How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

I don't understand what it is you don't understand about libertarian free will. Can you be more clear what it is you don't understand?

I might be wrong, but I think you do understand the concept, but you just don't understand how it works. If that is the case you are not alone, because no one knows how it works. All we need to understand is the concept, not how it works.

Is it not, then, necessarily UNCAUSED by definition? If that is what you mean, I find it entirely unscriptural and logically impossible.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
"Why is it necessary that all options be actually possible, in order to, according to one's own will, choose one of them?"

Or else it's not a libertarian free will choice.

But WHY not? One still chooses, and it is rather obvious that he only chose the one. How can you say he could have chosen the other? There is no evidence of it.

If it is, it's still not a work. Do you find repentance in the commandments?

Yes.

Being hopeless means I have no power to change my situation. If I have no hope I can do things that will change the situation which can give me hope.

That's the use you make of the two constructions. But they are the same meaning. No hope = no hope. One makes you think of what the other doesn't. Scripture isn't saying, there, that we can do something to get hope.

I think the problem with comparing books like that is that you cut out snippets and use them to validate each other, when the snippets may be explaining very different things, or have very different perspective of things. The best way IMO is to read each book of the Bible by itself, fully get to know it. As you do this with many books the picture of the Bible clears, and you get a sense of how it all fits together. If we don't really know the books in dept and start to compare passages with other books, we can get a completely wrong message. Of course even if we take lot of time with one book, we can still get the wrong picture, but I say it's a much better chance we understand it right, than starting off with comparing it with other books.

That's valid. But I didn't start off comparing Ephesians to Romans. I read each, many times, and studied each many times. I love reading large swaths of scripture, by which method I found all sorts of parallel passages that the marginal notes never thought of.

 

[zoidar]

Is it not, then, necessarily UNCAUSED by definition? If that is what you mean, I find it entirely unscriptural and logically impossible.

To say the decisions are uncaused, sounds wrong to me since they are caused by soul. But you can say soul makes decisions that are caused by nothing else than itself. So, I quess you can say soul makes uncaused decisions, since they are caused by no other thing than soul. But of course I as a person taking a decision is influenced by different factors.

I don't understand what you mean by unscriptural, since the Bible doesn't discuss these philosophical matters. Many things are hard or even impossible to understand logically, but are still true.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
"Why is it necessary that all options be actually possible, in order to, according to one's own will, choose one of them?"

But WHY not? One still chooses, and it is rather obvious that he only chose the one. How can you say he could have chosen the other? There is no evidence of it.

You are asking why he can't be responsible if there is only one possible option? Then there is no choice, only apparent choice, that's why. You can't be responsible for something you can't choose.

There is no evidence that he couldn't, right?

Yes

Repentance in the commandments? Where?

That's the use you make of the two constructions. But they are the same meaning. No hope = no hope. One makes you think of what the other doesn't. Scripture isn't saying, there, that we can do something to get hope.

remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
— Ephesians 2:12

Anyhow, it's not talking about our state as being hopeless. It's talking about us having no future hope before Christ came into the picture. That's very different things.

That's valid. But I didn't start off comparing Ephesians to Romans. I read each, many times, and studied each many times. I love reading large swaths of scripture, by which method I found all sorts of parallel passages that the marginal notes never thought of.

Well, that's good! I didn't mean to say you don't.

 

[AVB 2]

Calvin says that God governs all events, which means he decrees every man's action. So somehow God decrees all evil behaviour by others. So Calvin has God choosing for others to do evil.

“All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.”
​

Sounds bad. Forturnately, Calvin is wrong again. This assessment by Calvin contradicts Jeremiah 19:5 as much of man's evil never even enters God's mind. Side note: Calvin cannot assingn this error to God's predestination or as Mark Twain puts it - preforeordination.

Jeremiah 19:5 they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind,​

You assume that God changes mans nature without any action on man's part. Peter in Acts 2:38-39 promises salvation (remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit) to those who repent and are baptized. The born-again experience accompanies receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and again that occurs after repentance in response to the Gospel.

In Ezekiel 18:31, we see the order of God changing a man's nature and it is in response to repentance. Man repents and in response God gives a new heart and spirit. You have the cart before the horse.

Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?​

I see that the Arminian god is not sovereign!. All 303 times that the scriptures say "sovereign Lord" are wrong. Amazing. So He is what 50% sovereign and satan is the other 50%? Or is it 60/40 maybe? The Arminian god is a "good" god. If something happens that is not "good" (according to what we think "good" is) then it can't be from our god. Our god loves everyone and he never does or allows evil.

