If justification is by faith...

[Epiphoskei]

As people come and go on these boards, from time to time I repeat a contention which I have never heard satisfactorily answered. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by choice. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by will. The Bible says we're justified by faith.

To get free will into the salvation process, it is therefore necessary for the Arminian to have a notion of how the human mind and soul work wherein we choose what we have faith in. "Faith," I readily confess is a vast concept, going further than mere intellectual assent, but belief is still one significant sine qua non of saving faith. Thus, choice must also govern belief.

However, I have never chosen to believe anything in my life. If I believe something, it is because I have a reason to believe something. If I say I believe something but don't actually have some facts and arguments stored away in my brain that cause me to believe it, I'm lying, or at least overstating my own certainty. I do not believe I am alone in this condition. I have in the past issued a challenge to Arminians to arbitrarily choose to believe something in order to empirically demonstrate that the power of the will over the mind can be as they suggest it is. As of yet, no one has been willing to try to will to believe that the sky is orange.

None of this necessarily means the will is entirely divorced from belief. But does it not require that, at the very least, when we discuss the relationship of the will to conversion, we cannot consider conversion to be analogous to any old vanilla-flavored choice one makes, insofar as it applies to questions about free will? Clearly, whatever restraints exist upon the will, further restraints exist upon it as it applies to the formation of beliefs. This does necessarily torpedo libertarian free will as it pertains to conversion.

 

[Skala]

I agree. You can't choose to believe what you want. You can only believe what you're convinced is true.

 

[travelah]

Biblical faith is not merely believing. Even devils believe as the scriptures tell us. Biblical faith is also trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ. You might as well challenge me to trust in Allah as in an orange sky. It is an absurd challenge and I am not at all surprised it remains unfulfilled. I might as well ask you to demonstrate that one wakes up tomorrow morning believing in the orange polka dot sky having never chosen to do so.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Biblical faith is not merely believing. Even devils believe as the scriptures tell us. Biblical faith is also trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

This was granted, but remains irrelevant to the argument. Belief doesn't have to be sufficient to faith to be necessary to faith, and any composite concept consisting of belief plus X is still going to share the basic characteristics of belief, additional features notwithstanding.

You might as well challenge me to trust in Allah as in an orange sky. It is an absurd challenge and I am not at all surprised it remains unfulfilled.

That's rather the point. LFW applied to belief would demand this challenge be met, and the absurdity of it clearly demonstrates belief isn't governed by LFW.

I might as well ask you to demonstrate that one wakes up tomorrow morning believing in the orange polka dot sky having never chosen to do so.

This doesn't follow.

 

[shturt678]

As people come and go on these boards, from time to time I repeat a contention which I have never heard satisfactorily answered. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by choice. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by will. The Bible says we're justified by faith.

I think we need to put more separation between "a genuine faith" and "justified by faith." Enjoying the thread. Thank you.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I agree. You can't choose to believe what you want. You can only believe what you're convinced is true.

 

[janxharris]

As people come and go on these boards, from time to time I repeat a contention which I have never heard satisfactorily answered. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by choice. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by will. The Bible says we're justified by faith.

To get free will into the salvation process, it is therefore necessary for the Arminian to have a notion of how the human mind and soul work wherein we choose what we have faith in. "Faith," I readily confess is a vast concept, going further than mere intellectual assent, but belief is still one significant sine qua non of saving faith. Thus, choice must also govern belief.

However, I have never chosen to believe anything in my life. If I believe something, it is because I have a reason to believe something. If I say I believe something but don't actually have some facts and arguments stored away in my brain that cause me to believe it, I'm lying, or at least overstating my own certainty. I do not believe I am alone in this condition. I have in the past issued a challenge to Arminians to arbitrarily choose to believe something in order to empirically demonstrate that the power of the will over the mind can be as they suggest it is. As of yet, no one has been willing to try to will to believe that the sky is orange.

None of this necessarily means the will is entirely divorced from belief. But does it not require that, at the very least, when we discuss the relationship of the will to conversion, we cannot consider conversion to be analogous to any old vanilla-flavored choice one makes, insofar as it applies to questions about free will? Clearly, whatever restraints exist upon the will, further restraints exist upon it as it applies to the formation of beliefs. This does necessarily torpedo libertarian free will as it pertains to conversion.

So, if we look at the example of Abraham, then you would say that Abraham had faith because he had enough facts about God to convince him?

 

[Arcoe]

I do not believe I am alone in this condition. I have in the past issued a challenge to Arminians to arbitrarily choose to believe something in order to empirically demonstrate that the power of the will over the mind can be as they suggest it is. As of yet, no one has been willing to try to will to believe that the sky is orange.

Make your argument the sky is orange, and I will freely decide if I believe you or not.

 

[hedrick]

I don't see that belief is any different from other decisions. People may believe some things without making any real decision. But in other areas, they spend a lot of time looking at alternatives, and agonize over which makes more sense. Similarly with actions. Some just come naturally. Some are difficult decisions.

