Some harmful side effects of free will.

[chad kincham]

Also believing you can lose your salvation based on something you did in the flesh is most certainly a far fetched idea,

Then Paul had a far fetched idea about ten times in his epistles, where he warns believers and saints of the consequences of choosing to walk in the flesh (sins), instead of after the Spirit, of not entering into heaven.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;


Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh SAINTS.


Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.


Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath ANY inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


Eph 5:6 Let no man DECEIVE you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the WRATH of God upon the children of disobedience.


Eph 5:7 Be not YE therefore partakers WITH them.

Then there’s this from John about judgment day:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[John Mullally]

Frankly I don't see why Calvinism needs to be mentioned. We all experience life in a unique way and I can't speak for Calvin.

Its fair game, Calvin's followers are pretty active here on this and other threads - and they challenge the rest of us. This is the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

 

[chilehed]

First, free will is a part of Law.

First, that's not true. Not at all.

Free will is the power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned be sensory objects.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Then Paul had a far fetched idea about ten times in his epistles, where he warns believers and saints of the consequences of choosing to walk in the flesh (sins), instead of after the Spirit, of not entering into heaven.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;


Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh SAINTS.


Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.


Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath ANY inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


Eph 5:6 Let no man DECEIVE you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the WRATH of God upon the children of disobedience.


Eph 5:7 Be not YE therefore partakers WITH them.

Then there’s this from John about judgment day:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Chad, I believe what Paul is telling the Ephesians, also believe that the things he is talking about things that can hurt us in our flesh, and also it is about what he is trying to keep those people in those places away from to keep themselves pure until the return of Christ Yeshua for them.

Those are great scriptures, and sometimes people can fall away from their faith as it is says in the bible, and people who make choices to grieve the spirit inside of them, will lose something from whatever choice they had made.

• Just because of my choices though doesn't mean God looks at me any lesser than, or that im not good enough when faith is still placed in the Lord Yeshua Christ.
• 
  
• Today I should have went to work but chose not to, either ill lose my job, or ill be told to stop missing days or I will lose my job.
• 
  
• Either way my choice has led for these two options to be made available in my life.

 

[childeye 2]

Its fair game, Calvin's followers are pretty active here on this and other threads - and they challenge the rest of us. This is the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

I don't mean to imply others should not respond to those things that they feel challenge their beliefs.

 

[Cormack]

We all experience life in a unique way and I can't speak for Calvin.

I'm going to leave Calvin out of it.

Discussing the man John Calvin only helps insofar that knowing about his views might better help explain Calvinism, however the bones of Calvinism were being historically taught so early back as Augustine.

None of the quotes you’ve taken from me mention the man John Calvin, they’re quotes about the doctrine called Calvinism.

That entire message you’re quoting from (#71) doesn’t mention John Calvin or use the name Calvin once, it’s about Calvinism.

When you switch the topic of conversation from a doctrinal stance onto an individual man you equivocate and cause confusion for readers.

Since Calvinism thrives upon confusion, I’m now tempted to ask, are you a Calvinist?

That would help explain your aversion to discussing the subject, Calvinists tend to become very shy at the prospect of explaining Calvinism in plain English. Probably because a plain explanation of Calvinism is as good as a refutation of Calvinism. Calvinists prefer to equivocate and speak using a borrowed biblical vocabulary they’ve misappropriated over centuries.

The remainder of your message goes into describing both your philosophy and personal experience, and honestly that’s fantastic, the born again experience is fantastic, but none of that is a response to God and Cain in Genesis chapter four. We’re discussing Genesis chapter four.

Once upon a time I was under the impression that Christians enjoyed discussing the Bible, after becoming one I was disappointed to find that they often don’t enjoy it very much. Imagine my disappointment. Now, if you’re someone who enjoys discussing the Bible, I’m sure we’ll have an awesome convo about the meaning behind God confronting Cain in Genesis chapter four.

Otherwise we could discuss philosophy, although to do that you’d have to be prepared to openly write about Calvinism, because that’s what Calvinism is, a man made philosophy.

Originally you troubled the subject of approaching free will because there was an (1) ambiguity or an (2) equivocate problem, I’ve already explained away your ambiguity and provided the most common definitions people equivocate over. Those two objections are resolved.

