SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival
20 Years SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : "A Christian's Freewill & Those Days"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 Next Page )

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710



You said enough. Amen

This is not of my words, but speak to where my heart is coming from. Albert Barnes says it much better than I can.
I do agree whole-heartedly.

"""According to the ((((foreknowledge)))) of God the Father. The Father is regarded, in the Scriptures, as the Author of the plan of salvation, and as having chosen his people to life, and given them to his Son to redeem and save, Joh 6:37; 17:2,6,11. It is affirmed here that the fact that they were elect was in some sense in accordance with the "foreknowledge of God." On the meaning of the phrase, Cmt. on Ro 8:29. The passage does not affirm that the thing which God "foreknew," and which was the reason of their being chosen, was, that they would of themselves be disposed to embrace the offer of salvation. The foreknowledge referred to might have been of many other things as constituting the reason which operated in the case; and it is not proper to assume that it could have been of this alone. It may mean that God foreknew all the events which would ever occur, and that he saw reasons why they should be selected rather than others; or that he foreknew all that could be made to bear on their salvation; or that he foreknew all that he would himself do to secure their salvation; or that he foreknew them as having been designated by his own eternal counsels; or that he foreknew all that could be accomplished by their instrumentality; or that he saw that they would believe; but it should not be assumed that the word means necessarily any one of these things. The simple fact here affirmed, which no one can deny, is, that there was foreknowledge in the case on the part of God. It was not the result of ignorance or of blind chance that they were selected. But if foreknown, must it not be certain? How could a thing which is foreknown be contingent or doubtful? The essential idea here is, that the original choice was on the part of God, and not on their part, and that this choice was founded on what he before knew to be best. He undoubtedly saw good and sufficient reasons why the choice should fall on them. I do not know that the reasons why he did it are revealed, or that they could be fully comprehended by us if they were. I am quite certain that it is not stated that it is because they would be more disposed of themselves to embrace the Saviour than others; for the Scriptures abundantly teach, what every regenerated person feels to be true, that the fact that we are disposed to embrace the Saviour is to be traced to a Divine influence on our hearts, and not to ourselves. See Joh 6:65; Ro 9:16; Tit 3:5; Ps 110:2-3."""

Forknowledge; Ephesians 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in 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: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Praise God for His Good Pleasure of His Will.

I have also said too much, This argument has been hashed 2000 years. I just believe God did it and I had nothing to do with my election. His foreknowledge certainly could see I would never be able to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is now my Savior, God and Brother to our Father, by whom I now believe.


In Christ: By God's birthing of the Incorruptable Seed Jesus Christ in me. The Mystery revealed by and to Paul.

I am Born Again. By a Fathers Seed, "Christ in you the hope of glory".


 2011/3/28 23:35Profile


At this point, I could post a bunch of Robert Shank who would easily explain the words "predestined", "chosen" and "elect" but this is not the direction my heart had or has intended.

My hopes were that those who are of these beliefs and are struggling with their walks would post here and try to make sense of the cause of their struggling.

I 'know' the teachings Brothers - it's my concern over those who are falling or think that they are, that believe this teaching that concerns me.

IF I were overly concerned with the teaching itself, why on earth would I have joined myself to the type of church I belong to?


It's late here. Maybe tomorrow will bring better light to this thread.

GOD Bless all!

 2011/3/29 1:00

Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2242

 Re: Free will these days

The Oxymoronic Concept of Free-Will in Human Beings as Taught by Many in Christendom.

Choose - To select from a number of possible alternatives (The American Heritage college Dictionary).

Seth Lloyd, an expert on quantum computing and professor of mechanical engineering at the Mass. Institute of Technology said in a NY Times article that, “If by free will you mean the ability to choose, then a simple laptop computer has some kind of free will.”

Free - not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being. (Webster’s Collegiate).

Will - the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action. (American Heritage).

Free will - 1. the ability or discretion to choose; free choice.

Free will - 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or even divine will. (American Heritage College Dictionary)

Free will - freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. (Webster)

Even scientists recognize the illogical reasoning of free-willism. Even Albert Einstein who did not speak until 3 years of age.

Causation - “Every Cause has an Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to law; Chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.”

“The Principle of Cause and Effect-embodies the truth that law pervades the universe; that nothing happens by Chance.”

“Chance is merely a term, indicating that a cause existed, but not recognized or perceived. That phenomenon is continuous and without break or exception.”

Now that is good science and good logic.

The Principle of Cause and Effect underlies all scientific thought, ancient and modern, and was enunciated by the Essenic Teachers in the earliest days. While many and varied disputes between the many schools of thought have since arisen, these disputes have been principally upon the details of the operations of the Principle, and still more often upon the meaning of certain words. The underlying Principle of Cause and Effect has been accepted as correct by practically all the thinkers of the world worthy of the name. To think otherwise would be to take the phenomena of the universe from the domain of law and Order, and to relegate it; to the control of the imaginary something which men have called “chance.”

