Free will

[fitzz]

I am looking for bible verses that describe that God gives us free will.

Thanks

[Hootmon]

"Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
(Jos 24:14-15)

[watchman]

I am looking for bible verses that describe that God gives us free will.

Thanks


OK, but it'll cost ya...

[carmen]

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

[Singlesis]

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Proverbs 1:29
Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD,

Proverbs 3:31
Do not envy the oppressor, And choose none of his ways;

Proverbs 12:26
The righteous should choose his friends carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray.

Isaiah 7:15
Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Just a few I found by searching Bible gateway. There are more in the New Testament that don't use the word "choose" exactly ... but I'll have to hunt.

[twelvesmaster]

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

[watchman]

John 3:16
For G-d so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[fitzz]

Thank you all.

[roadrunner570]

Here are a few:

Free Will

Gen 2:16-17

Gen 4:6-7


Exodus 13:17

Exodus 19-5-8

Dt 1:43

Dt 5:29

Dt 8:19-20

Dt 9:12

Dt 10:16

Dt 30:15-20

Joshua 24:14-15

2 Chron 15:2

2 Chron 16:9

2 Chron 28:9

Psalm 32:8-9

Psalm 81:11-12

Proverbs 8:17

Ecclesiastes 7:29

Isa 1:18-20

Isa 5:4

Isa 30:15-18

Jeremiah 5:3-5

Jeremiah 18:2-12

Ezek 3:7

Ezek 3:18-21

Matt 7:21

Matt 11:20

Matt 12:50

Matt 13:15

Matt 22:3

Matt 23:37

Mark 3:35

Luke 13:34

John 7:17

Acts 7:51

Acts 25:5

Rom 1:22-24

Rom 10:12-15

1 Cor 7:37

Gal 5:7-8

Eph 4:22-5:7

1 Thess 5:16-19

1 Thess 4:3

2 Thess 2:10-11

Hebrews 11:6

Hebrews 12:15-17, 25

James 4:4

James 4:7-8

1 Pet 2:15

1 John 2:17

Jude 20-21

Rev 3:20

[matheteou]

Here are a few:

Free Will
Gen 2:16-17

Gen 4:6-7


Exodus 13:17

Exodus 19-5-8

Dt 1:43

Dt 5:29

Dt 8:19-20

Dt 9:12

Dt 10:16

Dt 30:15-20

Joshua 24:14-15

2 Chron 15:2

2 Chron 16:9

2 Chron 28:9

Psalm 32:8-9

Psalm 81:11-12

Proverbs 8:17

Ecclesiastes 7:29

Isa 1:18-20

Isa 5:4

Isa 30:15-18

Jeremiah 5:3-5

Jeremiah 18:2-12

Ezek 3:7

Ezek 3:18-21

Matt 7:21

Matt 11:20

Matt 12:50

Matt 13:15

Matt 22:3

Matt 23:37

Mark 3:35

Luke 13:34

John 7:17

Acts 7:51

Acts 25:5

Rom 1:22-24

Rom 10:12-15

1 Cor 7:37

Gal 5:7-8

Eph 4:22-5:7

1 Thess 5:16-19

1 Thess 4:3

2 Thess 2:10-11

Hebrews 11:6

Hebrews 12:15-17, 25

James 4:4

James 4:7-8

1 Pet 2:15

1 John 2:17

Jude 20-21

Rev 3:20
What I would ask is which of those passages refers to non-believers? In the OT and the Gospels, the vast majority of the audience were those who had some connection (Israel <-> God) and were being called to return to God. In the NT, believers are again the primary audience. Yes we are told to "believe" and that "all who call upon ..." will be saved, but God first works before an unbeliever can make the choice (volitional, not free will). Some might point to Adam, but he walked with
God in the garden and his choice was to obey God, not to believe in God (although to disobey might relate to disbelief).

[B A N E]

:pop2

[Rainbo2]

What I would ask is which of those passages refers to non-believers? In the OT and the Gospels, the vast majority of the audience were those who had some connection (Israel <-> God) and were being called to return to God. In the NT, believers are again the primary audience. Yes we are told to "believe" and that "all who call upon ..." will be saved, but God first works before an unbeliever can make the choice (volitional, not free will). Some might point to Adam, but he walked with
God in the garden and his choice was to obey God, not to believe in God (although to disobey might relate to disbelief).


No God does not force and unbeliever to accept him as Lord. He may place believers in that persons path to discuss God's love for the unbeliever but God in no way forces an unbeliever to believe in Him. Sort of like leading a horse to water but not forcing him to drink.

Adam did have a choice, he had a choice to believe or disbelieve that God was who He claimed to be, and that He could do what He said He would do. He choose to believe Satan and reaped the consequences.

If they didn't have free will they wouldn't be able to choose.

Remember Rahab in the OT? She was not a Jew, yet she choose to believe that the God of the Jews was the one true God.

In the NT we are called to believe Jesus is who He said He is, but there are also stories about non Jews who came to believe in the God of Israel and that Jesus was the Messiah, like the Canaanite woman, or the Roman soldier. How about alot of Pauls companions or the Corinthians?

God didn't force those people to accept the fact that He is the one true God and Jesus is His Son, just like He doesn't force or compel us to accept Him today.

[FrankDH]

Yes we are told to "believe" and that "all who call upon ..." will be saved, but God first works before an unbeliever can make the choice (volitional, not free will).

If you believe this, why inquire as to choice? There can be no choice until options are presented. If you view the Spirit's work of conviction as God having chosen for you then there is no room for choice. It is when the Spirit convicts one of sin that choice begins. Only then can man grasp the fact he is a sinner. But that is a realization, not a choice. Choice falls under what do you do once you realize who you are and who God is. God does not make that choice for you.