But monoergism doesn't deny that people make choices, and that some of those choices may be difficult to make. Rather, it says that the whole process is under God's providence. This applies to both belief and action.

 

[shturt678]

Let me put it another way: "Justification through faith" yet no free ticket to heaven without "Declared justified as the result of works of faith." IIPet.1:20, 21. Hope this helps?

 

[Hammster]

Make your argument the sky is orange, and I will freely decide if I believe you or not.

You just proved the OP. Congrats.

 

[travelah]

Of course it doesn't follow to you yet you asked for very much the same thing with regard to choosing to believe. Your request is equally absurd as mine.

 

[travelah]

I don't see that belief is any different from other decisions. People may believe some things without making any real decision. But in other areas, they spend a lot of time looking at alternatives, and agonize over which makes more sense. Similarly with actions. Some just come naturally. Some are difficult decisions.

But monoergism doesn't deny that people make choices, and that some of those choices may be difficult to make. Rather, it says that the whole process is under God's providence. This applies to both belief and action.

That would be the classical Arminian position.

 

[Hammster]

Of course it doesn't follow to you yet you asked for very much the same thing with regard to choosing to believe. Your request is equally absurd as mine.

Who is this addressed to?

 

[travelah]

Who is this addressed to?

Not you.

 

[bling]

As people come and go on these boards, from time to time I repeat a contention which I have never heard satisfactorily answered. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by choice. The Bible doesn't say we're justified by will. The Bible says we're justified by faith.

To get free will into the salvation process, it is therefore necessary for the Arminian to have a notion of how the human mind and soul work wherein we choose what we have faith in. "Faith," I readily confess is a vast concept, going further than mere intellectual assent, but belief is still one significant sine qua non of saving faith. Thus, choice must also govern belief.

However, I have never chosen to believe anything in my life. If I believe something, it is because I have a reason to believe something. If I say I believe something but don't actually have some facts and arguments stored away in my brain that cause me to believe it, I'm lying, or at least overstating my own certainty. I do not believe I am alone in this condition. I have in the past issued a challenge to Arminians to arbitrarily choose to believe something in order to empirically demonstrate that the power of the will over the mind can be as they suggest it is. As of yet, no one has been willing to try to will to believe that the sky is orange.

None of this necessarily means the will is entirely divorced from belief. But does it not require that, at the very least, when we discuss the relationship of the will to conversion, we cannot consider conversion to be analogous to any old vanilla-flavored choice one makes, insofar as it applies to questions about free will? Clearly, whatever restraints exist upon the will, further restraints exist upon it as it applies to the formation of beliefs. This does necessarily torpedo libertarian free will as it pertains to conversion.

Eve exhibited her “faith” by believing satan the serpent, so was that an act of her will?

She had lots of good reason the trust (believe) God and lots of reasons to be distrustful of a serpent, so why did she believe the serpent?

I would suggest Eve did not seek counseling from God and/or Adam, because the serpent was telling her what she wanted to hear, she was lusting after the fruit, she coveted this unique knowledge, and the serpent was telling her what she wanted to believe.

You example of believing “the sky is orange” is good but not correctly used since it is satan telling us “the sky is orange” and we believe satan (God is telling us it is blue), because we want to believe him, so we only go out at night or close our eyes in the day, when all we have to do is open our eyes to the day light.

Humans just do not like to be quitters; we hate to accept charity (we have our pride and egos to protect). The idea of surrendering to our enemy and trusting His mercy is not noble, since we deserve to be executed for our war crimes.

 

[Hammster]

Not you.

That much I knew, brother. I just thought you'd like for them to know.

 

[Arcoe]

You just proved the OP. Congrats.

Then Hamm, you make your argument the sky is orange. I will either freely believe you or tell you to go back to your padded room.

The Bible plainly makes its argument that man is sinful and Jesus came to save them from sin. Any man can freely choose to believe this or not.

 

[Hammster]

Then Hamm, you make your argument the sky is orange. I will either freely believe you or tell you to go back to your padded room.

The Bible plainly makes its argument that man is sinful and Jesus came to save them from sin. Any man can freely choose to believe this or not.

Why would they submit to something that they don't believe?

 

[Epiphoskei]

So, if we look at the example of Abraham, then you would say that Abraham had faith because he had enough facts about God to convince him?

No. That would be if belief were sufficient for faith and facts were sufficient for belief. Facts are merely necessary for belief, which is merely necessary for faith. Necessity precludes most definitions of free will.

Make your argument the sky is orange, and I will freely decide if I believe you or not.

Why would I ever do that? My thesis is that by free will no one can believe the sky is orange, and everyone must believe the sky is not orange. To falsify this, someone here must come and say "I believe the sky is orange." If you are unwilling to believe this, and instead want the opportunity to say that you have freely chosen to not believe the sky to be orange, you'd merely be asserting you had free will in believing, while doing nothing to actually falsify my thesis.