How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[zoidar]

@zoidar said:
God can be indirect involved in our choices and we can still have libertarian free will. For an example God can give me a dream about getting a new car. And He can keep giving me that dream until I decide to buy a new car. The argument is that predetermination can't be the cause of my willed choice for me to be responsible.

It appears I jumped the gun, so pleased as I was at hearing you say, "God can be indirect involved in our choices...".

So, if that fact —that God can be indirectly involved in our choices— is endemic to your definition of 'libertarian free will', then libertarian freewill is not without cause. Now to define "predetermination".

—Or am I jumping the gun again? Are you saying the he merely CAN be, but is not always involved in our choices in some way?

God can indirectly cause us to do something. But God is not always doing that. Everything that happens is not the will of God and naturally not decreed by God either.

‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
— Matthew 6:10

Honestly, I was happy seeing you happy. I love you too, brother. When everything comes around it's a discussion we are having, may you or I be wrong, truth is still truth and in that we can agree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No Christian is denying indirect cause.

Well, yes, they are. Even you said, "uncaused choice".

I can also cause a person to do something with indirect means. If I give a boy an ice-cream I bet he'll eat it. So I have indirectly caused him to eat it. But it's not by any means denying the choice of the free agent, in this case the boy and his libertarian free will. The boy has the last say, to eat it or not.

Of course you can. Thus you have shown cause, and your offering of the ice cream to the boy was only one of the many causes of his decision. So, again, this boy you said has the last say, HOW did he even want the ice cream to choose it?

 

[zoidar]

No more than if he couldn't make a rock too heavy for him to lift, he is not God.

I must say you have a very mathematical view of God. Though I hold to that God is a God of order. Sure God has created all the laws in the universe, but I don't think He is mathematical in that sense, that He plans every atom from the beginning so a specific future event will take place.

*Edited

 

[Mark Quayle]

I must say you have a very mathematical view of God. Though I hold to that God is a God of order. Sure God has created all the laws in the universe, but I don't think He is mathematical in that sense, that He plans every atom from the beginning for specific purpose.

But why not?

 

[zoidar]

Well, yes, they are. Even you said, "uncaused choice".

I think you might misunderstand something about my view of uncaused choice. The person can still not choose things that are totally against his nature. For an example. I can not choose to go out and steal cars, because that is not an available option for me at this moment, since I'm not a thief. But I have millions of other options to choose from by my libertarian free will. I don't believe one specific choice of those million is predetermined for me to do.

Of course you can. Thus you have shown cause, and your offering of the ice cream to the boy was only one of the many causes of his decision. So, again, this boy you said has the last say, HOW did he even want the ice cream to choose it?

I agree our choices are very much influnced by things around us. It's just that being influnced doesn't mean that our choices are influenced to the degree there is no libertarian free will.

I realize I can't prove it, but this is what I believe from experience and Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

But why not?

Of course God uses atoms to build the universe. In that sense He has a purpose for every atom. What I meant is that I don't believe God created this or this atom for some event to come to pass in the future, like making some atoms so Judas would betray Jesus. I don't think it works mathematically in that way.

 

[Clare73]

God can be indirect involved in our choices and we can still have libertarian free will. For an example God can give me a dream about getting a new car. And He can keep giving me that dream until I decide to buy a new car. The argument is that predetermination can't be the cause of my willed choice for me to be responsible.

The problem here is assertion of a non-Biblical "free will," assumed to be necessary for a just moral responsibility.
Let's have a look at how Scripture deals with predetermination (sovereignty of God), free will and responsibility.

Free Will:
The Bible does not teach the" free will" of unregenerate man. Free will is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero) asserted by Pelagius, a British monk around 400 AD, on the assumption that the moral responsibility of man requires that man have a free will.
Biblically, this is not so.

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36; cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).
Free will (self-power) was lost in the fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot do the good (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). Free will (self-power) means the freedom (power) to do the good; i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31), to be sinless.
Unregenerate man no longer has that power (Ro 5:6, 7:18, 8:7-8; Jn 15:5), which is the meaning of the depravity of man.

What unregenerate man has is" free agency," the freedom to do what he wishes or desires, to act voluntarily according to his disposition. But with his unregenerate (fallen) nature, his disposition is toward evil; i.e., self-interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30; Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23). The difference between free will and free agency is not just semantics, it's the difference between being able to obey God and not being able to obey God (Ro 8:7-8). The regenerate man can obey God, not because of self-power (free will), but because of the power of the Holy Spirit who transforms his disposition (Ro 8:9).

