Some harmful side effects of free will.

[FreeGrace2]

Human faith isn't saving faith. It's the kind of faith you gamble on when buying a used car...etc.

Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.

Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.

 

[childeye 2]

Google it. That’s the simplest way to do anything nowadays.

As I have explained earlier, I have the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide. I have no need to want to know what Calvin taught.

The only reason you need not write about Calvinism is if you’re ignorant of the subject. If you haven’t heard of or don’t know about compatiblism then yes you’re missing out on a lot of valuable insight into the belief system.

Respectfully, if you will recall, you had spoken in a manner of some suspicion of wanting to know if I was a Calvinist. You said this:

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.

This was my response as to why I have an aversion to discussing what Calvin taught: 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?

I would now with some humility like to add this scripture so as to provide further insight as to why I have an aversion to discussing what Calvin taught: 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

As I’ve shared earlier there’s no logically valid form of Calvinism but compatiblism. If you don’t understand compatiblism than you don’t understand Calvinism, you would have simply learnt a lot of catchphrases that don’t really mesh together. That’s not your fault, they’ll never mesh together without the compatibilist redefining free will.

Compatibilism asserts that determinism and free will are compatible. I understand that. However I don't see how that approach addresses the psycholinguistics involved behind the terms 'free vs. slave' in front of 'will', which are ultimately defined by one's imagery of God/false god. In psycholinguistics and in scripture, only one will is truly free while another is a slave, and the one that is truly free and not a slave is qualified as being governed by the knowledge of God.

We call that being a blagger in the UK.

The reason I mentioned that I study linguistics was to provide some insight into how I approach the subject matter. This intent is qualified by the sentence that followed my mentioning it, "As such I see words as vehicles of sentiment".

 

[John Mullally]

Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.

Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.

Two kinds of everything good (Faith, Jesus, trust, love, obedience, repentance, etc.) is a big and repeating theme among Calvanists just looking at few threads here. I find it two much.

Its always one of each type is associated with salvation and the other is not.

 

[John Mullally]

I have no need to want to know what Calvin taught.

I don't like that line.

When Jesus addressed the churches in Revelations he was conversant in identifying groups in error that need to be corrected (or repudiated) using their group name (Nicolaitians and Jezebel) everyone at that time understood. Not intending to make a negative statement here in this example about Calvanism - but it is a major influence in the church today - so we should be conversant. That doesn't mean your saying no comment or ignoring questions is a problem. If nothing else studying Calvanism will exercise psycholinguistics.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.

Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.

Two kinds of everything good (Faith, Jesus, trust, love, obedience, repentance, etc.) is a big and repeating theme among Calvanists just looking at few threads here. I find it two much.

Its always one of each type is associated with salvation and the other is not.

And I've yet to see any actual biblical evidence that supports their views.

 

[John Mullally]

And I've yet to see any actual biblical evidence that supports their views.

No argument from me on this! I would be really surprised if you get an answer - especially one that doesn't raise more questions.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't like that line.

It simply means I have the Holy Spirit and I am not inclined to study Calvin's teachings. I'm just being forthright. Please consider that it's not reasonable to me that the Holy Spirit is instructing you to convince me that I should study Calvinism so I can be learned in what not to believe.

When Jesus addressed the churches in Revelations he was conversant in identifying groups in error that need to be corrected (or repudiated) using their group name (Nicolaitians and Jezebel) everyone at that time understood. Not intending to make a negative statement here in this example about Calvanism - but it is a major influence in the church today - so we should be conversant. That doesn't mean your saying no comment or ignoring questions is a problem. If nothing else studying Calvanism will exercise psycholinguistics.

Okay, that's a valid point in regards to Jezebel, the Nicolaitans or Balaam. Those are issues I have looked into. But that doesn't change the fact that the Holy Spirit is not moving me to need to know what Calvin taught. I'm not aware of any questions I have ignored. But if there are, they're probably loaded questions which can't be answered as posed. In my view we're not discussing Calvinism, we're discussing whether to accept a definition of free will that obscures what a real free will is. The op doesn't even mention Calvinism.