[watchman]

What I would ask is which of those passages refers to non-believers? In the OT and the Gospels, the vast majority of the audience were those who had some connection (Israel <-> God) and were being called to return to God. In the NT, believers are again the primary audience. Yes we are told to "believe" and that "all who call upon ..." will be saved, but God first works before an unbeliever can make the choice (volitional, not free will). Some might point to Adam, but he walked with
God in the garden and his choice was to obey God, not to believe in God (although to disobey might relate to disbelief).



What is it you really want the answer of?
Or, what is the agenda?

[matheteou]

If you believe this, why inquire as to choice? There can be no choice until options are presented. If you view the Spirit's work of conviction as God having chosen for you then there is no room for choice. It is when the Spirit convicts one of sin that choice begins. Only then can man grasp the fact he is a sinner. But that is a realization, not a choice. Choice falls under what do you do once you realize who you are and who God is. God does not make that choice for you.What is the sin that an unbeliever is first convicted of? Why did God open Lydia's heart so she could understand the words of Paul if she could "choose" on her own?

[matheteou]

What is it you really want the answer of?
Or, what is the agenda?I thought my question was clear. I apologize if you think I'm trying to push an agenda. I may lean towards Calvinism, but that doesn't mean I have an agenda.

[watchman]

perhaps it is my skeptical and suspicious thinking nature.

[FrankDH]

What is the sin that an unbeliever is first convicted of?

Adam’s sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Why did God open Lydia's heart so she could understand the words of Paul if she could "choose" on her own?

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Lydia was already worshipping God. She had made her choice that she was a sinner needing God. God opened her heart that she would pay attention to what Paul said.

[Hootmon]

It is when the Spirit convicts one of sin that choice begins. Only then can man grasp the fact he is a sinner. But that is a realization, not a choice. Choice falls under what do you do once you realize who you are and who God is. God does not make that choice for you. Good post.

[B A N E]

That is a point of contention and in particular the word choice.
Volition versus Free will
As some here know, I don't believe in free will and I contend that the
Bible itself never supports free will.

Volition on the other hand, I agree with.
We have an ability to choose, but not an unrestricted ability.

All the versus used to support free will more clearly support volition.

Hoot and I have discussed this topic before.
I don't believe it is a matter of semantics, IIRC, he does.

[matheteou]

That is a point of contention and in particular the word choice.
Volition versus Free will
As some here know, I don't believe in free will and I contend that the
Bible itself never supports free will.

Volition on the other hand, I agree with.
We have an ability to choose, but not an unrestricted ability.

All the versus used to support free will more clearly support volition.

Hoot and I have discussed this topic before.
I don't believe it is a matter of semantics, IIRC, he does.And I agree, it is more than semantics.

[Hootmon]

Hoot and I have discussed this topic before.
I don't believe it is a matter of semantics, IIRC, he does.:confused

[FrankDH]

That is a point of contention and in particular the word choice.
Volition versus Free will
As some here know, I don't believe in free will and I contend that the
Bible itself never supports free will.

Volition on the other hand, I agree with.
We have an ability to choose, but not an unrestricted ability.

All the versus used to support free will more clearly support volition.

Hoot and I have discussed this topic before.
I don't believe it is a matter of semantics, IIRC, he does.

Free will is the option that has always made sense to me. But others sometimes point out something I've missed. Could you give me an example of the restrictions my choice is subject to? Or use Adam, if you prefer.

[B A N E]

:confused
Last time, ugh, I'd have to use the search feature to find it, we discussed
volition vs freewill, I recall your suggesting the common understanding of
freewill being synonymous (sp?) with volition.

[B A N E]

Free will is the option that has always made sense to me. But others sometimes point out something I've missed. Could you give me an example of the restrictions my choice is subject to? Or use Adam, if you prefer.

Frank,
Best way to explain my POV is in the definitions of free will and volition
and their differences.

more later, swimming lessons for the kids.

[Hootmon]

Last time, ugh, I'd have to use the search feature to find it, we discussed volition vs freewill, I recall your suggesting the common understanding of freewill being synonymous (sp?) with volition.Gotcha. That sounds about right.


We have an ability to choose, but not an unrestricted ability.This is exactly what I am talking about.

Most people who argue in favor of 'Freewill' mean the former and not the latter, though the latter is what most of those who oppose 'Freewill' attack. I doubt there are many (any?) that would defend the notion of our having 'unrestricted ability'.

[FrankDH]

Frank,
Best way to explain my POV is in the definitions of free will and volition
and their differences.

more later, swimming lessons for the kids.


Volition
Miriam Webster
Main Entry: vo·li·tion Pronunciation: \vō-ˈli-shən, və-\ Function: noun Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin volition-, volitio, from Latin vol- (stem of velle to will, wish) + -ition-, -itio (as in Latin position-, positio position) — more at will Date: 1615
1: an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made2: the power of choosing or determining : will
— vo·li·tion·al \-ˈlish-nəl, -ˈli-shə-nəl\ adjective

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
volition
noun
the power to make your own decisions:
The Minister wished it to be known that he had left the cabinet (out) of his own volition (= it was his decision).


American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

NOUN:
The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
A conscious choice or decision.
The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

MSN Encarta
vo·li·tion
noun
Definition:
1. choosing: the act of exercising the will
2. ability to choose: the ability to make conscious choices or decisions

:confused

[B A N E]

Gotcha. That sounds about right.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Most people who argue in favor of 'Freewill' mean the former and not the latter, though the latter is what most of those who oppose 'Freewill' attack. I doubt there are many (any?) that would defend the notion of our having 'unrestricted ability'.
Staunch supporters of free will argue for just exactly that; unrestricted.
I've seen posted many times that if the choice is limited, then said choice
is meaningless and we're all just puppets.

Thus the reason I specifically use volition and not free will.
IMO, it isn't semantics and it is an important enough issue that being
exact as opposed to using an erroneous colloquial application is necessary.

Volition, an ability to choose.
Free will, unrestricted ability to choose.

