The Absence of Free Will

[ForestGreenCook]

Again, you say you believe all scripture must harmonize in order to gain the proper understanding of a topic and then you excerpt verse 2 of David's song of the Book of Psalms 53.
If people are what a Calvinist believes as you argue as one here, that the T in Calvin's TULIP formula, "Total Depravity", were true then the full import of Total as regards the accusation of the human family being Depraved would preclude the totally depraved from possessing the capacity to repent.

See how TULIP fails? Especially when conflating the TULIP formula with the idea that God died only to save those whom He predetermined would respond to His leading unto repentance and salvation.
When someone is totally depraved they would be unable to acknowledge the leading of God because they are totally unprincipled.
And if the Calvinist argument then responds with, but God can bypass that barrier of total depravity when calling to himself those whom he chose to redeem himself, then we're back to square one wherein the Calvinist doctrine presupposes that God is an unprincipled ogre that creates before the world people he would choose to save after he created people he knew would fall into sin in the garden so as to need saving.

And conversely, He created people whom he knew would die in their sins and enter Hell.

That's Calvin's doctrine. God, the Sadist.

While his TULIP principle contradicts itself in the latter four points due to the declaration in the first, Total Depravity.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

T= Man's heart is evil.
U=God chooses certain evil hearted people to be saved due to his reasons, not anything the depraved immoral evil hearted chosen one's do so as to claim they warranted being chosen.
L=Jesus died to install the concept of Limited Atonement into the world. While the scriptures claim Jesus died so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, in truth his death was not efficacious, effective, so as to save whosoever believed in him. Instead, His death was actually to redeem only those totally depraved people God chose to save because they are incapable by that fallen nature to choose Him themselves. Which means all those scriptures about Jesus dying for all who would come unto repentance is a lie. (per Calvin)


Irresistible Grace = Is whenGod calls those totally immoral depraved persons incapable of hearkening unto the goodness in God's word of themselves, their own effort, due to their being totally depraved, they cannot resist.
However, prior to that having an affect on that totally depraved immoral chosen one, they were incapable of finding God on their own, now though we're told they will be unable to resist God calling them to Himself because their Total Depravity isn't real. Else they'd be totally unable to respond to righteousness becasue they are first and foremost born entirely immoral, therein they would not recognize a moral leading. Unless, God's plan created all people to be Totally Depraved due to the sin in the garden and then decided who's TD shields would be able to be penetrated by His decision to save them after His will caused them to be born totally depraved having also the foreknowledge that one born that way is that one he would later save from himself and the damned judgment afforded by Himself.
Irresistible Grace claims God offers to all people the gospel message. And yet the concept of Irresistable Grace insures His sacrifice and message was began because He only intended to have the Good News deliver itself unto those He created totally depraved so that He could rescue them from that station he implanted into them in the beginning before humans were created.
It also means God foreknew whom He would damn among those that remain Totally Depraved. It also means that when He taught that He came to save the world and all who believe that he actually meant He came to save only those whom He predetermined He would save of His own merit not theirs.
Saved against your will. By the God that made you totallPy depraved so as to have no will capable of accepting the moral message in the gospel itself.


P= Perseverance of the Saints , no kidding! Those God elects to save from the T formula he foreordained can never lose what they never had anything to do with in achieving it for themselves in the first place. They are forever saved because God Elected to save them before he created the whole world and humans. Which necessarily points to the converse. That God created the world to be full of depraved people damned for their condition and yet predestined from among that worldly number those one's HE would save himself through his own efforts alone.

Which would mean Jesus didn't have to die at all. Because no human needed to have faith in His sacrifice for the world's sins when He had already predetermined who among the worlds population that in total are depraved would be saved by His choice before the world began.

In short, Jesus didn't have to die to save anybody when God, who later was Jesus, had already determined whom He would save before the first human was created, because there is no thing that Elect one does to save themselves per the TULIP formula. It is all God. Therefore God didn't have to die in order to give anyone opportunity to have faith in the cause of His sacrifice when only those He predetermined would be saved from that born state of Totally Depraved would be chosen by Him to be saved from Him as the judge who would later cast others not chosen into Hell.

I would assume that you are one of God's elect that he has quickened to a spiritual life, considering that you are certainly dedicated to studying the scriptures, but you are like most of God's elect who have a bad case of a lack of knowledge of the finished work of Jesus. No one is going to understand the gospel of Christ's finished work unless the Holy Spirit within them reveals it to them. Unless an elect child of God denies himself (gives up on depending upon his own ability and intelligence and seeks help from the Holy Spirit) the Holy Spirit will not reveal, else the person would think that he accomplished it by his own intelligence, You seem to fit those born again children in Romans 10:1-2-3, who go about trying to establish their own righteousness (by the works of the law) and are not submitting themselves unto the righteousness of Christ.