You’re left with using either Calvinistic compatibilism or the more intuitive libertarianism when it comes to explaining Genesis chapter four.

Which use of free will is more suitable for Gods confrontation with Cain in Genesis chapter four, compatibilism or libertarianism?

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”​

Once again, compatibilism or libertarianism. According to the compatibilist (AKA the Calvinist,) Cain can’t do right nor will their worship be acceptable to the Father, they are incapable of ruling over sin, sin that’s crouched at the door as though it were a wild beast.

God however replies Cain could have acceptable worship by doing right and he’s able to rule over sin crouching at the door, again in essence, God deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism.

Let’s summarise the verses by use of Calvinistic compatibilism...

God (1) makes false promises to Cain about being able to offer acceptable worship, (2) mockingly implores the man to “do right” even though he’s incapable, God (3) then puts a cherry on top of this wacky cake by charging Cain to master and defeat his sin nature. God (4) deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism and later (5) damns him for his good pleasure.

Those things are the logical implications and consequences of Genesis four if Calvinistic compatibilism were true.

Let’s summarise the verse by use of libertarianism free will theism...

God chides Cain for refusing righteousness and instead choosing wickedness. He warns Cain of sin but also reminds him it's his responsibility to rule over this prowling beast at the door. God nowhere deceives Cain in amidst these criticisms, commands and warnings.

 

[RickReads]

Discussing the man John Calvin only helps insofar that knowing about his views might better help explain Calvinism, however the bones of Calvinism were being historically taught so early back as Augustine.

None of the quotes you’ve taken from me mention the man John Calvin, they’re quotes about the doctrine called Calvinism.

That entire message you’re quoting from (#71) doesn’t mention John Calvin or use the name Calvin once, it’s about Calvinism.

When you switch the topic of conversation from a doctrinal stance onto an individual man you equivocate and cause confusion for readers.

Since Calvinism thrives upon confusion, I’m now tempted to ask, are you a Calvinist?

That would help explain your aversion to discussing the subject, Calvinists tend to become very shy at the prospect of explaining Calvinism in plain English. Probably because a plain explanation of Calvinism is as good as a refutation of Calvinism. Calvinists prefer to equivocate and speak using a borrowed biblical vocabulary they’ve misappropriated over centuries.

The remainder of your message goes into describing both your philosophy and personal experience, and honestly that’s fantastic, the born again experience is fantastic, but none of that is a response to God and Cain in Genesis chapter four. We’re discussing Genesis chapter four.

Once upon a time I was under the impression that Christians enjoyed discussing the Bible, after becoming one I was disappointed to find that they often don’t enjoy it very much. Imagine my disappointment. Now, if you’re someone who enjoys discussing the Bible, I’m sure we’ll have an awesome convo about the meaning behind God confronting Cain in Genesis chapter four.

Otherwise we could discuss philosophy, although to do that you’d have to be prepared to openly write about Calvinism, because that’s what Calvinism is, a man made philosophy.

Originally you troubled the subject of approaching free will because there was an (1) ambiguity or an (2) equivocate problem, I’ve already explained away your ambiguity and provided the most common definitions people equivocate over. Those two objections are resolved.

You’re left with using either Calvinistic compatibilism or the more intuitive libertarianism when it comes to explaining Genesis chapter four.

Which use of free will is more suitable for Gods confrontation with Cain in Genesis chapter four, compatibilism or libertarianism?

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”​

Once again, compatibilism or libertarianism. According to the compatibilist (AKA the Calvinist,) Cain can’t do right nor will their worship be acceptable to the Father, they are incapable of ruling over sin, sin that’s crouched at the door as though it were a wild beast.

God however replies Cain could have acceptable worship by doing right and he’s able to rule over sin crouching at the door, again in essence, God deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism.

Let’s summarise the verses by use of Calvinistic compatibilism...

God (1) makes false promises to Cain about being able to offer acceptable worship, (2) mockingly implores the man to “do right” even though he’s incapable, God (3) then puts a cherry on top of this wacky cake by charging Cain to master and defeat his sin nature. God (4) deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism and later (5) damns him for his good pleasure.

Those things are the logical implications and consequences of Genesis four if Calvinistic compatibilism were true.

Let’s summarise the verse by use of libertarianism free will theism...

