Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, therefore free will destroys faith and the gospel? Absolute non sequiteur.How can you be right when faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit?
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?
Respectfully, 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.
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 to me. 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 the semantics that reveal 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.
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 the product of knowing Him.
I assume you realize that under the equivocation definition of free will, 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 despising God's counsel? I don't find the teaching that it's Cain's free will to despise 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 is vanity. The issue as I see it is understanding the necessity of faith/trust in God as a prerequisite for obedience.
I think that the term 'free will' as an equivocation is a source of division. When reasoning upon such an equivocation, it appears to me that one side argues by implication that God should not be blamed for unrighteousness in the flesh, while the other side argues by implication that flesh should not be credited for righteousness. The overarching issue of seeking who is to blame in such a framework spawns theologies that do not consider that there are circumstances where perceived shortcomings exist yet no one is to blame that they do.The OP was a very thinly veiled Calvinist accusation that Christians who believe in free will aren`t saved. From the very first post, this thread was going to be a joust between the weakly Calvins and the muscular non-Calvins.
PS compatibility isn`t compatible with Calvinism.
I'm still waiting (after 7 pages now) for "some harmful side effects of free will", as if free will can be compared with medical pills that can be swallowed.The OP was a very thinly veiled Calvinist accusation that Christians who believe in free will aren`t saved. From the very first post, this thread was going to be a joust between the weakly Calvins and the muscular non-Calvins.
PS compatibility isn`t compatible with Calvinism.
I'm still waiting (after 7 pages now) for "some harmful side effects of free will", as if free will can be compared with medical pills that can be swallowed.
So, just what are the harmful side effects of free will?
Exactly and there are many OPs like this one on this forum - pitting Calvanists vs non-Calvanists. This OP in particular was so poorly presented that I was surprised that it got any traction.The OP was a very thinly veiled Calvinist accusation that Christians who believe in free will aren`t saved. From the very first post, this thread was going to be a joust between the weakly Calvins and the muscular non-Calvins.
PS compatibility isn`t compatible with Calvinism.
Exactly and there are many OPs like this one on this forum - pitting Calvanists vs non-Calvanists. This OP in particular was so poorly presented that I was surprised that it got any traction.
As far as Compatability that Cormack defines, there are some here that fit that description - and they are generally fair.
You might be technically right. In post 86 Cormack describes Calvanist Compatabilism - I found it informative.If I am understanding Compatability correctly, it`s not possible to believe in it and be a Calvinist.
I almost do.
For example, I have no idea if what you have described as compatibilism is part of Calvinism.
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
With some humility I would like to say that I am a student of linguistics.
I find "Every Christian almost believes in Calvanism" to be true for me and requiring consideration but never thought about it that way. And yes it is the Bible getting in the way.The devil’s in the details, every Christian almost believes in Calvinism. It’s just the pesky Bible that keeps getting in the way of our cleverly formed philosophies.
The devil’s in the details, every Christian almost believes in Calvinism. It’s just the pesky Bible that keeps getting in the way of our cleverly formed philosophies.
I’ll repost, bold and italicise that quote from Pipe below, that’ll help more than anything. You’ll probably be able to see why you don’t agree with the statement better afterwards.
@RickReads @John Mullally.
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 (1) God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with (2) 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)...Notice 1 is Gods predetermination and meticulous providence, not general providence, meticulous. Calvinism is determinism, everything is determined by God.
So God is actively in control of everything in a very meticulous way, but Piper than explains (2) “voluntary choice” is totally harmonious with this kind of meticulous predetermination.
That’s where we get the word compatiblism from, free will and determinism are said to be compatible under this philosophy.
Well, how’s that even possible?God is making me do everything but I’m free, that sounds impossible. It’s possible, we even read how it’s possible in that quote from Piper.
He defines the terms freely and not coerced in that quotation above, notice not being coerced simply means “we do not choose against our desires.”
Freedom according to Calvinism doesn’t mean “choose this day whom you will serve,” you don’t have the ability to act contrary in any given circumstance. You can’t choose this day.
Think about every “what if” movie you’ve ever seen, It’s a wonderful life (1946) or Sliding doors (1998,) there’s no what if under Calvinism, there’s no world of possibilities. If you were made for hell, that’s where you’re going, life is hopeless for the lost. No last minute visitation from an angel to save you because God deeply loves the lost.
Calvinists don’t define freedom as being able to choose between righteousness and wickedness, there was no escape that day you cheated or your wife or ran a red light or even stubbed your toe, God meticulous prepared those things.
“Oh but he’s not violating your freedom!!!” The Calvinist replies, he’s not violating your freedom because you’re “doing what you want to do.”
It’s all about what you want to do, not about what you could do. That’s the redefinition of freedom to the Calvinist.
That’s what freedom means to the Calvinist, it’s not about having choices to make, it’s about acting in line with your nature.
Think about that, if someone were to meet a woman in a bar, and he slips her a love potion or something, according to the Calvinist he’s not forcing her to leave the bar with him at the end of the night, he’s just changing her nature so that she loves him.
That sounds horrible and evil to me, she didn’t originally want him going into the bar, and if she was allowed options she’d reject him, naturally she seen him as a weird and creepy looking wizard. Still, she’s leaving with him.
That’s the new birth under Calvinism, God doesn’t force you to marry him, he changes the nature he originally ordered to be broken so that you fall in love “willingly” (so to speak.) You don’t will to drink the potion, that’s irresistible grace, but now that the potion is in your system, now you willingly obey.
Even if you didn’t decide to have a sinful nature and even though there’s no other alternatives than to act the way you do, that’s not a big deal to the Calvinist, now you have it and you’re acting how you would like to act according to the meticulous workings of God.
That’s Calvinistic “free will.”
Besides that and more on topic yes there are consequences to proper Libertarianism, true free will, the ability to do otherwise, the ability to avoid sin, the ability to choose this day whom you will serve, love, responsibility, exercising faith of your own volition.
This post is also for the lurking Calvinists who could never fully put their finger on the pulse, who could never figure out what was going on with “freedom” and Calvinism.
There is no other logically valid form of Calvinism, you either have compatibilists or you have confused people who talk in rambling inconsistencies all day long.
God bless.
Human faith isn't saving faith. It's the kind of faith you gamble on when buying a used car...etc.Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, therefore free will destroys faith and the gospel? Absolute non sequiteur.
Better questions for you are: how can you be right when you don't know what the words you're using mean? And how do you know that you're not one of the people spoken of in 2 Peter 3:16?
From the very first post, this thread was going to be a joust between the weakly Calvins and the muscular non-Calvins.
Do you think we Calvinist fit this description? If so, how?Weakly Calvins who (in my experience) either won’t admit to their beliefs or don’t know them to begin with. It’s a case of deceptively denying or ignorantly complying.
It`s a way of saying you are indoctrinated.
Well until my beautiful friend Dave is prepared to give me straight answers, he has no right to ask straight questions. That’s my opinion on the matter.
I don't listen to Piper. I stated my view, you tell me what category you stuff me into.Are you a compatibilist and do you agree with that quote from John Piper?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?