The conclusion to this is:
there is no conflict in Scripture between the absolute sovereignty of God (Da 4:35; Acts 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; Lk 22:22; Ro 8:29-30, 9:14-29, 11:25-34; Eph 1:4-12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:2) and the free will of man,
because the Bible does not teach that man has free will (Ro 3:9-12, 23, 6:6, 17-22, 7:14, 24-25, 8:7).

Man is only a free agent, choosing voluntarily according to his disposition, which is corrupt and evil (Ge 6:5, 8:21; Jer 17:9; Mt 7:11; Jn 1:5, 3:19). God exercises his sovereignty over man, not by compelling their acts or wills contrary to their preferences or dispositions (which would be an overriding of their free agency), but by operating through their dispositions (Ge 20:6; Ex 3:21; Dt 2:25, 30; Jos 11:20; 1 Sa 10:9; Ezra 1:1, 5, 7:27; Ne2:12, 7:5; Ps 105:25, 106:46; Pr21:1; Ez 36:27; Da1:9; 2 Co 8:16; Rev 17:17), to which their wills freely respond.

So that there is no conflict between the sovereignty of God and the free agency of man, because man still acts voluntarily according to his wishes and desires, he still voluntarily chooses to do what he prefers, which is the meaning of free agency (and what many think is the meaning of "free will;" i.e. the power to make all moral choices).

So the Bible does not teach the ability of unregenerate man to always choose the good (Jn 8:35), it teaches only the ability of unregenerate man to choose voluntarily (Ex 25:2; Ezra 7:13), and it teaches that when man voluntarily chooses to do what pleases God (keeping in mind that anything done by God's enemy; i.e., those apart from faith in Jesus Christ, has no ability to please God), it is only because the power of God works it in him (Ezra 1:5; Jn 6:65; 1 Co 2:14, 15:10; Php 2:13; Heb 13:21).
Unregenerate man cannot obey God, his will is governed by his fallen disposition.

Responsibility:
The Bible teaches that, even though man's will is not free (Jn 8:34) and, therefore, he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7), man is responsible for sin (Ro 3:19b, 14:12). But how can man be responsible for sin if he is unable to obey God. Consider the analogy: an invalid borrowed money from you on the promise that he would repay you from his inheritance at his father's death. The invalid has contracted a just debt, which he is responsible to pay. But suppose when the invalid comes into his inheritance, a con artist cons him out of the whole inheritance before his debt is paid, and the con artist is nowhere to be found. The invalid is still responsible for his just debt, although he is unable to pay.

The principle here is that responsibility to pay is not based in ability to pay, but in what is justly owed. Likewise, responsibility to obey God is not based on man's ability to obey God, but on what man justly owes God. God is the center of the universe, not man (Rev 4:11). God is the potter who owns everything he has created (Ex 19:5, Dt 10:14, Job 41:11, Ps 24:1, 50:12, Eze 18:4), including man (Isa 45:9, Jer 18:6). He has a right to obedience from man (Lk 17:10) and, therefore, obedience is justly owed to him. Man's impotency does not release him from that just debt, because man's responsibility does not issue from his ability to pay, but from what he justly owes.

Now while justice requires the invalid to pay his debt to you, justice will not be done in your case, because the invalid is unable to pay. However, with God justice is always done. If we do not pay our debt (through Jesus Christ), we will be thrown into debtors' prison, even though we are powerless to pay it. Justice will be exacted of us to the last penny (Mt 5:26, 18:34) by God our adversary (Ro 5:10), with whom we are warned to settle our accounts (through Jesus Christ) before they come into his court of (the final) judgment (Mt 5:25).
So man is responsible for his sin (Mt 12:36), even though he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7). . .God having provided the remedy for his dire straights.

Conclusion:
Justice does not require free will in order for man to be responsible for sin.


philosophical free will -- the Bible denies such (John 6:65, 8:34)

philosophical free agency = Biblical free will (Exodus 25:2; Ezra 7:13)

 

[zoidar]

The problem here is assertion of a non-Biblical "free will," assumed to be necessary for a just moral responsibility.
Let's have a look at how Scripture deals with predetermination (sovereignty of God), free will and responsibility.

Free Will:
The Bible does not teach the" free will" of unregenerate man. Free will is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero) asserted by Pelagius, a British monk around 400 AD, on the assumption that the moral responsibility of man requires that man have a free will. Biblically, this is not so.

