Free Will

[jmacvols]

Because its true..

Who told you it is true?

 

[BBAS 64]

No, Rom 2:14 says "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law." Above you say "They (gentiles) have the law..." yet the verse says the Gentiles "have not the law".

Good Day, Jmacvols

That is not what I said, go back and read.

Paul is comparing the Jews who have the law to the gentiles that have not the law it is a comparision as I stated before.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

They show the work of God who has written the law on their hearts.... as a result "I will be their God and they shall be my people. They by Nature do these things because they now have the law, where as before they did not.

In Him,

Bill

 

[jmacvols]

Uh... that doesn't answer my question at all.

You guys can attack predestination all you want. But even if the Scriptures are silent on the issue of predestination doesn't make free will the default.

Please support salvation by free will from the Scriptures.

I did not attack predestination, I actually said that the bible teaches it. It just does not teach predestination in the way Calvinist's believe it. God did not predestinate certain individuals, He predestinated a group of people called Christians. God does not force one to be or not be a Christian.

 

[BBAS 64]

I did not attack predestination, I actually said that the bible teaches it. It just does not teach predestination in the way Calvinist's believe it. God did not predestinate certain individuals, He predestinated a group of people called Christians. God does not force one to be or not be a Christian.

Good Day, Jmacvols

Predistines a group. we have been though that fallacy...

Bible search "Christians and predestined", "0" hits

Where did you get that idea? Surely scripture does not teach such a thing.

Whom "singular" he predestined.

Who said God forces?? Straw man

We love him because he first loved us are you equating force with love. Also force seems to denote that we can stay the plan and purpose of the creator.

Who can stay God's hand?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Van]

Does man have the capacity to exercise his or her will and make choices between two alternatives that result in two different outcomes? Does God allow us to shape the future to the degree He allows? Yes.

What verses of scripture teach this. God sets before people a choice between life and death. Scripture does not say, God sets before some the "choice" of death only - which would be the case if the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability were true - and sets before others the "choice" of life only - which would be the case if the doctrine of Irresistible Grace were true. No, scripture says God sets before people the choice between life and death. So according to scripture, rather than the traditions of men, man is given limited free will within the boundaries allowed by God.

The traditions of men redefine the meaning of choice to mean non-choice, for picking the only path available is not a choice. You can look it up.

 

[BBAS 64]

Does man have the capacity to exercise his or her will and make choices between two alternatives that result in two different outcomes? Does God allow us to shape the future to the degree He allows? Yes.

What verses of scripture teach this. God sets before people a choice between life and death. Scripture does not say, God sets before some the "choice" of death only - which would be the case if the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability were true - and sets before others the "choice" of life only - which would be the case if the doctrine of Irresistible Grace were true. No, scripture says God sets before people the choice between life and death. So according to scripture, rather than the traditions of men, man is given limited free will within the boundaries allowed by God.

The traditions of men redefine the meaning of choice to mean non-choice, for picking the only path available is not a choice. You can look it up.

Good Day, Van

You like some others have confused will and agency.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Epiphoskei]

A genuine choice by no means necessitates the libertarian free will that so many insist it does.

This might be a rude awakening for some people here, but pure five point calvinism still believes that men make their own genuine choices. It does not believe men are puppets on strings.

But what do we care? Listening isn't too important... it's much more fun to just burn straw men.

 

[beloved57]

Who told you it is true?

The bible

 

[beloved57]

I did not attack predestination, I actually said that the bible teaches it. It just does not teach predestination in the way Calvinist's believe it. God did not predestinate certain individuals, He predestinated a group of people called Christians. God does not force one to be or not be a Christian.

God did predestinate certain individuals , what are you talking about, individuals make up the church..Duh

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

A genuine choice by no means necessitates the libertarian free will that so many insist it does.

This might be a rude awakening for some people here, but pure five point calvinism still believes that men make their own genuine choices. It does not believe men are puppets on strings.

