Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Monday, August 29, 2022
Sunday, August 28, 2022
Saturday, August 27, 2022
Friday, August 26, 2022
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Monday, August 22, 2022
"Compatibilist Freedom" is Compatibilist Determinism
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 voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, 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 brings 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". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition).
In biblical terminology, fallen man is in bondage to a corruption of nature and that is why the biblical writers considered him not free (see Rom 6). Jesus Himself affirms that the one who sins is a "slave to sin" and only the Son can set him free. Note that even Jesus speaks of a kind of freedom here. He is not speaking of freedom from God but freedom from the bondage of sin, which is the kind of freedom those have who are in Christ. In this sense God is the most free Person since He is holy, set apart from sin... yet He cannot make choices contrary to His essence, i.e. He cannot be unholy. So, we must conclude, according to Jesus in John 8:31-36, that the natural man does not have a free will. The will is in bondage to sin. Any consistent theologian who uses the term "freedom" usually is referring to that fact that while God sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass, yet man's "free choice" (voluntary) is compatible with God's sovereign decree. In other words the will is free from external coercion but not free from necessity. In my reckoning, there is no biblical warrant to use the phrase "free will", since the Bible never affirms or uses this term. So when some theologians use the word "free" they may be misusing or importing philosophical language from outside the Bible, but I think anyone who is consistent with the Text means "voluntary" when they say "free", but NEVER affirm they are free from God in any sense. For to affirm that God sovereignly brings our choices to pass and then also say man is free FROM GOD, is self-contradictory. So I repeat, many of those whom I read seem to equate the word freedom with the meaning "voluntary". If any mean "free from God" they are confused. I heard R.C. Sproul say there are "no maverick molecules". Nothing happens by chance, but all falls within God's meticulous providence, no exceptions.
One of the best statements on compatibilism is one I found from John Calvin:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
Prior to the fall, Adam's will was not in bondage to sin, thus it was free from sin's bondage and corruption but it was not free from God's decree. His choice to rebel was completely voluntary even though God has ordained with certainty that it would come to pass. He was not yet sealed in righteousness even though his inclination was toward the good. Through Satan's devices, that he overcame his own good inclination and chose evil makes original sin all the more heinous.
Emory Moynagh explains why truth and doctrine do matter! Defending Reformed/Calvinist fundamentalism
I disagree with Emory's views on Churches following Public Health Orders. However, this is an excellent defense of doctrinal purity and Orthodoxy.
Why I fully embrace being A Reformed Fundamentalist
Does that sound like an oxymoron to you? That should not be so. I am Reformed and 110 Grade Calvinist. I am so because Calvinism/Reformed Theology is The Gospel as presented in The Bible. The Canons of Dordrecht and its proceeding articles on Unconditional Election, Total Depravity, Limited or Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling and Preservation of the Saints are all taught straight from the Bible.
Wherein I agree and disagree with the "Independent High Calvinism" Churches.
Arminianism is a foul heresy!
True! Arminianism is a False Gospel! Amen!
No prophet of God, nor Paul, nor Christ, ever proclaimed this semi-Pelagian, cheap grace gospel that is powerless to save because it is no gospel at all. The Canons of Dort refer to Arminianism as a “novel idea,” an “invention of the human mind,” “or gross error,” that “…contradicts the Holy Scripture.” This theological essay will explain a few reasons why Arminianism is a foul heresy and not an inconsequential doctrine that Christians can ignore.
Consistent Arminianism is a False gospel, but, we praise God that many Arminians are not consistent and trust in Christ alone. If they don't trust in Christ alone then they are lost. We need to be careful to not think perfect doctrine saves. Many don't reject true Calvinism but a caricature. True and Consistent Arminianisn is in fact not Biblical and rejects the truth found in Scripture.
I. WHY IS ARMINIANISM HERESY?
Arminianism teaches that human beings are not totally depraved because they can exercise their frail and fickle free will to save themselves. This is contrary to Holy Scripture––which teaches that sinners are conceived in sin, dead in sin, slaves to sin, and are servants of sin––that are totally polluted in all faculties and parts of the body and soul. To argue that a sinner can come to Christ by exercising their free will is to falsely assume that they have the “desire” to do this, which is clearly antithetical to the teachings of Paul (Rom. 3:10-18).
