There is no Free Will PERIOD

[BNR32FAN]

I'm sure you've heard before this, but have ignored it like you will this, and continue to speak as though denying it or ignoring it will render it false and useless, that the command does not imply the ability to obey. The command, as is a common theme throughout the NT, demonstrates our utter need for Christ, both for salvation and for sanctification. Apart from him we can do NOTHING.

Have you ever murdered anyone, or were you somehow able to refrain from it? Yeah we can’t keep God’s commandments perfectly but every single sin you and I have committed, we were 100% capable of refraining from.

 

[com7fy8]

I can tell you that Ole Yeller is going to die every time you watch the movie, it doesn’t mean that you or I had anything to do with it.

What about the first time you saw the movie?

Our lives can be like a movie production. We might not have control, might not therefore know what will really happen each next moment. However, in life we might fight how things are going; but during a movie ones can tend to even trust the movie and go with the flow of how the producer takes us along emotionally and even in developing our views of things.

But in life we can try to take control, instead of trusting God the producer so He has us benefitting from how He is managing things. We can be fighting instead of delighting.

Control can be an idol, then, for worldly people. And human control is very limiting to what you can demand and dictate.

But if we submit to how God takes us along in His peace - - - in His peace we share in His creativity for how to share with Him and how to love every person.

So we get the best benefit of His production, with how He fits us together with all He knows will happen.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi RB

I didn't mean to sound condescending.

No worries.

While I apprecieate your sincerity, I'm not sure how you measure your convictions against others since you admit that we're all prone to errors.

I've shared my approach to understanding Scripture, but I don't think you've explained how you identify errors in the Confessions, given that you start with their understanding. This seems to be a circular reasoning, where the Confessions are assumed to be the authority and then used as a tool to evaluate themselves and Scripture.

From Post #426 you stated:

My understanding of synergism does not say man is responsible for salvation it says man co-operates with God who initiates, enables and completes salvation.​

Yet you state:

​

God extends His grace, and we respond in faith. ... I am not advocating for a works based salvation, Christ alone accomplishes this not our effort or merits.​

​

I think your definition is spot on for a synergistic view. This was codified in the Catholic Council of Trent view. So either the men of the Council of Trent were in error or the men of the Westminster/London Baptist were in error.

Furthermore, by including the "we respond" does mean that one HAS to do something for salvation. There is something YOU have to do. So, yes this is a works based view of salvation. Christ didn't accomplished your salvation alone when you must agree to accept it.

I think you're misinterpreting my perspective. I do remember saying God is the source, initiator enabler, and accomplisher of our salvation, I'm making it clear that our cooperation is not a form of works-based salvation, but rather a response to God's gracious initiative. Or do you believe God responds to Himself?

 

[zoidar]

No, we don't choose our inclinations as such. We do influence them and choose (for example) whom to love and to whom to be devoted and such, We can decide and drive toward being inclined this way or that, but in the end, our inclinations are not just choice. You no doubt are familiar with the idea that we feed our inclinations by what we choose to do or to think about.

You say, "Simply put we choose our want to choose the most.", to which I say, "Ok, but WHY do we make that particular choice, or BY WHAT MEANS do we choose our want to choose the most?" It is all caused, and, in my opinion, caused from the beginning by God. I find nothing haphazard from his point of view. And, again, that does not mean our choosing is an illusion. It just means he is that far above us.

Yes, we influence our inclinations. Still what is the inclination that makes me choose coffee? It sounds to me you assume there must be an inclination determining my choice for coffee, and you come to that conclusion from your belief there can't be any libertarian free choice, rather than proving how our choices are made by cause and effect. We all know our choices are influenced by cause and effect, but determined? How can that be proven without pointing to there can't be a free libertarian will?

What proves our choices are predetermined is simply that there is no such thing as chance, and that all things descend causally from the First Cause (God). There is also the character of God and his active intent (creating) vs the idea of passively watching a project. He had in mind to make something particular, and he made it. We are not privy to the whole line of causation from first effects becoming secondary causes and so on. Only that the only truly spontaneous thing is God himself. EVERYTHING else is effect. And this does not preclude choice, but establishes our choices. Quite literally, apart from him (in this context, apart from his causation) we can do nothing.

He is the source of very existence and life. How can we assume ourselves to be smaller first causes?