Even if term "free will" was introduced by men in the 4th century, it doesn't mean the philosophy wasn't existing by Early Christians. To the contrary I will argue that you find the philosophy of free will among the Early Church Fathers and we are not talking compatibilist "free will".

Not much unlike the term "trinity" which was introduced in 200's, but I'm sure the concept existed among the apostles.

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36; cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).
Free will (self-power) was lost in the fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot do the good (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). Free will (self-power) means the freedom (power) to do the good; i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31), to be sinless.
Unregenerate man no longer has that power (Ro 5:6, 7:18, 8:7-8; Jn 15:5), which is the meaning of the depravity of man.

What unregenerate man has is" free agency," the freedom to do what he wishes or desires, to act voluntarily according to his disposition. But with his unregenerate (fallen) nature, his disposition is toward evil; i.e., self-interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30; Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23). The difference between free will and free agency is not just semantics, it's the difference between being able to obey God and not being able to obey God (Ro 8:7-8). The regenerate man can obey God, not because of self-power (free will), but because of the power of the Holy Spirit who transforms his disposition (Ro 8:9).

The conclusion to this is:
there is no conflict in Scripture between the absolute sovereignty of God (Da 4:35; Acts 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; Lk 22:22; Ro 8:29-30, 9:14-29, 11:25-34; Eph 1:4-12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:2) and the free will of man,
because the Bible does not teach that man has free will (Ro 3:9-12, 23, 6:6, 17-22, 7:14, 24-25, 8:7).

Man is only a free agent, choosing voluntarily according to his disposition, which is corrupt and evil (Ge 6:5, 8:21; Jer 17:9; Mt 7:11; Jn 1:5, 3:19). God exercises his sovereignty over man, not by compelling their acts or wills contrary to their preferences or dispositions (which would be an overriding of their free agency), but by operating through their dispositions (Ge 20:6; Ex 3:21; Dt 2:25, 30; Jos 11:20; 1 Sa 10:9; Ezra 1:1, 5, 7:27; Ne2:12, 7:5; Ps 105:25, 106:46; Pr21:1; Ez 36:27; Da1:9; 2 Co 8:16; Rev 17:17), to which their wills freely respond.

So that there is no conflict between the sovereignty of God and the free agency of man, because man still acts voluntarily according to his wishes and desires, he still voluntarily chooses to do what he prefers, which is the meaning of free agency (and what many think is the meaning of "free will;" i.e. the power to make all moral choices).

So the Bible does not teach the ability of unregenerate man to always choose the good (Jn 8:35), it teaches only the ability of unregenerate man to choose voluntarily (Ex 25:2; Ezra 7:13), and it teaches that when man voluntarily chooses to do what pleases God (keeping in mind that anything done by God's enemy; i.e., those apart from faith in Jesus Christ, has no ability to please God), it is only because the power of God works it in him (Ezra 1:5; Jn 6:65; 1 Co 2:14, 15:10; Php 2:13; Heb 13:21).
Unregenerate man cannot obey God, his will is governed by his fallen disposition.

Responsibility:
The Bible teaches that, even though man's will is not free (Jn 8:34) and, therefore, he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7), man is responsible for sin (Ro 3:19b, 14:12). But how can man be responsible for sin if he is unable to obey God. Consider the analogy: an invalid borrowed money from you on the promise that he would repay you from his inheritance at his father's death. The invalid has contracted a just debt, which he is responsible to pay. But suppose when the invalid comes into his inheritance, a con artist cons him out of the whole inheritance before his debt is paid, and the con artist is nowhere to be found. The invalid is still responsible for his just debt, although he is unable to pay.

The principle here is that responsibility to pay is not based in ability to pay, but in what is justly owed. Likewise, responsibility to obey God is not based on man's ability to obey God, but on what man justly owes God. God is the center of the universe, not man (Rev 4:11). God is the potter who owns everything he has created (Ex 19:5, Dt 10:14, Job 41:11, Ps 24:1, 50:12, Eze 18:4), including man (Isa 45:9, Jer 18:6). He has a right to obedience from man (Lk 17:10) and, therefore, obedience is justly owed to him. Man's impotency does not release him from that just debt, because man's responsibility does not issue from his ability to pay, but from what he justly owes.