 

[childeye 2]

Trust is trust, to whatever or whoever it is directed at.
Please find biblical evidence that supports your distinction.

There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.

 

[John Mullally]

There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.

This is talking about 2 kinds of trust in Jesus. I am not authoring this.

With Calvanism, you may think you are trusting in Christ and in the atonement, but your action (false repentance?) could be self-forced and sourced from your own mind (conscience); instead of being drawn by the Holy Spirit - because you are not elect (second class) - so by definition that trust is not genuine.

I always thought that the conscience (if it is not seared) was the voice of the Holy Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
And I've yet to see any actual biblical evidence that supports their views.

No argument from me on this! I would be really surprised if you get an answer - especially one that doesn't raise more questions.

Yes, that's the usual pattern.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There's a difference between objective and subjective views. For example trusting in God's enemy would be distrusting God, so in reality it's not faith according to scripture.

When Scripture mentions "faith" or "believing", it always means saving faith by believing in Christ for salvation.

The Bible does not differentiate between objective and subjective kinds of faith. I'm not sure there even is a difference, or that the idea of "subjective faith" is real.

Can you provide an example of this?

 

[childeye 2]

That is not what is being implied by the 2 kinds of trust.

With Calvanism, you may think you are trusting in Christ and in the atonement, but your action (false repentance?) could be operating out of your own mind (conscience) instead of be led by the Holy Spirit.

I always thought that the conscience (if it is not seared) was the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The conscience and the Holy Spirit are not the same. A defiled conscience finds fault where there is none. It operates in a negative prejudice projecting one's own lack of faith in God's Spirit onto others. It is said that to the pure of heart all things are pure but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed their minds and their consciences are defiled.

It reminds me of a story I once heard about Richard Nixon's Father. Richard Nixon said that when he was a boy, there was to be a family gathering at their house, complete with many Aunts, Uncles, and cousins of all ages. He then went on to say that in anticipation, his Father went about the house leaving coins of differing value laying about, that could be found by the children. At this point in the story, I pictured what a nice man Richard Nixon's Father was in seeking to bring joy to some little kid who would find a coin. But then Richard Nixon continued by saying that when he asked his Father why he was leaving coins laying about, the Father replied, "I want to see whose children are thieves".

 

[John Mullally]

The conscience and the Holy Spirit are not the same. A defiled conscience finds fault where there is none. It operates in a negative prejudice projecting one's own lack of faith in God's Spirit onto others. It is said that to the pure of heart all things are pure but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed their minds and their consciences are defiled.

It reminds me of a story I once heard about Richard Nixon's Father. Richard Nixon said that when he was a boy, there was to be a family gathering at their house, complete with many Aunts, Uncles, and cousins of all ages. He then went on to say that in anticipation, his Father went about the house leaving coins of differing value laying about, that could be found by the children. At this point in the story, I pictured what a nice man Richard Nixon's Father was in seeking to bring joy to some little kid who would find a coin. But then Richard Nixon continued by saying that when he asked his Father why he was leaving coins laying about, the Father replied, "I want to see whose children are thieves".

You say Holy Spirit and conscience are not the same - never said they were. You proceeded to cite a defiled conscience and argue from there. I had already restricted my criteria for the Holy Spirit using the conscience is that it is not seared. I said that the Holy Spirit uses the non-seared conscience specifically as a voice.

I have read your intelligent posts - I believe you are conversant on Calvanism.

Nixon story is interesting. I live a few miles from where Nixon grew up. If his family had been lucky, they would have been rich because there was a lot of oil in the surroundings.

 

[childeye 2]

When Scripture mentions "faith" or "believing", it always means saving faith by believing in Christ for salvation.