God chides Cain for refusing righteousness and instead choosing wickedness. He warns Cain of sin but also reminds him it's his responsibility to rule over this prowling beast at the door. God nowhere deceives Cain in amidst these criticisms, commands and warnings.

Do you happen to know when this "regeneration precedes faith" doctrine originated? I was trying to pinpoint how old this sham is but it`s taking too much time. Thx.

 

[Cormack]

Do you happen to know when this "regeneration precedes faith" doctrine originated? I was trying to pinpoint how old this sham is but it`s taking too much time. Thx.

Possibly Augustine during the infant baptism debate. That’s the safest place to focus your effort. Although if I happen upon that info specifically I’ll private message you.

 

[Cormack]

Do you happen to know when this "regeneration precedes faith" doctrine originated? I was trying to pinpoint how old this sham is but it`s taking too much time. Thx.

Although Sproul claims Augustine taught regeneration proceeding faith:

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration.
​

Though Sproul neither explained nor defended the contention that Augustine was the source in his article, so it really depends on how seriously you take his authority on the matter (not very seriously in my opinion.) If you find regeneration preceding faith historically I’d appreciate the PM myself. Cheers Rick.

 

[Dave L]

First, that's not true. Not at all.

Free will is the power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned be sensory objects.

Grace does not depend on free will. Law does. You destroy grace and the gospel when you mix in free will. Because you make it disappear turning it into law. Calling it grace which it is not.

 

[Dave L]

First of all, there’s nothing in scripture that links freewill with the law.

Paul in fact calls the law given on Mount Sinai bondage/slavery in Galatians 4:21-31, and Peter said it’s a yoke of bondage in Acts 15:10, thus there’s no freewill there.

Secondly Jesus Himself said some believe for a while, then fall away in Luke 8; and Paul wrote that he has to subjugate his flesh and control it, lest after preaching salvation to others, he end up a reprobate.

Baruch HaShem Adonai.

Law works because it is based on free will. Run a stop sign and get fined. Why? Because you were free to obey the law. You turn grace into law when you drag free will into the mix. Why? Because grace saves apart from law.

 

[Dave L]

Free will is not PART of any law, it is the reason we have laws - to ensure people don't overstep the mark. Free will was there before the law. Nor is its only purpose relating to the law. I make a choice to go to work today... or work from home. Neither is unlawful, but it is my free choice to do one or the other and deal with whatever the consequences of that is.

And your OP concludes that Free Will makes salvation impossible. So basically no Jew could ever be saved (good job Jesus never taught that 'cos he wouldn't have had many followers).

Free will depends on the law. How can law exist apart from it?

 

[Cormack]

@Dave L, are you a compatibilist, if you do not know what a compatibilist believes, we can simply ask do you agree with this quote from John Piper.

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)...
​

Do you agree with that????

 

[Dave L]

@Dave L, are you a compatibilist, if you do not know what a compatibilist believes, we can simply ask do you agree with this quote from John Piper.

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)...
​

Do you agree with that????

Here's my view. All the choices we make are based on the reasons God sends for us to base them on.

 

[Cormack]

Here's my view. All the choices we make are based on the reasons God sends for us to base them on.

You’re not answering my question, Dave. Read #93 again. Don’t hide in confusion, buddy. Answer my question straight.

 

[Dave L]

You’re not answering my question, Dave. Read #93 again. Don’t hide in confusion, buddy. Answer my question straight.

I explained what I believe. I can do no better. In essence, God sends the reasons we base our free choices on thereby controlling us by our own desires.

 

[Cormack]

I explained what I believe. I can do no better. In essence, God sends the reasons we base our free choices on thereby controlling us by our own desires.

I didn’t say explain what you believe. I asked if you’re a compatibilist and do you agree with that quote from Piper, you have dodged the question twice now.

 

[Dave L]

I didn’t say explain what you believe. I asked if you’re a compatibilist and do you agree with that quote from Piper, you have dodged the question twice now.

I believe what I posted.

 

[Cormack]

I believe what I posted.

You won’t answer, that tells people everything they need to know.

 

[Dave L]

You won’t answer, that tells people everything they need to know.

Why a loaded question on a topic I couldn't care less about. And then run me down for my answer?