Calvinism vs Scriptural libertarian free will (LFW)

[YeshuaFan]

Spiritually dead people hate God and want nothing to do with him. They want idols of their own making.

Its part of being spiritual dead in sin and trespasses...

 

[DeaconDean]

I posted:

The Calvinist definition of "free will" which really means "totally depraved will", "will in 100% slavery to sin", "will that must obey its sinful nature", "will that is free in the sense of free to sin & do nothing but sin". A will that can only sin is not free to not sin.

DeaconDean answered:



Then how can the unregenerate be saved? They are only doing what they must do, i.e. sin. So they are not responsible for their sins or deserving of any "hell" let alone one of endless tortures. So who, or Who, is responsible for their sins? Adam & Eve? But who, or rather Who, is responsible for A & E first sin? Who placed them in the garden & created the tempter whom God loosed upon A & E to tempt them? Who created A & E with the ability to give in to the tempter? Who created things such that when they sinned this would infect their entire progeny? Who made A & E without a libertarian free will so that they had no option to resist the tempter & had to do exactly what they did? Did God give them the grace to resist temptation? So, you see, God is responsible for man's sins if He never gave man a libertarian free choice to do otherwise. He cannot be just & sentence them to endless hell for the sins He alone is responsible for.

First off, you have no concept of the doctrine of "regeneration".

Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, Jesus was also a "type of "Adam".

Both are contrasted here:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

When God was "incarnate" as Jesus, what God knew, He knew.

When Adam was created, he was created with a "free will" that able to be persuaded.

"In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from “the Man Christ Jesus.”

God's Sovereignty and the Human Will, Arthur W. Pink.

However, with Jesus, things were totally different.

Jesus, the "God-man".

"So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ could not sin because he was “the Holy One of God.” Before he was born into this world it was said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” Luke 1:35. Speaking reverently then, we say, that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with his sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was his eternal Deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam’s will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise — capable of turning toward either good or evil"

Ibid

Adam thusly, was able to be "swayed".

So your assertions about Adam, are all wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean...you are still missing the point brother, and it's a bit of a head scratcher. Libertarian free will is not limited in what it wills but in what it can accomplish (therefore it is limited in some way). That is my point.

I am amazed you missed this for a point so exceedingly simple. The analogy is that men can will to do things outside of their power, but they can still will them. This is one of a few reconciling points, which are obviously true, between man's ability to repent when the Gospel is revealed (and why he is guilty for ignoring it) and his inability to live by the power of that Gospel without the Spirit of God empowering his will.

So the point I am having to make plain to you now that you missed is that a man willing to be saved by self-righteousness is the man who wills to be the superman, or the corvette as you say; he wills an absurd impossibility of something he can't be. He can will to be sinless and that all temptation to sin be removed, and it is as powerful, absurd and meaningless as willing to be a superman or a corvette. Every time you respond that these analogies are absurd, you are getting the point without realizing you are getting the point. It is absurd to say a person can't will to be a superman (apparently you have never seen a comic fanatic) as it is absurd to say his will can be achieved by the power of that will.

Hence, LFW as it relates to man in his relation with God is that men can genuinely will to be a "good person" but they will never be; it is more absurd than willing to be a superman since only God is good. However, their will, when their eyes are opened, can admit it is impotent for this purpose in humbling themselves and repenting, willing that God change them and give them the power. So a man can will to be humbled and repent but not empower that repentance without God. This presents both the points of man's LFW (making him responsible for humbling himself and rejection of the Gospel) and the limitation of that will (not being able to effectuate whatever one wills by the mere ability to will it).

Here again, all you are doing is making an argument that man is still ruled by his will.

That is what I call the "I" theology which is so prevalent in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Arminianism.

"I" did this of my own "free will". I chose to accept and believe of my own "free will".

"I', "I", "I"! That theology and everything you have said, makes man "will" the Master.

Which goes against scripture.

And the prime example is your statement:

"This presents both the points of man's LFW (making him responsible for humbling himself and rejection of the Gospel) and the limitation of that will (not being able to effectuate whatever one wills by the mere ability to will it)."

In this scenario, everything God has done, everything God wants to do, is contingent on man and his "LFW".

You said: "making him responsible for humbling himself". Here you dare to claim for yourself, a work of "LFW" that the scriptures says is God's doing. "I humbled myself" when the scripture says:

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa 65:4 (KJV)

You guys scare me in your "I" theology.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ClementofA]

"In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from “the Man Christ Jesus.”

God's Sovereignty and the Human Will, Arthur W. Pink.

You still haven't gotten God, in a universe where men don't have libertarian free will, off the hook of responsibility for men's sins. And being unjust to send them to endless hell for the sins He is responsible for & they are not responsible for.

