Free Will vs Election

[Honoluluwindow]

Yes. "Libertarian free will" only exists in people imaginations.

We do what we most desire to do, 100% of the time, and sinners choose sin 100% of the time.

However once a man is born again he now has a dual capacity. I can choose not to sin. But because of my flesh, in times of trials and weakness I allow my flesh get control of my will, my mind resulting in sin.

 

[TaylorSexton]

However once a man is born again he now has a dual capacity. I can choose not to sin. But because of my flesh, in times of trials and weakness I allow my flesh get control of my will, my mind resulting in sin.

Correct. According to Augustine, we are moved from a state of non posse non peccare (not able not to sin) to posse non peccare (able not to sin).

 

[Thursday]

Then you simply didn't read my post, because I directly opposed what you are arguing.

You wrote: What person would take medicine (an action) unless he or she first believed it would benefit them (or at least not harm them).


Belief and Action. How is that not faith and works?

Using your analogy, what good is a medicine that you believe will work if you don't take it?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Belief and Action. How is that not faith and works?

You need to complete the analogy according to the purpose for which I made it. Yes, it is faith and works, but the purpose of the analogy is that it shows that works proceed from faith/belief.

Using your analogy, what good is a medicine that you believe will work if you don't take it?

This is where you seem to be confused (as well as the whole modern semi-Pelagian model, in my experience). By the nature of what you ask, you seem to believe that belief and action are not only distinct entities, but separable entities. This is simply not the case; it goes against experience and reason. Belief and action are distinct (i.e., they are not the same thing), but they are at the same time inseparable. A person who believes something will act on it—every time. Otherwise, they don't really believe it. To follow the analogy I gave, a person who truly believed that a medicine would benefit them would take it. There is no such thing as a person who would say (without deception, that is), "I believe this medicine will help me, but I will not take it." That is an absurdity. Either they believe the medicine will help them and they take it, or they don't believe it and they don't (all else being equal).

It's like the sun and its rays. I cannot say that the suns rays cause the sun to be lit. On the contrary, it is the fact of the sun being lit that causes the rays. However, I can say that the sun's rays show that it is indeed lit. It is the same way with salvation, faith and works. We are saved by grace, through faith. The works involved (Eph. 2:10) do not cause the salvation, because salvation is by faith. However, I can say that works show that my faith is genuine. That is why James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). The issue is not faith vs. works, but true faith vs. false faith. In the end, the issue is still faith.

Belief produces works; works verify faith. This is the whole argument of James 2:14 ff.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

However once a man is born again he now has a dual capacity. I can choose not to sin. But because of my flesh, in times of trials and weakness I allow my flesh get control of my will, my mind resulting in sin.

We are always free to do what we desire most. What changes, when we are changed, is our desires.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You know, now that I think about it, the title of this thread (which I assume was the title of the debate posted in the OP) is quite unfair: its foundation is a false dichotomy that assumes the reality of its own position. To ask the question "Free Will vs. Election" assumes a priori that free will and election are opposed to one another. So, it seems to me that the topic of the debate and, by extension, the title of this thread are circular and fallacious by nature.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You know, now that I think about it, the title of this thread (which I assume was the title of the debate posted in the OP) is quite unfair: its foundation is a false dichotomy that assumes the reality of its own position. To ask the question "Free Will vs. Election" assumes a priori that free will and election are opposed to one another. So, it seems to me that the topic of the debate and, by extension, the title of this thread are circular and fallacious by nature.

Yes. It's a false dichotomy. I also pointed that out, earlier in the thread.

 

[Thursday]

You need to complete the analogy according to the purpose for which I made it. Yes, it is faith and works, but the purpose of the analogy is that it shows that works proceed from faith/belief.



This is where you seem to be confused (as well as the whole modern semi-Pelagian model, in my experience). By the nature of what you ask, you seem to believe that belief and action are not only distinct entities, but separable entities. This is simply not the case; it goes against experience and reason. Belief and action are distinct (i.e., they are not the same thing), but they are at the same time inseparable. A person who believes something will act on it—every time. Otherwise, they don't really believe it. To follow the analogy I gave, a person who truly believed that a medicine would benefit them would take it. There is no such thing as a person who would say (without deception, that is), "I believe this medicine will help me, but I will not take it." That is an absurdity. Either they believe the medicine will help them and they take it, or they don't believe it and they don't (all else being equal).

It's like the sun and its rays. I cannot say that the suns rays cause the sun to be lit. On the contrary, it is the fact of the sun being lit that causes the rays. However, I can say that the sun's rays show that it is indeed lit. It is the same way with salvation, faith and works. We are saved by grace, through faith. The works involved (Eph. 2:10) do not cause the salvation, because salvation is by faith. However, I can say that works show that my faith is genuine. That is why James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). The issue is not faith vs. works, but true faith vs. false faith. In the end, the issue is still faith.

