Two theses

[Epiphoskei]

1) To speak of conversion, or the point at which the sinner is justified, in terms of either free or bound will is categorically incorrect. Humans are justified by faith. One essential element of faith is intellectual assent, or belief. We do not choose our beliefs. Belief is not, strictly speaking, any kind of an act of the will.

2) Nonetheless there are passages that speak of salvation in terms of choice, or at least in terms of acts of will. To reconcile some aspects of salvation being acts of will, and other aspects of salvation not being acts of will, requires some form of compatibilitic determinism. Libertarianism will not suffice to explain this apparent contradiction, because it allows the will to act autonomously. If the will should autonomously will for salvation, independently of the non-will aspects of justification, we would be required by scripture to view such a person as simultaneously saved due to the will-involved aspects justification, and damned due to the will-uninvolved aspects of salvation. Thus Libertarian Free Will fails.

 

[drstevej]

God tickles our willers.

Just that simple.

 

[Hammster]

I've tried getting across to the synergists that their view if free will and belief fails. They seem to think that when someone is presented the Gospel, they just choose whether or not to believe it. They equate it with choosing whether to wear black socks or white. Or oatmeal or cereal for breakfast.

 

[drstevej]

I'm trying to figure out how I chose to be born the first time. If I didn't choose then I say it's unfair! I'm just a puppet on an umbilical cord.

As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

Only if the use their free will and choose to fly.

 

[bling]

1) To speak of conversion, or the point at which the sinner is justified, in terms of either free or bound will is categorically incorrect. Humans are justified by faith. One essential element of faith is intellectual assent, or belief. We do not choose our beliefs. Belief is not, strictly speaking, any kind of an act of the will.

2) Nonetheless there are passages that speak of salvation in terms of choice, or at least in terms of acts of will. To reconcile some aspects of salvation being acts of will, and other aspects of salvation not being acts of will, requires some form of compatibilitic determinism. Libertarianism will not suffice to explain this apparent contradiction, because it allows the will to act autonomously. If the will should autonomously will for salvation, independently of the non-will aspects of justification, we would be required by scripture to view such a person as simultaneously saved due to the will-involved aspects justification, and damned due to the will-uninvolved aspects of salvation. Thus Libertarian Free Will fails.

Your problem is with the free will choice a mature adult is to be making. The choice is not some “noble” decision to follow God instead of satan, but it is the decision to: be a man, take your deserved punishment, fight to the end and never stoop so low as to accept charity or surrender, give up, and humbly be willing to accept charity. There is nothing “noble” about accepting charity.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Your problem is with the free will choice a mature adult is to be making. The choice is not some “noble” decision to follow God instead of satan, but it is the decision to: be a man, take your deserved punishment, fight to the end and never stoop so low as to accept charity or surrender, give up, and humbly be willing to accept charity. There is nothing “noble” about accepting charity.

This is quite unrelated to my theses. Justification is by means of something which is categorically not an act of will.

 

[bling]

1) To speak of conversion, or the point at which the sinner is justified, in terms of either free or bound will is categorically incorrect. Humans are justified by faith. One essential element of faith is intellectual assent, or belief. We do not choose our beliefs. Belief is not, strictly speaking, any kind of an act of the will.

2) Nonetheless there are passages that speak of salvation in terms of choice, or at least in terms of acts of will. To reconcile some aspects of salvation being acts of will, and other aspects of salvation not being acts of will, requires some form of compatibilitic determinism. Libertarianism will not suffice to explain this apparent contradiction, because it allows the will to act autonomously. If the will should autonomously will for salvation, independently of the non-will aspects of justification, we would be required by scripture to view such a person as simultaneously saved due to the will-involved aspects justification, and damned due to the will-uninvolved aspects of salvation. Thus Libertarian Free Will fails.

I really do not see the difference between “Libertarian free will” and “free will” or for that matter “will” as define by philosophers.



You say: “We do not choose our beliefs.” Why not? The “choices” all mature adults make sometime in their life and have all the opportunities they need is: between trusting (believing/faith) in a benevolent creator enough to be willing to accept His Charity, or hanging in there fighting to the end, never humbly accepting charity.

The “autonomous will” is not “choosing salvation”, but is allowing God to provide salvation in the form of accepting God’s charity, in the form of accepting God’s Forgiveness.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I really do not see the difference between “Libertarian free will” and “free will” or for that matter “will” as define by philosophers.



You say: “We do not choose our beliefs.” Why not?

Choose to believe the moon is made of cheese and you will discover why not. That we do not choose our beliefs is self-evident.

 

[bling]

Choose to believe the moon is made of cheese and you will discover why not. That we do not choose our beliefs is self-evident.

I really do not want to make assumptions, but are you saying “people believe only what they are told?”

People have to really work at believing, “there is no God”, so is that their choice?

In general people are limited by their environment and some are limited by their knowledge/mental capacity. Does that mean all those that never had the opportunity to hear (aborted preborn included) the gospel are hell bound?