2 Chronicles 34:24 “Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah.” Nothing can happen (including sin and evil) unless God ordains it because nothing can happen outside of His power and Scripture confirms this abundantly. Ephesians 1:11, “Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and He makes everything work out according to his plan.” Acts 17:28 “For in Him we live and move and exist...” Nothing can come into existence or continue in existence apart from God's power. Evil cannot and does not come from God's nature but God can and does use the evil in the nature of fallen humanity to accomplish His purposes.

God allows evil but God is not doing evil. As absolute sovereign of the universe God has His rights. There is much mystery here, but the Scriptures unequivocally teach God is absolutely sovereign over all His creation. God only ordained the existence of evil to serve His purposes not because He delights in evil or because it is a reflection of His nature.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To say the decisions are uncaused, sounds wrong to me since they are caused by soul. But you can say soul makes decisions that are caused by nothing else than itself. So, I quess you can say soul makes uncaused decisions. Soul, as core of our being. But of course I as a person taking a decision is influenced by different factors.

We are but creatures, and not God himself. If your protest is that we are made in his image (some have told me that is the basis for libertarian 'free will'), then I have to ask, how does being made in his image necessarily mean actual simple spontaneity? Since there are, after all, logical reasons why there is only one first cause, if the soul of a human is perfectly spontaneous, and therefore is not caused to decide one way or the other, then you are invoking the power of 'first cause', which logically contradicts that there can be only one first cause.

Also, I expect you would agree with me that Scripture denies more than one first cause.

I don't understand what you mean by unscriptural, since the Bible doesn't discuss these philosophical matters. Many things are hard to understand logically, but are still true.

But it does discuss these matters! "I am the Lord; there is no other!" Is he not the Creator per Scripture? Does Scripture not deny that there can be another Creator?

You are asking why he can't be responsible if there is only one possible option? Then there is no choice, only apparent choice, that's why. You can't be responsible for something you can't choose.

There is no evidence that he couldn't, right?

Not at all. He does have choice, if he doesn't know which option is actual and the other merely perceived. In fact, if upon looking at the options he knows which he will choose, he then knows which is going to be actual and which are going to be 'not actual'; yet he still continues on to choose that one.

The evidence that he couldn't have chosen any but the one he did choose has been in evidence from the beginning of mankind. In fact, even excluding human will, for eg supposing TOEvolution to be true, at every juncture after first cause, only what has happened can have happened. It is that clinical, mathematical, and mechanical. Human will does not change that fact, but only invokes a different means by how those effects happen —a willed cause, still within the chain of cause-and-effect, but not merely mechanical.

The whole argument over the personhood of first cause, i.e. why first cause is God, concerns the difference between mechanical fact and willed power. Is he free? Of course he is free! There is no power or fact sovereign over him. We too are willed, but there is the whole 'chain of cause-and-effect', not to mention First Cause himself, over which we cannot exalt ourselves as sovereigns. Not only can I say that we operate within that 'chain', but I can also posit that our willed operation is our part of that 'chain'.

Repentance in the commandments? Where?

Acts 17:30 "God commands all men everywhere to repent"

remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
— Ephesians 2:12

Anyhow, it's not talking about our state as being hopeless. It's talking about us having no future hope before Christ came into the picture. That's very different things.

But it is hopeless apart from Christ, no?

 

[John Mullally]

I see that the Arminian god is not sovereign!. All 303 times that the scriptures say "sovereign Lord" are wrong. Amazing. So He is what 50% sovereign and satan is the other 50%? Or is it 60/40 maybe? The Arminian god is a "good" god. If something happens that is not "good" (according to what we think "good" is) then it can't be from our god. Our god loves everyone and he never does or allows evil.

God is known from scripture. Sovereignty does not imply fatalistic determinism.

2 Chronicles 34:24 “Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah.” Nothing can happen (including sin and evil) unless God ordains it because nothing can happen outside of His power and Scripture confirms this abundantly. Ephesians 1:11, “Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and He makes everything work out according to his plan.” Acts 17:28 “For in Him we live and move and exist...” Nothing can come into existence or continue in existence apart from God's power. Evil cannot and does not come from God's nature but God can and does use the evil in the nature of fallen humanity to accomplish His purposes.

No question that God does bring judgement. Per Ephesians 1:1-14, the plan is that the faithful in Christ are redeemed by the blood of Christ, receive an inheritance, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit.

