Second century father's on free will

Status
Not open for further replies.


20th Century​

Arthur W. Pink: “if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate ‘freedom’ of it.”

Louis Berkhof: “Freedom of the will is a psychological fiction.”

John Gerstner: “We have already shown that there is no such thing as free will. That’s a will-o’-the–wisp. You never make choices without reasons, not as a responsible or a rational person” (A Primer on Free Will, p. 11).

W. E. Best: “God’s character is maligned by every person who believes in free will.”

Gordon H. Clark: “The Bible consistently denies free will.”

R. C. Sproul: “The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire.”

James White: “Then why do you embrace Christ, and your moral Buddhist neighbour across the street does not? Are you smarter than he is? More spiritually sensitive? Better, in any way? What makes you to differ? Is the Holy Spirit working just as hard on him as He did on you? If so, why do you believe, and he does not? No matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid coming to the conclusion that, in a ‘free will’ system of salvation, those who believe do so because there is something different about them. If the Spirit is bringing equal conviction to bear upon each individual, the only deciding factor, given equality in everything else, is something in the person himself. I believe the only possible difference between the redeemed in heaven and the guilty, condemned, punished sinner in hell is a five-letter word … It’s called ‘grace.'”

Steven Houck: “This free-willism is a serious error which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures.”
I like pink He wrote a book on the Sovereignty of God, and they later revised it to take some of the Truth out of it.

WE Best is a very good bible teacher

Gordon has a good treatise on the Sovereignty of God.

lol Steve Houck dont play, he condemns arminianism with no sympathy !
 
Most likely much longer than you .

So you're response was not only a dodge, but a cheap and boastful attack based on the ASSUMPTION that you've studied them "much longer than" me, even though you don't know which ones I've read, or how long I've been reading them.
 
Most likely much longer than you .

Anyone who thinks they can make blanket statements that "The ECF's taught <X>", has likely NEVER read them at all, but is depending on biased secondary sources.

Anyone who has actually read them knows that they disagreed on just about everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top