 

[Melach]

1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

How does your comment counter that God wishes all people to be saved? As to the need to pray for them. This was in response to the contradicting statement made in the link you posted.

calvinists explain all those away by saying it means "all kinds of men", kings, those in authority. i noticed when i was investigating it they got entire websites dedicated to turning bible verses on their heads to make it all fit they tulip

 

[Roughsoul1991]

calvinists explain all those away by saying it means "all kinds of men", kings, those in authority. i noticed when i was investigating it they got entire websites dedicated to turning bible verses on their heads to make it all fit they tulip

Yah it's really obvious in which is what makes it so sad.

 

[Whispered]

I would assume that you are one of God's elect that he has quickened to a spiritual life, considering that you are certainly dedicated to studying the scriptures, but you are like most of God's elect who have a bad case of a lack of knowledge of the finished work of Jesus. No one is going to understand the gospel of Christ's finished work unless the Holy Spirit within them reveals it to them. Unless an elect child of God denies himself (gives up on depending upon his own ability and intelligence and seeks help from the Holy Spirit) the Holy Spirit will not reveal, else the person would think that he accomplished it by his own intelligence, You seem to fit those born again children in Romans 10:1-2-3, who go about trying to establish their own righteousness (by the works of the law) and are not submitting themselves unto the righteousness of Christ.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Pretty

 

[Whispered]

Yah it's really obvious in which is what makes it so sad.

The problem with Calvinism is that it has many problems when trying to contort its philosophy to be in accord with actual scripture.


Calvinism's TULIP formula actually nullifies God's love for all his creation being that the TULIP principle teaches God loves only those he predestined to be in His grace. However, scriptures tell us God's love for the world, wishing that none should perish, is God's love in action.
TULIP also nullifies God's grace principle when Calvinists argue that God predetermined not only who would be saved before the world came to exist, but then later sacrificed Himself on the cross in order to keep his word.

However, it goes further than that. Calvinism by insisting the TULIP formula is God's new covenant condensed would necessarily also affirm that God is the author of sin and evil.

Because for God to have determined whom He would save from sin and evil without their consent and before he created the world, God would have as creator of all things, as His word tells us, have had to create sin and evil so that His plan would be able to have something to save His Elect from.

“For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.” John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Pg. 177

 

[ForestGreenCook]

The problem with Calvinism is that it has many problems when trying to contort its philosophy to be in accord with actual scripture.


Calvinism's TULIP formula actually nullifies God's love for all his creation being that the TULIP principle teaches God loves only those he predestined to be in His grace. However, scriptures tell us God's love for the world, wishing that none should perish, is God's love in action.
TULIP also nullifies God's grace principle when Calvinists argue that God predetermined not only who would be saved before the world came to exist, but then later sacrificed Himself on the cross in order to keep his word.

However, it goes further than that. Calvinism by insisting the TULIP formula is God's new covenant condensed would necessarily also affirm that God is the author of sin and evil.

Because for God to have determined whom He would save from sin and evil without their consent and before he created the world, God would have as creator of all things, as His word tells us, have had to create sin and evil so that His plan would be able to have something to save His Elect from.

“For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.” John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Pg. 177

The problem with most of God's elect children is that they have not been revealed the finished work of Christ. I was in the same position until age 62 and all my life was trying to worship God the best that I knew how. When I was 50 I was determined to understand the scriptures, because many scriptures "seemed" to contradict themselves. That was 35 years ago, and I remember that I thought I was smart enough to figure it out if I purchased a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough. I did study hard, going to different congregations, taking notes, coming home to try to fit the sermon into harmony with my "supposedly' contradicting scriptures. I put in many hours in this attempt, even until I was 62 when I was convinced that I was not smart enough to figure it out. In a short period of time my hard studying began to make some sense where the scriptures that I was having trouble with began to harmonize. Thinking back, I could see that if the Holy Spirit would have shown me the understanding, with my frame of mind then, that I would have taken credit for my smartness, instead of giving God credit. I can very well understand the confusion most of God's elect have because I have experienced it myself.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Again, you say you believe all scripture must harmonize in order to gain the proper understanding of a topic and then you excerpt verse 2 of David's song of the Book of Psalms 53.
If people are what a Calvinist believes as you argue as one here, that the T in Calvin's TULIP formula, "Total Depravity", were true then the full import of Total as regards the accusation of the human family being Depraved would preclude the totally depraved from possessing the capacity to repent.