God allows evil but God is not doing evil. As absolute sovereign of the universe God has His rights. There is much mystery here, but the Scriptures unequivocally teach God is absolutely sovereign over all His creation. God only ordained the existence of evil to serve His purposes not because He delights in evil or because it is a reflection of His nature.

If God does not tempt any one to sin (James 1:13-15), how is He in the business of decreeing sin in others? The mystery I see is that Calvinists cling to their fatalistic determinism in spite of what scripture says. Jeremiah 19:5 proves that men perform at least some sin that never entered God's mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is known from scripture. Sovereignty does not imply fatalistic determinism.
No question that God does bring judgement. Per Ephesians 1:1-14, the plan is that the faithful in Christ are redeemed by the blood of Christ, receive an inheritance, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit.
If God does not tempt any one to sin (James 1:13-15), how is He in the business of decreeing sin in others? The mystery I see is that Calvinists cling to their fatalistic determinism in spite of what scripture says. Jeremiah 19:5 proves that men perform at least some sin that never entered God's mind.

You have been shown before this, I think, that Jeremiah 19:5 proves no such thing, but that (both grammatically and logically) it never entered God's mind to command such a thing! You have also been shown, I think, the difference between fatalism and predestination/determinism, and you ignore it. YOU are the one claiming Calvinism clings to fatalism, when it is not true at all.

"Fatalism" is a victim-centered, humanly derived notion. No wonder you use the term!

"Predestination" is God-centered, God-taught. Man derives from that, "Determinism" as simply logically accurate. But you guys find it necessary to link 'determinism' to 'fatalism', not to God. What God ordains is anything BUT impersonal victimhood.

 

[zoidar]

We are but creatures, and not God himself. If your protest is that we are made in his image (some have told me that is the basis for libertarian 'free will'), then I have to ask, how does being made in his image necessarily mean actual simple spontaneity? Since there are, after all, logical reasons why there is only one first cause, if the soul of a human is perfectly spontaneous, and therefore is not caused to decide one way or the other, then you are invoking the power of 'first cause', which logically contradicts that there can be only one first cause.

Also, I expect you would agree with me that Scripture denies more than one first

But it does discuss these matters! "I am the Lord; there is no other!" Is he not the Creator per Scripture? Does Scripture not deny that there can be another Creator?

I don't see what our soul making uncaused choices has to do with being the first cause. If our soul was uncaused I would agree, but it isn't. What does Scripture mean by God being the creator, that He also creates our choices? That's a far stretch. God being the creator means He created the universe, including us. It has nothing to do with if His beings can "create" free will choices, thoughts or other things. That humans can create things don't make us THE CREATOR. The Bible does not answer these questions, even you like it to be so.

Not at all. He does have choice, if he doesn't know which option is actual and the other merely perceived. In fact, if upon looking at the options he knows which he will choose, he then knows which is going to be actual and which are going to be 'not actual'; yet he still continues on to choose that one.

The evidence that he couldn't have chosen any but the one he did choose has been in evidence from the beginning of mankind. In fact, even excluding human will, for eg supposing TOEvolution to be true, at every juncture after first cause, only what has happened can have happened. It is that clinical, mathematical, and mechanical. Human will does not change that fact, but only invokes a different means by how those effects happen —a willed cause, still within the chain of cause-and-effect, but not merely mechanical.

The whole argument over the personhood of first cause, i.e. why first cause is God, concerns the difference between mechanical fact and willed power. Is he free? Of course he is free! There is no power or fact sovereign over him. We too are willed, but there is the whole 'chain of cause-and-effect', not to mention First Cause himself, over which we cannot exalt ourselves as sovereigns. Not only can I say that we operate within that 'chain', but I can also posit that our willed operation is our part of that 'chain'.

I don't know what to say. So I abstain commenting.

Acts 17:30 "God commands all men everywhere to repent"

I meant the Law. Is that of the Law or of the ten commandments?

But it is hopeless apart from Christ, no?

Yes, of course! But you tied it to us being "dead", totally depraved (I know you didn't use those words, but is what I got from your posts). There's nothing in verse 12 or verse 4 to support that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see what our soul making uncaused choices has to do with being the first cause. If our soul was uncaused I would agree, but it isn't. What does Scripture mean by God being the creator, that He also creates our choices? That's a far stretch. God being the creator means He created the universe, including us. It has nothing to do with if His beings can "create" free will choices or other things. That humans can create things don't make us THE CREATOR. The Bible does not answer these questions, even you like it to be so.