Now while justice requires the invalid to pay his debt to you, justice will not be done in your case, because the invalid is unable to pay. However, with God justice is always done. If we do not pay our debt (through Jesus Christ), we will be thrown into debtors' prison, even though we are powerless to pay it. Justice will be exacted of us to the last penny (Mt 5:26, 18:34) by God our adversary (Ro 5:10), with whom we are warned to settle our accounts (through Jesus Christ) before they come into his court of (the final) judgment (Mt 5:25).
So man is responsible for his sin (Mt 12:36), even though he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7). . .God having provided the remedy for his dire straights.

Conclusion:
Justice does not require free will in order for man to be responsible for sin.


philosophical free will -- the Bible denies such (John 6:65, 8:34)

philosophical free agency = Biblical free will (Exodus 25:2; Ezra 7:13)

I have not argued for that man can by his own libertarian free will choose Christ. What I have been arguing for is that God has not predetermined whether I choose tea or coffee. Maybe that will give you some ease?

Btw, thanks for putting effort into your post! Though there are tons of Bible verses! To go through them all, and the passages where they belong will take a lot of time, more than I'm willing to spend to prove a point.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course God uses atoms to build the universe. In that sense He has a purpose for every atom. What I meant is that I don't believe God created this or this atom for some event to come to pass in the future, like making some atoms so Judas would betray Jesus. I don't think it works mathematically in that way.

In two ways I see fault with that: 1. God doesn't do anything random. 2. Logically following his speaking EVERYTHING into existence, is the particularity of all things.

But both those are two ways to say the same thing. To me, it makes no sense to say that he didn't intend absolutely every detail, precisely as it falls out. I can see no way it is possible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare73 said:
The problem here is assertion of a non-Biblical "free will," assumed to be necessary for a just moral responsibility.
Let's have a look at how Scripture deals with predetermination (sovereignty of God), free will and responsibility.

Even the if term "free will" was introduced by men in the 4th century, it doesn't mean the philosophy wasn't existing by Early Christians. To the contrary I will argue that you find the philosophy of free will among the Early Church Fathers and we are not talking compatibilist "free will".

Not unlike the term "trinity" which was introduced in 200's, but I'm sure the concept existed among the apostles.

Maybe we could substitute the notion of 'self-determination' to clear this up. Does libertarian free will decide anything contrary to what God spoke into fact? Does the notion demand that man alone, not God, chooses what will be decided?

Clare73 said:
The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36; cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).
Free will (self-power) was lost in the fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot do the good (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). Free will (self-power) means the freedom (power) to do the good; i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31), to be sinless.
Unregenerate man no longer has that power (Ro 5:6, 7:18, 8:7-8; Jn 15:5), which is the meaning of the depravity of man.

What unregenerate man has is" free agency," the freedom to do what he wishes or desires, to act voluntarily according to his disposition. But with his unregenerate (fallen) nature, his disposition is toward evil; i.e., self-interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30; Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23). The difference between free will and free agency is not just semantics, it's the difference between being able to obey God and not being able to obey God (Ro 8:7-8). The regenerate man can obey God, not because of self-power (free will), but because of the power of the Holy Spirit who transforms his disposition (Ro 8:9).

I have not argued for that man can by his own libertarian free will choose Christ. What I have been arguing for is that God has not predetermined whether I choose tea or coffee. Maybe that will give you some ease?

I think you have argued that. Are you backing off it now?

But even if you are insistent on libertarian freewill for the born-again, I think you HAVE to say that the lost also have it. Otherwise you are invoking motivation, and not quite the freedom you claim.

 

[zoidar]

I think you have argued that. Are you backing off it now?

But even if you are insistent on libertarian freewill for the born-again, I think you HAVE to say that the lost also have it. Otherwise you are invoking motivation, and not quite the freedom you claim.

In that case you have misunderstood what I have been arguing for. I have not argued that man can choose Christ from free libertarian will, neither have I argued man can't, because I'm not sure.

What I have argued for is that everyone both believers and unbelivers have libertarian free will. But that doesn't mean that they can choose anything. They can only choose among available options. If choosing Christ isn't an available option, they can't make that choice.

I was going to respond tomorrow, but I had to respond to this now. I will reply to the rest tomorrow.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you might misunderstand something about my view of uncaused choice. The person can still not choose things that are totally against his nature. For an example. I can not choose to go out and steal cars, because that is not an available option for me at this moment, since I'm not a thief. But I have millions of other options to choose from by my libertarian free will. I don't believe one specific choice of those million is predetermined for me to do.