See how TULIP fails? Especially when conflating the TULIP formula with the idea that God died only to save those whom He predetermined would respond to His leading unto repentance and salvation.
When someone is totally depraved they would be unable to acknowledge the leading of God because they are totally unprincipled.
And if the Calvinist argument then responds with, but God can bypass that barrier of total depravity when calling to himself those whom he chose to redeem himself, then we're back to square one wherein the Calvinist doctrine presupposes that God is an unprincipled ogre that creates before the world people he would choose to save after he created people he knew would fall into sin in the garden so as to need saving.

And conversely, He created people whom he knew would die in their sins and enter Hell.

That's Calvin's doctrine. God, the Sadist.

While his TULIP principle contradicts itself in the latter four points due to the declaration in the first, Total Depravity.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

T= Man's heart is evil.
U=God chooses certain evil hearted people to be saved due to his reasons, not anything the depraved immoral evil hearted chosen one's do so as to claim they warranted being chosen.
L=Jesus died to install the concept of Limited Atonement into the world. While the scriptures claim Jesus died so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, in truth his death was not efficacious, effective, so as to save whosoever believed in him. Instead, His death was actually to redeem only those totally depraved people God chose to save because they are incapable by that fallen nature to choose Him themselves. Which means all those scriptures about Jesus dying for all who would come unto repentance is a lie. (per Calvin)


Irresistible Grace = Is whenGod calls those totally immoral depraved persons incapable of hearkening unto the goodness in God's word of themselves, their own effort, due to their being totally depraved, they cannot resist.
However, prior to that having an affect on that totally depraved immoral chosen one, they were incapable of finding God on their own, now though we're told they will be unable to resist God calling them to Himself because their Total Depravity isn't real. Else they'd be totally unable to respond to righteousness becasue they are first and foremost born entirely immoral, therein they would not recognize a moral leading. Unless, God's plan created all people to be Totally Depraved due to the sin in the garden and then decided who's TD shields would be able to be penetrated by His decision to save them after His will caused them to be born totally depraved having also the foreknowledge that one born that way is that one he would later save from himself and the damned judgment afforded by Himself.
Irresistible Grace claims God offers to all people the gospel message. And yet the concept of Irresistable Grace insures His sacrifice and message was began because He only intended to have the Good News deliver itself unto those He created totally depraved so that He could rescue them from that station he implanted into them in the beginning before humans were created.
It also means God foreknew whom He would damn among those that remain Totally Depraved. It also means that when He taught that He came to save the world and all who believe that he actually meant He came to save only those whom He predetermined He would save of His own merit not theirs.
Saved against your will. By the God that made you totallPy depraved so as to have no will capable of accepting the moral message in the gospel itself.


P= Perseverance of the Saints , no kidding! Those God elects to save from the T formula he foreordained can never lose what they never had anything to do with in achieving it for themselves in the first place. They are forever saved because God Elected to save them before he created the whole world and humans. Which necessarily points to the converse. That God created the world to be full of depraved people damned for their condition and yet predestined from among that worldly number those one's HE would save himself through his own efforts alone.

Which would mean Jesus didn't have to die at all. Because no human needed to have faith in His sacrifice for the world's sins when He had already predetermined who among the worlds population that in total are depraved would be saved by His choice before the world began.

In short, Jesus didn't have to die to save anybody when God, who later was Jesus, had already determined whom He would save before the first human was created, because there is no thing that Elect one does to save themselves per the TULIP formula. It is all God. Therefore God didn't have to die in order to give anyone opportunity to have faith in the cause of His sacrifice when only those He predetermined would be saved from that born state of Totally Depraved would be chosen by Him to be saved from Him as the judge who would later cast others not chosen into Hell.

I would encourage anyone to research what Reformed theology teaches before listening to anyone on this site, including this person. Anti-Reformed people are simply some of the worst individuals at misrepresenting Reformed theology. I think most of them do it intentionally, too.

One, "Total depravity" is better phrased "radical corruption". Due to the Fall, every aspect of man's nature has been affected. The definition does not mean that the person is as bad as he could be. In fact, due to God's common grace, he restrains the wickedness of mankind at some level. Read Romans 1 in this regard.

Two, Jesus' atonement was necessary. The unsaved, whether elect or not, are under God's wrath and condemnation. The elect believer is joined to Jesus at the moment of salvation, in both a legal and vital sense, and participates in his death, burial and resurrection through this union. There is no other way to be saved, other than to be united with Christ, and to participate in his death, burial and resurrection through this union. No educated Reformed person would claim otherwise. They have an organic view of salvation that is lacking in non-Reformed circles.