(BTW, creativity, as in with humans, does not mean we can create, although we use that terminology. If something begins outside the chain of cause-and-effect, it is first cause, or is caused by first cause. And it cannot be first cause, because nothing can begin without a cause.)

Yes, glad you agree our soul is not uncaused. But if that is true, then how is something our soul does uncaused? Is that unfair, or have I jumped too many logical steps there without explanation? I have not completely described the operation there, true.

It may seem to us that our choosing is independent of causes, and it may seem reasonable to say that our choosing must be independent of causes in order to be real choice, but that is not so: We know that our choices are real —there you and I agree. We know that there are options available from which to choose —there, too, you and I agree. But we don't agree that those options must be actually possible, as opposed to merely appearing to be possible. God is said to actually intend to destroy Ninevah, if they don't repent. It is contingent then, on whether or not they repent. They DO repent, so God relents. Things went precisely as he had planned and we get a great book out of it. Was he instrumental in their repentance? Absolutely. Was their repentance a real choice? Absolutely. Did God cause it? Absolutely.

The reason I bring up Ninevah is bc not only is that a favorite of Arminians to show that the free choice of repentance caused God to respond according to his promise (I could make the Arminian case better than most Arminians, lol), and I wanted to go farther into it than their usual thinking, but because I want to show how God's choosing does not defeat our choosing or make it other than real.

I have been told, "Well, the situation with Ninevah is an exception to the rule." I hope you can agree with me that if there is even one exception to the rule, the rule has been defeated.

I don't know what to say. So I abstain commenting.

Of Aquinas' "Five Ways", in some renderings 3 are presented in terms of "we say", or "we see" etc, and for this I find their conclusions logically unreliable as proofs of God's existence, because what we say or what we see, is irrelevant to the facts. The 3 are then only ways to affirm we are reasonable to think he exists, (or something of that nature.) I say this to show that our thinking, or expectations —our assumptions— do little to describe fact. I think you would agree that whatever God does is raw fact. And I think you would agree that what we may consider brute fact (i.e. 'the way of things') is only by God's doing. HE 'invented' reality. Our logic assumes generalizations and structures as we see them, and not as they actually occur in God's economy.

We both desire for "the real thing" in choosing God. Neither of us has it quite right; even if one of us has the right words, we don't have the right understanding. With that at least, I hope you can agree. I expect the reality concerning God's way of predestination and personal responsibility is stranger than either of us ever imagined. But I think we both want the credit and the blame to rest on whom it belongs to.

I meant the Law. Is that of the Law or of the ten commandments?

I don't know where to find it within the law as such. It is pretty obviously logically implied within the law to love the Lord your God with all your being, but like I said, not as such.

I'm not sure where you were going with the question, should I have answered it in the negative.

Yes, of course! But you tied it to us being "dead", totally depraved (I know you didn't use those words, but is what I got from your posts). There's nothing in verse 12 to support that.

I'm not sure why you are saying that. (Actually, at this point, I'm not even sure what 'it' is we are talking about. But because it's you, I'll try to look it up. Wish they had a different format here, or some way to find this sort of thing easier than finding each "link in the chain" Oh, ok. We were talking about "no hope" equaling or not equaling "hopelessness". Well, verse 12 doesn't exist by itself. But maybe you draw an absolute line at verse 10. I don't. Verse 11 doesn't introduce a new subject, just a step further down Paul's logic.

 

[zoidar]

(BTW, creativity, as in with humans, does not mean we can create, although we use that terminology. If something begins outside the chain of cause-and-effect, it is first cause, or is caused by first cause. And it cannot be first cause, because nothing can begin without a cause.)

Yes, glad you agree our soul is not uncaused. But if that is true, then how is something our soul does uncaused? Is that unfair, or have I jumped too many logical steps there without explanation? I have not completely described the operation there, true.

I will back it all up to where we started. You said you don't understand what libertarian free will means. It means the chain of cause-and-effect leads to the ability of choosing, but not to a particular choice for the being. I can not explain it better than that. Fine if you think it illogical. All I can say is that we can only get this far with logic.

The reason I bring up Ninevah is bc not only is that a favorite of Arminians to show that the free choice of repentance caused God to respond according to his promise (I could make the Arminian case better than most Arminians, lol), and I wanted to go farther into it than their usual thinking, but because I want to show how God's choosing does not defeat our choosing or make it other than real.