I agree there are options all around you to choose from. (But you will only ever choose what you will choose. You cannot prove anything else was possible, except in the mind of the chooser. Crazy as that may sound to someone who has always heard of chance and possibility, it is still undefeated, as far as I have heard. Also, note: Believing this, does not change the concept of choice in the least. One still see options, and chooses from among them.)

And the lost will choose, even if they think they "choose Christ", of their sinful nature, not choosing Christ, but choose their concept, and for their own reasons. It is not a choice of integrity, but of self, completely contrary to salvific faith, not submission, with only an emotional form of "repentance". Please note: Regeneration may even be simultaneous WITH the repentance and faith, but according to causation; it is only done by the Spirit of God, for the elect to become saved. The repentance, submission, belief, love for Christ, etc are results, and even those, STILL of faith that is a gift of God, generated by God.

I agree our choices are very much influnced by things around us. It's just that being influnced doesn't mean that our choices are influenced to the degree there is no libertarian free will.

I realize I can't prove it, but this is what I believe from experience and Scripture.

Our choices are not influenced to the degree that our choices are not real, is all that means, are far as I know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When everything comes around it's a discussion we are having, may you or I be wrong, truth is still truth and in that we can agree.

Amen that, brother! And we will see the truth in person, soon enough!

I also hope you can recognize in me, as I recognize it in you, that our words are only that in the end.

We do the best we can, but when we seem him as he is, our words will have seemed silly at best. Child's prattle.

 

[Clare73]

Even if term "free will" was introduced by men in the 4th century, it doesn't mean the philosophy wasn't existing by Early Christians.
To the contrary, I will argue that you find the philosophy of free will among the Early Church Fathers

Well, if it did exist, it did so in contradiction of Scripture:

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36; cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).
Free will (self-power) was lost in the fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot do the good (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). Free will (self-power) means the freedom (power) to do the good; i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31), to be sinless.
Unregenerate man no longer has that power (Ro 5:6, 7:18, 8:7-8; Jn 15:5), which is the meaning of the depravity of man.

and we are not talking compatibilist "free will".
Not much unlike the term "trinity" which was introduced in 200's, but I'm sure the concept existed among the apostles.
I have not argued for that man can by his own libertarian free will choose Christ. What I have been arguing for is that God has not predetermined whether I choose tea or coffee.

My response is not related to your morning tea or coffee.
My response is to your personal assertion regarding free will as necessary for just moral responsibility.

Maybe that will give you some ease?
Btw, thanks for putting effort into your post! Though there are tons of Bible verses! To go through them all, and the passages where they belong will take a lot of time, more than I'm willing to spend to prove a point.

 

[zoidar]

Well, if it did exist, it did so in contradiction of Scripture:

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36; cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).
Free will (self-power) was lost in the fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot do the good (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). Free will (self-power) means the freedom (power) to do the good; i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31), to be sinless.
Unregenerate man no longer has that power (Ro 5:6, 7:18, 8:7-8; Jn 15:5), which is the meaning of the depravity of man.

My response is not related to your morning tea or coffee.
My response is to your personal assertion regarding free will as necessary for just moral responsibility.

"Coffee or tea", meaningly "worldly" and "spiritual" matters that not directly relates to salvation, but are indeed about moral responsibility.

In other words I have not argued for us being able to come to Christ by free libertarian will, as I told Mark. But moral responsibility is a wider concept.

I looked at your post again. In much of what you say I agree. The unbeliever can't obey God, only the believer can. That is of course true. But that is not what my argumentation is about. It's whether every action is predetermined or if we have libertarian free will. Libertarian free will as I understand it is not about whether we can choose to come to Christ or if we can choose to obey God or not, but if we can choose things in life without them being predetermined by God, like what clothes I will wear for work, and morally things like if I stop to help the guy who fell off the bike, if I'm going to steal from the company etc.

It almost seems like we talk passed each other or like you haven't understood my argumentation.

 

[Clare73]

"Coffee or tea", meaningly "worldly" and "spiritual" matters that not directly relates to salvation, but are indeed about moral responsibility.

In terms of sin if violated?

In other words I have not argued for us being able to come to Christ by free libertarian will, as I told Mark. But moral responsibility is a wider concept.

I looked at your post again. In much of what you say I agree. The unbeliever can't obey God, only the believer can. That is of course true. But that is not what my argumentation is about. It's whether every action is predetermined or if we have libertarian free will. Libertarian free will as I understand it is not about whether we can choose to come to Christ or not or if we can choose to obey God or not, but if we can choose things in life without them being predetermined by God, like what clothes I will wear for work, if I stop to help the guy who fell off the bike, if I'm going to steal from the company etc.