Belief produces works; works verify faith. This is the whole argument of James 2:14 ff.

Belief and action are distinct entities. A person may believe that an act is immoral but commit it anyway.

Only those who endure will be saved. Believe all you want, but if you live a life of disobedience to Jesus you will not be saved.

Matt 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[TaylorSexton]

A person may believe that an act is immoral but commit it anyway.

Your example is irrelevant, because belief about the quality of an action is not the same as belief in regard to whether or not to do an action is desirable. Of course people say something is immoral, yet they do it anyway; that belief and action are not contradictory. Now, if someone were to say that they do not want to do something (because not we are talking about conviction, not just mere assessment), yet they do it anyway, then their action shows that either 1) they were lying about their belief/desire, or 2) they did not believe what they thought they believed. Either way, they didn't believe whatever would prevent them from doing the action.

Here is a biblical example to prove my point: "Without faith (belief) it is impossible to please (action) him, for whoever would draw near (action) to God must believe (belief) that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." In both cases, the belief precedes the action, and the action directly corresponds to the belief. Nobody will draw near to something they don't first believe exists; it is an absurdity—contrary to reason and experience. Again, this is the whole argument of James 2:14 ff. I didn't realize it was this difficult to grasp. Or, is it perhaps that you do not wish to grasp it? Even in that case, belief precedes and is followed by corresponding action!

 

[Thursday]

Your example is irrelevant, because belief about the quality of an action is not the same as belief in regard to whether or not to do an action is desirable.

You said belief precedes action. I proved that you were mistaken.

Belief doesn't dictate behavior.

We will be judged for our actions, not our beliefs.

2 Cor 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You said belief precedes action. I proved that you were mistaken.

And I provided Scripture and argued from reason (at length) that showed otherwise. If you think all you have to do to refute these claims is to plug your ears and say, "No, I 'proved' [a wildly overstated verb, by the way] you wrong," then you are pathetically mistaken, friend. That is not profitable discussion.

Belief doesn't dictate behavior.

We will be judged for our actions, not our beliefs.

If I found these statements anywhere other than on a Christian forum, I would be forced to conclude that whoever wrote them has never read any significant portion of Scripture in their life. I have to believe that you are saying these things merely to protect your own theology, and not that you are just supremely ignorant of the message of gospel. Either way, you end up in error.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Belief doesn't dictate behavior.

This is such a nonsensical statement that I am having a difficult time grasping it. It is apparent you have spent little time, if any at all, thinking about these things. Do you think actions just appear out of nowhere, utterly unprovoked? Surely you would not be so naive and simple-minded.

 

[TaylorSexton]

We will be judged for our actions, not our beliefs.

I agree with the former half, but the latter half is 1) absolutely foreign to Scripture and 2) a false dichotomy you have imposed to protect your theology. You are arguing in circles, arguing for your position using statements that assume your position.

In either case, the point is not whether we are judged according to our works. I affirm this wholeheartedly, because Scripture teaches it; on this we agree. Rather, the issue is upstream from this. The question is not whether we are judged by our works; again, this is agreed, as far as I am aware, by all. Rather, the issue is this: "Whence these works?" You seem to assert that actions have absolutely no impetus whatsoever. I am baffled by this assertion, because it is entirely against Scripture, reason, and all experience, and I frankly have no idea where you get the notion, except from your desire to, again, protect your theology. I would challenge you to provide one example (just one!) of anyone who committed any sort of act that was not rooted in a belief that such an action was to be desired.

Regardless, your belief reduces humanity to nothing but Venus fly traps, nothing more than a bundle of nerves responding to physical stimuli, because actions are not rooted in beliefs. Your assertions, when driven to their logical conclusions, leads to pure naturalism, which of necessity entails atheism. Yours is a dangerous road, friend.

 

[Thursday]

I agree with the former half, but the latter half is 1) absolutely foreign to Scripture and 2) a false dichotomy you have imposed to protect your theology. You are arguing in circles, arguing for your position using statements that assume your position.

In either case, the point is not whether we are judged according to our works. I affirm this wholeheartedly, because Scripture teaches it; on this we agree. Rather, the issue is upstream from this. The question is not whether we are judged by our works; again, this is agreed, as far as I am aware, by all. Rather, the issue is this: "Whence these works?" You seem to assert that actions have absolutely no impetus whatsoever. I am baffled by this assertion, because it is entirely against Scripture, reason, and all experience, and I frankly have no idea where you get the notion, except from your desire to, again, protect your theology. I would challenge you to provide one example (just one!) of anyone who committed any sort of act that was not rooted in a belief that such an action was to be desired.