I can't tell if chance exists or not. It does not matter to me. What matters is that we are responsible. We both believe we are, but I can't see how we can be responsible if we don't have some kind of free will outside predetermination.

 

[HarleyER]

This completely ignores the very definition of the word synergism. What you’ve posted here is not an honest definition of synergism. You’re intentionally trying to remove the aspect of God’s participation from t in order to create a false representation that it is derived solely from man apart from God’s participation. Synergism is a cooperative effort not the effort of man apart from God’s participation. This is a very common misrepresentation made by Calvinists, it’s a deception of the truth and completely ignores everything that synergism literally means.

Nowhere does the Bible say that a person can’t repent. All throughout the Bible God has been calling man to repentance since creation. What do you think He’s been doing in His commandments? He’s been calling people to repentance since Adam & Eve. Every time He tells man to stop doing evil, stop sinning, obey my commandments, He telling them to repent. It would be completely STUPID for Him to tell man these things if He knows that they are incapable of complying because He hasn’t allowed them to. Furthermore it would be unjust for Him to throw them into the lake of fire for all eternity for failing to comply IF THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING. Nowhere does the Bible say that we are incapable of repenting and turning to God, nowhere.

This completely ignores the very definition of the word synergism. What you’ve posted here is not an honest definition of synergism. You’re intentionally trying to remove the aspect of God’s participation

Then IF my definition is incorrect, please post the definition of each. Here is a quick search:

Synergism comes from the Greek word "synergos" meaning working together. It refers to the interaction between two or more "things" when the combined effect is greater than if you added the "things" on their own (a type of "when is one plus one is greater than two" effect).​

It isn't that I'm ignoring God's participation. What you are ignoring is man's participation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What about the first time you saw the movie?

Our lives can be like a movie production. We might not have control, might not therefore know what will really happen each next moment. However, in life we might fight how things are going; but during a movie ones can tend to even trust the movie and go with the flow of how the producer takes us along emotionally and even in developing our views of things.

But in life we can try to take control, instead of trusting God the producer so He has us benefitting from how He is managing things. We can be fighting instead of delighting.

Control can be an idol, then, for worldly people. And human control is very limiting to what you can demand and dictate.

But if we submit to how God takes us along in His peace - - - in His peace we share in His creativity for how to share with Him and how to love every person.

So we get the best benefit of His production, with how He fits us together with all He knows will happen.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

The first time I saw the movie I didn’t know what happened before it happened which was the context of your post.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It isn't that I'm ignoring God's participation. What you are ignoring is man's participation.

And again this doesn’t make any sense at all since the word synergy means a cooperative effort. Man cannot be saved by his efforts alone and God cannot save anyone without their cooperation because God Himself has decreed that man must cooperate with Him in order to receive salvation. So in reality I haven’t ignored either party’s participation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Of course He knew what they were going to do. He specifically states this way back in Leviticus. One such verse is:

Leviticus 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.
God was just telling the people through Jeremiah that He never told them to sacrifice their children.

And yet according to you God was the One who made them do it even tho He specifically said that He did not command it nor did it ever enter into His mind. You say that God ordained it which means that He ordered it, He decreed it, but God says that He didn’t. Thats what you need to explain.

 

[Clare73]

I’m not aware of the verse you’re referring to in your first statement. Can you please quote this verse?

That would be the verse following the statement of the existence of gravity.

We know that God decreed gravity because it exists.

We know that about everything that exists.

 

[Clare73]

I'm sure you've heard before this, but have ignored it like you will this, and continue to speak as though denying it or ignoring it will render it false and useless, that the command does not imply the ability to obey.

Just as the requirement/command/law that the bankrupt individual pay his debts does not imply the man's personal ability to pay.

The command, as is a common theme throughout the NT, demonstrates our utter need for Christ, both for salvation and for sanctification. Apart from him we can do NOTHING.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That would be the verse following the statement of the existence of gravity.

We know that God decreed gravity because it exists.

We know that about everything that exists.

So what you’re really saying is that the reason I’m not familiar with that verse is because it doesn’t exist. There is no verse that says that we can’t repent.

 

[Clare73]

So what you’re really saying is that the reason I’m not familiar with that verse is because it doesn’t exist.
There is no verse that says that we can’t repent.

