|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 6, 2009 10:24:03 GMT -5
I was listening to last Friday's Dividing Line podcast by James White today and he was speaking about the freedom of God in salvation. He seems to think that only Reformed theology holds that God is free to save who he wants to save. I have to say that I just don't understand where he's coming from. If someone does not believe that God unconditionally elects some sinners for salvation does that equate to denying the freedom of God in salvation? If someone believes that God has chosen to save those who repent and believe in Christ does that mean God's freedom in salvation has been destroyed? Holding to Conditional Election in no way diminishes the freedom of God in salvation. God is free to save whomever he wants. The question is whom does God choose to save? The answer: the one who repents and puts their faith in Jesus. Regardless of the arguments for and against this understanding of election it does not follow that the freedom of God in salvation has been denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Jan 8, 2009 0:43:06 GMT -5
I will listen to the show for the context of the discussion....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Feb 22, 2009 19:20:48 GMT -5
Then one is left with something independent of God, namely chance or fate that a sinner will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Fatalism is the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by meiday04 on Nov 11, 2009 22:00:48 GMT -5
Steve,
You said "If someone does not believe that God unconditionally elects some sinners for salvation does that equate to denying the freedom of God in salvation?" Yes it does, because you're placing salvation in the context of a condition. On what condition is salvation accomplished? If a person believes. Therefore:
1. If a person does not accept the sacrifice Christ made for them, God cannot save them, if free will is to be preserved.
2. If a person accepts Christ, God must save them.
That sounds a lot like denying God freedom in salvation, doesn't it? The reformed position is that man does not desire God until the Holy Spirit changes their desire. This gives God complete sovereignty over salvation. (Eph. 2:1-10)
What about John 6:37 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."
Here the Father is giving, and the person then comes. Arminian theology would need that verse to say "The Father gives me all who come to me."
Verses 38-39 go on to say "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."
So one cannot support that God draws all men to himself in some sort of general, ineffectual call, because Jesus is clearly saying here that everyone the Father gives will be raised up on the last day. If you have atonement that can be rejected, you're claiming that Jesus can fail in the doing the will of the Father. That is a very serious thing to claim.
I can clearly see that the Arminian position denies the freedom of God in salvation. It is also arguably denying that Jesus can accomplish the will of the Father.
|
|