I have been told, "Well, the situation with Ninevah is an exception to the rule." I hope you can agree with me that if there is even one exception to the rule, the rule has been defeated.

I won't go into discussing the Nineveh story with you. I don't think we are going very far there, interesting story though.

I think I can agree with you on the exception to the rule thing

We both desire for "the real thing" in choosing God. Neither of us has it quite right; even if one of us has the right words, we don't have the right understanding. With that at least, I hope you can agree. I expect the reality concerning God's way of predestination and personal responsibility is stranger than either of us ever imagined. But I think we both want the credit and the blame to rest on whom it belongs to.

Agree with you there.

I don't know where to find it within the law as such. It is pretty obviously logically implied within the law to love the Lord your God with all your being, but like I said, not as such.

I'm not sure where you were going with the question, should I have answered it in the negative.

Well, if it's not in the Law it's not a work, at least not from Paul's standpoint. Therefore it shows repentance is not a work.

*Made some editing and removed stuff. Sorry for removing large chunks of your post and not responding to it. It takes too much time and effort to respond to it all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I will back it all up to where we started. You said you don't understand what libertarian free will means. It means the chain of cause-and-effect leads to the ability of choosing, but not a particular choice for the being. I can not explain it better than that. Fine if you think it ilogical. All I can say is that we can only get this far with logic.

I don't remember quite how I said it, but my meaning was that each person seems to have a different notion for what libertarian free will means. Some go so far as to say it necessarily means uncaused, or not predestined, etc etc. Your definition there is typical, and, sorry, but still, outside the parameters of causation; therefore, not entirely logical.

How do you know God caused it?

Logically, because he caused everything. Anything subsequently resulting from what he caused directly is still caused by him.

Biblically, excluding mention of the fact that God set the scene up from the very beginning, (i.e. knowing they would become a wicked city, he made things precisely how it would turn out so anyway), he sent Jonah, and compelled Jonah, and in such a way that they would listen to his ghastly message.

Well, if it's not in the Law it's not a work, at least not from Paul's standpoint. Therefore it shows repentance is not a work.

Does John 1:13 saying this birth is "not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor of will of man, but of God" have relevance there?

Just saying that Eph 2 doesn't show we are totally depraved as the "T" of the Tulip. It's just showing us we were under condemnation (dead) until we came to Christ. And as we were under condemnation we had no hope in eternal life.

Would Romans 5:6 saying we were "helpless" or "powerless" not be relevant there?

 

[John Mullally]

You have been shown before this, I think, that Jeremiah 19:5 proves no such thing, but that (both grammatically and logically) it never entered God's mind to command such a thing!

I disagree. Here is a link to Jeremiah 19:5 in all the major English Bible translations and they all say something like it never entered God's mind What Does Jeremiah 19:5 Mean? "and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it i.". Was that grammatical and logical enough for you?

You have also been shown, I think, the difference between fatalism and predestination/determinism, and you ignore it. YOU are the one claiming Calvinism clings to fatalism, when it is not true at all.

Here is the definition of determinism from the Oxford dictionary - it looks like Calvinism supports determinism:

1. the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

I agree with the philosophers, from above, who say determinism would render men to not be morally responsible.

"Fatalism" is a victim-centered, humanly derived notion. No wonder you use the term! Predestination" is God-centered, God-taught. Man derives from that, "Determinism" as simply logically accurate. But you guys find it necessary to link 'determinism' to 'fatalism', not to God. What God ordains is anything BUT impersonal victimhood.

Here is what I found on the difference between Determinism and Fatalism that popped up #1 on the Google (its from a Philosophy professor). In the future I will stick to terming Calvinism as deterministic - which I find to be contradicted by scripture and smearing God (per Calvins "doomed from the womb" passage in his writings).

In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.​

 

[zoidar]

I don't remember quite how I said it, but my meaning was that each person seems to have a different notion for what libertarian free will means. Some go so far as to say it necessarily means uncaused, or not predestined, etc etc. Your definition there is typical, and, sorry, but still, outside the parameters of causation; therefore, not entirely logical.

I wouldn't say illogical, but it's a mystery.

Logically, because he caused everything. Anything subsequently resulting from what he caused directly is still caused by him.

Biblically, excluding mention of the fact that God set the scene up from the very beginning, (i.e. knowing they would become a wicked city, he made things precisely how it would turn out so anyway), he sent Jonah, and compelled Jonah, and in such a way that they would listen to his ghastly message.

