Water baptism/split from free will predestination thread

[DannyM]

Yes we co-operate, but never prior to being born again; co-operation comes after we are born again. IMVVVHO, of course

I don't agree completely, Danny. I'm saying that our cooperation begins after God's quickening, but, before being born again.

Rick, is everybody quickened, then?

[Byblos]

Byblos, now you're saying that I'm saying that mans "free will" holds the power to one's salvation.
Have you read anything I've said in these threads, that leads you to think that I believe man has free will powerful enough to save himself? It's God's grace, that enables man to make the choice.

I know very well that's what you've been saying, Rick. And what I've been trying to show all along (and what I believe precipitated this threads and others) is that predestination has merit, sound scriptural merit that cannot be discounted.

Man's choosing is the ultimate works-based salvation, sorry. It's the only way I'm able to read it.

Either
1) God's quickening leads one to choose or reject the gospel(God's grace + mans choice in conjunction)

or
2) "God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel."(hyper calvinism)

or
3) man can come to accept the gospel message completely on his own, without any influence at all by God(works based salvation)

We both reject 3, that much is obvious. I lean more towards 1 but I'm not sure 2 is worded properly, otherwise I'd be somewhere between 1 and 2 (if 2 represented Calvinism without the hyper).

[DannyM]

2) "God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel."(hyper calvinism)

Rick, I do not think this is hyper-Calvinism. This is just Calvinism.

If God chose based on passive foresight of our response then it wouldn’t be predestined and it wouldn’t be election. This doesn’t sound like the sovereign will of God to me.

[DannyM]

I know very well that's what you've been saying, Rick. And what I've been trying to show all along (and what I believe precipitated this threads and others) is that predestination has merit, sound scriptural merit that cannot be discounted.

John, did you know that the great Thomas Aquinas believed that regenerating grace is operative grace, and not co-operative grace? Not to mention Paul, Augustine and Calvin among others. We are truly in good company

[RickD]

2) "God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel."(hyper calvinism)

Rick, I do not think this is hyper-Calvinism. This is just Calvinism.

If God chose based on passive foresight of our response then it wouldn’t be predestined and it wouldn’t be election. This doesn’t sound like the sovereign will of God to me.

Danny, I honestly was hoping you would agree that it was hypercalvinism. I really didn't want to believe that mainstream Calvinism holds to that belief. Because it makes John 3:16 meaningless. But it would still be predestined. Just not in the same Calvinistic meaning of predestined.
I don't see it as having any effect on God's sovereign will, Danny.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Byblos, now you're saying that I'm saying that mans "free will" holds the power to one's salvation.
Have you read anything I've said in these threads, that leads you to think that I believe man has free will powerful enough to save himself? It's God's grace, that enables man to make the choice.



I know very well that's what you've been saying, Rick. And what I've been trying to show all along (and what I believe precipitated this threads and others) is that predestination has merit, sound scriptural merit that cannot be discounted.

And now we're back to, what is the definition of predestination. I absolutely believe predestination has merit. It's in the bible. I just don't agree with Calvinism's(sorry, not hyper calvinism's my mistake) definition of predestination.

We both reject 3, that much is obvious. I lean more towards 1 but I'm not sure 2 is worded properly, otherwise I'd be somewhere between 1 and 2 (if 2 represented Calvinism without the hyper).

I lean completely towards #1. I just don't like this part of #2: "God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel."
Especially the part in blue. Which as I've said before, makes John 3:16, and whosoever believes, a complete lie.

[RickD]

Yes we co-operate, but never prior to being born again; co-operation comes after we are born again. IMVVVHO, of course

I don't agree completely, Danny. I'm saying that our cooperation begins after God's quickening, but, before being born again.

Rick, is everybody quickened, then?

Danny, I really don't know. That falls in line with "Has everybody had the chance to hear the gospel?"

I guess it depends on what one believes "quickened" means.

If God gave all men a conscience, does that mean all men were quickened?
If God has given all men a body, soul, and spirit, is that spirit, that allows man the ability to have knowledge of God, and worship Him, is that spirit part of God's "quickening".
Or is some kind of "pre Grace" given to people to allow them to understand the gospel, is that "quickening"?

I'm really not sure, Danny. All I know, is that we can't come to faith in the gospel on our own, without God's prompting. Whatever that prompting is.

[Byblos]

I know very well that's what you've been saying, Rick. And what I've been trying to show all along (and what I believe precipitated this threads and others) is that predestination has merit, sound scriptural merit that cannot be discounted.

John, did you know that the great Thomas Aquinas believed that regenerating grace is operative grace, and not co-operative grace? Not to mention Paul, Augustine and Calvin among others. We are truly in good company

Although, Paul is debatable, I did know that about Augustine and Calvin but not Aquinas. Good company indeed.

[DannyM]

[Danny, I honestly was hoping you would agree that it was hypercalvinism. I really didn't want to believe that mainstream Calvinism holds to that belief. Because it makes John 3:16 meaningless.