 

[ClementofA]

You said: "making him responsible for humbling himself". Here you dare to claim for yourself, a work of "LFW" that the scriptures says is God's doing. "I humbled myself" when the scripture says:

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa 65:4 (KJV)

James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.

Here is how the Lord chooses who will be saved:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and ***belief of the truth*** (2 Thess.2:13).

 

[DeaconDean]

James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.

Wrong again. To whom was James addressing?

Was it "unsaved"?

No, he was addressing those who were already saved.

Here is how the Lord chooses who will be saved:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and ***belief of the truth*** (2 Thess.2:13).

You realize that your now preaching/teaching the "Calvinist" doctrine of election?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

You still haven't gotten God, in a universe where men don't have libertarian free will, off the hook of responsibility for men's sins. And being unjust to send them to endless hell for the sins He is responsible for & they are not responsible for.

Then how can the unregenerate be saved? They are only doing what they must do, i.e. sin. So they are not responsible for their sins or deserving of any "hell" let alone one of endless tortures. So who, or Who, is responsible for their sins? Adam & Eve? But who, or rather Who, is responsible for A & E first sin? Who placed them in the garden & created the tempter whom God loosed upon A & E to tempt them? Who created A & E with the ability to give in to the tempter? Who created things such that when they sinned this would infect their entire progeny? Who made A & E without a libertarian free will so that they had no option to resist the tempter & had to do exactly what they did? Did God give them the grace to resist temptation? So, you see, God is responsible for man's sins if He never gave man a libertarian free choice to do otherwise. He cannot be just & sentence them to endless hell for the sins He alone is responsible for.

Question: how many times are you going to keep regurgitating the same old, same old?

I know you've repeated this several times.

Repetitive posting of similar or identical posts or threads is not allowed.

Link to this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ClementofA]

Wrong again. To whom was James addressing?

Was it "unsaved"?

You're implying if they didn't "humble themselves" they would be forgiven/saved? See:

2 Chronicles 7:14
and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.

Luke 14:11
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

James 4:6
But He gives us more grace. This is why it says: "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

Job 22:29
When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.

LK.18:10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

You realize that your now preaching/teaching the "Calvinist" doctrine of election?

There's no Calvinism in the following verse. Here is how the Lord chooses who will be saved:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and ***belief of the truth*** (2 Thess.2:13).

 

[DeaconDean]

You're implying if they didn't "humble themselves" they would be forgiven/saved?

Outside the Gospels, and the Book of Acts which is early church history, there is nothing in the New Testament that is addressed to unbelievers or the unsaved.

"Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:" -Rom. 1:6-7 (KJV)

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:" -1 Cor. 1:2 (KJV)

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:" -2 Cor. 1:1 (KJV)

"And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:" -Gal. 1:2 (KJV)

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:" -Eph. 1:1 (KJV)

"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:" -Phil. 1:1 (KJV)

"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:" -Col. 1:2 (KJV)

"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians" -1 Thess. 1:1 (KJV)

"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:" -2 Thess. 1:1 (KJV)

1 Timothy is a personal letter to Timothy, but nevertheless Paul writes:

"Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith:" 1 Tim. 1:2 (KJV)

And again, in 2 Tim. 1:2 Paul writes:

"To Timothy, my dearly beloved son:" -1 Tim. 1:2 (KJV)

To Titus, another personal letter, Paul writes:

"To Titus, mine own son after the common faith:" -Titus 1:4 (KJV)

To Philemon, Paul writes:

"Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:" -Philemon 1-2 (KJV)

The Book of Hebrews is audience specific.

And here, we have James' introduction and letter:

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;" -James 1:1-2 (KJV)

Now whether this is the James who was bishop at the church at Jerusalem, or one of the other James', we're not 100% sure. But we do know that he was here addressing Jewish Christians just from simple context.

Peter also addresses a specific group:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." -1 Pet.1:1-2 (KJV)

And again, in 2 Peter, he says:

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" -2 Pet. 1:1 (KJV)

So, I'm sorry friend, out the Gospel message of repent and believe, there is nothing addressed to unbelievers.

Even your own proof text:

"and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land."

Is audience specific.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and ***belief of the truth*** (2 Thess.2:13).

So, you are going to tell me that God choose us, because we "believed"?

Thusly, our salvation, our election, is due to something we at some point in time, would do. Namely "believe"?

Yea...right.

So if God chose us "because" we believed, how is it God's fault the unsaved are punished, "because" they didn't believe?

Your whole theory has holes in it.

Not to mention that your theory directly contradicts Eph. 1:5, 11 (KJV).

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[StillGods]

many verses say believe and youre saved.
God made it real simple ...thankfully

 

[ClementofA]

Outside the Gospels, and the Book of Acts which is early church history, there is nothing in the New Testament that is addressed to unbelievers or the unsaved.

Irrelevant. The church epistles speak about, & give doctrines, re the unsaved.

 

[DeaconDean]

Irrelevant.