Three, the elect are eternally secure. This much is true. However, the idea being conveyed by this person is that it doesn't matter what the person does afterwards. Again, no educated Reformed person would claim this. Being joined to Jesus causes the person to produce spiritual fruit.

Four, regarding irresistible grace, your explanation is one of the worst ones I've ever seen. You don't understand that the concept of irresistable grace (which is a poor name for it) means that regeneration occurs prior to faith. The unsaved person isn't able to respond to the gospel message due to moral inability. It isn't that he isn't naturally able, but he is morally unable due to his fallen nature. God regenerates the person, giving them a new nature that wants to please and obey God, and the change in nature is what causes them to respond in faith and repentance. Until then, they are hostile God-haters. The change in nature is what causes the person to respond in repentance and faith, and they do it willingly. In fact, they flee to God gladly due to this change in nature.

Five, limited atonement means that Jesus died for his sheep, not the goats who will go to eternal punishment. If he died for the goats who go to eternal punishment, that is unfair to the goats, because Jesus' death covered them, too. Jesus only died for those who receive eternal life. These individuals include all kinds of people from all different backgrounds.

In fact, this directly relates to union with Christ. If someone is joined with Christ, they possess his righteousness as a free gift, and are vitally joined with him, experiencing eternal life as a result. They participate in his death, burial and resurrection as a result (Read Romans 6:1-14). If someone is never joined with him, they don't participate in his death, burial and resurrection. Therefore "unlimited atonement" makes NO sense.

This is why non-Reformed people cannot sort out the Bible. They do not think systematically. They must manufacture philosophies as "Scotch tape" to hold their clunky theology together. I am so glad I came out of non-Reformed groups, because if I hadn't, I wouldn't understand much of the Bible at all.

I would strongly encourage this poster to quit parroting misinformed anti-Reformed sources as it simply makes you look ignorant to misrepresent Reformed theology. You don't even understand the basic issues.

For a fair analysis of Reformed theology, I would suggest the book "The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented by David N. Steele. If you listen to the presentation of non-Reformed people, for the most part it will be an extreme misrepresentation, whether intentional or not.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Great assumptions without investigation. You are on the line of committing the red herring fallacy by trying to divert attention away from the subject.

But let's see what exactly do you mean because not everyone defines words or beliefs the same.

Dont know of any street preachers but please define original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and sinless perfectionism.

Original sin relates to the Fall. Adam and Eve rebelled against God and disobeyed his commandment to them. The result could be termed original sin. Mankind, as a whole, has a corrupt nature that does not choose God, and is in rebellion against God. Additionally, Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind. Read Romans 5.

justification by faith alone- the evangelical position that justification, or being accounted righteous, acceptable in God's sight, is by faith alone. One cannot be justified by works of any type. Works are an evidence of a justified person, but don't earn, merit or continue salvation.

faith - a bonus one for you - faith is a supernatural gift that is necessary for justification, and for salvation. Not all men possess saving faith (contrary to the false interpretation ignoring context that some render from Romans 12). There is an inferior level of faith that was possessed by some "disciples" of Jesus, but it was not a real faith and in their case revealed itself through their non-continuance. Faith involves three elements: knowledge, assent, and confidence or trust. The real believer has all three elements, and has bonded to his Savior in a deep, abiding, fruitful trust.

imputed righteousness - the believer's source of righteousness is the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ as an alien, forensic righteousness. This is an abiding status that forms the basis of the believers' identity. The phrase used in Paul's writings to describe this status is being "in Christ". It is talking about the legal aspect of union with Christ, and is one of the assets that the man in union with Christ has, including adoption as a son of God, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.

sinless perfectionism - the false claim that believers do not sin after salvation. Sometimes it is represented as a "second work" of salvation called "entire sanctification". This claim is common amongst Pelagian types who claim they never sin. Jed Smock would be one of this number. Jesse Morrell and others make similar claims. They may claim that they only sin on rare occasion or something along that line.

I can appreciate your attention to definitions, as part of the issue with Pelagian/Finneyist groups is that they re-define Christian concepts in a different manner than historical Christianity.

For instance, they would define "original sin" in such a manner that Adam's sin was only a "bad example", and that every man is a fresh Adam who makes his own decisions. They would deny that Adam's sin was imputed to mankind, because this means that God does not deal with mankind in a corporate sense (and he certainly does do this). The only sin nature they will acknowledge is one that man has developed himself over time, and it did not come as a result of the Fall and is not passed on like an alien virus throughout humanity.