God's law is perfect because He is. He cannot lower His standards for us or He would no longer be God. He, therefore, has a specific purpose in requiring moral perfection of us and this includes the command to believe in Christ. Statements in the Scripture like "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes”,” choose life" like in John 3:16 are in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In this passage, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The commandments of God were never meant to empower us but to strip us of trusting in our own ability so that we would come to an end of ourselves. With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24). If anyone is tempted to argue that belief is merely an invitation, not a command, read 1 John 3:23: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ..." So I believe that those who hold to the idea that since God commands the fallen unregenerate man to do something he therefore has the ability to do so is imposing an unbiblical assumption on to the text. A command or invitation with an open ended hypothetical statement such as John 3:16 does not imply the ability to fulfill it. This is especially true in light of texts such as John 1:13, Rom 9:16, John 6:37, 44, 63-65; Rom 3:11; Matt 16-26' 1 Cor 2:14 and many more which show man's moral inability to believe the Gospel in the fallen state. In our unregenerate nature we do not want God but rather love darkness and "will not come into the light"

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... hn316.html

There are other Reformed interpretations of this text, Rick. John 3:16 is not in conflict with Calvinism or predestination.

But it would still be predestined. Just not in the same Calvinistic meaning of predestined.
I don't see it as having any effect on God's sovereign will, Danny.

Rick, how can it be predestined if it depends on God’s foresight of our 'choices/responses'?

[DannyM]

Danny, I really don't know. That falls in line with "Has everybody had the chance to hear the gospel?"

I guess it depends on what one believes "quickened" means.

If God gave all men a conscience, does that mean all men were quickened?
If God has given all men a body, soul, and spirit, is that spirit, that allows man the ability to have knowledge of God, and worship Him, is that spirit part of God's "quickening".
Or is some kind of "pre Grace" given to people to allow them to understand the gospel, is that "quickening"?

I'm really not sure, Danny. All I know, is that we can't come to faith in the gospel on our own, without God's prompting. Whatever that prompting is.

Rick, when you get a little time, please read these two:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... phy01.html

http://glenwoodhills.org/etc/printer-fr ... asp?ID=248

[DannyM]

Although, Paul is debatable

you even doubt it, man?

[Byblos]

Although, Paul is debatable

you even doubt it, man?

No, no, you misunderstand me. I meant debatable as in open for interpretation. But you already know I subscribe to one and only one truth .

[DannyM]

Although, Paul is debatable

you even doubt it, man?

No, no, you misunderstand me. I meant debatable as in open for interpretation. But you already know I subscribe to one and only one truth .

Ah, sorry, Bro

[RickD]

RickD wrote:But it would still be predestined. Just not in the same Calvinistic meaning of predestined.
I don't see it as having any effect on God's sovereign will, Danny.



Rick, how can it be predestined if it depends on God’s foresight of our 'choices/responses'?

Danny, please tell me you aren't serious. Isn't this thread muddled and confusing enough, without you saying that you don't understand that there are other definitions of "predestination", besides the Calvinistic definition? We have gone over this before.
From wikipedia's definition of predestination:

Predestination may be described under two types, with the basis for each found within their definition of free will. Between these poles, there is a complex variety of systematic differences, particularly difficult to describe because the foundational terms are not strictly equivalent between systems. The two poles of predestinarian belief may be usefully described in terms of their doctrinal comparison between the Creator's freedom, and the creature's freedom. These can be contrasted as either univocal, or equivocal conceptions of freedom.

In terms of ultimates, with God's decision to create as the ultimate beginning, and the ultimate outcome, a belief system has a doctrine of predestination if it teaches:

God's decision, assignment or declaration concerning the lot of people is conceived as occurring in some sense prior to the outcome, and
the decision is fully predictive of the outcome, and not merely probable.

There are numerous ways to describe the spectrum of beliefs concerning predestination in Christian thinking. To some extent, this spectrum has analogies in other monotheistic religions, although in other religions the term "predestination" may not be used. For example, teaching on predestination may vary in terms of three considerations.

Is God's predetermining decision based solely on a knowledge of His own will, or does it also include a knowledge of whatever will happen?
How particular is God's prior decision: is it concerned with particular persons and events, or is it limited to broad categories of people and things?
How free is God in effecting His part in the eventual outcome? Is God bound or limited by conditions external to his own will, willingly or not, in order that what has been determined will come to pass?

Furthermore, the same sort of considerations apply to the freedom of man's will.

Assuming that an individual had no choice in who, when and where to come into being: How are the choices of existence determined by what he is?
Assuming that not all possible choices are available to him: How capable is the individual to desire all choices available, in order to choose from among them?
How capable is an individual to put into effect what he desires?

Danny, Ive read this link before. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... hn316.html The author is arguing his beliefs from one end of the"freewill omniscience"spectrum. He is arguing against those who hold to beliefs at the opposite end of that spectrum. He's not taking into account, that there are a lot of us that believe somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
As far as how he addresses John 3:16, I'll have to get you an answer later. I'm going to help my son, and niece make gingerbread lollipops.

[DannyM]

Rick, I'm not saying my interpretation is the only one But Wikipedia did not tell us much, apart from some strange ideas about God being constrained by His own predetermination, as if God's will and good pleasure might be impeded by self-doubt, or perhaps some yearning for a plan B...

The author is arguing his beliefs from one end of the"freewill omniscience"spectrum. He is arguing against those who hold to beliefs at the opposite end of that spectrum. He's not taking into account, that there are a lot of us that believe somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
As far as how he addresses John 3:16, I'll have to get you an answer later. I'm going to help my son, and niece make gingerbread lollipops.

Sure he is arguing from his own standpoint, Bro. I'm not sure how else he could argue

I'm not sure a "middle of the two extremes" is viable here, Bro. But I'm going to sleep on it