By faith Abel gave a better offering. By faith Abraham believed God. By faith the woman told Jesus that even the dogs have to eat from the scraps that fall from the Master's table. The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the power that created all things. The term 'faith' means that God is deemed as trustworthy and therefore good. Wherefore there is only one true God and only one true faith. To rephrase, whoever has no faith displays a distrust in the source of the power that created all things.

The Bible does not differentiate between objective and subjective kinds of faith. I'm not sure there even is a difference, or that the idea of "subjective faith" is real.
Can you provide an example of this?

Subjective faith is not real. The bible does not mention subjective faiths because there is only one God. You might hear people say something like, "of what faith are you?"... Or, "we must respect each other's different faiths". These are examples of the misuse of the term 'faith' because they are subjective and actually means religions.

Why is this important? Because we're battling in our minds a cunning enemy who uses semantics to create propaganda by changing positives into negatives and visa versa. When we accept that there are many faiths, we are subconsciously accepting the premise there are many gods which erases what the term God actually means.

Deception is a real thing which is why we need the Holy Spirit. Have you ever asked someone, "Do you believe in God?" Of course you're asking do you believe God exists? But since the term God is an axiom, God must exist or we don't exist, so it's essentially asking do you believe we exist? But we don't see it that way. In our minds when we ask if you believe in God, we are subconsciously presenting God in the context of superstition. Not many people would think to respond according to the true meanings of the words and answer, "Yes I trust God".

 

[mlepfitjw]

@childeye 2, could we say a measure of faith is a faith subjectively understood, believed, and lived?

Romans 12:1-3?

 

[childeye 2]

You said they were not the same and then proceeded to cite a defiled conscience and argue from there. I had already restricted my criteria to a non seared conscience - so you are veering off the starting point I stated. And then I said that the Holy Spirit uses the non-seared conscience (specifically as a voice). I am not saying they are the same. And a seared conscience is not going to entertain accepting Christ.

The conscience is different than the voice of the Holy Spirt. A seared conscience is one that is most likely dead. I used the defiled conscience to show why the voice of the Holy Spirit and the conscience are not the same.

 

[FreeGrace2]

By faith Abel gave a better offering. By faith Abraham believed God. By faith the woman told Jesus that even the dogs have to eat from the scraps that fall from the Master's table.

My position has been clear. Faith is always trust. All of your 3 examples involve trust in what God or Jesus said. That's why Abel gave a better offering. He paid attention to the rules. Unlike his brother. Abraham is called the father of faith; Rom 4. And the woman trusted that Jesus could heal her daughter. She trusted in Jesus.

The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the power that created all things. The term 'faith' means that God is deemed as trustworthy and therefore good. Wherefore there is only one true God and only one true faith. To rephrase, whoever has no faith displays a distrust in the source of the power that created all things.

OK.

Subjective faith is not real. The bible does not mention subjective faiths because there is only one God.

That was my point.

 

[childeye 2]

@childeye 2, could we say a measure of faith is a faith subjectively understood, believed, and lived?

Romans 12:1-3?

Truth is authoritative not subjective. In scripture, a persons faith is towards God denoting only a positive perception of Him. I view a measure as depicting degrees between two absolutes of all faith and no faith.

We don't each have a subjective understanding of what the term faith means anymore than we each have a subjective value for the number 1.
A subjective understanding could just as well mean a misunderstanding.

The semantics get tricky when you ask if faith is subjectively believed since faith already infers belief.

And finally if you're asking if we all apply our given measure of faith in our own unique ways according to our own unique life experience, I would think this is true.

 

[childeye 2]

That's why Abel gave a better offering. He paid attention to the rules. Unlike his brother.

Respectfully, the bible doesn't say there were rules. If Abel was following rules, it seems to me that would negate the entire point of faith being the reason Abel gave a better offering.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Heb 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Also to your last response: childeye2; And finally if you're asking if we all apply our given measure of faith in our own unique ways according to our own unique life experience, I would think this is true.

I agree.