing, then in our context it is irrelevant, because we are considering whether or not we have any freedom in our relationship with God, and not in our relationship with any other person or thing.

As Martin Luther writes: "But our question is this: whether he has 'free-will' God-ward, that
God should obey man and do what man wills, or whether God has not rather a free will
with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills, and be able to do
nothing but what He wills and does."

With this proper definition of free will in mind, the Bible nowhere teaches that man has free will, but instead it repeatedly teaches that God has absolute sovereignty over man,including all his decisions and actions.

Nevertheless, the sinful desire for autonomy is so
ingrained in sinful man's thinking that he falsely assumes that he indeed has such
freedom, and at times even asserts that the Scripture also acknowledges it.

Some commentators cannot resist their sinful urge to defy what our passage teaches and
implies. For example, after briefly acknowledging that this passage teaches the doctrine
of predestination, Francis Foulkes adds, "This doctrine of election, or predestination…is
not set in opposition to the self-evident fact of human free will."

He offers neither biblical references nor his own arguments, but just says that free will is self-evident.

But it is not at all self-evident that man has free will; rather, what is self-evident is that if
absolute predestination is true, then human free will is false.

Foulkes continues, "It involves a paradox that the New Testament does not seek to
resolve, and that our finite minds cannot fathom."

There is a "paradox" now? How? Where? Why? It is "self-evident" to me that...his mind is indeed
"finite" – very finite.

As Luther writes, "There is no conflict in the words of Scripture,and no need of an 'explanation' to 'cut the knot.' The protagonists of 'free-will' create
difficulties where none exist, and dream contradictions for themselves."

Foulkes, like many others, insists that there is such a thing as human free will when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and then when he comes against the doctrine of absolute predestination, which the Scripture does teach, he cries, "Paradox!" and "Mystery!"

...Let it be clear, then, that Scripture contradicts Foulkes, not itself.

If God is sovereign, then man cannot be free – that is, not free from God, his power and
his control. However, this does not contradict the biblical teaching that man is morally
responsible for his thoughts and actions. The common confusion is that freedom and
responsibility are either the same thing – so that they are sometimes even used
interchangeably in theological and philosophical literature – or that one cannot be without
the other.The false assumption is that if man is not free, then he must not be responsible. In other words, the assumed premise, often unstated, is that "Responsibility presupposes freedom."

However, there is no reason to accept this premise, since by definition,
responsibility has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom; rather, responsibility has to do
with whether one will be held accountable. The first dictionary definition for "responsible" is "liable to be called on to answer."

Since God has given his moral laws to humanity, and since he has pronounced judgment upon those who would disobey, this means that man is responsible. The issue of freedom does not enter into the discussion.

...In The Bondage of the Will, Luther writes
as follows against Erasmus:

Wherefore, my good Erasmus, as often as you confront me with the words of the law, so often shall I confront you with the words of Paul: "By the law is knowledge of sin" – not power of will!
Gather together from the big concordances all the imperative words into one chaotic heap…and I shall at once declare that they always show, not what men can do, or do do, but what they should
do!

Even grammarians and schoolboys at street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should
be expressed by verbs in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative
meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done,or can be done? But there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip! – and things that you commanded and that were possible enough may yet not be done, so great a gulf is there between imperative and indicative statements in the simplest everyday matters!

Yet in this business of keeping the law, which is as far out of our reach as heaven is from
the earth and just as impossible of attainment, you make indicatives out of imperatives with such alacrity that the moment you hear the word of command: "do," "keep," "choose," you will
straightway have it that it has been kept, done, chosen, or fulfilled,or that these things can be done by our own strength!"

With Luther, we must affirm that on this subject Scripture contains no contradictions, no
antinomies, and no paradoxes, but that unfaithful and incompetent theologians "create
difficulties where none exist, and dream contradictions for themselves."

Scripture teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and these two do not
contradict each other; moreover, human responsibility does not presuppose human
freedom. Then, the question becomes one of justice. The objection is that if this is the case, that is,if God gives moral laws to people who cannot obey them, then would it not be unjust for God to judge them?

Again, the objection joins together two different things by pure assumption without argument. Since when and according to whom is justice necessarily
related to the freedom to obey? Just because you join them in your mind does not mean that they must be joined.

Paul anticipates such an illogical objection when he discusses divine election in his letter
to the Romans. He comes to the conclusion that God sovereignly determines and controls
all things, even the will of man:

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have
mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18). But then he continues,"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" (v. 19).

The objection is the same one that we are now considering. The claim is that since God
controls all things, this means that no one can decide against what God has decided. And
since God chooses to harden some people, this means that there is no free will to obey
God's commands.

But then, God has determined to judge disobedience. Since the objector falsely assumes that responsibility presupposes freedom, he asks, "Then why does God still hold me responsible, if I do not have the freedom to obey or disobey?" In response, Paul rebukes the objector, and writes:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same
lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:20-24)

God is the sole standard of justice, and we must submit to his standard instead of
imposing our own false standard on him. Accordingly, God has the "right" to prepare
some people for glory, and to prepare others for destruction. As for the charge that the doctrine of predestination encourages licentiousness,there must be something wrong with those who make this objection.

Before I heard this objection for the first time, it never crossed my mind that the grace of God could be a license to sin. It is only right that man submits to God and obeys his commands (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Yet some of these objectors speak as if sin necessarily follows grace. Whose fault is it that
they think this? The objection poses no challenge to the doctrine of predestination, but it
does tell us something about how these people think. In any case, Paul writes that God
has predestined us "to be holy and blameless in his sight," so that predestination leads to
holiness, and not licentiousness.

 2008/11/14 23:39Profile
repentcanada
Member



Joined: 2005/5/9
Posts: 659


 Re:

Hi HmmmHmmm. Do you believe the early Church should have sided with Pelagius? You seem to have alot of anamosity towards the doctrines of grace. They don't teach that man has no free will. They just teach that his free will is tainted by sin and has no desire in and of itself to choose GOD so man, by his own free will, always prefers to reject Him. GOD repects that choice and allows them to go on in their sin as Romans ch.1 says. I always ask the question, "What about GOD's free will? Doesn't HE have the right to choose? Is HE bound and chained by our own self determination?

Check this out, it may clear things up a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKciLp1B3K0&feature=related

 2008/11/15 2:22Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy