Quoting Calvin

[Truthfrees]

older views held by Calvinism and current hyper-calvinists, but rejected by other modern Calvinists or four point Calvinists,

how many types of calvinism are there

wow this is so complicated

i'm having trouble understanding calvin's points / scripture interpretation from the links in the other thread - i read his words and think what did he just say? - and reading the foundational scriptures don't clarify because i see a different interpretation

then it looked like 2 calvinists were arguing with each other on this thread

so i'm not getting any closer to understanding calvinism

it seems like it is a huge complicated ideology that will take a long time to sort through

the things the non-c's said on this thread make sense to me

the non-c's don't seem to be arguing with each other even though we all come from different denominations

i might have to give up on trying to understand calvinism for myself and just trust what the non-c's say about it

especially if calvinists don't answer my questions

God bless you

 

[anna ~ grace]

I feel like much of Calvin's theology overall was very much focused on sin, lack of choice, election as a state wholly out of one's control, and damnation being wholly out of one's control. Were one to focus deeply and thoughtfully on these matters and take them to heart, I can see how it might cause one anxiety and worry, as to how one might not be truly elect, or how one would even know.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Love, as many have pointed out on here, is a choice. It is a choice fueled directly by a love which is God's, but it is still a choice.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Intense grief over this very matter once seized a young Frenchman named Francis de Sales. Unsure of whether he was or was not among the elect, he reportedly cried out to God

"Whatever happens, Lord, may I at least love you in this life if I cannot love you in eternity."

This is pretty sad. Wanting to love God and yet not being sure if God has predestined you to love Him in eternity is pretty messed up. How can anyone know if they are elect? Simply having faith in Christ? Can a person who has faith in Christ and believes themselves to be elect actually not be among the elect?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not sure your definition of 'strawmen' is the same as most people's. A strawman argument isn't asking tough questions about what many Calvinists have actually claimed, that Calvinists may or may not have answers too, nor is the fallacy that of discussing elements found in Calvin's own work.

A strawman argument is when an incorrect 'prop' argument is made to fight against, such as comparing Arminianism to pelagianism then arguing against pelagianism, or using a term differently (such as free will) than an opponent does to attack something they do not claim.

In the case of those four points, they might be exaggerations in some part (not everyone is tormented by Calvinism, though it is problematic for some and there are cases where it was/is a huge stumbling block) or are older views held by Calvinism and current hyper-calvinists, but rejected by other modern Calvinists or four point Calvinists, but they do not seem to meet the definition of strawmen.

Asking a genuine question like, 'what does a Calvinist believe is his purpose in regards to spreading the gospel?' is very different from a strawman argument which would take a form more like, 'you Calvinists must not believe preaching is important!'

When the premise is incorrect, and the questions don't reflect the actual teachings, then it's a straw man.

 

[Hammster]

how is that?

what makes them straw men?

if i have misunderstood something can you show me where i went wrong?

God Bless you

I'm not sure what to do at this point. I directed you to a thread that gave several views of what we actually believe. Yet you won't engage over there. Instead, you hang out over here and assume that the decorators are correct and then ask questions based on false ideas.

So I'm at a loss.

 

[Hammster]

Intense grief over this very matter once seized a young Frenchman named Francis de Sales. Unsure of whether he was or was not among the elect, he reportedly cried out to God

"Whatever happens, Lord, may I at least love you in this life if I cannot love you in eternity."

This is pretty sad. Wanting to love God and yet not being sure if God has predestined you to love Him in eternity is pretty messed up. How can anyone know if they are elect? Simply having faith in Christ? Can a person who has faith in Christ and believes themselves to be elect actually not be among the elect?

I don't think it's the fault of Calvinism that this occurred. Without knowing what this man was taught, it's impossible to tell.

However, I've seen many threads started at CF through the years from folks truly concerned if they've lost their salvation, or committed the unpardonable sin. They have no security. They have no good news. They think they haven't done enough, or made some grievous error that's caused God to abandon them.

Now, I don't what they were taught, either. But I do know there's a significant faction here at CF that believe that salvation isn't secured by God, but by man's obedience to Him.

So instead of playing "this theology is worse than that theology", how about sticking with trying to present evidence as to why one is true/false?

 

[Truthfrees]

I'm not sure what to do at this point. I directed you to a thread that gave several views of what we actually believe. Yet you won't engage over there. Instead, you hang out over here and assume that the decorators are correct and then ask questions based on false ideas.