You might check out Ro 8:6-8, 1 Co 2:14 regarding fallen man without the Holy Spirit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You might check out Ro 8:6-8, 1 Co 2:14 regarding fallen man without the Holy Spirit.

You might want to continue reading 1 Corinthians into chapter 3 to understand what Paul is talking about in chapter 2. Why is Paul telling them about setting their mind on the Spirit at the end of chapter 2? The beginning of chapter 3 explains exactly why he was telling them this.

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Clare73]

You might want to continue reading 1 Corinthians into chapter 3 to understand what Paul is talking about in chapter 2.
Why is Paul telling them about setting their mind on the Spirit at the end of chapter 2?

Because Paul is writing to Christians who are engaged in a battle between their flesh (fallen nature) and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
They are yielding to the flesh (are "fleshly") rather than denying the flesh and yielding to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit gives them the power to deny the flesh, and they must engage that power.
They are not engaging the power of the Holy Spirit and denying their flesh, but rather are yielding to the power of their flesh.

The beginning of chapter 3 explains exactly why he was telling them this.

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because Paul is writing to Christians who are engaged in a battle between their flesh (fallen nature) and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
They are yielding to the flesh (are "fleshly") rather than denying the flesh and yielding to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit gives them the power to deny the flesh, and they must engage that power.
They are not engaging the power of the Holy Spirit and denying their flesh, but rather are yielding to the power of their flesh.

Right they’re setting their mind on the flesh instead of setting their mind on the Spirit and as long as they keep on doing that they can’t subject themselves to the Law of God. When a person repents they are setting their mind on the Spirit because they are looking to God for help and guidance. So in both Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2 he never once said that the natural man is incapable of repentance.

 

[Clare73]

Right they’re setting their mind on the flesh instead of setting their mind on the Spirit and as long as they keep on doing that they can’t subject themselves to the Law of God. When a person repents they are setting their mind on the Spirit because they are looking to God for help and guidance. So in both Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2 he never once said that the natural man is incapable of repentance.

Because Paul's letters are not to "natural men," they are to Christians, who are "spiritual men," in whom the Holy Spirit works repentance (Php 2:3).

Christians are not the "natural man," they are the "spiritual man," indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who must engage the power of the Holy Spirit against their flesh.

 

[HarleyER]

No worries.

ConI've shared my approach to understanding Scripture, but I don't think you've explained how you identify errors in the Confessions, given that you start with their understanding. This seems to be a circular reasoning, where thefessions are assumed to be the authority and then used as a tool to evaluate themselves and Scripture.


I think you're misinterpreting my perspective. I do remember saying God is the source, initiator enabler, and accomplisher of our salvation, I'm making it clear that our cooperation is not a form of works-based salvation, but rather a response to God's gracious initiative. Or do you believe God responds to Himself?

ConI've shared my approach to understanding Scripture, but I don't think you've explained how you identify errors in the Confessions,

That is an entirely fair question and my answer might seem a bit abitrary. It's a rather long story, but the reading the Scriptures from a Reformed perspective seem to make the most sense, especially John and Romans. The monergistic theology is more put together than a synergistic theology. (It is difficult to find a synergistic systematic theology implemented by a council.) Finally, the Eastern Church always held to a synergistic view, while the Western Church, at one time, held to a monergistic view. The gospel, in the Scriptures always moved east to west, never west to east. I know this last point is a bit odd, but it was an interesting minor point in my decision.

I understand that you believe our cooperation is not a form of works-based salvation. But it is still a response that needs to be given by us to God. So, essentially, in the final analysis we have to give God at the very least a response.

Do I believe God responds to Himself? I believe that God commands and we follow. God tells Matthew, "Come, follow me." and Matthew gets up, leaves everything and follows. God call Peter and John and tells them I will make you fishers of men and they leave everything. Samson didn't even have a choice as he was chosen before even being born. It's just the way it is. If the choice was left up to me I probably would have goof it up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare73 said:
God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience.
Adam's choice of disobedience guaranteed from that point on what man's fallen nature would prefer and, therefore, choose. . . disobedience.

Just because man is fallen and cannot obey God does not mean that man does not necessarily owe God obedience and, therefore,
even if fallen man cannot pay, God is just in requiring of man what he owes God, what is due to God, even if man cannot pay it.