It almost seems like we talk passed each other or like you haven't understood my argumentation.

Did I misunderstand the "responsibility" to which you were referring?

Probably so, when you use the term "libertarian free will."
The early church fathers were interested in libertarian free will?
I assumed the free will would be faith related.

I addressed "moral responsibility" in terms of righteousness. . .in the context of sin, which is what moral responsibility is really about for the Christian. . .gotta' a one-track mind.

Sorry for sticking my nose in it.

 

[zoidar]

In terms of sin if violated?

Did I misunderstand the "responsibility" to which you were referring?

Probably so, when you use the term "libertarian free will."
The early church fathers were interested in libertarian free will?
I assumed the free will would be faith related.

I addressed "moral responsibility" in terms of righteousness. . .in the context of sin, which is what moral responsibility is really about for the Christian. . .gotta' a one-track mind.

Sorry for sticking my nose in it.

See you tomorrow. If I write anything more now it will not make sense even to myself ... Good night!

 

[zoidar]

In terms of sin if violated?

Did I misunderstand the "responsibility" to which you were referring?

Probably so, when you use the term "libertarian free will."
The early church fathers were interested in libertarian free will?
I assumed the free will would be faith related.

I addressed "moral responsibility" in terms of righteousness. . .in the context of sin, which is what moral responsibility is really about for the Christian. . .gotta' a one-track mind.

Sorry for sticking my nose in it.

Both the unbeliever and the believer can choose by free libertarian will to do what is morally right, i.e. chosing not to sin and do righteous acts: not stealing from the job, helping someone that is in trouble, help the poor, avoid getting drunk etc.

However the unbeliever can not be righteous to God without turning to God for forgiveness. It doesn't matter how morally right the unbeliever is, he can't serve God, because his heart doesn't belong to God. The unbeliever also doesn't have his moral compass fine-tuned in accordance with God's will like the believer. He can't obey God, since he doesn't know God's will for his life.

The believer can obey God, live for and be righteous before God. By free libertarian will he can do things that are impossible for the unbeliever, like praying to God through the Spirit, share the gospel, search for God's will in his life, commune with other Christians etc. How much time and effort he spend serving God or spend in sin is a free libertarian decision.

What I have not argued for is that the unbeliever can by free libertarian will come to Christ for forgiveness and become a Christian. The reason I haven't is because I don't know if he can. Neither do I know what role libertarian free will plays in the conversion. Sure we could discuss that, but that has not been my purpose to discuss so far.

 

[zoidar]

In two ways I see fault with that: 1. God doesn't do anything random. 2. Logically following his speaking EVERYTHING into existence, is the particularity of all things.

But both those are two ways to say the same thing. To me, it makes no sense to say that he didn't intend absolutely every detail, precisely as it falls out. I can see no way it is possible.

I don't think God creates randomly either, but I don't believe God intended every detail, since that would mean He intended all the sins in the world, which in turn means He intended things that are against His nature, which by itself must be a contradiction. And why would an all holy, all good God intend sin with creation?

 

[zoidar]

I agree there are options all around you to choose from. (But you will only ever choose what you will choose. You cannot prove anything else was possible, except in the mind of the chooser. Crazy as that may sound to someone who has always heard of chance and possibility, it is still undefeated, as far as I have heard. Also, note: Believing this, does not change the concept of choice in the least. One still see options, and chooses from among them.)

And the lost will choose, even if they think they "choose Christ", of their sinful nature, not choosing Christ, but choose their concept, and for their own reasons. It is not a choice of integrity, but of self, completely contrary to salvific faith, not submission, with only an emotional form of "repentance".

The way you put it is good. Sadly there are Christians who believe in Christ but have not submitted their life to God. I will say, and I don't know if you agree, this is not a matter of theology, but a matter of the heart. Though a good theology can steer our heart right.

Please note: Regeneration may even be simultaneous WITH the repentance and faith, but according to causation; it is only done by the Spirit of God, for the elect to become saved. The repentance, submission, belief, love for Christ, etc are results, and even those, STILL of faith that is a gift of God, generated by God.

I would disagree to the order you suggest. Belief, repentance, submission of the heart first, then the gift of God the Holy Spirit, salvation which is faith, love for Christ, submission of life.

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
— Acts 2:38

Our choices are not influenced to the degree that our choices are not real, is all that means, are far as I know.