[Hootmon]

Staunch supporters of free will argue for just exactly that; unrestricted.Really? I cant remember the last time Ive seen a proponent do that. Though that is the typical strawman constructed by the opponents.

[FrankDH]

Staunch supporters of free will argue for just exactly that; unrestricted.
I've seen posted many times that if the choice is limited, then said choice
is meaningless and we're all just puppets.

Thus the reason I specifically use volition and not free will.
IMO, it isn't semantics and it is an important enough issue that being
exact as opposed to using an erroneous colloquial application is necessary.

Volition, an ability to choose.
Free will, unrestricted ability to choose.

Maybe I'm dense but I'm not getting it. Take Adam as an example. God said eat of the tree and die. Satan said eat and you won't die. Adam's choice was to believe one or the other. The only restriction I see is posed in the number of options presented. Adam couldn't pick a third option that didn't exist.

It's the nature of the restrictions you suggest that I don't understand. Maybe a link to that past conversation would help. Now I have to leave but I'm interested.

[Hootmon]

Take Adam as an example. God said eat of the tree and die. Satan said eat and you won't die. Adam's choice was to believe one or the other. The only restriction I see is posed in the number of options presented. Adam couldn't pick a third option that didn't exist. That makes it 'volition'.

Free Will would have allowed Adam to make applesauce and only get a bellyache, so he would only have tripped instead of fallen.

[B A N E]

Really? I cant remember the last time Ive seen a proponent do that. Though that is the typical strawman constructed by the opponents.
Then you have forgotten such statements.

I watch both Arminian and Calvinists set up strawmen against each other
in debates.

I watch both sides ignore pertinent Scripture and when they cannot
ignore it, they reinterpret it.

I watch the extremes on both ends of the debate post in support of
some of those strawmen which kinda boggles my mind.

Such behavior is why I am picky about volition and free will.

[B A N E]

Free Will would have allowed Adam to make applesauce and only get a bellyache, so he would only have tripped instead of fallen.
That too is a strawman.

Granted, I've watched Calvinists use that argument.

[Hootmon]

That too is a strawman.I wasnt really being serious. Obedience only allows two choices: Obey or Rebel.

Such a stark choice isnt really the best example for discussing this topic. I mean... What could the third option possibly be? Anything that isnt Obedience is automatically Rebellion.


Granted, I've watched Calvinists use that argumentThems fightin' words! :boxing

[watchman]

Can someone help me understand what the point of the argument is?

I understand as follows:
G-d created man.
Man was commanded not to eat of the one tree. (choice, obey disobey)
Satan's argument has nothing to do with it (yet...)
So man had the complete freedom to choose to obey or disobey, as it pertained to eating the fruit. (let's not get sidetracked on touching, painting it rainbow colors, singing to it or anything, just eating it.)

So if there is a limit on the yes/no binary logic, I do not see it.

That is where I need clarity as to the argument.

Anytime I find myself in the "Calvanist vs. Arminian" type things, I usually see it as a pointless waste of energy and see no eternal value in that. (as the point is "...choose today whom you will serve...", predicated upon, "... for G-d so loved the world... whosoever will..."

Thanks. :becky

[matheteou]

Can someone help me understand what the point of the argument is?

I understand as follows:
G-d created man.
Man was commanded not to eat of the one tree. (choice, obey disobey)
Satan's argument has nothing to do with it (yet...)
So man had the complete freedom to choose to obey or disobey, as it pertained to eating the fruit. (let's not get sidetracked on touching, painting it rainbow colors, singing to it or anything, just eating it.)

So if there is a limit on the yes/no binary logic, I do not see it.

That is where I need clarity as to the argument.

Anytime I find myself in the "Calvanist vs. Arminian" type things, I usually see it as a pointless waste of energy and see no eternal value in that. (as the point is "...choose today whom you will serve...", predicated upon, "... for G-d so loved the world... whosoever will..."

Thanks. :beckyWe know that Adam received the command from God, but who did Eve receive it from? Now let's look at what happened:"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, ESV)Eve ate and didn't die, and Adam saw all of this BEFORE he took a bite. Did they understand what death meant having never witnessed it before (YEC)? Did Adam test God by letting Eve eat first? Or did Adam understand what was involved and still let Eve eat, and then joined her, trusting God would find a way out for them?

Adam's state (unfallen) before eating allowed him to make more of a "free-will" choice than has been available to us since as we are in a fallen state and unable to make such an illumined decision without God intervening by opening our minds/hearts (elevating or enabling us if you will) so we can make an "informed" (not necessarily correct) "choice". Without His intervention, we can only "choose" within a fallen sphere.

[FrankDH]

Such a stark choice isnt really the best example for discussing this topic. I mean... What could the third option possibly be?


Let's try a different example.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Isn't Paul saying the responsibility remains his in spite of his free will choice, here? He seems to be saying he has the freedom to choose but he can't escape the duty given him.

[matheteou]

Let's try a different example.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Isn't Paul saying the responsibility remains his in spite of his free will choice, here? He seems to be saying he has the freedom to choose but he can't escape the duty given him.What's interesting is many try to compare the "free-will" of believers to that of unbelievers. There is a "slight" difference in that believers have the Spirit (or if you will "...the mind of Christ") whereas the unregenerate are "stuck in a rut" of falleness and are limited to "choice" within the fallen sphere of existence.

[watchman]

We know that Adam received the command from God, but who did Eve receive it from?
From G-d, the same as anyone who reads the Word or hears it preached. G-d's Word declares that Creation testifies of Him. So Eve had knowledge. Since the bible does no t explicitly state that Eve and G-d stood face to face and He uttered the command not to eat, that she somehow was not responsible, held to the same accountability as Adam, or somehow it changes things, that I have no further desire to discuss this as it falls into what I stated before as endless and useless debate.

Now let's look at what happened:Eve ate and didn't die, and Adam saw all of this BEFORE he took a bite. Did they understand what death meant having never witnessed it before (YEC)? Did Adam test God by letting Eve eat first? Or did Adam understand what was involved and still let Eve eat, and then joined her, trusting God would find a way out for them?

And Eve did die, that very day, for spiritually she was separated (dead) to G-d, and within 1000 years she was dead physically, which one either accepts as scripture declares it to be, or it is argued much the same as the argument the serpent posed, in the "...you surly won't die..." and every other argument he posed against G-d.

No apologies from me and no need for rebuttal, I have had this stance and this mindset for more than 40 years, and I am not inclined to change it.


Adam's state (unfallen) before eating allowed him to make more of a "free-will" choice than has been available to us since as we are in a fallen state and unable to make such an illumined decision without God intervening by opening our minds/hearts (elevating or enabling us if you will) so we can make an "informed" (not necessarily correct) "choice". Without His intervention, we can only "choose" within a fallen sphere.

The fact that all mankind's eyes were opened to the "knowledges of good and evil" because of the fall.
That knowledge "informs" us implicitly.

G-d saw to it that it would be so.

He has this thing so wrapped up, that no amount of twisting things like a Rubik's cube will ever amount to anything more than tired hands.

What does is profit anyone if somehow, someone were to prove or disprove that man has more or less free will, or volition or not?

The bottom line is that man exists in a fallen state, nothing can be done to change who that occurred. And that G-d provides a way for all of mankind to choose to respond to the message of salvation.

Since the bible declares that all are created after "their own kind" each and every human that has life, will be created equal as it pertains to the fallen nature and each and every has the same requirement to respond.

[FrankDH]

What's interesting is many try to compare the "free-will" of believers to that of unbelievers. There is a "slight" difference in that believers have the Spirit (or if you will "...the mind of Christ") whereas the unregenerate are "stuck in a rut" of falleness and are limited to "choice" within the fallen sphere of existence.

I haven't given it much thought, but degrees of freewill choice sounds odd to me. I agree the Spirit's presence, in the believer,offers guidance. As you pointed out earlier, in Lydia's case.

But it is the Spirit's will being exercised when gifts are given [1 Cor 12:11]. Not the believer's.

In fact, the believer is supposed to yield his will to the Spirit's. Choosing to do otherwise leads to slow growth, at least, and quenching the Spirit, at the most. That doesn't sound any better than those in the rut you mentioned.

It's hard to make a case that God manipulated a believer into quenching His Spirit within them. So it must be a freewill choice, right? By a believer, right?

[matheteou]

I haven't given it much thought, but degrees of freewill choice sounds odd to me. I agree the Spirit's presence, in the believer,offers guidance. As you pointed out earlier, in Lydia's case.

But it is the Spirit's will being exercised when gifts are given [1 Cor 12:11]. Not the believer's.

In fact, the believer is supposed to yield his will to the Spirit's. Choosing to do otherwise leads to slow growth, at least, and quenching the Spirit, at the most. That doesn't sound any better than those in the rut you mentioned.

It's hard to make a case that God manipulated a believer into quenching His Spirit within them. So it must be a freewill choice, right? By a believer, right?So it must be a volitional choice because if it was true free-will the "believer" should be able to "kick the Spirit out" right?

[FrankDH]

So it must be a volitional choice because if it was true free-will the "believer" should be able to "kick the Spirit out" right?

Choice doesn't guarantee ability. I could make a freewill choice to butt a hole in a concrete wall. But if the wall remained in tact, was my choice to try impaired? Babel was built on choice but failed to reach it's planned growth. You're painting a picture whereby the only thing we can call choice are the things we can accomplish.

[matheteou]

Choice doesn't guarantee ability. I could make a freewill choice to butt a hole in a concrete wall. But if the wall remained in tact, was my choice to try impaired? Babel was built on choice but failed to reach it's planned growth. You're painting a picture whereby the only thing we can call choice are the things we can accomplish.So would your choice be defined by:FREEWILL', n.
1. The power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate.

2. Voluntariness; spontaneousness.
Or by:
VOLI'TION, n. [L. volitio, from volo, to will. See Will.]
1. The act of willing the act of determining choice, or forming a purpose. There is a great difference between actual volition, and approbation of judgment.Volition is the actual exercise of the power which the mind has of considering or forbearing to consider an idea.

2. The power of willing or determining.

[Hootmon]

Let's try a different example.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Isn't Paul saying the responsibility remains his in spite of his free will choice, here? He seems to be saying he has the freedom to choose but he can't escape the duty given him.Im not sure I follow you. The context of that verse is about having the right to expect getting paid to preach, and that he refused payment.

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
(1Co 9:14-18)

[FrankDH]

So would your choice be defined by:
Or by:


Hmm, maybe I don’t understand these terms well enough. I have questions.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Is this volition or freewill?

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Is this volition or freewill?

[FrankDH]

Im not sure I follow you. The context of that verse is about having the right to expect getting paid to preach, and that he refused payment.
In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
(1Co 9:14-18)

Paul does establish a right, via the gospel, to earn a living preaching. But what does the exercise of that right [or the non exercise] have to do with woe? That’s not dealing with earning a living. It’s dealing with meeting a responsibility.

[matheteou]

Hmm, maybe I don’t understand these terms well enough. I have questions.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Is this volition or freewill?

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Is this volition or freewill?Does unregenerate man have a choice in whether he sins or not?
NECESSITY, n.
1. That which must be and cannot be otherwise, or the cause of that which cannot be otherwise. It is of necessity that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is of necessity that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true.

2. Irresistible power; compulsive force, physical or moral. If mans actions are determined by causes beyond his control, he acts from necessity, and is not a free agent. Necessity compelled the general to act on the defensive.

[FrankDH]

Does unregenerate man have a choice in whether he sins or not?

Not until he is convicted, IMO.