And who ordained that man could choose, whereby man squandered his spiritual well being?
And who ordained that God would show forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men from this disaster?

God has ordained the conditions whereby man is allowed to disobey him.

I’m not aware of the verse you’re referring to in your first statement. Can you please quote this verse? And I agree with you that God does not owe anyone anything. But I would point out that God’s character is consistent and He is always just. I provided scriptures proving my point. If you disagree with it could you please address the passages I quoted.

Do you need a complete study on the meaning of "God's Decree"? God's decree is not revealed to his temporal creatures except as time reveals. If something happens, it is because God has decreed it. There is no verse saying, "God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience." There are only self-evident facts to that end, and many relevant statements and tangential concepts throughout scripture to that effect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Have you ever murdered anyone, or were you somehow able to refrain from it? Yeah we can’t keep God’s commandments perfectly but every single sin you and I have committed, we were 100% capable of refraining from.

Before regeneration, even the refraining is done in sin, for sinful reasons, and at enmity with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, we influence our inclinations. Still what is the inclination that makes me choose coffee? It sounds to me you assume there must be an inclination determining my choice for coffee, and you come to that conclusion from your belief there can't be any libertarian free choice, rather than proving how our choices are made by cause and effect. We all know our choices are influenced by cause and effect, but determined? How can that be proven without pointing to there can't be a free libertarian will?

How can one prove by demonstration the myriad causes influencing your choice? I'd guess the fact you like coffee had something to do with it, and maybe I could guess at a few other influences, but why you like coffee, I don't know (nor why I do), but I am sure that too is caused, and not merely a plucked-out-of-thin-air random happening. My reason for denying libertarian free choice is simple. All things after First Cause (God) are caused effects. To claim otherwise is to deny what is central to science and reasoning, not to mention that it denies God's utter authority over all fact.

Mark Quayle said:
What proves our choices are predetermined is simply that there is no such thing as chance, and that all things descend causally from the First Cause (God). There is also the character of God and his active intent (creating) vs the idea of passively watching a project. He had in mind to make something particular, and he made it. We are not privy to the whole line of causation from first effects becoming secondary causes and so on. Only that the only truly spontaneous thing is God himself. EVERYTHING else is effect. And this does not preclude choice, but establishes our choices. Quite literally, apart from him (in this context, apart from his causation) we can do nothing.

He is the source of very existence and life. How can we assume ourselves to be smaller first causes?

I can't tell if chance exists or not. It does not matter to me. What matters is that we are responsible. We both believe we are, but I can't see how we can be responsible if we don't have some kind of free will outside predetermination.

I know you've heard me say this before: Chance is logically self-contradictory. "It is only a shortcut for, 'I don't know'." Simple as that. We have choice, not independence. It matters because libertarian free will depends on mere chance, regardless of whatever principles anyone thinks are necessary for responsibility/accountability regarding sin/choices.

But try to see this look at it: God created all things. All fact subsequent to Himself is dependent upon him for its very existence. The laws of nature are what they are because GOD CREATED. The laws of logic and math are what they are because GOD CREATED. Beauty, and Joy, are what they are because GOD CREATED. Fact is what it is because GOD CREATED. (I don't take you for a Deist, who seem to think that God created all fact, then backed away and fact is not in and of itself something totally independent of God's sustaining it). If we choose, (and I agree we do), it is because of and according to causes that came before it.

If I argue with believers who don't know I am a believer, that this or that they did was influenced and otherwise dependent on what came before their choice to do that thing, they are often inclined to agree, unless they are already in a mode to defend their notion of independent self-determination. But when I put God at the head of those myriad chains of causation that led up to their choice, suddenly they throw a fit! But logically, it simply makes perfect sense that our choices are caused.

So we are left with your objection, that it doesn't seem fair to blame someone for doing what he is caused to do. I'm sorry, but it is a human construction that sees blame and right and wrong as the end of thinking on the matter. What God's commands are for, is not for testing one's resolve or nature, but for demonstrating our need for the Savior, as we ALL fall short. Those that prove out, such as the testing of Abraham, was the testing of his [regenerated] faith. Not his libertarian free will, and not his independent self-determination.

(That is, of course, an oversimplification, as there are many other reasons for the command, such as both mere compliance and utter rejection of law witness to the fallen individual concerning God's purity and justice.)