But what do we care? Listening isn't too important... it's much more fun to just burn straw men.

I've replied to your post, but this is to Van and others, as well....

Lets not forget Molinism. As Luis de Molina pointed out several centuries ago, Scripture supports the idea that God has knowledge of possible futures given the range of choices available to person P in situatation S.

It does not necessarily follow, Van, that just because God says if P in S choses one option they will have life and in the other they will have death, or is demonstrating what will happen to the nation as a whole given choices x or y (conditional prophecies), that God is implying free will. It merely is a description of God's knowledge of future possible outcomes. Not human ability to affect these outcomes.

And yes, the distinction between will and agency is paramount in the attempt to grasp Molinism.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

pROVERB 16:9 FREE WILL AND gOD SOVERNITY GO HAND IN HAND

ACT 13:44-48 FREEWILL AND ELECTION HAND IN HAND

 

[Wizzer]

Uh... that doesn't answer my question at all.

You guys can attack predestination all you want. But even if the Scriptures are silent on the issue of predestination doesn't make free will the default.

Please support salvation by free will from the Scriptures.

Hello all,

I have just today read through this thread and I must say that I agree with jmacvols thus far on this topic.

I wanted to offer something for GratiaCorpusChristi’s (and everyone else’s) consideration. I, just as jmacvols, do not attack predestination, but I do reject the reformed definition of such. I would like to offer the following scripture as an early (within the scriptures) indicator that man is truly involved in struggles which do involve his own moral volition. (As a note, I prefer the term "moral volition" over "free-will" because of the hangups many have over the word "free". Many want to haggle that the term "free" must mean free from any and all influences; suffice it to say that there is probably no such thing as a human decision made apart from some kinds of influence.)

In Genesis 4:6-7, there is the following statements from God to Cain.

So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door, and its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." [Gen 4:6-7]

We can all read the words here, but what is God’s point? Is that which is about to occur beyond all control? It seems that God is saying that Cain is involved in a struggle and that God is advising him to resist the temptation to commit this sin. If Cain has no involvement in the matter, then what is God saying?

You know, moral volition and the ability to choose seem very obvious from everyday experiences. It appears to me that any philosophical system which denies moral volition and the ability to choose should be the one which must "prove" itself. This has always been my fundamental objection to calvinism: calvinism has this philosophical, foundational premise, which it assumes to be true, but which is contrary to both everyday experience and to much of the biblical record.

So exactly what would it take, if such a thing were to even be possible, to get those who believe in this unfounded philosophical foundation, to reconsider it? I must admit that I am baffled by this whole way of thinking. To me it is most illogical (and not to mention at odds with much of scripture). But then, I do have many acquaintances who believe it, and some I consider good friends, though it does boggle my mind as to why they believe this way.

To choose to believe that one can not choose to believe is most baffling.

Sincerely,
Wizzer

 

[Epiphoskei]

To choose to believe that one can not choose to believe is most baffling.

Three times I have written this, and yet no one wishes to listen.

The doctrines of sovereignty, even to the extent of those who hold to complete, sovereign determinism to the point that God is in control of the location and movement of every last particle in the universe does not deny genuine and personal and effective choices such that man made his own bed and is expected to lie in it.

Do not quote verses which use the word "choose" as if the typical reformational/deterministic view believes there are no genuine choices. No one believes that you yourself do not make a choices to believe or not, except the odd case of the so called "hyper-calvinist," none of whom seem to be in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The difference lies not in having a decision, but the impetus for the decision.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Three times I have written this, and yet no one wishes to listen.

Complete, sovereign determinism to the point that God is in control of the location and movement of every last particle in the universe does not deny genuine and personal and effective choices such that man made his own bed and is expected to lie in it.