[Hootmon]

But what does the exercise of that right [or the non exercise] have to do with woe? That’s not dealing with earning a living. It’s dealing with meeting a responsibility.Its not really any different tha the choice Adam had; Obey, or suffer the consequences of Rebellion.

[FrankDH]

Its not really any different tha the choice Adam had; Obey, or suffer the consequences of Rebellion.

That's my point. The consequence doesn't determine if choice was exercised. The exercise of choice determines the consequence.

Paul saw more than a paycheck when he mentions woe. But he left the choice to himself with the understanding the responsibility remained with him no matter which choice he made.

[matheteou]

Not until he is convicted, IMO.So based upon the second definition of NECESSITY, would you agree that unregenerate man does not have true free-will?

[CaiperLane]

:pop2



Bwahahahaha.... :heh :B:

[FrankDH]

So based upon the second definition of NECESSITY, would you agree that unregenerate man does not have true free-will?

Prior to this conversation I would have said freewill is not dependant on neccessity or it couldn't be free. I have never made a distinction between freewill and "true" freewill. That's why I'm inquiring into if I understand the terms. That's why I brought up the Mt 5 instance.

Jesus seems to say intent is enough to establish an action, in v 28. How is intent of the heart restricted? Intent takes place before consequence. I get the impression you think there is no freewill if consequence follows. The formation of will is an action of man. The consequence is an action of God. They aren't the same thing. Man is free to accept the notion that God can bring about the consequence or not believe it, independant of God's power to actually deliver the consequence.

You didn't help me by answering my questions with a question. Could you label Mt 5:27-28 as volition or freewill for me?

[FrankDH]

Gotta go make some money to cover my brother's living expenses. Be back.

[CaiperLane]

So based upon the second definition of NECESSITY, would you agree that unregenerate man does not have true free-will?

No I think the unbeliever has free will. Because if he ends up in Hell it's because he chose to go there. Not because he wasn't given the chance.

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? - Numbers 23:19

Scripture identifies the act of moral choice with life itself: "I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and curse; choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19). Free will is to be able to choose the blessing over the curse.

Now as for the unbeliever and the believer I think "will" and "heart" get confused. I do believe that God plants a seed of faith in all of us. He calls all of us. But not all will respond. NOT because of their free will but because of the state of their heart. If God's pull is irresistible and an individual chooses to reject him that is the state of the individuals' heart. I believe their will is one thing but their heart is another.

God must bring sinners to Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel, and the Almighty work of the Spirit. He takes sinners who are dead in their sins, and brings them irresistibly and willingly, although their natural will is inclined to oppose.

Now scripture says that God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

Now I think all humans are capable of choosing God or rejecting God. I don't believe we have the capacity or willingness to "seek Him out all on our own" because of our sin nature. He seeks each person out. He knocks on the door of their heart and the person can pull away or answer His call.

As for our free will I believe we can choose to do whatever we want but as unbelievers we do NOT choose to seek God, we do not choose to seek what is good...

It is God who draws all of us and calls us to Himself.

Those who answer go "willingly". Those who reject will have no excuse when they stand before God. They can never say "God didn't give me a chance".


Okay we're getting into Calvinism and as most people know (at least here) that I am NOT a Calvinist.

But this is my take on man's free will.

[matheteou]

No I think the unbeliever has free will. Because if he ends up in Hell it's because he chose to go there. Not because he wasn't given the chance.

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? - Numbers 23:19

Scripture identifies the act of moral choice with life itself: "I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and curse; choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19). Free will is to be able to choose the blessing over the curse.

Now as for the unbeliever and the believer I think "will" and "heart" get confused. I do believe that God plants a seed of faith in all of us. He calls all of us. But not all will respond. NOT because of their free will but because of the state of their heart. If God's pull is irresistible and an individual chooses to reject him that is the state of the individuals' heart. I believe their will is one thing but their heart is another.

God must bring sinners to Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel, and the Almighty work of the Spirit. He takes sinners who are dead in their sins, and brings them irresistibly and willingly, although their natural will is inclined to oppose.

Now scripture says that God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

Now I think all humans are capable of choosing God or rejecting God. I don't believe we have the capacity or willingness to "seek Him out all on our own" because of our sin nature. He seeks each person out. He knocks on the door of their heart and the person can pull away or answer His call.

As for our free will I believe we can choose to do whatever we want but as unbelievers we do NOT choose to seek God, we do not choose to seek what is good...

It is God who draws all of us and calls us to Himself.

Those who answer go "willingly". Those who reject will have no excuse when they stand before God. They can never say "God didn't give me a chance".


Okay we're getting into Calvinism and as most people know (at least here) that I am NOT a Calvinist.

But this is my take on man's free will.Now based upon the definition of necessity that I posted earlier and what I highlighted in your post, are the unregenerate "free agents" with "free-will"?

[CaiperLane]

Now based upon the definition of necessity that I posted earlier and what I highlighted in your post, are the unregenerate "free agents" with "free-will"?

Scripture says God has given a measure of faith to everyone.


And then faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.

We're all unregenerate agents with free will that have that measure of faith that God gave us.

Accepting the Truth after we have heard is done by our heart. It's our free will that had us listen.

There's also a difference between free will and the heart.

Jesus says He stands at the door and knocks, if we hear His voice and open the door [to our hearts] he will come in...

I think the two things get confused ALOT.

[matheteou]

Scripture says God has given a measure of faith to everyone.


And then faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.

We're all unregenerate agents with free will that have that measure of faith that God gave us.

Accepting the Truth after we have heard is done by our heart. It's our free will that had us listen.

There's also a difference between free will and the heart.

Jesus says He stands at the door and knocks, if we hear His voice and open the door [to our hearts] he will come in...

I think the two things get confused ALOT.Let me ask you this, who is the audience in your "Jesus says He stands at the door and knocks ..."?