Shows how much you know.

I feel so sorry for you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The church epistles speak about, & give doctrines

Yep, doctrines the saved should believe.

Not the unsaved.

I feel so sorry for you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ClementofA]

So, you are going to tell me that God choose us, because we "believed"?

Thusly, our salvation, our election, is due to something we at some point in time, would do. Namely "believe"?

So if God chose us "because" we believed, how is it God's fault the unsaved are punished, "because" they didn't believe?

Your whole theory has holes in it.

Not to mention that your theory directly contradicts Eph. 1:5, 11 (KJV).

Christ is the chosen one of God, the Ark of God's salvation. All who get into the Ark, that is into "Christ", are therefore also chosen and saved. Just as all who got into Noah's ark, which typifies Christ, were saved from the wrath of God (the waters that destroyed the world).

If there is a chosen ship and people are told that all who get into it will be saved, then all those who believe this good news and who get into the ship will be chosen to be saved.

Those who didn't get into the ship are at fault because they had libertarian free will (LFW) and chose not to believe, get in the ship and be saved.

OTOH if humans have no LFW & no LFW choice to get in the ship, then it's God's fault anyone fails to do so and He is responsible for their sin and for them being lost. Therefore He is unjust. Especially if the lost end up being tortured by Him for all eternity. What kind of a "God" would do that? Maybe the God of Islam or the KKK, but not the God of the Bible.

"he hath chosen us **in him**" (Eph.1:4)

He saved others; let him save himself, if he be **Christ, the chosen of God** ” – (Luke 23:35)

“For **whosoever** shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” – (Rom.10:13)

 

[ClementofA]

Does not Calvinism teach the “elect” cannot be lost? Yet:

“Paul states there that those Galatians who are called/kaleo are deserting Christ to follow another gospel. As we both know, “called” is a term that refers to the elect. Paul’s own testimony confirms that those who are elected are deserting Christ.”

Was King David Saved While He Committed His Sins of Adultery and Murder?

 

[FredVB]

So if God chose us "because" we believed, how is it God's fault the unsaved are punished, "because" they didn't believe?

For any of those going to hell it is their own fault they go there. It is not Yahweh's fault, so Yahweh having them go there is still with fairness and justice.

many verses say believe and youre saved. God made it real simple ...thankfully

There is indeed 1 John 5:13 that we believers may know that we have eternal life, so there is this promise.

Does not Calvinism teach the “elect” cannot be lost? Yet:
“Paul states there that those Galatians who are called/kaleo are deserting Christ to follow another gospel. As we both know, “called” is a term that refers to the elect. Paul’s own testimony confirms that those who are elected are deserting Christ.”

Was King David Saved While He Committed His Sins of Adultery and Murder?

Calvinism does indeed have it taught that the elect cannot be lost. That is not a problem. There is the issue yet that we don't know who the elect are, we can just know that there are some who are already believers. They show they are with enduring through any trials. Those who are in Christ, that he knows them, have repented and love and obey him. False ones who are not real believers and not having that fall away with some difficulty they encounter. They are like the seed sprouting among very stony ground.

It may be that even the very elect can be deceived. Indeed I think many of them are deceived in some things. This is not the same thing as losing salvation, and such can still be saved.

I don't think those in old testament times became saved individuals, they weren't sealed in God's Spirit. But they were accepted with essential faith they had, such that Christ is effectively covering all of this faith, from beginning to the end. And David is in a list of those with such faith, though the list we can find would not be exhaustive.

 

[Radagast]

“Paul states there that those Galatians who are called/kaleo are deserting Christ to follow another gospel. As we both know, “called” is a term that refers to the elect. Paul’s own testimony confirms that those who are elected are deserting Christ.”

The word for elect is eklektos/ἐκλεκτός.

 

[FredVB]

The word for elect is eklektos/ἐκλεκτός.

There is the word ἐκλεκτός eklektos that is translated as elect. It doesn't occur as such in Galatians. Yet any can be deceived.

There is indeed 1 John 5:13 that we believers may know that we have eternal life, so there is this promise.

Calvinism does indeed have it taught that the elect cannot be lost. That is not a problem. There is the issue yet that we don't know who the elect are, we can just know that there are some who are already believers. They show they are with enduring through any trials. Those who are in Christ, that he knows them, have repented and love and obey him.

The word as such does occur in texts of Bible passages, such as Matthew 24:24, where there is possibility that is mentioned that when there are false Christs and false prophets, when in any way the elect can be deceived they would be. That this is possible is shown from those who were in cults with another gospel, some of whom went to that from a background in a church with the true gospel, who yet come out from that and then live for the gospel of Christ. I have seen such. If believers were already of the elect, such were the elect deceived in such cults. So it is even in lesser cases than falling for the wrong gospel that many of the elect will be deceived, and it will happen with those who are already believers.