About 425 BC the greek philosopher Socrates propounded this method of argument modernly called, ‘The Law of Cause and Effect.’

Socrates was put to death partly for his diehard view of this one solid fundamental principle called ‘The Law of Cause and Effect.’

People experience free will. They have the sense they are free. Yet reality teaches otherwise. Free-will is merely a feeling which humans delude themselves into thinking they have and that it exists.

Self determination is a real and powerful reality. But in reality it is just that. It is self determining. What self wills. We are all filled with self-will. Not free-will as understood and defined by most.

Another has said, “that a human can very well ‘do’ what he wants, but cannot ‘will’ what he wants.”

And then goes on to say, "If free means without a cause, then you can make choices, but you can’t make ‘free’ choices, because there is no such thing. If free will is something one controls, then by its very nature it is not free. It is a self-contradictory term, it’s an oxymoron, it’s like dark light, cold hot, or true lies, it’s a square circle."

In the universe, you either have determinism or randomness and both are bad news for free will.

“I think that exposing free will as an illusion, would have little effect on people’s lives or on their feelings of self-worth. Most of them would remain in denial.It’s an illusion, but it’s a very persistent illusion; it keeps coming back. Comparing it to a magician’s trick that has been seen again and again. Even though you know it’s a trick, you get fooled every time. The feeling just doesn’t go away.”

I purposely have chosen the approach above. And I did it freely and willingly. As one of His children, predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, I do as I do freely and willingly. Those not predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, also do as they do freely and willingly. God accomplishes His will and purpose through every creature He has made for His own glory. I do His will in and by faith out of love,whereas God accomplishes His will through them and their evil, in spite of them, and in spite of their hatred of Him in their hearts.

Job 12:16 With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.

It is certain that God needs neither you nor I to defend Him and what He has done,is doing, and will do,and that, from all eternity.

 2011/3/29 1:11Profile

Joined: 2010/8/21
Posts: 111


Its kinda weird to compare calvinism as a fall away.
calvinism was before arminians.
and most famous missonaries, theologians and psalm writter of olden day where all calvinists.

famous calvinists are : John Bunyan author of pilgrims progress, John Newton author of amazing Grace, William Carrey the missonary father who went to India. Adinoram Judson the Burma missonary. Charles Spurgeon the prince of preachers. George whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, John Gill a famous baptist theologian and John Knox the scottish reformer.
The first baptists in my counry that came here years 1845 where also calvinists.
Then George Muller was a lutheran they have almost the same theology as the calvinists.
Todays calvinists : John MacArthur, Paul Washer, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tim Conway etc.
then most people that ever managed to write systematic theology are either calvinists, puritans or Lutherans.
and last but not least Augustine who put the bible canon together was a calvinist.
Puritans had same doctrines as the calvinist do not forget that.

 2011/3/29 1:53Profile


From here, it's going to have to be SOLA SCRIPTURA or nothing.

Nothing that I've read on this one page moves me in the slightest except to disgust me at man's words and increased my desire for The WORD of GOD more than ever.
It hit me earlier. I went off this site and all that I heard on the radio was people's doctrines read from Catechisms, etc. ... men's words ... men's translations of GOD's WORDS and I began to get literally sickened in heart. Grieved that His Word is being replaced by men's endless drivel. And seeing all over the net that these endless drivels are everywhere and dividing the Body of Christ because humans cannot stay with just the Word alone.
Debates that only consist of my commentator against yours.
Verses taken out of context, no cross-reference research, no word by word exegesis anymore - just pull a verse and write an essay from that one verse, forming the doctrine of our 'choice' or quotes from other men.
His Word speaks for itself and I plan to allow it to do so.
"Sola Scriptura" - We have Not practiced.
We've been deceived by using latin words and then doing the opposite.
Say you believe "Sola Scriptura" and then write whole books of men's words and call them Catechisms, or Systematic Theology and so forth. What a lie we've been fed. Whether it's from Calvin or Finney, whomever, we need His Word alone when it has to do with spiritual life or death doctrines - in context, cross-referenced, exegeted, word-studied and nothing more and nothing less.
[Eccl 12:12] "And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Boy, now that's the truth.