Additionally, some would claim that justification is only true in the sense of the initial salvation of the person, and that re-justification must occur every single time he sins. Additionally, they may acknowledge that the righteousness of Jesus is imputed once to the believer, but if the person sins, they no longer possess it.

It's a good thing that you don't know of Jesse Morrell, Jed Smock and the Pelagian/Finneyist lot. If you knew them, and believed their theology, you'd be really messed up. Their general practice is to go onto college campuses and yell out accusations to college students, and sometimes do sex-ed demonstrations using devices meant to replicate the male/female sex organs. I suspect they are really closet perverts even though they claim to be holy and sinless in some cases. They deny imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, and original sin. If you want to see the worst example of them, look for Bro Clarence Cope and his UofA episodes. He is one of the ringleaders, highly respected in that group, yet you will see that his language is atrocious.

By the way they are also open theists which is a heretical view claiming God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge, and reducing him to an anthropomorphic "dummy god" that is more like a man than the Almighty God.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

how is anyone to blame for anything if there is no free will? justin martyr argued that way.

Scripture doesn't operate on that premise.

For instance, mankind is viewed as a corporate entity in relation to Adam. All mankind is in Adam and Adam's guilt is imputed to him.

Conversely, all redeemed mankind is in Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to them.

It seems like some free-willers attempt to deny this, but it is futile and if one denies it, they really can't make sense of the metanarrative of Scripture.

We see it evidenced in other ways throughout Scripture too, for instance all of Israel was punished for David's sin in at least one incident.

There was nothing about "free will" that led to our association with Adam, yet we are held responsible for his sin, whether we like it or not.

Of course, there are those who deny original sin but they don't understand Scripture very well either. They may think they do, but they don't. Without Jesus as the second Adam, the metanarrative they have is by nature messed up and confused.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I would encourage anyone to research what Reformed theology teaches before listening to anyone on this site, including this person. Anti-Reformed people are simply some of the worst individuals at misrepresenting Reformed theology. I think most of them do it intentionally, too.

One, "Total depravity" is better phrased "radical corruption". Due to the Fall, every aspect of man's nature has been affected. The definition does not mean that the person is as bad as he could be. In fact, due to God's common grace, he restrains the wickedness of mankind at some level. Read Romans 1 in this regard.

Two, Jesus' atonement was necessary. The unsaved, whether elect or not, are under God's wrath and condemnation. The elect believer is joined to Jesus at the moment of salvation, in both a legal and vital sense, and participates in his death, burial and resurrection through this union. There is no other way to be saved, other than to be united with Christ, and to participate in his death, burial and resurrection through this union. No educated Reformed person would claim otherwise. They have an organic view of salvation that is lacking in non-Reformed circles.

Three, the elect are eternally secure. This much is true. However, the idea being conveyed by this person is that it doesn't matter what the person does afterwards. Again, no educated Reformed person would claim this. Being joined to Jesus causes the person to produce spiritual fruit.

Four, regarding irresistible grace, your explanation is one of the worst ones I've ever seen. You don't understand that the concept of irresistable grace (which is a poor name for it) means that regeneration occurs prior to faith. The unsaved person isn't able to respond to the gospel message due to moral inability. It isn't that he isn't naturally able, but he is morally unable due to his fallen nature. God regenerates the person, giving them a new nature that wants to please and obey God, and the change in nature is what causes them to respond in faith and repentance. Until then, they are hostile God-haters. The change in nature is what causes the person to respond in repentance and faith, and they do it willingly. In fact, they flee to God gladly due to this change in nature.

Five, limited atonement means that Jesus died for his sheep, not the goats who will go to eternal punishment. If he died for the goats who go to eternal punishment, that is unfair to the goats, because Jesus' death covered them, too. Jesus only died for those who receive eternal life. These individuals include all kinds of people from all different backgrounds.

In fact, this directly relates to union with Christ. If someone is joined with Christ, they possess his righteousness as a free gift, and are vitally joined with him, experiencing eternal life as a result. They participate in his death, burial and resurrection as a result (Read Romans 6:1-14). If someone is never joined with him, they don't participate in his death, burial and resurrection. Therefore "unlimited atonement" makes NO sense.

This is why non-Reformed people cannot sort out the Bible. They do not think systematically. They must manufacture philosophies as "Scotch tape" to hold their clunky theology together. I am so glad I came out of non-Reformed groups, because if I hadn't, I wouldn't understand much of the Bible at all.

I would strongly encourage this poster to quit parroting misinformed anti-Reformed sources as it simply makes you look ignorant to misrepresent Reformed theology. You don't even understand the basic issues.

For a fair analysis of Reformed theology, I would suggest the book "The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented by David N. Steele. If you listen to the presentation of non-Reformed people, for the most part it will be an extreme misrepresentation, whether intentional or not.

Number one, Can you explain to me the exact wording in Romans 1 that makes you think "that he restrains the wickedness of mankind at some level"? Number two, Yes, the very nature of God demands atonement for sin. Number three, John 6:38 Jesus paid for all of the sins of those he died for and that all he died for will live in heaven. If you are included in those he died for, you cannot commit a sin that will keep you out of heaven. Number four, The natural man understands only the nature of man and not spiritual things. When God regenerates a person (which is only his elect and the same ones that he died for) they are already secured in heaven before they are taught repentance, faith, good works, compassion, guilt, or anything else that is of a spiritual nature. Faith and repentance is not the cause of your eternal salvation, but a product of already having been saved eternally. Number five, Jesus only died for those that God gave him, and it was not the goats, but his sheep Matt 25:32, and all that he died for will live in heaven. All that he died for, which were the elect, were joined with him when they were regenerated.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

From what I have heard people say about John Calvin, I believe that his thinking is wrong, in the fact, that I have heard that he believes that everything is predestined by God and man has no free will. I believe the scriptures teach that God has given all mankind the free will to choose as he pleases in things that affect his life as he lives here in this world, but God does not give man a choice in his eternal salvation, otherwise, eternal salvation would not be "by the grace of God".

I would be careful not to base your understanding on Reformed theology on "what I have heard people say".

Most anti-Reformed people intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent the theology. Additionally, some Reformed people aren't well versed in it, and misrepresent it themselves.

I recommended this book on the topic:

https://smile.amazon.com/Five-Point...e+five+points&qid=1569940933&s=gateway&sr=8-1

For instance, Calvin taught that man has "creaturely free will" but it is a free will that is constrained by his nature. The fallen man has a fallen nature, and as a result, his free will choices reflect this fallen nature. The saved man has a regenerate nature, and his free will choices reflect this regenerate nature.

The fallen man is a slave to sin, because of his fallen nature. He doesn't desire to escape his slavery until God begins to draw him out. This slavery to sin is taught in Romans 6, John 8.

Again, I would warn folks about picking up misrepresentations from chat rooms and repeating them.

 

[Melach]

Scripture doesn't operate on that premise.

For instance, mankind is viewed as a corporate entity in relation to Adam. All mankind is in Adam and Adam's guilt is imputed to him.

Conversely, all redeemed mankind is in Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to them.

There was nothing about "free will" that led to our association with Adam, yet we are held responsible for his sin, whether we like it or not.

Of course, there are those who deny original sin but they don't understand Scripture very well either. They may think they do, but they don't. Without Jesus as the second Adam, the metanarrative they have is by nature messed up and confused.

all redeemed mankind is in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to him the same way that adam's guilt is imputed to us.

thats where it goes wrong and full tradition.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

people are responsible for their own sins, thats why God let those who have no knowledge of good and evil to go to promise land in deuteronomy
when adam sinned humanity was cursed and animals yes. but we arent condemned to hell until we sin. you have to sin first to be punished in hell.

another is that Jesus does not automatically just impute people righteous you have to believe the gospel first. you think its automatic. just like you have to sin first, you have to believe first too.

i have not listened to anti-reformed people i listened to all calvinists and studied it very much to know its 100% false and makes devil gooder than god. i have read the contradicting "God decrees all things but is not cause of evil". if you predestinate it you are responsible thats it

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It is Monergism that teaches Irresistible Grace. Which means the work of the Holy Spirit in humans is to achieve the individual's salvation regardless of that person's cooperation.
I think that is akin to the puppet master God identity mentioned prior.


Explained as an excerpt below far better than I appear able to do.

44. How can God be sovereign and man still be free?

Responsibility and voluntary choice are not the same thing as free will. We affirm that man is indeed responsible for the choices he makes, yet we deny that the Bible teaches that man has a free will since it is no where taught in the pages of Scripture. The Bible teaches, rather, that God ordains all things that come to pass (Eph 1:11) and it also teaches that man is culpable for his choices (Ezek 18:20, Matt 12:37, John 9:41). Since the Scripture is our ultimate authority and highest presuppsosition, the multitude of clear scriptural declarations on this matter outweigh all unaided human logic. We find that almost always the objections to God's meticulous providence over all things are moral and philosophical rather than exegetical. This means we must strive to consciously affirm what the Scripture declares over all our finite understanding and sinful inner drive for independence.