Regardless, your belief reduces humanity to nothing but Venus fly traps, nothing more than a bundle of nerves responding to physical stimuli, because actions are not rooted in beliefs. Your assertions, when driven to their logical conclusions, leads to pure naturalism, which of necessity entails atheism. Yours is a dangerous road, friend.

I noticed you completely ignored the scripture I posted and just repeated your man made dogma.

We are created in the image of God. We can choose to cooperate with his grace or to reject it.

Our beliefs influence, but don't dictate, our actions.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I noticed you completely ignored the scripture I posted and just repeated your man made dogma.

Which would have made sense, had you actually taken the effort read all of what I have spent some much time trying to communicate to you. Once again, I do not dispute the fact that we are judged by our works. I have said that several times now. The scriptures you gave support only that claim, and I agree, of course. However, as I plainly said, the issue is far upstream from that; I need you to move there where I am, rather than evading by trying to be clever with your responses. I assume you actually want to have intelligent dialogue, no? Then please, put forth the effort necessary to do so.

I said that the issue is not whether we are judged by our works, but rather lies in this question: Where do these works come from? The scriptures you provided speak only to the former (on which we agree), not the latter (which is the point of contention here), which is why I did not address them.

Our beliefs influence, but don't dictate, our actions.

This is closer to reality than you were before. We are moving in the right direction, at least. It is still contrary to reason and experience (and Scripture), but at least we are getting somewhere.

 

[Thursday]

This is closer to reality than you were before. We are moving in the right direction, at least. It is still contrary to reason and experience (and Scripture), but at least we are getting somewhere.

I'm not moving anywhere. I stand on the truth.

You follow a modern dogma that is nowhere to be found in the early Church.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I'm not moving anywhere. I stand on the truth.

You follow a modern dogma that is nowhere to be found in the early Church.

Unfortunately, blanket assertions without evidence and argumentation are empty and useless, and certainly do not contribute to healthy theological discussion. I could play the same game and say the exact same kinds of things about you, but I won't, because I realize that such babble leads nowhere. If you expect to have serious discussion, you are going to have to put forth more effort and substance than this.

Just curious: How much historic Protestant literature have you actually read? Have you seen, for example, how much John Calvin roots his doctrinal discussions in the Apostolic and Church Fathers? I suspect you've read very little, if any at all, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement to the effect that what we are arguing for "is nowhere to be found in the early Church." Perhaps you should broaden your literary and theological horizons before making such statements.

Besides, you fail to realize that the early Church was 1) not Roman and 2) not at all unified in doctrine. That fact alone should dissuade us from seeking to "go back to the early Church" without first consulting the ultimate authority of Scripture, which was exactly the Reformers' program.

 

[Thursday]

Unfortunately, blanket assertions without evidence and argumentation are empty and useless, and certainly do not contribute to healthy theological discussion. I could play the same game and say the exact same kinds of things about you, but I won't, because I realize that such babble leads nowhere. If you expect to have serious discussion, you are going to have to put forth more effort and substance than this.

Just curious: How much historic Protestant literature have you actually read? Have you seen, for example, how much John Calvin roots his doctrinal discussions in the Apostolic and Church Fathers? I suspect you've read very little, if any at all, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement to the effect that what we are arguing for "is nowhere to be found in the early Church." Perhaps you should broaden your literary and theological horizons before making such statements.

Besides, you fail to realize that the early Church was 1) not Roman and 2) not at all unified in doctrine. That fact alone should dissuade us from seeking to "go back to the early Church" without first consulting the ultimate authority of Scripture, which was exactly the Reformers' program.

I'm a former protestant. It's funny to think about "historic" protestant literature that emerged 1400 years or more after Jesus built his Church.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I'm a former protestant. It's funny to think about "historic" protestant literature that emerged 1400 years or more after Jesus built his Church.

Nice evasion. You haven't read anything, yet you expect to be taken seriously. Pathetic.

You know exactly what I meant by "historic." Being a smart alec is not conducive to edifying Christian theological discussion. But, at least I know now that you take age to be a greater authority than the Word of God (which, ironically, is eternal). No wonder you converted to Rome. Aversion to truth fits in well there, as it has almost since its conception (which was not in the early Church, mind you).

 

[Thursday]

Nice evasion. You haven't read anything, yet you expect to be taken seriously. Pathetic.

You know exactly what I meant by "historic." Being a smart alec is not conducive to edifying Christian theological discussion. But, at least I know now that you take age to be a greater authority than the Word of God (which, ironically, is eternal). No wonder you converted to Rome. Aversion to truth fits in well there, as it has almost since its conception (which was not in the early Church, mind you).

You ignore my point and post gibberish.

Catholics know the Bible is the Word of God. After all, it's our book.