Some harmful side effects of free will.

[Cormack]

Why a loaded question on a topic I couldn't care less about.

Loaded, in what sense? I’m asking if you agree with a particular position, but you’re acting so timid you won’t even answer.

 

[Dave L]

Loaded, in what sense? I’m asking if you agree with a particular position, but you’re acting so timid you won’t even answer.

Does my position agree? If not, I don't plan to change it.

 

[Cormack]

Does my position agree? If not, I don't plan to change it.

All you have to do is read the quote, assess your own beliefs in light of the quote, and then answer my question. Honestly Dave, this is a shameful display of question dodging.

 

[Dave L]

All you have to do is read the quote, assess your own beliefs in light of the quote, and then answer my question. Honestly Dave, this is a shameful display of question dodging.

I tell you the truth and let you decide. Isn't that best?

 

[chilehed]

Grace does not depend on free will.

No one's ever said otherwise. Quite the opposite: due to the effects of Original Sin, my will can be truly free only by the grace of God. And he does give us that grace.

Law does. You destroy grace and the gospel when you mix in free will.

I don't know how it is that you came up with such absurd ideas, but it appears that you don't know the meanings of all of the words you're using.

 

[A_Thinker]

Law works because it is based on free will. Run a stop sign and get fined. Why? Because you were free to obey the law. You turn grace into law when you drag free will into the mix. Why? Because grace saves apart from law.

Do the saved not have the option to run a stop sign ?

If free-will does not exist under the umbrella of grace, ... then why are christians urged to confess their sins, ... and thus, receive God's forgiveness ?

 

[A_Thinker]

Does my position agree? If not, I don't plan to change it.

That's pretty obvious ...

 

[Dave L]

No one's ever said otherwise. Quite the opposite: due to the effects of Original Sin, my will can be truly free only by the grace of God. And he does give us that grace.

I don't know how it is that you came up with such absurd ideas, but it appears that you don't know the meanings of all of the words you're using.

You are correct. The new birth (salvation) happens before the will can be free. And then only to do righteousness. If we sin it has a saving effect through God's chastisement and our repentance.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Free will depends on the law. How can law exist apart from it?

It can't, but that means that the Law is 'part' of free will, not the other way round.

 

[Dave L]

It can't, but that means that the Law is 'part' of free will, not the other way round.

You reap what you sow. Laws of cause and effect prove you need to reconsider your position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Free will depends on the law. How can law exist apart from it?

Actually, life itself depends on free choice. The law has nothing to do with it. The law is just part of life, at least for Jews.

Romans 2:14,15 proves that free will is limited to law. God created everyone with a conscience. And that is where freedom to choose is found; the conscience.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You reap what you sow. Laws of cause and effect prove you need to reconsider your position.

When you leave your house to go for a walk you can choose to turn left or choose to turn right or cross or go straight ahead. None of those are accounted for in the Law.

 

[Dave L]

When you leave your house to go for a walk you can choose to turn left or choose to turn right or cross or go straight ahead. None of those are accounted for in the Law.

They are based on natural law. Why turn if you don't think the laws of physics will fail in getting you to your destination? The Law and the gospel are far different, but people unwittingly blend them. Wicked people need the law to keep God from killing them. Grace instead gives a new heart to those God chooses to save so that they keep the law by nature in their hearts. They hate sin and prefer righteousness. Everything the law upholds.

 

[chilehed]

The new birth (salvation) happens before the will can be free.

Wrong.

And then only to do righteousness.

Also wrong.

 

[Dave L]

Wrong.


Also wrong.

How can you be right when faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit?

 

[1213]

We lost our ability to believe in God through Adam. We sinned in him and cannot be saved unless God saves us.

Sorry, I don’t think that is supported well by the Bible.

 

[Dave L]

Sorry, I don’t think that is supported well by the Bible.

We died spiritually and cannot discern spiritual truth. Unless born again we worship only idols.
Before the New Birth;

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

After the New Birth;

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” Galatians 5:19–23 (KJV 1900)

 

[FreeGrace2]

How can you be right when faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit?

The "faith" in the list of characteristics in Gal 5 is a characteristic itself. So, it means "faithfulness". Certainly not "saving faith".

 

[childeye 2]

Discussing the man John Calvin only helps insofar that knowing about his views might better help explain Calvinism, however the bones of Calvinism were being historically taught so early back as Augustine.

None of the quotes you’ve taken from me mention the man John Calvin, they’re quotes about the doctrine called Calvinism.

That entire message you’re quoting from (#71) doesn’t mention John Calvin or use the name Calvin once, it’s about Calvinism.

When you switch the topic of conversation from a doctrinal stance onto an individual man you equivocate and cause confusion for readers.

Since Calvinism thrives upon confusion, I’m now tempted to ask, are you a Calvinist?

That would help explain your aversion to discussing the subject, Calvinists tend to become very shy at the prospect of explaining Calvinism in plain English. Probably because a plain explanation of Calvinism is as good as a refutation of Calvinism. Calvinists prefer to equivocate and speak using a borrowed biblical vocabulary they’ve misappropriated over centuries.