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).

In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men willfully and voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This act of evil is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, and these men are thus responsible for the act, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure.

We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent".
There is more to read at the source linked at the header above, 4. How God be sovereign and man still be free?

Just a thought interjected here. With respect to those who say they not rely on man's interpretation but rather on the leading of the Holy Spirit so as to interpret scripture, with all the doctrinal formula's within the realm of Christianity, all the denominations, all the versions , translations, of the Bible, isn't every part of that what can be simply referred to as man's interpretations?
Man interprets the Bible this way and therefore it is determined to be a denominational doctrine best described as Methodist. Or, Calvinist, or Presbyterian, or....
And so many denominations named after their founding patriarch too like Calvinism=John Calvin, Methodism=John Wesley.

The word "Calvinist" was coined by the enemies of Reformed theology. Unfortunately some Reformed people have adopted the name themselves. I personally never use it, and have not read John Calvin's works except for brief excerpts. I am a monergist but most people wouldn't recognize that word, so I generally use "Reformed".

For all I know, Methodism is probably similar. Non-Methodists may have called them Methodists, and the name stuck.

Presbyterian is a form of church governance. It has nothing to do with a person.

Compatibilists do believe mankind has a "free will" in one sense. He has a creaturely free will that is subject to his nature, fallen or regenerate, and is subject to God's sovereignty.

For instance, God didn't decide what color underwear I would wear today, but he permissively decreed it in one sense. i don't view God as making my choices in every minute facet of my life, though. He allows me to make mistakes, and even to sin, in order to reap the results of my sin, as well. I can't say that he caused me to sin, but he did permissively decree it, as well as the correction or punishment that will result from it. This is all consistent with compatibilism.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

all redeemed mankind is in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to him the same way that adam's guilt is imputed to us.

thats where it goes wrong and full tradition.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

people are responsible for their own sins, thats why God let those who have no knowledge of good and evil to go to promise land in deuteronomy
when adam sinned humanity was cursed and animals yes. but we arent condemned to hell until we sin. you have to sin first to be punished in hell.

another is that Jesus does not automatically just impute people righteous you have to believe the gospel first. you think its automatic. just like you have to sin first, you have to believe first too.

i have not listened to anti-reformed people i listened to all calvinists and studied it very much to know its 100% false and makes devil gooder than god. i have read the contradicting "God decrees all things but is not cause of evil". if you predestinate it you are responsible thats it

Firstly, I'll ask you not to misrepresent me. I don't claim that people are saved without believing the gospel. Therefore you are misrepresenting me. However, that's standard fare for non-Reformed people. They either don't understand what Reformed people are saying, or they decide they will lie and misrepresent.

Secondly, Ezekiel 18:20 reflects a situation regarding the Exile. The descendants of those who were exiled were basically saying it doesn't matter what they do, because God has already determined to punish them due to their ancestor's sin. This has nothing to do with Adam's sin.

In fact, if you deny original sin, and the imputed guilt that results from it, in essence you are denying Romans 5 and are missing a core element of the Gospel message.

Thirdly, Reformed theology doesn't make the devil "gooder" than God. I am not sure if your native language is English, if not perhaps you need to study it a bit closer. There is no such word in English. Maybe you mean "better". You might explain to me how Reformed theology makes the devil better than God. God owes NOTHING to any man, including salvation. It is only by grace that anyone is saved, and it is not an entitlement. That is one of the issues with non-Reformed theology...adherents tend to view it as an entitlement rather than a total act of grace. And, they tend to boast in their own personal scraps they throw God, instead of being thankful for salvation. That is one of the things I notice about the Reformed people I know....they are much more thankful for salvation than non-Reformed people.

Fourthly, can you prove from Scripture that those who have not sinned yet are not under God's wrath and condemnation? If a baby dies before it sins, can that child sing in the heavenly choir proclaiming the praises of Jesus for his deliverance from sin? If so, does such a baby need to keep his mouth shut during the songs praising Jesus for salvation?

Also, how do you reconcile your belief that people are responsible only for their own sin, and not Adam's sin, with this verse?


John 3:18 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(ESV)

It says if someone hasn't believed (and that can include all that supposedly haven't sinned) are condemned.