Do not quote verses which use the word "choose" as if the typical reformational/deterministic view believe there are no genuine choices. No one believes that you yourself do not make a choice to believe or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why aren't there more Reformed Baptists? I mean, I still think you're heretics, but my parents are Arminian dispenationalist Southern Baptists. I don't suppose it's too much to assume that George Eldon Ladd is your homeboy, is it?

 

[Wizzer]

...Do not quote verses which use the word "choose" as if the typical reformational/deterministic view believe there are no genuine choices. No one believes that you yourself do not make a choice to believe or not.

Hello Epiphoskei,

I must disagree with you. Please consider these words taken from the back cover of R. C. Sproul’s book, Chosen by God:

"If God is truly God, he is sovereign over all things, over all decisions.
If God is truly God, then he chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t."

I am afraid that there are a good many people who believe exactly the way you claim no one believes. There are people with belief systems all over the map. You will recognize this as you get older.

Sincerely,
Wizzer

 

[Epiphoskei]

Why aren't there more Reformed Baptists? I mean, I still think you're heretics, but my parents are Arminian dispenationalist Southern Baptists. I don't suppose it's too much to assume that George Eldon Ladd is your homeboy, is it?

Never heard of him before, but if the brief summary of his works I found on the internet is actually accurate, he sounds typical of baptist views in this neck of the woods. Except for apparently some historicism.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Hello Epiphoskei,

I must disagree with you. Please consider these words taken from the back cover of R. C. Sproul’s book, Chosen by God:

"If God is truly God, he is sovereign over all things, over all decisions.
If God is truly God, then he chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t."

I am afraid that there are a good many people who believe exactly the way you claim no one believes. There are people with belief systems all over the map. You will recognize this as you get older.

Sincerely,
Wizzer

You still misunderstand. We refuse to be forced into the "either God makes my choices and manipulates me like a puppet on strings or I am totally sovereign over my own choices" mindset in which the more arminian kind of thinkers want us to contest within.

"If God is truly God, he is sovereign over all things, over all decisions.
This is perfectly true
If God is truly God, then he chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t."
This is also perfectly true.

However, like I said, just because these are true does not mean that man is not also genuinly making the same choices.

If a person is in Hell, a reformed thinker does not believe that such a man is saying "Oh, I would never have chosen this if God had given me the ability to choose, but he forced me to be here and I didn't have a choice." Such a man genuinely did not want to choose the path of life while on earth. The sovereignty of God's choice does not have any bearing on the reality of man's choice.

 

[Van]

The meaning of the word "choice" is the issue, not arcane distinctions. And no amount of smoke will cloud that issue. The idea that God says if we do this, then I will do that, and if we do something else, God will also respond differently does not support God's supposed determination of the future, rather it shows God allows men to determine to the extent allowed, their future.

 

[Hismessenger]

You are free to choose any of the oiptions that God places before you, but freewill is to create your own options. Can you do that?

hismessenger

 

[Epiphoskei]

You are free to choose any of the oiptions that God places before you, but freewill is to create your own options. Can you do that?

hismessenger

This is a good way to concieve of it, but I might rephrase it a little differently. The objection to election comes from the misunderstanding that sovereignty is a forceful violation of a man's nature, hence some polemicists call election "the rape of the will." This understanding is wrong and we should try to avoid language that might give that implication.

Man genuinely chooses from among all the options which are before him. However the means by which he selects them is not arbitrary selection, whimsical behavior, or chaos. The option which is chosen in all situations is the one which is most faithful to the human's nature. If a man chooses somthing, he has some internal reason for it, thus libertarian free will does not work- we are bound to choose the decision which is the most genuine product of our own souls. Since total depravity is not denied by any remotely orthodox belief system, not by Arminius or the Remonstrants, not by Classical or Weslyan arminians, it would be impossible for men to freely choose salvation- we do not have it in us. It isn't a genuine product of our own soul unless our soul is quickened.

"Choice" isn't the ability to select, it's the mechanism by which we select. Our choices are only genuine if the mechanism is a product of our own souls.