It's perfectly understandable that there are labels for differing interpretations or doctrines. Unfortunately, there may also exist misinterpretations and even misrepresentations in those doctrines or about those doctrines. For example, I have no idea if what you have described as compatibilism is part of Calvinism. I'm sure you'll understand what I mean when I say that we all need to know Jesus and experience the Spirit of Christ firsthand, and to that end, the Holy Spirit has been provided to be our guide and teacher.

Therefore I also think you will also believe me when I say that my aversion to discussing the subject of Calvinism or Augustinism comes from understanding the sentiments expressed here: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment". 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

The remainder of your message goes into describing both your philosophy and personal experience, and honestly that’s fantastic, the born again experience is fantastic, but none of that is a response to God and Cain in Genesis chapter four. We’re discussing Genesis chapter four.

Once upon a time I was under the impression that Christians enjoyed discussing the Bible, after becoming one I was disappointed to find that they often don’t enjoy it very much. Imagine my disappointment. Now, if you’re someone who enjoys discussing the Bible, I’m sure we’ll have an awesome convo about the meaning behind God confronting Cain in Genesis chapter four.

I'm sorry if you've been disappointed by any disinterest in discourse. As for me, I felt I had sufficiently discussed God confronting Cain and it's meaning in post #68. There I pointed out why scripture shows that Cain did not deliberately offer a bad sacrifice, and that he probably didn't fully understand the point of the offering. I'd be happy to discuss the matter further.

Otherwise we could discuss philosophy, although to do that you’d have to be prepared to openly write about Calvinism, because that’s what Calvinism is, a man made philosophy.

Originally you troubled the subject of approaching free will because there was an (1) ambiguity or an (2) equivocate problem, I’ve already explained away your ambiguity and provided the most common definitions people equivocate over. Those two objections are resolved.

You’re left with using either Calvinistic compatibilism or the more intuitive libertarianism when it comes to explaining Genesis chapter four.

With some humility I would like to say that I am a student of linguistics. As such I see words as vehicles of sentiment. I find that in the moral/immoral purview, any reasoning based on something false will end in a contradiction because it violates seeing others and loving others as myself.

For the sake of clarity, I have objectively pointed out the semantics occurring in scripture regarding the descriptive term 'free' manifesting in two subjective views of servitude to opposing masters. The main point being that the sentiment of being free is a deception in one of them, wherefore it ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Since God defines the good, whatever reasoning is governed by the knowledge of God is the only true free will. Hence faith is the necessary item, esteeming God as good and therefore trustworthy.

Having said that, there is that which is commonly described as a free will, wherein the term 'free' being discussed, is an equivocation between the two Masters, which for all intensive purposes I view as futile/vanity since one cannot serve two masters as a matter of circumstance. This can be corroborated by evidence in semantics that reveals that divisions produce polarization rather than manifesting in a random dispersal of individuality. Because the equivocating definition of free will is based on vanity, it too produces contradictions when reasoned upon, because it is a state of being doubleminded and therefore manifests hypocritical judgment.

Which use of free will is more suitable for Gods confrontation with Cain in Genesis chapter four, compatibilism or libertarianism?

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”​

Once again, compatibilism or libertarianism. According to the compatibilist (AKA the Calvinist,) Cain can’t do right nor will their worship be acceptable to the Father, they are incapable of ruling over sin, sin that’s crouched at the door as though it were a wild beast.

God however replies Cain could have acceptable worship by doing right and he’s able to rule over sin crouching at the door, again in essence, God deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism.

Let’s summarise the verses by use of Calvinistic compatibilism...

God (1) makes false promises to Cain about being able to offer acceptable worship, (2) mockingly implores the man to “do right” even though he’s incapable, God (3) then puts a cherry on top of this wacky cake by charging Cain to master and defeat his sin nature. God (4) deceives Cain into believing in libertarianism and later (5) damns him for his good pleasure.

Those things are the logical implications and consequences of Genesis four if Calvinistic compatibilism were true.

Let’s summarise the verse by use of libertarianism free will theism...

God chides Cain for refusing righteousness and instead choosing wickedness. He warns Cain of sin but also reminds him it's his responsibility to rule over this prowling beast at the door. God nowhere deceives Cain in amidst these criticisms, commands and warnings.

I have come to understand that True worship is drawn out by the object of worship and is not the product of one's discretion. Wherefore to Love God with all your heart mind and soul, should not be counted as a prerogative, but seen as a byproduct of knowing Him.


I assume you realize that under the definition of free will as an equivocation, Cain must contrarily be fully capable of choosing wickedness and fully capable of choosing righteousness, when in reality he can only do one or the other in any given situation. As such I view the fact that God says Cain should exercise dominion over sin as unequivocal. So the question is why does Cain inwardly end up discounting or maybe even despising God's counsel? I don't find the teaching that it's Cain's free will to despise/discount God's Word to be a sufficient answer. I don't believe a free will can be based on the ignorance that allows sin to be be pondered as a viable alternative to God, which would to me be vanity. The issue as I see it is understanding the necessity of faith/trust in God as a prerequisite for obedience. After all it's not reasonable that God can be counted as both trustworthy and untrustworthy at the same time. Truth is authoritative not subjective, wherefore God's Character does not become trustworthy or untrustworthy according to our will.

 

[RickReads]

@Dave L, are you a compatibilist, if you do not know what a compatibilist believes, we can simply ask do you agree with this quote from John Piper.

Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...
​

Do you agree with that????

I almost do.