 2011/3/29 3:48

Joined: 2010/8/21
Posts: 111

 Re: sola scriptura

the term sola scriptura actually also came from the reformers, Luther, Calvin and Knox.
It was because of sola scriptura that luther and calvin stood against the pope and papacy.
and if we should be sola scriptura the word in 1 petr 1:2
about foreknowledge is in greek prognosis and can mean decided in before hans also.
my countries bible do not use the term "foreknowledge"
it uses the term "predestined"
God foreknew because he had elected already.
even if he "saw into the future" he stil knew who would accept him because he had already elected them he wrote them up in the book of life before the foundation of this world rev 17:8.
Why would man "accept christ" now when we did not in the old covernant?
if there is no election there is no salvation.
even if you elect according to forknowledge wich some claim. it is stil an election and predestination.
but thoose saying God elected according to foreknowledge who he knew would accept him. that condradicts the bible that God elects according to his will not ours.
We do not elect ourselves.
Remeber Israel where elected, no other people nor country where elected to be Gods People.

either you belive or not there is nothing in between.
here comes the gift of faith, will you belive that you will belive? or will you choose not to belive or not?
If I tell you my name is Josef either you belive or not.
there is nothing in between.
no either you belive or u do not belive.
How can you choose this? either you belive but even if you doubt and not fully belive then you do not belive.
you cannot choose to belive this or not.
if man would accept christ without an election then whats the purpose of the cross?
that option was also in the old covernant.
people could choose good and god and nobody did because they where bound to sin.
the free will is bound into the will of sin.
there is either an election 100% from God according to his will and man has nothing to do with it.
or salvation is some part God and the rest is man.
but then man would get the glory and not God.
And salvation would come from the man,
and we all know from old testament that man cannot save himself.
therefore people dont like calvinism because its an offence to the carnal mind that dont want to give worship to a God that elects some and other not.
Israel was choosen and egypt was not.
same today some are elected and therefore they will belive.
others and not elected and therefore they will not belive.
otherwise God would not be sovereign and almighty.
A God that did acually put 2 trees in the garden and knew they would eat it and knew people would go to hell.
And God even created satan and knew he would rebel.
If God is 100% almighty and sovereign, everything will go according to his plan and thoose elected will belive or are you saying God could fail? are you saying God is not sovereign nor have control over his creation or what is happening around him?.


 2011/3/29 11:23Profile

Joined: 2010/8/24
Posts: 1035


That is truly sad that every time Jesus-is God asks for Biblical verses someone posts a bunch of human reasonings.

Why don't you list Scriptural verses? What is so hard about that?

I know savannah have posted a a long post a while back about the depravity of the will. but they were taken out of context, and way too many to try to answer every one of them. why not post one verse at a time and give the chance for the other person to reply. I think that is fair and that is what JiG is asking for.


 2011/3/29 12:09Profile

Joined: 2007/5/22
Posts: 326


What are we actually discussing here?

It seems to be just a mish mash of thoughts on Calvinism and freewill with a lot of misunderstanding and jargon.


 2011/3/29 12:19Profile


I suppose reading, studying and learning from Scripture alone and not what we learned from books is impossible in these days.
I've never been more convinced of that than I am today.

 2011/3/29 12:30

Joined: 2011/2/23
Posts: 58
Brest, France


Some thoughts,

calvinism was before arminians. and most famous missonaries, theologians and psalm writter of olden day where all calvinists.

I don't understand your point, do you imply that the elder MUST be "better" than the later? what about the RCC then?? Regarding the "great missionary", what about John Wesley, William booth,C.T Studd, Watchman Nee, Charles Finney and his Great Revival and the others??
For Great preachers: Ravenhill, Tozer, Reidhead, Wilkerson,etc.
I think- and I am more and more convinced- that God does NOT actually check whether His man believe in the "Doctrine of Grace" before He uses such a man, but rather check whether the same is deeply humbled and understand how weak he is without God, that's what Hudson Taylor said before he reached China, I've never heard a great man of God (even Charles Spurgeon) stating that God uses him because he was calvinist, i.e better...

and last but not least Augustine who put the bible canon together was a calvinist.

Sir, Augustine must NOT have been calvinist, was Abraham a jew, or Levi a great sacrificator??? That said, I think Augustine theology differs a little bit from that of calvinist, e.g, He believed that the elects are taken from the regenerated (that brings a better alternative to calvinist -HUGE- difficulties to explain the warnings against falling away from the faith found in the bible, the parable of the sower, Heb 6:6, Mat 24:13, Revelations 3:5 ) regarding Luther, I am sorry sir but he only believed 3 out of the 5 points of the "doctrine of grace".

Sir, my attempt is not to bring disgrace on calvinism, i actually like the Piper, Washer, Mc Arthur (until i knew he pledged to demolish Finney's testimony and theology who does not fit with the "doctrine of grace"), Alistair Begg, etc. but I have noticed that the "die hard" are mostly found in the calvinist camp and i wonder if this attitude is actually a "coerced" one, i.e that it is God's will



 2011/3/29 12:54Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy