Why do some people believe and some do not?
- Thread starter Hakawaka
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am fine with them stating their views and reasons, and I read plenty outside my own denomination (technically my church isn't even my denominations), it's just the repetitive arguments everyone with any background in theology already knows. These basic issues are not going to be resolved by people repeating catechism verses at each other but, if they are, by deep theological discussion and gradual culture change, not repetitive internet arguments.
I know some Lutheran and Catholic writers who I can really geek into the weeds with, but if someone online is trying to convince me to believe in the Pope I already know what they're going to say. Making it a debate is pointless and fake. Believe it or not, I've read the same Bible you have, and I read all sorts of radical Reformers as part of my degree. What is repeating an argument we've both read before going to accomplish?
Again, I'm not interested in internet debates. They're pointless. I'd rather read a book by the person you're cribbing from than argue with you. And, frankly, I'd rather you read John Gill then me try to convince you.
The impulse to argue is not useful in these settings, in my opinion, and it's a sign of needing more to do in your life.
I know some Lutheran and Catholic writers who I can really geek into the weeds with, but if someone online is trying to convince me to believe in the Pope I already know what they're going to say. Making it a debate is pointless and fake. Believe it or not, I've read the same Bible you have, and I read all sorts of radical Reformers as part of my degree. What is repeating an argument we've both read before going to accomplish?
Again, I'm not interested in internet debates. They're pointless. I'd rather read a book by the person you're cribbing from than argue with you. And, frankly, I'd rather you read John Gill then me try to convince you.
The impulse to argue is not useful in these settings, in my opinion, and it's a sign of needing more to do in your life.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
John 10:27-28
-
1
- Show all
Exactly! I prefer the term "self will." Our will has never been free from all constraints.
"Free will" (of the natural man) is a misnomer and not taught in the Bible.
The will of self/the flesh is opposed to God and spiritual things. Scripture explicitly states these truths.
Many deny them.
The will needs to be freed before making the desirable choice.
"Free will" (of the natural man) is a misnomer and not taught in the Bible.
The will of self/the flesh is opposed to God and spiritual things. Scripture explicitly states these truths.
Many deny them.
The will needs to be freed before making the desirable choice.
-
1
- Show all
I agree except that per RM 1:20 Paul says those who do not perceive the Creator by means of creation are without excuse for not seeing rather than that they cannot, and conscience serves for the Gentiles to convict them of sin and the need for salvation like the purpose of the Law for the Jews. I guess both can be viewed as light as well as volition or conscience and consciousness of God. :^)
Yes, the corruption is in our flesh, not our soul. Our will and mind (thinking) is a function of our soul. When grace controls the flesh the mind is free to think with the truth God presents for itself without the influence of the corruption of the flesh. This is why those who see the truth but prefer darkness, refuse to come to the light. It is not because God has not chosen them for salvation.
The soul is created in the image of God. It is neither good nor evil innately. One either learns to be good or one learns to be evil but because of the innate corruption in our bodies and the disconnection from God (spiritually dead), along with the lies of the world system, our souls become corrupted and our wills trapped in an endless cycle of hopelessness. God's grace breaks that cycle so we can respond from own our will with the truth He presents. And what's more, God was pouring out His grace upon us before we could even think for ourselves. The majority of us are slow learners.
There are only two types of people in the world, believers and unbelievers. None of us knew we were believers until the Gospel broke through the darkness and shone it's light for us to see. God promised to save believers.
The soul is created in the image of God. It is neither good nor evil innately. One either learns to be good or one learns to be evil but because of the innate corruption in our bodies and the disconnection from God (spiritually dead), along with the lies of the world system, our souls become corrupted and our wills trapped in an endless cycle of hopelessness. God's grace breaks that cycle so we can respond from own our will with the truth He presents. And what's more, God was pouring out His grace upon us before we could even think for ourselves. The majority of us are slow learners.
There are only two types of people in the world, believers and unbelievers. None of us knew we were believers until the Gospel broke through the darkness and shone it's light for us to see. God promised to save believers.
-
1
- Show all
The will's spiritual aspect is partially a mystery. The natural man holds an intentionality, allowing for purposeful action in pursuit of desires, guided by individual judgment. Yet, this natural state leaves one incapable of mastering beliefs and desires.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of the details of Reformed soteriology, I am saying it's a pretty normal interpretation of the Bible for millenia.
Just to make the point without any Calvinist Heresiarchs in deck, I present the Ur-Protestant and Arch-Papist:
- Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will
– Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
I'm not trying to convince anyone of the details of Reformed soteriology, I am saying it's a pretty normal interpretation of the Bible for millenia.
Just to make the point without any Calvinist Heresiarchs in deck, I present the Ur-Protestant and Arch-Papist:
- Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will
– Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
-
1
- Show all
The natural man is captive to the will of the devil... blinded by the god of this world, and inherently hostile toward God.
No such person can just choose to believe in and love God. Their heart needs to be circumcised.
Romans 7 obliterates any notion of the will being free.
And besides, Scripture makes plain that salvation is by the will and desire of God, not man or his will, effort, or desire.
But free willers sweep those verses out of sight also.
No such person can just choose to believe in and love God. Their heart needs to be circumcised.
Romans 7 obliterates any notion of the will being free.
And besides, Scripture makes plain that salvation is by the will and desire of God, not man or his will, effort, or desire.
But free willers sweep those verses out of sight also.
-
1
- Show all
At this point in history, I think it'll take quite a bit or maybe even something unexpectedly very simple and succinct to break down the sectarianism and I don't think anyone will be left completely intact.
Why are you here rather than reading another book or journal article or such? Maybe, because like me, you don't find much that is new in those any more than you find here, and this is a break until it's not.
FWIW, I've grown weary of the aggressiveness of anyone from any tradition. Meaning no disrespect at this point, I've encountered many Reformed who are very to extremely aggressive with their tradition. You very quicky exhibit a similar attitude. I can say the same back to you and will do so - I read the same Bible you do - and I disagree with some to much of the tradition.
Early on being trained in one tradition which included being told why and how other traditions were wrong. Then being trained to whatever degree in Greek exegesis, I ventured off into my version of my 14 years away from everyone with mainly just me and the Text. During those years, I came to disagree with much of what I was taught. From then on, it's just been being open to solid exegetical input from wherever and trying to limit theological interactions as much as possible to those who will get into analyzing the Text honestly, bit by bit, and not hammer me with their favored tradition. I've read some very detailed exegesis, word-by-word, found myself mostly in agreement with the analysis, only to have a conclusion thrown out that is straight out of camp theology that in no way can be strictly gleaned from what was just analyzed. I still spend or redeem most of my time in the Text while keeping an eye on things outside that spark an interest.
I agree with the merry-go-round debates. On thread ends and another one starts the same argument with the same input. This one began with some interesting input.
Why are you here rather than reading another book or journal article or such? Maybe, because like me, you don't find much that is new in those any more than you find here, and this is a break until it's not.
FWIW, I've grown weary of the aggressiveness of anyone from any tradition. Meaning no disrespect at this point, I've encountered many Reformed who are very to extremely aggressive with their tradition. You very quicky exhibit a similar attitude. I can say the same back to you and will do so - I read the same Bible you do - and I disagree with some to much of the tradition.
Early on being trained in one tradition which included being told why and how other traditions were wrong. Then being trained to whatever degree in Greek exegesis, I ventured off into my version of my 14 years away from everyone with mainly just me and the Text. During those years, I came to disagree with much of what I was taught. From then on, it's just been being open to solid exegetical input from wherever and trying to limit theological interactions as much as possible to those who will get into analyzing the Text honestly, bit by bit, and not hammer me with their favored tradition. I've read some very detailed exegesis, word-by-word, found myself mostly in agreement with the analysis, only to have a conclusion thrown out that is straight out of camp theology that in no way can be strictly gleaned from what was just analyzed. I still spend or redeem most of my time in the Text while keeping an eye on things outside that spark an interest.
I agree with the merry-go-round debates. On thread ends and another one starts the same argument with the same input. This one began with some interesting input.