To me it's just an idea what you call logical. It could be true, but could just as well not be true. There are arguments for both.

The thing is, God doesn't need to cause it. He can still work everything according to His plans. Even with libertarian free will, God still gets His will done.

Does John 1:13 saying this birth is "not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor of will of man, but of God" have relevance there?

I don't think so.

Would Romans 5:6 saying we were "helpless" or "powerless" not be relevant there?

Of course we were without help, powerless to reach redemption without Christ.

 

[GodsGrace101]

"If" can also be a statement of fact.

If it is born with a long tail, it is not human.
If you don't love me, you won't keep my commandments.

Clare, although you used incorrect examples, I do know what you mean about IF.
However, in the way used by our Lord, it means a condition to be met.
For instance:
IF you obey me, I'll give you a cookie.
This means that you may also not obey.
IF you don't love Me, you won't keep my commandments.
This means that you may also love me.

Jesus said:
IF YOU LOVE ME...meaning you may also NOT love me.
Even taking it to mean the way you understand...
it still places a condition on the person.
A conditional clause gives one the choice between 2 options.

Yes, we agree that unregenerate man cannot submit to God (Romans 8:7-8).

Okay, I'm speaking in the terms of Romans 8:7-8, and the inability of unregenerate man to obey, free will or not.
Our ability to obey is not based in whether we have free will or not. The will is not the issue.
Our ability to obey is based in whether we are regenerate or not. That is the issue.
"Free will" does not give unregenerate man the power to obey God (Romans 8:7-8).
Only the Holy Spirit in the regenerate man gives man the power to obey God.

Of course free will is the issue.
God gives us the choice to either obey Him or not obey Him.

However, yes, if we decide we want to be disciple of Jesus and obey His commandments,
then we need help from the Holy Spirit.

When you say REGENERATE, you're saying that regenerate persons do not have the free will to disobey God.

Are you saying that born again Christians never sin?
And if they DO sin, are you saying God is responsible for their sin because the Holy Spirit did not do His job well?

So the issue between God and man is not "free will" or "no free will."
Nowhere in Scripture is "free will" presented as the issue.
What is presented in Scripture, as the issue in the ability to obey, is the heart, either unregenerate or regenerate.
Only the regenerate heart in the Holy Spirit is able to obey God.
Scripture does not present obedience as about free will or not,
it presents obedience as about a regenerate heart or not.

I don't think we'll be able to agree on this.
Free will has everything to do with obeying God.

If you use the word REGENERATE, it tells me you're of the reformed faith.
Those of the reformed faith believe God picks who will and will not be saved.
They believe those saved cannot ever have their salvation in danger due to the perseverance of the saints.
This would tend to make one believe that free will has been removed from us.
Free will is presented EVERYWHERE in scripture - beginning in the Garden.
It is never taken away from us.
If you think it has, you'd have to show where.

The law is not a curse in itself. The law is righteous and good.

A curse is attached to the law for disobedience of it.
And it was attached at the renewal of the law in Deuteronomy 27:26,
which is "the curse of the law" which Galatians 3:10 is quoting, from Deuteronomy 27:26.

I never said the Law was a curse.
What I'm referring to is the Covenants God made with man.
The Edenic and Mosaic Covenants, for example, required man to keep his part of the covenant.
IF man obeyed, he received blessings,
IF man did not obey, he received curses.

Deuteronomy 27:26 states that those that do not obey the commandments of God will be cursed.

Deuteronomy 28:2 state the blessings on the people that DO obey the commandments.

Showing once again, that we have free will to either obey or not obey.
See Deuteronomy 28:15
“But if you refuse to listen to the LORD your God and do not obey all the commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come and overwhelm you:

It is not about the ABILITY to obey or not,,,
it clearly says that some will obey and some will not.
Free will to obey or not to obey.

Yes, we were both talking about the heart, but I was referring to the unregenerate heart,
and you were referring to the regenerate heart.

So it seems we agree in all but two areas:

1) obedience is about a regenerate heart rather than about free will, and
2) the curse of the law in Galatians 3:10 is quoting Deuteronomy 27:26.

Thanks for being so kind and patient.

Ditto! It's nice to have a civil conversation.

I agree with the 2 areas in which we do not agree.

1. An unregenerate heart is unable to obey or please God.
So, yes, we're speaking ONLY of a regenerate heart.
However, a regenerate heart has the free will to either obey or not obey.