Free will is the great idol of fallen men who elevate their gross decisions above God’s decree. This is commonly known as contra-causal freedom, or libertarianism––which is a subterfuge that cannot save, nor has it ever saved anyone––because presumed free-will can only send people to hell, and none to heaven. There are several problems that arise from this sophistry:
If God justified a man because he made himself differ from other men with his libertarian freedom to accept Christ, this would make God a respecter of persons, which clearly contradicts Scripture (Acts 10:34). Only a boastful man would dare argue that he is the co-savior or captain of his soul because his decision to be saved was more profitable than someone else’s when both had the same grace extended to them. No one can rescue themselves from God’s wrath, or come to Christ on their own terms or timing, because God has decreed before the foundation of the world that all things––including the salvation of individuals––whatsoever shall come to pass.
Arminianism elevates human decisions above God’s decree. It subjects God’s decree to man’s decision in lieu of subjugating man’s decision under God’s decree. Thereby, Arminians will argue that God’s election and reprobation are contingent upon foreseen faith or disbelief, that is, whether a depraved sinner is going to either accept or deny Him. This is not language from heaven; this is a lie from hell! What are the problems with this argument?
If God has to foresee whether a sinner will either accept or deny Him––this would mean that God would have to see something in the sinner that He must laud, and not loathe. God sees absolutely nothing in anyone that He must praise, since our best works do not merit His favor, but His wrath. Also, if God must foresee whether the sinner will either accept or deny him, then God is not transcendent. The all-knowing God does not need to foresee; He already knows from all eternity, and that is so because He has ordained everything that comes to pass.
Arminianism is diabolical because it teaches that the vicarious and atoning death of Christ was made universally for all, even to include those whom the Father has consigned to everlasting torment in hell. Does this mean that Christ actually redeemed or just made sinners redeemable? If Christ died for all––this would mean that Christ only made sinners redeemable. Therefore, because the application of His death is contingent upon the mere will of men to either accept or deny Him, this cannot be the glorious gospel of grace.
Arminianism distorts the teachings of God’s free grace. If God’s grace is contingent upon man’s decision, then God's grace is not free, and salvation would have to be ascribed to man and not God. Also, if the will of man precedes the will of God, or if the power of God in the gospel is only possible if men cooperate, then Paul would be a liar because he said that “it is God that works in us to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13), and he called the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This is why advocates of semi-Pelagian popery are teachers of their own righteousness, and despisers of free grace.
Arminianism will contradictorily teach that regenerate saints can fall from the faith that they once previously accepted. Unlettered men or women will denounce this necessary conclusion, and will posit that not all Arminians will agree with this notion. Despite these conjectures or opinions of men or women, Arminians can never have assurance of their salvation because if they have the free will to be saved, then to be logically consistent, they will have the ability to lose it also. On the contrary, regenerate Christians can have assurance of their salvation, since God’s decree is unchangeable, eternal, and absolute.
The Arminian doctrine of universal or unlimited atonement is a superstitious and vitiated dogma. According to this autosoteric, semi-Pelagian worldview, Christ died for each and every person who has ever lived in the world. Can the doctrine of universal atonement be proven in Scripture? Absolutely not!
The Arminian Christus pro omnibus notion is unbiblical. Christ never said that He gave His life for everyone—head for head or soul for soul—in the entire world. In John 10, Jesus unambiguously noted who are His, and who are not. Christ said that He gave “His life for the sheep” (vs. 11, emphasis mine), and he told certain Jews, “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you” (vs. 26, emphasis mine).
Notwithstanding John 10 (vs. 11, 26), Arminians, who loathe God’s free grace, imprudently maintain that Christ has indeed died for all without exception. Instead of following the Savior who undoubtedly preached particular redemption (John 10:11), Arminians trust in their fictitious, universal atonement gospel.
Yes, of course. I agree with C.H. Spurgeon whom said that, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
If one fully understands the gospel, then it inevitably leads to Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace.
The implications of universal atonement are devastating.
Consistently Arminian viewpoints as espoused at the Synod of Dort are a False Gospel and Heretical Unbiblical Unchristian views.