So I'm at a loss.

the reason i posted here is because your op says to use only your links in your op

i did and i couldn't understand the material in your link

so i went looking for some help understanding your links and found tim calles a reform

by your op i'm not allowed to post other stuff on your thread so i have no choice but to post tim's stuff here

but now it seems like you disagree with tim's stuff so i don't know what to do either

if you and tim are both reform and you disagree, and calvinists and reform disagree, and i don't understand calvin's words and scripture interpretation, then how am i to understand what calvinists/reform believe?

is pm ok with you or do you prefer i post in your thread?

 

[Truthfrees]

I don't think it's the fault of Calvinism that this occurred. Without knowing what this man was taught, it's impossible to tell.

However, I've seen many threads started at CF through the years from folks truly concerned if they've lost their salvation, or committed the unpardonable sin. They have no security. They have no good news. They think they haven't done enough, or made some grievous error that's caused God to abandon them.

Now, I don't what they were taught, either. But I do know there's a significant faction here at CF that believe that salvation isn't secured by God, but by man's obedience to Him.

So instead of playing "this theology is worse than that theology", how about sticking with trying to present evidence as to why one is true/false?

i think the problem is both sides use the same scripture but interpret it differently

so there is no way to prove one is true and the other is false

i put my notes of tim calles' reform teachings on calvinism vs arminianism

did i get anything wrong there

i've been studying this material by a calvinist/reformed (not sure yet what the difference is between calvinist and reform)

it seems to me that calvin was an all-or-nothing kind of guy

he didn't see things in moderation - thus the titles of calvin's tulip vs arminian's titles

it also seems that this author doesn't properly understand arminian's points

here's my notes of a reformed calvinist explaining calvin's doctrines - my words in red - the rest are his words:


1. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism - Tim Challies
-Arminianism arose as a rejection of Calvinism and its doctrines of predestination and election. THIS FOR SURE CAUSES NON-C'S TO REJECT CALVINISM
- Arminius taught that God has given humans free will, and humans are able to freely choose or reject salvation. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME - I AGREE WITH THIS
-A Calvinist is someone who rejects the Arminian concept of free will, believing that the will of all humans is bound by their sinful nature and will remain bound until God performs His regenerative work. FREE WILL IS BOUND - SO CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - OUR DEFINITIONS OF FREE WILL DON'T MATCH
-Calvinism is founded on the belief that man is completely and utterly unable to make a choice to follow God because the will of the unsaved person is bound by his sinful nature. CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - THEY REALLY MEAN A WILL THAT IS LIMITED TO MAKING ONLY EVIL/BAD CHOICES - ESPECIALLY ABOUT WANTING/CHOOSING GOD

2. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 2) - Tim Challies
- A proper understanding of Calvinism is fully dependant on understanding Calvin’s view of man’s depravity. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SAYS THIS
- A fallen man is able to choose to do what he wants, but is unable to want God. There is a misconception that Calvinists do not believe in human free will, but this is not true. Calvinism teaches that free will exists, but is bound by a man’s nature. Man is a slave not to God, but to his own nature. Because man does not want God, he can never choose Him. Only God, in His Sovereign free will, can change man’s nature and make him capable of repentance. SOUNDS LIKE CALVIN SAYS A PERSON HAS ONLY A LIMITED/BOUND WILL - A WILL TO CHOOSE ONLY EVIL/BAD - UNTIL GOD REGENERATES HIM AND GIVES HIM A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE GOOD OR BAD - WHICH INCLUDES WANTING/CHOOSING GOD
- Total Depravity - With a sinful nature it is impossible to take an action that would be anything other than sinful and rebellious. FREE WILL NOT REALLY FREE - LIMITED TO ONLY SINFUL CHOICES
- Unconditional Election - God brings His chosen people, through the Spirit, to a willing acceptance of Christ. His choice has nothing to do with man’s free will. GOD ALONE CHOOSES WHO HE WANTS BEFORE HE EVEN CREATES THEM - SO THAT MEANS GOD CREATES SOME PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY FOR HELL
- Limited Atonement - Christ took the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross. He provided a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (given) to the elect. Were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. IS THIS SAYING CHRIST DID NOT TAKE THE SINS OF EVERYONE ON HIMSELF? OR DOES IT SAY THAT HE TOOK EVERYONE'S SINS BUT ONLY IMPUTED ATONEMENT ON THE ELECT?
- Irresistible Grace - There are two ways God calls people to repentance. The first is the outer call which is extended to anyone who hears the gospel. This can be and often is rejected. The second is the internal call which is extended only to the elect and can never be rejected. WHY WOULD GOD CALL EVERYONE OUTWARDLY EVEN THOUGH HE CREATED/PREDESTINED SOME FOR HELL? THE INWARD CALL ONLY GOES TO THOSE HE CHOSE
- Perseverance of the Saints - The elect, then, will persevere in righteousness and will never fall away from God. I LIKE THIS PART - BUT THERE ARE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST - HOPING THEY ARE REALLY FOR THIS POINT

3. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 3) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable source
- Free Will - Arminius taught that man’s fall into sin has not completely removed his ability to make a choice for or against God. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Holy Spirit does not draw or enlighten men enough to force them into a decision. ERRONEOUS CLAIM - HOLY SPIRIT MAKES TRUTH FULLY KNOWN TO ALL - EACH CHOOSES TO ACCEPT OR REJECT BASED ON FULL DISCLOSURE
- Conditional Election - God’s election is based upon his foreknowledge that a person would choose to be saved. God in turn chose them and called them the elect. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Universal Atonement - When Christ died he took upon Himself every sin for every human being throughout time. Salvation can be received or rejected. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Obstructable Grace - Holy Spirit does not force anyone into repentance. Regeneration occurs when salvation is accepted. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Fall from Grace - Man can change his mind and reject God after accepting Him. THERE SEEMS TO BE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST THIS

4. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 4) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable

NOTES
so from studying this material it seems to me that free will vs limited will is one key issue

limited will comes from the total depravity ideology

calvinists and non-c's are so far apart in doctrine on the key issues that even if we properly understand what each other is saying we would never be able to agree on much of anything

we have totally different God/bible paradigms

 

[Hammster]

the reason i posted here is because your op says to use only your links in your op

i did and i couldn't understand the material in your link

so i went looking for some help understanding your links and found tim calles a reform

by your op i'm not allowed to post other stuff on your thread so i have no choice but to post tim's stuff here

but now it seems like you disagree with tim's stuff so i don't know what to do either

if you and tim are both reform and you disagree, and calvinists and reform disagree, and i don't understand calvin's words and scripture interpretation, then how am i to understand what calvinists/reform believe?

is pm ok with you or do you prefer i post in your thread?

Where did you post Tim's stuff?

Nm. I see it.

 

[Hammster]

i think the problem is both sides use the same scripture but interpret it differently

so there is no way to prove one is true and the other is false

i put my notes of tim calles' reform teachings on calvinism vs arminianism

did i get anything wrong there


i think the problem is both sides use the same scripture but interpret it differently

so there is no way to prove one is true and the other is false

i put my notes of tim calles' reform teachings on calvinism vs arminianism

did i get anything wrong there

Here's the issue. You are throwing too much stuff out at once. There nobody who wants to take the time and go through each bullet point and respond to it. It will just lead to larger and larger posts. And that gets confusing.

So pick one topic per post, and we can probably work with that.

 

[Truthfrees]

Where did you post Tim's stuff?

here in this thread:

i've been studying this material by a calvinist/reformed (not sure yet what the difference is between calvinist and reform)

it seems to me that calvin was an all-or-nothing kind of guy

he didn't see things in moderation - thus the titles of calvin's tulip vs arminian's titles

it also seems that this author doesn't properly understand arminian's points

here's my notes of a reformed calvinist explaining calvin's doctrines - my words in red - the rest are his words:


1. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism - Tim Challies
-Arminianism arose as a rejection of Calvinism and its doctrines of predestination and election. THIS FOR SURE CAUSES NON-C'S TO REJECT CALVINISM
- Arminius taught that God has given humans free will, and humans are able to freely choose or reject salvation. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME - I AGREE WITH THIS
-A Calvinist is someone who rejects the Arminian concept of free will, believing that the will of all humans is bound by their sinful nature and will remain bound until God performs His regenerative work. FREE WILL IS BOUND - SO CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - OUR DEFINITIONS OF FREE WILL DON'T MATCH
-Calvinism is founded on the belief that man is completely and utterly unable to make a choice to follow God because the will of the unsaved person is bound by his sinful nature. CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - THEY REALLY MEAN A WILL THAT IS LIMITED TO MAKING ONLY EVIL/BAD CHOICES - ESPECIALLY ABOUT WANTING/CHOOSING GOD

2. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 2) - Tim Challies
- A proper understanding of Calvinism is fully dependant on understanding Calvin’s view of man’s depravity. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SAYS THIS
- A fallen man is able to choose to do what he wants, but is unable to want God. There is a misconception that Calvinists do not believe in human free will, but this is not true. Calvinism teaches that free will exists, but is bound by a man’s nature. Man is a slave not to God, but to his own nature. Because man does not want God, he can never choose Him. Only God, in His Sovereign free will, can change man’s nature and make him capable of repentance. SOUNDS LIKE CALVIN SAYS A PERSON HAS ONLY A LIMITED/BOUND WILL - A WILL TO CHOOSE ONLY EVIL/BAD - UNTIL GOD REGENERATES HIM AND GIVES HIM A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE GOOD OR BAD - WHICH INCLUDES WANTING/CHOOSING GOD
- Total Depravity - With a sinful nature it is impossible to take an action that would be anything other than sinful and rebellious. FREE WILL NOT REALLY FREE - LIMITED TO ONLY SINFUL CHOICES
- Unconditional Election - God brings His chosen people, through the Spirit, to a willing acceptance of Christ. His choice has nothing to do with man’s free will. GOD ALONE CHOOSES WHO HE WANTS BEFORE HE EVEN CREATES THEM - SO THAT MEANS GOD CREATES SOME PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY FOR HELL
- Limited Atonement - Christ took the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross. He provided a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (given) to the elect. Were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. IS THIS SAYING CHRIST DID NOT TAKE THE SINS OF EVERYONE ON HIMSELF? OR DOES IT SAY THAT HE TOOK EVERYONE'S SINS BUT ONLY IMPUTED ATONEMENT ON THE ELECT?
- Irresistible Grace - There are two ways God calls people to repentance. The first is the outer call which is extended to anyone who hears the gospel. This can be and often is rejected. The second is the internal call which is extended only to the elect and can never be rejected. WHY WOULD GOD CALL EVERYONE OUTWARDLY EVEN THOUGH HE CREATED/PREDESTINED SOME FOR HELL? THE INWARD CALL ONLY GOES TO THOSE HE CHOSE
- Perseverance of the Saints - The elect, then, will persevere in righteousness and will never fall away from God. I LIKE THIS PART - BUT THERE ARE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST - HOPING THEY ARE REALLY FOR THIS POINT

3. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 3) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable source
- Free Will - Arminius taught that man’s fall into sin has not completely removed his ability to make a choice for or against God. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Holy Spirit does not draw or enlighten men enough to force them into a decision. ERRONEOUS CLAIM - HOLY SPIRIT MAKES TRUTH FULLY KNOWN TO ALL - EACH CHOOSES TO ACCEPT OR REJECT BASED ON FULL DISCLOSURE
- Conditional Election - God’s election is based upon his foreknowledge that a person would choose to be saved. God in turn chose them and called them the elect. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Universal Atonement - When Christ died he took upon Himself every sin for every human being throughout time. Salvation can be received or rejected. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Obstructable Grace - Holy Spirit does not force anyone into repentance. Regeneration occurs when salvation is accepted. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Fall from Grace - Man can change his mind and reject God after accepting Him. THERE SEEMS TO BE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST THIS

4. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 4) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable

NOTES
so from studying this material it seems to me that free will vs limited will is one key issue

limited will comes from the total depravity ideology

calvinists and non-c's are so far apart in doctrine on the key issues that even if we properly understand what each other is saying we would never be able to agree on much of anything

we have totally different God/bible paradigms

 

[Truthfrees]

Here's the issue. You are throwing too much stuff out at once. There nobody who wants to take the time and go through each bullet point and respond to it. It will just lead to larger and larger posts. And that gets confusing.

So pick one topic per post, and we can probably work with that.

ok can we start with free will?

the red below is my comments on tim calles statements regarding free will

he talks about free will from different aspects

but in every aspect he really is describing limited/bound/unregenerate will - the inability to choose God or good before regeneration

i believe free will is the same before and after regeneration

God speaks to everyone - regenerates and unregenerates

and each person uses their free will to choose

unregenerates have the same ability to choose God and good as regenerates

where is the scripture evidence that says unregenerates don't have free will to choose God?

where does scripture say only regenerates can choose God?

i've been studying this material by a calvinist/reformed (not sure yet what the difference is between calvinist and reform)

it seems to me that calvin was an all-or-nothing kind of guy

he didn't see things in moderation - thus the titles of calvin's tulip vs arminian's titles

it also seems that this author doesn't properly understand arminian's points

here's my notes of a reformed calvinist explaining calvin's doctrines - my words in red - the rest are his words:


1. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism - Tim Challies
-Arminianism arose as a rejection of Calvinism and its doctrines of predestination and election. THIS FOR SURE CAUSES NON-C'S TO REJECT CALVINISM
- Arminius taught that God has given humans free will, and humans are able to freely choose or reject salvation. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME - I AGREE WITH THIS
-A Calvinist is someone who rejects the Arminian concept of free will, believing that the will of all humans is bound by their sinful nature and will remain bound until God performs His regenerative work. FREE WILL IS BOUND - SO CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - OUR DEFINITIONS OF FREE WILL DON'T MATCH
-Calvinism is founded on the belief that man is completely and utterly unable to make a choice to follow God because the will of the unsaved person is bound by his sinful nature. CALVINISTS CALL LIMITED/BOUND WILL FREE WILL - THEY REALLY MEAN A WILL THAT IS LIMITED TO MAKING ONLY EVIL/BAD CHOICES - ESPECIALLY ABOUT WANTING/CHOOSING GOD

2. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 2) - Tim Challies
- A proper understanding of Calvinism is fully dependant on understanding Calvin’s view of man’s depravity. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SAYS THIS
- A fallen man is able to choose to do what he wants, but is unable to want God. There is a misconception that Calvinists do not believe in human free will, but this is not true. Calvinism teaches that free will exists, but is bound by a man’s nature. Man is a slave not to God, but to his own nature. Because man does not want God, he can never choose Him. Only God, in His Sovereign free will, can change man’s nature and make him capable of repentance. SOUNDS LIKE CALVIN SAYS A PERSON HAS ONLY A LIMITED/BOUND WILL - A WILL TO CHOOSE ONLY EVIL/BAD - UNTIL GOD REGENERATES HIM AND GIVES HIM A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE GOOD OR BAD - WHICH INCLUDES WANTING/CHOOSING GOD
- Total Depravity - With a sinful nature it is impossible to take an action that would be anything other than sinful and rebellious. FREE WILL NOT REALLY FREE - LIMITED TO ONLY SINFUL CHOICES
- Unconditional Election - God brings His chosen people, through the Spirit, to a willing acceptance of Christ. His choice has nothing to do with man’s free will. GOD ALONE CHOOSES WHO HE WANTS BEFORE HE EVEN CREATES THEM - SO THAT MEANS GOD CREATES SOME PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY FOR HELL
- Limited Atonement - Christ took the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross. He provided a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (given) to the elect. Were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. IS THIS SAYING CHRIST DID NOT TAKE THE SINS OF EVERYONE ON HIMSELF? OR DOES IT SAY THAT HE TOOK EVERYONE'S SINS BUT ONLY IMPUTED ATONEMENT ON THE ELECT?
- Irresistible Grace - There are two ways God calls people to repentance. The first is the outer call which is extended to anyone who hears the gospel. This can be and often is rejected. The second is the internal call which is extended only to the elect and can never be rejected. WHY WOULD GOD CALL EVERYONE OUTWARDLY EVEN THOUGH HE CREATED/PREDESTINED SOME FOR HELL? THE INWARD CALL ONLY GOES TO THOSE HE CHOSE
- Perseverance of the Saints - The elect, then, will persevere in righteousness and will never fall away from God. I LIKE THIS PART - BUT THERE ARE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST - HOPING THEY ARE REALLY FOR THIS POINT

3. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 3) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable source
- Free Will - Arminius taught that man’s fall into sin has not completely removed his ability to make a choice for or against God. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Holy Spirit does not draw or enlighten men enough to force them into a decision. ERRONEOUS CLAIM - HOLY SPIRIT MAKES TRUTH FULLY KNOWN TO ALL - EACH CHOOSES TO ACCEPT OR REJECT BASED ON FULL DISCLOSURE
- Conditional Election - God’s election is based upon his foreknowledge that a person would choose to be saved. God in turn chose them and called them the elect. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE TO ME
- Universal Atonement - When Christ died he took upon Himself every sin for every human being throughout time. Salvation can be received or rejected. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Obstructable Grace - Holy Spirit does not force anyone into repentance. Regeneration occurs when salvation is accepted. THIS MAKES SCRIPTURAL SENSE
- Fall from Grace - Man can change his mind and reject God after accepting Him. THERE SEEMS TO BE SCRIPTURES FOR AND AGAINST THIS