Let's expand upon the "faith comes by hearing ...""So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have ..." (Romans 10:17-18, NASB95)

[CaiperLane]

Let me ask you this, who is the audience in your "Jesus says He stands at the door and knocks ..."?

Let's expand upon the "faith comes by hearing ..."



"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have ..." (Romans 10:17-18, NASB95)

Yeah? So?

The point is that scripture tells us the Word has the power to transform lives. Hearing the word brings faith and we can hear it and perhaps even understand it because of God. Again, God has given every man (or woman) a measure of faith.

We all have the ability to hear.

After we hear it's up to our hearts to accept or reject.

We have freewill. But I don't think that applies to hearing the Word (the message) I think God makes sure all men hear it.

Now as for their hearts that's a different story. The decision to accept or reject lies in man's heart.

Jesus has said that it's man's heart that is "____" (fill in the blank)

The condition of our hearts is what separates us from Jesus. We are lost when we haven't accepted him. Yes I do believe man has the power to accept or reject Christ. It has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with their heart. (and not the pounding thing in their chest)

That doesn't make man as Calvin claims a part of his regeneration or salvation. That claim is ridiculous.

It's like when I buy a new piece of furniture. I didn't make it, I didn't carve the wood, assemble it or even sell it. I don't HAVE to buy it. Even though I may NEED it. There's stuff I've seen on Craig's List for free that I wouldn't want. But when I see something that I not only need but deep down am looking for, I'll snag it. I had nothing to do with it's creation or the fact that it's owner was giving it away.

I just accepted it. It would have still existed even if I didn't accept it and it would have the same usage regardless. Accepting a gift or something that's free is just common sense. Especially if it's something I want or need.


And every human wants and needs love. A love you can count on...

Christ said on the cross "it is finished" He didn't say partially finished, He said it was done.



And since this is headed towards a Calvinist talk I think a search on this to read that thread debate should be done. I've already done this debate several times here and I don't want to waste anymore time on it. :):

[matheteou]

Yeah? So?

The point is that scripture tells us the Word has the power to transform lives. Hearing the word brings faith and we can hear it and perhaps even understand it because of God. Again, God has given every man (or woman) a measure of faith.

We all have the ability to hear.

After we hear it's up to our hearts to accept or reject.

We have freewill. But I don't think that applies to hearing the Word (the message) I think God makes sure all men hear it.

Now as for their hearts that's a different story. The decision to accept or reject lies in man's heart.

Jesus has said that it's man's heart that is "____" (fill in the blank)

The condition of our hearts is what separates us from Jesus. We are lost when we haven't accepted him. Yes I do believe man has the power to accept or reject Christ. It has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with their heart. (and not the pounding thing in their chest)

That doesn't make man as Calvin claims a part of his regeneration or salvation. That claim is ridiculous.

It's like when I buy a new piece of furniture. I didn't make it, I didn't carve the wood, assemble it or even sell it. I don't HAVE to buy it. Even though I may NEED it. There's stuff I've seen on Craig's List for free that I wouldn't want. But when I see something that I not only need but deep down am looking for, I'll snag it. I had nothing to do with it's creation or the fact that it's owner was giving it away.

I just accepted it. It would have still existed even if I didn't accept it and it would have the same usage regardless. Accepting a gift or something that's free is just common sense. Especially if it's something I want or need.


And every human wants and needs love. A love you can count on...

Christ said on the cross "it is finished" He didn't say partially finished, He said it was done.



And since this is headed towards a Calvinist talk I think a search on this to read that thread debate should be done. I've already done this debate several times here and I don't want to waste anymore time on it. :):It's interesting how one gets "accused" of Calvinism without bringing the subject up.

Now based upon your statement (part of which I highlighted), you are saying man is not a free agent because it takes God to make sure all hear the word, is that correct?

[CaiperLane]

It's interesting how one gets "accused" of Calvinism without bringing the subject up.

Now based upon your statement (part of which I highlighted), you are saying man is not a free agent because it takes God to make sure all hear the word, is that correct?




God doesn't make sure of anything. He says it and it's done.

I wasn't accusing anyone in particular of "Calvinism". I said if the discussion is headed that way I don't want to get into it. Again.

And Calvinists believe in election. Some are elected for salvation others are elected for Destruction.

And they debate the same way about "free will"

So I mean no offense but most people who know me here know how I feel about Mr. Calvin and his theology.



We are in essence I guess free agents as you put it like Maxwell Smart was. He could choose Control or Kaos. He chose Control.

We have two options. We can choose life. Or death.


Deuteronomy 30:19 says:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live...

We have the ability to choose.

Genesis 4:7 says:

If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.

Another example of a conflict that shows we have the ability to use our freewill to make choices. Good or bad. Though we must choose the right path.

Free will is the choice between life and death. "I have put before you, life and death... Choose life so that you [and your descendants] may live." (Deut. 30:19)

*Remember there is a difference between our free will and our heart.

[matheteou]

... We are in essence I guess free agents as you put it like Maxwell Smart was. He could choose Control or Kaos. He chose Control.
...
We have the ability to choose.
...
*Remember there is a difference between our free will and our heart.
Not having seen Maxwell Smart since the old TV series, your analogy is meaningless to me.

Would you please define for me what you understand heart, freewill, volition, and necessity mean?

Also, could you give scripture detailing the difference between "freewill" and our heart?

Thanks

[Enlightenment]

So I mean no offense but most people who know me here know how I feel about Mr. Calvin and his theology.


:clap

All I know is whenever I see a thread about free will I have no choice but to post in it. :madyes

[CaiperLane]

Not having seen Maxwell Smart since the old TV series, your analogy is meaningless to me.

Would you please define for me what you understand heart, freewill, volition, and necessity mean?

Also, could you give scripture detailing the difference between "freewill" and our heart?