2. Regarding Galatians 3:10 and Deuteronomy 27:26
I'm referring to the Mosaic Covenant which INCLUDES the Commandments and ordinances given to Moses.

You're referring to THE LAW which was given to Moses in the Sinai Desert.

I don't really care to discuss this as it's a totally different topic.
But I'm not adverse to discussing it either.
I'll say that THE LAW is part of THE COVENANT (Mosaic).

In either case, man if free to obey God (blessings) or not obey God (curses).

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually no. Besides the structural statements @Clare73 referred to, where 'if' is used in place of 'since', there is the simple fact that the ability to choose does not imply the ability to obey. Thus also, the command does not imply the ability to obey.

What you and @Clare73 are speaking of is not present in the quotes she posted.

You're using IF in the place of SINCE, for instance in
Matthew 4:3
3During that time the devil came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”

Some scholars believe the above means SINCE and some believe it means IF (because satan already knew who Jesus was).

So a case could be made for either rendition.

But NOT when Jesus says IF YOU OBEY
IF YOU DO NOT OBEY ME

This is clearly Jesus giving us a choice as to whether or not we want to obey Him.
IF makes it conditional and leaves the choice up to us.

The requirement to choose implies both the ability to obey,
and the free will to obey (or not).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will has everything to do with obeying God.

If you use the word REGENERATE, it tells me you're of the reformed faith.
Those of the reformed faith believe God picks who will and will not be saved.
They believe those saved cannot ever have their salvation in danger due to the perseverance of the saints.
This would tend to make one believe that free will has been removed from us.
Free will is presented EVERYWHERE in scripture - beginning in the Garden.
It is never taken away from us.
If you think it has, you'd have to show where.

Why or, in what way, does free will have everything to do with obeying God? Is not mere will enough? Why this notion, "Free"? What is the difference? What do you mean by, "Free"?

If @Clare73 had said "born again", would it mean she's of the reformed faith? She claims no allegiance to the "Reformed Faith", whatever that means.

Your characterization of the Reformed is inaccurate. They believe that God will indeed bring those he chose to finally be with him after their temporal life. You want to make it sound like some kind of 'automatic' thing. But the Reformed know, God is not mocked, and what we sow, we reap. You have the whole matter backwards. Our will has not been removed from us. We continue, as always, to choose according to our inclinations, just as God planned. There is no value in the extra word, "free", unless by it you are talking about freedom in Christ or something of that nature.

If instead, you mean no causation to your choices, then you are wrong. Everything is caused, except first cause.

 

[zoidar]

.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, although you used incorrect examples, I do know what you mean about IF.
However, in the way used by our Lord, it means a condition to be met.
For instance:
IF you obey me, I'll give you a cookie.
This means that you may also not obey.

IF you don't love Me, you won't keep my commandments.
This means that you may also love me.

Not necessarily. . .

"If you don't go to Harvard, you cannot be in the club,"
does not mean I can go to Harvard.

Jesus said:
IF YOU LOVE ME...meaning you may also NOT love me.
Yes, the unregenerate do not love him.
Even taking it to mean the way you understand...
it still places a condition on the person.
A conditional clause gives one the choice between 2 options.

Of course free will is the issue.
God gives us the choice to either obey Him or not obey Him.

However, yes, if we decide we want to be disciple of Jesus and obey His commandments,
then we need help from the Holy Spirit.

When you say REGENERATE, you're saying that regenerate persons do not have the free will to disobey God.
Are you saying that born again Christians never sin?

I am not saying they never sin (1 John 1:8-10), I am saying they never sin fatally, they do not apostasize.

And if they DO sin, are you saying God is responsible for their sin because the Holy Spirit did not do His job well?

Not too sure how God being responsible for my sin got in this, but God did not promise the regenerate they would never sin (1 John 1:8-10), he promised that he would keep them from sinning fatally, from falling away.

I don't think we'll be able to agree on this.

Free will has everything to do with obeying God.

"Free will" does not give the power to obey God, for the free will of the unregenerate man cannot obey God (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3-5).
Scripture does not present obeying God as depending on "free will." That is man's notion.
Scripture presents obeying God as depending on a regenerate heart.
The issue in obeying God is not free will, the issue is whether the heart is regenerate or not.

If you use the word REGENERATE, it tells me you're of the reformed faith.

Those of the reformed faith believe God picks who will and will not be saved.
They believe those saved cannot ever have their salvation in danger due to the perseverance of the saints.
This would tend to make one believe that free will has been removed from us.
Free will is presented EVERYWHERE in scripture - beginning in the Garden.
It is never taken away from us.
If you think it has, you'd have to show where.