I feel all mature adults will be brought to their senses throw tragedies enough times in their life to make a real choice between relying on self/ continuing to rely on thing/people they know does not work or turning to the hope in a benevolent Creator. God is right there at their elbow, wanting to help if they will just allow Him to help.

 

[bling]

This is quite unrelated to my theses. Justification is by means of something which is categorically not an act of will.

We are justified by all God has done, but God has done this for everyone. We just to be willing to allow God’s help/mercy/grace/Love/forgiveness and God will make us justified.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I am not saying anything of the kind. I am pointing out that you can't choose to believe that. Beliefs are patently not things we choose.

We are also not justified by making a choice to rely on God instead of on ourselves. We are justified by faith. Those are not the same thing, even though that is the trope definition of faith found in so much modern Christian media.

 

[bling]

I am not saying anything of the kind. I am pointing out that you can't choose to believe that. Beliefs are patently not things we choose.

What is the “that” you cannot choose to believe?

We are also not justified by making a choice to rely on God instead of on ourselves. We are justified by faith. Those are not the same thing, even though that is the trope definition of faith found in so much modern Christian media.

Accepting God’s charity does not “justify” anything. Surrendering to your enemy (God) does not “justify” you. What God/Jesus does provides justification.

 

[ptomwebster]

I'm trying to figure out how I chose to be born the first time....

That is because you are unaware of the first Heaven and earth age.

 

[Skala]

LFW demands that when a choice between A and B is considered, the same set of reasons why the person chooses A must also be given for why the person chooses B.

Thus if a person chooses to reject Christ, a certain range of reasons is given, but also, if a person chooses to accept Christ, those same exact range of reasons must be given.

This means that a choice for Christ, (in LFW) is reduced to arbitrary choice. In other words, it cannot be said that the reason a person chooses Christ (in LFW) is "because the person wanted to choose Christ", because that reason is not choice-specific to either A or B.

A Few Problems With Arminianism and a Case For Calvinism - YouTube

 

[bling]

LFW demands that when a choice between A and B is considered, the same set of reasons why the person chooses A must also be given for why the person chooses B.

Thus if a person chooses to reject Christ, a certain range of reasons is given, but also, if a person chooses to accept Christ, those same exact range of reasons must be given.

This means that a choice for Christ, (in LFW) is reduced to arbitrary choice. In other words, it cannot be said that the reason a person chooses Christ (in LFW) is "because the person wanted to choose Christ", because that reason is not choice-specific to either A or B.

You are right the choice is not between accepting and rejecting Christ, but it is between the willingness to accept God’s help (Charity) or refuse God’s charity.

 

[Tzaousios]

You are right the choice is not between accepting and rejecting Christ, but it is between the willingness to accept God’s help (Charity) or refuse God’s charity.

Still, though, why would a person who sees themselves as basically good because they do what is right in their own eyes even want to accept God's help? This is not even taking into account whether they could actually will it.

 

[Skala]

You are right the choice is not between accepting and rejecting Christ, but it is between the willingness to accept God’s help (Charity) or refuse God’s charity.

Talk about missing the boat. What does your post have to do with the content of my post which you replied to?

 

[Epiphoskei]

What is the “that” you cannot choose to believe?

Anything. Belief is categorically not an act of the will.

Accepting God’s charity does not “justify” anything. Surrendering to your enemy (God) does not “justify” you. What God/Jesus does provides justification.

Then let's put it another way. An individual is only justified when he believes. He is not justified when he "accepts God's charity" or "surrenders to God" or when he wills to do anything else. The difference between the saint and the condemned is faith, and faith is not a function of will, therefore free will is not even germane to the supposed free will/sovereignty dispute.

 

[bling]

Still, though, why would a person who sees themselves as basically good because they do what is right in their own eyes even want to accept God's help? This is not even taking into account whether they could actually will it.

People always try on their own to relieve the burden that sin creates in their conscience, with no lasting success. The only solution is to give up on self and turn to God to accept His help. Self-assurance is false security which a good coming to their senses will revel and there are plenty of tragedies in this world to bring us to our senses.

Reality sets in when they are brought to their senses and they just have to allow themselves to see where they are at and where they are going (like the prodigal son).

 

[bling]

Anything. Belief is categorically not an act of the will.

Why not, since people can chose to believe in the existence of God by looking at all the evidence around them or refuse to accept the evidence and chose not to believe in a God?

Then let's put it another way. An individual is only justified when he believes. He is not justified when he "accepts God's charity" or "surrenders to God" or when he wills to do anything else. The difference between the saint and the condemned is faith, and faith is not a function of will, therefore free will is not even germane to the supposed free will/sovereignty dispute.

I agree: “He is not justified when he "accepts God's charity" or "surrenders to God"…”, since God does the justifying. It is not that the “condemned” do not have “faith” in something; it is they refuse to put their faith in a benevolent Creator enough to accept His help and thus have a saving faith. The “will” is not “faith” but the “will” is directing (by free will choice) the faith (trust) in self or God. Saving faith leads to God’s Justification.