Thanks


I think I've posted enough verses to show you what occurs despite the fact that we have free will. Scripture shows we CAN choose right or wrong. This explains why there are many unbelievers who can live good moral lives and then there's those who...well...don't.

Free will is the ability to make choices, even when it goes against our "heart"

As for our heart I believe that is separate from free will. Free will is guided by the flesh. The heart is what God uses to speak to us.This is why there is a conflict. Paul spoke about it. He said that his flesh (free will) wanted to do what his heart told him not to. (my paraphrasing)

Volition is in essence free will or the act of making choices.

[CaiperLane]

:clap

All I know is whenever I see a thread about free will I have no choice but to post in it. :madyes

Yeah? Well I don't know why I keep getting into it. :nope

[Hootmon]

All I know is whenever I see a thread about free will I have no choice but to post in it. :madyesI just had to laugh...

:heh

[Justsomeguy]

Why does it have to be one or the other? The bible clearly says that God predestines his elect. We are chosen ahead of time. Yet, we clearly have free will as well--God does not make us sin and we all sin rather often. So, I have come to the conclusion that Predestination (t.u.l.i.p.) and free-will are both equally true. There is a mystery there that we will not grasp this side of eternity. I know it's a paradoxical relationship, but so is the fact that Almighty God can be fully man and fully God at the same time. Our finite minds will not grasp this concept until all things are done and I personally believe this is a matter that must be taken on faith. I think both sides of this debate are both 100% true.

You guys should have fun with that one ;):

[Hootmon]

Why does it have to be one or the other? The bible clearly says that God predestines his elect. We are chosen ahead of time. Yet, we clearly have free will as well--God does not make us sin and we all sin rather often. So, I have come to the conclusion that Predestination (t.u.l.i.p.) and free-will are both equally true.Ive heard it put this way...

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are correct in what they assert, but both are wrong in what they deny.

[Justsomeguy]

Ive heard it put this way...

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are correct in what they assert, but both are wrong in what they deny.


Haven't heard that before--though that may be a good way at looking at it. Although I would argue that the five points of Calvinism do not deny free will. Having chosen his elect before the foundation of the world God works in their lives through the Spirit to see to it that they do accept the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ by their free will...

Maybe I should clarify my position on this subject. I am a Calvinist (though I'd rather just say--I'm a Christian--for the purposes of this discussion though I guess Calvinist will have to do), but I also believe firmly in free-will.

[CaiperLane]

Why does it have to be one or the other? The bible clearly says that God predestines his elect. We are chosen ahead of time. Yet, we clearly have free will as well--God does not make us sin and we all sin rather often. So, I have come to the conclusion that Predestination (t.u.l.i.p.) and free-will are both equally true. There is a mystery there that we will not grasp this side of eternity. I know it's a paradoxical relationship, but so is the fact that Almighty God can be fully man and fully God at the same time. Our finite minds will not grasp this concept until all things are done and I personally believe this is a matter that must be taken on faith. I think both sides of this debate are both 100% true.

You guys should have fun with that one ;):

No it doesn't clearly say that. Which is why Calvinism is debated so. I am one of those who does NOT believe in Calvinism. I don't believe that there are those who are chosen to be saved and others who are chosen for damnation. That "theory" just does NOT mesh with the whole of scripture and the character of God.

The elect does not mean elected to be saved. And the Calvinist claim that we "just won't know some things" until we get to the other side is just a smokescreen for the "filling in what makes no sense" in the scriptures when Calvinist try and apply their theology to scriptures that they don't understand or misinterpret.




Okay no hate mail from Calvinists please.

I'm not going to debate Calvinism AGAIN here. I've already done it at least half a dozen times. And my fingers will get too sore retyping all of that....



Oh and P.S. Just because someone isn't a Calvinist doesn't make them an Arminian.

I HATE labels.


Unless it's on cake or ice cream. :nod

[Hootmon]

I HATE labels.

Unless it's on cake or ice cream. :nodAccording to the FDA, the 'serving size' for Ice Cream is 1/2 cup.

[Justsomeguy]

No it doesn't clearly say that. Which is why Calvinism is debated so. I am one of those who does NOT believe in Calvinism. I don't believe that there are those who are chosen to be saved and others who are chosen for damnation. That "theory" just does NOT mesh with the whole of scripture and the character of God.

Calvinism does not espouse that anyone is chosen for damnation--we made that choice all by ourselves...

The elect does not mean elected to be saved. And the Calvinist claim that we "just won't know some things" until we get to the other side is just a smokescreen for the "filling in what makes no sense" in the scriptures when Calvinist try and apply their theology to scriptures that they don't understand or misinterpret.

There is a difference between "know" and "understand" which did I use? Do you understand all things in the scriptures fully?


Okay no hate mail from Calvinists please.

I'm not going to debate Calvinism AGAIN here. I've already done it at least half a dozen times. And my fingers will get too sore retyping all of that....
I wouldn't write you any hate mail, but with all due respect, don't say we "fill in what makes no sense" with some sort of smokescreen, for scriptures we apparently don't understand or misinterpret if you are not going to post any or perhaps give a link to your other debates. I know this is a "hot-button" topic, but throwing around strawman arguments and accusations of "misinterpreting scripture" don't help. If I were to say the same to you of your position, how would you react? Please show me one person in all of existence other than Jesus Christ that understands completely every concept expressed in the scriptures...

I don't want to debate Calvinism either. I'm simply pointing out that Calvinism does not suggest that our choice in following Christ is not a free will decision.

[CaiperLane]

Yes Calvinism says that the elect were chosen to be saved before the foundations of the world. But they see "elect" as saved rather than chosen for a place of service within God's will/plan.

They also say that humans do not have the power to resist God's calling. They cannot be a part of their regeneration. Another example of their semantics. I'm not critiquing YOU but Calvin's twisted theology.

Yes John Calvin. A hateful anti-Semite who stated the following:

"The Jews rotten and unbending stiffneckness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."