Agreed. . .it is not taken from us, it is just inconsequential.
It is man who has inserted the notion of the "necessity of free will" into the Scriptures, it is not there.
Obedience requires a regenerate heart, not a "free will."

I never said the Law was a curse. What I'm referring to is the Covenants God made with man.

The Edenic and Mosaic Covenants, for example, required man to keep his part of the covenant.
IF man obeyed, he received blessings,
IF man did not obey, he received curses.
Deuteronomy 27:26 states that those that do not obey the commandments of God will be cursed.
Deuteronomy 28:2 state the blessings on the people that DO obey the commandments.

That is what is meant by "the curse of the law" from which Jesus redeemed us in Galatians 3:13.
So we are agreed here?

Showing once again, that we have free will to either obey or not obey.

See Deuteronomy 28:15
“But if you refuse to listen to the LORD your God and do not obey all the commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come and overwhelm you:

It is not about the ABILITY to obey or not,,,
it clearly says that some will obey and some will not.
Free will to obey or not to obey.

Ditto! It's nice to have a civil conversation.

I agree with the 2 areas in which we do not agree.

1. An unregenerate heart is unable to obey or please God.
So, yes, we're speaking ONLY of a regenerate heart.
However, a regenerate heart has the free will to either obey or not obey.

I have consistently maintained that both (unregenerate and regenerate man) have the free will presented in Scripture; i.e., the ability to voluntarily and freely, without external force or constraint, choose what they prefer, like.
So, do we agree here also?

2. Regarding Galatians 3:10 and Deuteronomy 27:26
I'm referring to the Mosaic Covenant which INCLUDES the Commandments and ordinances given to Moses.
You're referring to THE LAW which was given to Moses in the Sinai Desert.

I'm referring to the renewal/ratification, and supplementary requirements of the Mosaic Covenant-- including ceremonial consecration, government leaders and a righteous nation, sanctity of God's kingdom and confession of God as Redeemer-King--in Deuteronomy 4:44-26:19, given in Exodus 19-24.

I don't really care to discuss this as it's a totally different topic.
But I'm not adverse to discussing it either.
I'll say that THE LAW is part of THE COVENANT (Mosaic).

All the supplementary stipulations of Deuteronomy 4:44-26:19, including the curses, are part of the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you and @Clare73 are speaking of is not present in the quotes she posted.

You're using IF in the place of SINCE, for instance in
Matthew 4:3
3During that time the devil came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”

Some scholars believe the above means SINCE and some believe it means IF (because satan already knew who Jesus was).

So a case could be made for either rendition.

But NOT when Jesus says IF YOU OBEY
IF YOU DO NOT OBEY ME

This is clearly Jesus giving us a choice as to whether or not we want to obey Him.
IF makes it conditional and leaves the choice up to us.

The requirement to choose implies both the ability to obey,
and the free will to obey (or not).

I can see if you come at it from an Arminian perspective, that already assumes coming in to the question that either option to choose from is possible, and has to be possible for choice to be real, (although that is only an assumption, and unproven), that it will seem the requirement to choose implies the ability to obey.

Truth is, not only do we not even understand what we are choosing, but we are slaves to Christ, or to Sin. Those not born again of the Spirit of God do not have the ability, per Romans 8, to submit to God's law nor to please God. They can choose as they wish, but they will always choose to sin; even when they think they are choosing God, they are choosing death. "Depart from me you workers of iniquity!"

OF COURSE the choice is up to us! Nobody is saying otherwise. But what are we going to choose? Even when the non-born-again 'choose Christ' they haven't chosen Christ. Their will, and so their choice, is corrupt. How many thousands, maybe millions, have 'chosen Christ' and turns out they were mistaken? "Depart from me you workers of iniquity!"

 

[zoidar]

We continue, as always, to choose according to our inclinations, just as God planned.

I have to disagree. We can have an inclination towards obeying and yet live our whole life in sin. Why? Because of libertarian free will.

Also our inclinations change if we choose living in sin. Our heart hardens and our inclination becomes more and more towards sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have to disagree. We can have an inclination towards obeying and yet live our whole life in sin. Why? Because of libertarian free will.

Why would you think that is an inclination towards obeying? Such 'obedience' is compliance, not submission. Such 'obedience' is self-serving, perhaps hoping for relief from guilt or from condemnation. Even the 'obeyer' might not know.