4. An Introduction To Calvinism & Arminianism (Part 4) - Tim Challies - errors/unreliable

NOTES
so from studying this material it seems to me that free will vs limited will is one key issue

limited will comes from the total depravity ideology

calvinists and non-c's are so far apart in doctrine on the key issues that even if we properly understand what each other is saying we would never be able to agree on much of anything

we have totally different God/bible paradigms

 

[Hammster]

where is the scripture evidence that says unregenerates don't have free will to choose God?

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:5-9‬ ‭

 

[Hammster]

he talks about free will from different aspects

Here's a way to took at free will.

As humans, we have free agency. In other words, we have to ability to do or not do. Our wills, however, are tied to our nature and can be influenced by outside factors.

We cannot change our nature. We cannot, for instance, choose to love God with our old nature. We were enemies, and we were at enmity with Him. Our flesh couldn't please Him.

 

[Truthfrees]

ok can we start with free will?

the red below is my comments on tim calles statements regarding free will

he talks about free will from different aspects

but in every aspect he really is describing limited/bound/unregenerate will - the inability to choose God or good before regeneration

i believe free will is the same before and after regeneration

God speaks to everyone - regenerates and unregenerates

and each person uses their free will to choose

unregenerates have the same ability to choose God and good as regenerates

where is the scripture evidence that says unregenerates don't have free will to choose God?

where does scripture say only regenerates can choose God?

where is the scripture evidence that says unregenerates don't have free will to choose God?

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:5-9‬ ‭

thank you for this

studying Romans 8:5-9 in context i don't see Paul describing carnal man's inability to choose God/good - it appears to me Paul is saying any man who focuses on carnal things will end up living a carnal life which displeases God - AND any man who focuses on things of the Spirit will live a spiritual life that presumably pleases God
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

based on the above, Paul therefore tells regenerates 3 verses later to live like regenerates : Romans 8:12-13
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

which matches what he said here: Colossians 1:10, Romans 12:1, Ephesians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:12

further Paul indicates 1 verse prior that a person can serve God with their mind and NOT with the flesh - meaning actions and will are separate but interacting factions in all men even before regeneration: Romans 7:25
25 So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Hammster]

thank you for this

studying Romans 8:5-9 in context i don't see Paul describing carnal man's inability to choose God/good - it appears to me Paul is saying any man who focuses on carnal things will end up living a carnal life which displeases God - AND any man who focuses on things of the Spirit will live a spiritual life that presumably pleases God
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

based on the above, Paul therefore tells regenerates 3 verses later to live like regenerates : Romans 8:12-13
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

which matches what he said here: Colossians 1:10, Romans 12:1, Ephesians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:12

further Paul indicates 1 verse prior that a person can serve God with their mind and NOT with the flesh - meaning actions and will are separate but interacting factions in all men even before regeneration: Romans 7:25
25 So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I've no problem with that. But if we who are spiritual cannot please God in the flesh, how much less can the unregenerate?

 

[Truthfrees]

Here's a way to took at free will.

As humans, we have free agency. In other words, we have to ability to do or not do. Our wills, however, are tied to our nature and can be influenced by outside factors.

We cannot change our nature. We cannot, for instance, choose to love God with our old nature. We were enemies, and we were at enmity with Him. Our flesh couldn't please Him.

i see it differently

i see our flesh is tied to our nature as Romans 7:25 indicates

and our will can be desiring, even warring against our nature for something better than our nature allows - as Jesus said in Matthew 26:41 - and Paul says in Romans 7:15, Romans 7:18-19

 

[Hammster]

i see it differently

i see our flesh is tied to our nature as Romans 7:25 indicates

and our will can be desiring, even warring against our nature for something better than our nature allows - as Jesus said in Matthew 26:41 - and Paul says in Romans 7:15-16

Paul is not describing the unregenerate. And Jesus is talking to believers.

 

[Truthfrees]

I've no problem with that. But if we who are spiritual cannot please God in the flesh, how much less can the unregenerate?

true

thank God for regeneration

Christ in us is our only hope - Colossians 1:27