From A Response To Questions And Objections Of A Certain Jew

So, I won't be giving to much attention to a man who though that our Lord's Chosen People were undeserving of salvation or even pity.

[Justsomeguy]

They also say that humans do not have the power to resist God's calling. They cannot be a part of their regeneration.

What part do you play in your regeneration?

Yes John Calvin. A hateful anti-Semite who stated the following:

"The Jews rotten and unbending stiffneckness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."

From A Response To Questions And Objections Of A Certain Jew

So, I won't be giving to much attention to a man who though that our Lord's Chosen People were undeserving of salvation or even pity.

Perhaps you should look up what every other reformer during the time Calvin lived said of the jews. I can assure you that Martin Luther had far longer and more cruel tyrades in regard to the jews than John Calvin--who was thought to be more tolerant of the jews than Mr. Luther. The fact of the matter is that this was the European attitude toward jews at this time. That doesn't make his comments right, but none the less--this is an attitude shared by many of the protestant reformers.

Besides I know for a fact that I am undeserving of salvation and certainly merit no pity... So, I would have to see this quote in context to make any real judgement about it.

Here are some other quotes by Calvin regarding the Jews...

"I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, ­When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God's family.

...as Jews are the firstborn, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, it is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, who God had preferred to all other nations...God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation...God was not unmindful of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and by which he testified that according to his eternal purpose he loved that nation: and this he confirms by this remarkable declaration, ­that the grace of the divine calling cannot be made void."

[CaiperLane]

What part do you play in your regeneration?

Acceptance is NOT taking "part" in our regeneration. Our regeneration was completed at the resurrection. All we have to do is accept God's gift of His Son's sacrifice.



Perhaps you should look up what every other reformer during the time Calvin lived said of the jews. I can assure you that Martin Luther had far longer and more cruel tyrades in regard to the jews than John Calvin--who was thought to be more tolerant of the jews than Mr. Luther. The fact of the matter is that this was the European attitude toward jews at this time. That doesn't make his comments right, but none the less--this is an attitude shared by many of the protestant reformers.

Besides I know for a fact that I am undeserving of salvation and certainly merit no pity... So, I would have to see this quote in context to make any real judgement about it.

Here are some other quotes by Calvin regarding the Jews...

"I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, *When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God's family.

...as Jews are the firstborn, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, it is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, who God had preferred to all other nations...God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation...God was not unmindful of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and by which he testified that according to his eternal purpose he loved that nation: and this he confirms by this remarkable declaration, *that the grace of the divine calling cannot be made void."

I am well aware of the rantings of Martin Luther.

The quote you gave I'd like to see where it came from. (if possible)

His remarks concern biblical references and it seems he is responding to those.

The fact that many people felt this way should not apply to the believer. There is no excuse for ther hatred and intolerance of the Jewish people shown by Calvin, Luther or anyone else.


Especially one who is prominent in the Church Movement. Paul himself said that he struggled with sin BUT he never stayed in sin.


By Calvin's theology I am unredeemable. (and Luther's as well)

I agree that none of us is worthy and it's only because of God's love that He chose to extend His mercy to us.

[Justsomeguy]

Acceptance is NOT taking "part" in our regeneration. Our regeneration was completed at the resurrection. All we have to do is accept God's gift of His Son's sacrifice.

How do you accept this gift of grace?



I am well aware of the rantings of Martin Luther.

The quote you gave I'd like to see where it came from. (if possible)

Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XIX, Epistle to the Romans p. 434-440.

His remarks concern biblical references and it seems he is responding to those.

The fact that many people felt this way should not apply to the believer. There is no excuse for ther hatred and intolerance of the Jewish people shown by Calvin, Luther or anyone else.

When I try to research Calvin's suppossed anti-semitism I find that most consider him to be a philo-semite. Do you have any other quotes from him?

Especially one who is prominent in the Church Movement. Paul himself said that he struggled with sin BUT he never stayed in sin.

Do you have any proof that Calvin did?

By Calvin's theology I am unredeemable. (and Luther's as well)

how so?

I agree that none of us is worthy and it's only because of God's love that He chose to extend His mercy to us.

Well, we can both definetely agree on that...

[CaiperLane]

How do you accept this gift of grace?

By believing.


So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. - Romans 10:17



Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XIX, Epistle to the Romans p. 434-440.

I was thinking more along the lines of any writings from Luther. Someone else's writings that quote him aren't the same.



When I try to research Calvin's suppossed anti-semitism I find that most consider him to be a philo-semite. Do you have any other quotes from him?

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."



1 John 3:15- Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.




Do you have any proof that Calvin did?

Have any proof that he didn't?



how so?

The Jews were to be oppressed unendingly and without pity. In Calvin's mind they could not be saved. He assumed (I think) that they would never accept Christ as the Messiah and were not part of God's divine "election". (based on the things I have read on him over many years)





**The thing is that Calvin is held in high esteem by many. Sorry but I don't think he deserves that position and anything he said was either what he read from Augustine's writings and his own twisted morality. They were meshed together and out popped Calvinism. (I also say the same about Martin Luther)

I'll stick to the scriptures. I don't need a man like John Calvin to tell me how and what to believe. "Ye shall be known by your fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit."

And a bad tree has nothing positive to offer in the way of Biblical authority.

Paul turned from his ways when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Formally one who tormented and persecuted Christians he became their biggest defender and God's most influential apostle.




God can speak through His Holy Word just fine to us without needing to listen to a man who didn't live what he claimed to believe. Oh and I hope I don't get slammed for that but I probably will. Calvin's historical record speaks for itself.

I could care less about "the times". Because as Christians (especially one in authority) the accountability factor doesn't change according to the tides of society. The early apostles risked their lives to speak and live the Truth regardless of the "times".



Well, we can both definetely agree on that...

:nod




Personal note: None of my comments were aimed at you personally Justsomeguy. :):