Additionally, read Romans 5...see that not only DEATH but also CONDEMNATION came from Adam's one sin to all men...and all men were MADE sinners by Adam's sin...to believe otherwise is simply to deny original sin and its effect and to deny the Bible. Additionally, I would argue that physical death is not the sole "death" experienced by Adam's descendants, but to be dead means to be separated from God and no longer possessing true life (Eph 2:1-4). By the way, denying original sin is part of why I'd never be a "free willer"...because many of them commit biblical suicide by denying it due to their human way of thinking. They try to jam their human philosophies into Scripture, rather than simply believing what the Bible teaches.



Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(ESV)

Again, note that by one man's sin (ADAM), condemnation occurred. By one man's sin (ADAM), many were MADE SINNERS.

It doesn't say they did sins to make themselves sinners, it says due to Adam's sin, they were MADE SINNERS.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here's a handy chart that illustrates Romans 5 in this regard, for anyone who is interested.

 

[Melach]

Firstly, I'll ask you not to misrepresent me. I don't claim that people are saved without believing the gospel. Therefore you are misrepresenting me. However, that's standard fare for non-Reformed people. They either don't understand what Reformed people are saying, or they decide they will lie and misrepresent.

and this is the usual strategy of reformed people. always cry misrepresentation and you dont understand reformed theology. or third option is have you read this book or that book.

its a moving target with reformed theology. i dont deny sin nature. i have already read all the arguments and heard all debates from reformed side and not convinced.

 

[stonesoffire]

I dont believe in free will! ROAST ME!

I don’t either. I’ll join your fire.

Free choice but not free will.

 

[Whispered]

The problem with most of God's elect children is that they have not been revealed the finished work of Christ. I was in the same position until age 62 and all my life was trying to worship God the best that I knew how. When I was 50 I was determined to understand the scriptures, because many scriptures "seemed" to contradict themselves. That was 35 years ago, and I remember that I thought I was smart enough to figure it out if I purchased a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough. I did study hard, going to different congregations, taking notes, coming home to try to fit the sermon into harmony with my "supposedly' contradicting scriptures. I put in many hours in this attempt, even until I was 62 when I was convinced that I was not smart enough to figure it out. In a short period of time my hard studying began to make some sense where the scriptures that I was having trouble with began to harmonize. Thinking back, I could see that if the Holy Spirit would have shown me the understanding, with my frame of mind then, that I would have taken credit for my smartness, instead of giving God credit. I can very well understand the confusion most of God's elect have because I have experienced it myself.

I respect your testimony and thank you for sharing. I do know it means a great deal to you to have come this far.

I will say this meaning no disrespect to your journey or current station in understanding our Father's word.

I do not think it wise for anyone to think someone else who's understanding of scripture that does not comport with theirs is not being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Whispered]

The word "Calvinist" was coined by the enemies of Reformed theology. Unfortunately some Reformed people have adopted the name themselves. I personally never use it, and have not read John Calvin's works except for brief excerpts. I am a monergist but most people wouldn't recognize that word, so I generally use "Reformed".

For all I know, Methodism is probably similar. Non-Methodists may have called them Methodists, and the name stuck.

Presbyterian is a form of church governance. It has nothing to do with a person.

Compatibilists do believe mankind has a "free will" in one sense. He has a creaturely free will that is subject to his nature, fallen or regenerate, and is subject to God's sovereignty.

For instance, God didn't decide what color underwear I would wear today, but he permissively decreed it in one sense. i don't view God as making my choices in every minute facet of my life, though. He allows me to make mistakes, and even to sin, in order to reap the results of my sin, as well. I can't say that he caused me to sin, but he did permissively decree it, as well as the correction or punishment that will result from it. This is all consistent with compatibilism.

"Calvinism" originated in the Lutheran church. Methodist originated with two brothers, John and Charles Wesley, who started what they called The Holy Club. And because their doctrine was prescribed a method of belief and lifestyle, those who were members of said club were dubbed, Method-ists. Methodists.
The Presbyterian denomination is governed by church elders who follow and enforce the principles of the Presbyter, or Presbyterianism. Interestingly enough one of its chief founders was John Calvin. Those within that denomination are called Presbyterians.
Abiding by the label, "Reformed", is too broad an umbrella for an individual to assume given there are many "reformed" churches, denominations, in the world. This is why so as to avoid that confusion with will inevitably result in the question, which reformed denomination are you a member of, will identify as an Episcopalian, Anglican, and the like.

Compatabalism simply put is a phrase that reiterates God's sovereignty. We make what we believe are our free will choices, however, Omniscient Sovereignty is there every step of the way. Laying out our life as He wills. We take our steps because we think we made the choice. But God, who, according to Calvinism, predestined all who will be saved and all whom will be damned, predetermined it all.
The illusion is that human consciousness can out think Omniscient Sovereignty.