What is freewill?

[childeye 2]

God's decree is a long ways from 'fate', but yeah, if the notion of 'fate' helps to understand what I mean, ok. By the way, what is PI?

It's not as much about fate as it is about trying to calculate the perfect circle. Pi is an irrational transcendental number.

The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14159. The number π appears in many formulae across mathematics and physics. It is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although fractions such as are commonly used to approximate it. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanently repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number

π
PI = Que sera sera

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, my point exactly. If philosophically free will = responsible/culpable, the image of God we hold to be true will predetermine fundamental meanings of right and wrong in deliberations of accuse/excuse, grace and cynicism. The higher the bar could be interpreted in both terms of both mercy and wrath, the more strict or quick to condemn, the greater the chance of hypocritical judgment. Hence the philosophical meaning of free will is utterly lost in semantics.

Not sure I follow. Philosophical free will may imply responsibility/culpability, but they are not equal —they are not the same thing. The image of God we hold to be true will predetermine OUR fundamental meanings of right and wrong etc. But either way, I don't get how your last sentence, there, follows.

Also, are you equating "philosophical free will" with "libertarian free will" —as in, uncaused choice?

A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...

It looks like the spirit of Satan is a vain image of god projected by the creature. After all, it was through subtlety that the serpent both manifested a doubt in God's intentions towards mankind and also caused the desire to improve upon one's station. Cain felt put down when his offering was not respected as much as Abels. He took it personally and God said it was sin at the door of his heart, apparently manipulating his emotions. Satan spoke to God as if God was naive about Job.

I see a tempter, accuser, slanderer.

I agree about the tempter, accuser, slanderer. But I don't see God saying that it was sin at the door of his heart that, manipulating his emotions, caused Cain's jealousy and murderous anger. (Not saying it wasn't that, either, but I don't see that sequence shown in the Genesis narrative).

Mark Quayle said:
I think you would agree, though, that we (believers, even) also do that to ourselves without sometimes even realizing we do so, to ease conscience or to be able to talk ourselves into doing what we would not otherwise do.

NO! Not me.
Sounds to me like you're describing the difference between rationalizing immoral actions and learning from one's mistakes. Jesus said wisdom is justified/vindicated by her children.

I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue.

No? Are you saying you never rebel against God, and never try to wiggle out from under your conscience?

Also, can you say that last sentence, "I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue", in another way? I'm not sure what you are saying. 'Squandering virtue' can be many things, such as developing bad habits or "quenching the Spirit" or being a lazy steward etc. So I don't follow your statement about 'appeasing the will of the flesh'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's not as much about fate as it is about trying to calculate the perfect circle. Pi is an irrational transcendental number.

The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14159. The number π appears in many formulae across mathematics and physics. It is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although fractions such as are commonly used to approximate it. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanently repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number

π
PI = Que sera sera

Yes, I understand the mathematical PI. I didn't know if that was what you were referring to.

but anyhow, I'm curious about your reasoning, there, why PI = Que sera sera.

"Whatever will be will be", is certainly true, though to most it is attributing the future to mere fate, which notion I disagree with completely. "Fate" is the terminology of our cynicism at work —what we consider cold fact— but God's decree is active (and full of joy) will. "Whatever will be will be" is established by God.

 

[childeye 2]

I like that picture, though the stasis of the moment, and the purpose of the race are only incidental to the example— not descriptive of clinical determinism.

Why not? I mean to me the race is judgment. In the big picture we're here to witness the Eternal in a temporal existence and even sin testifies to God.

Anyway, this was my point: Free will theology poses the question, "If there is no free will, then why is there judgment?"... In deterministic theology, judgment is a formality.

This is profound and hinges on the very phrase… “He who is forgiven much, Loves much”… which many believe is Jesus quoting the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom of Solomon.

Brilliant summation! It's as if the hinges are on the door going in and out to pasture and those who are forgiven little and love little are the door swinging the other way.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, I understand the mathematical PI. I didn't know if that was what you were referring to.

but anyhow, I'm curious about your reasoning, there, why PI = Que sera sera.

Keep in mind you were discussing probability ---> Probability is 100% whatever happens, as it turns out.

A circle is a good example, and probably an even better example would be a magnetic field.

"Whatever will be will be", is certainly true, though to most it is attributing the future to mere fate, which notion I disagree with completely. "Fate" is the terminology of our cynicism at work —what we consider cold fact— but God's decree is active (and full of joy) will. "Whatever will be will be" is established by God.

Exactly, there is positive and negative energy in a circuit. Subjectively speaking, the earth spins opposite directions depending upon which pole you're standing on. So fate can carry positive and negative connotations of hope or doom, or a neutral connotation of Que sera sera.

 

[childeye 2]

Not sure I follow. Philosophical free will may imply responsibility/culpability, but they are not equal —they are not the same thing.

You're right about that. I articulated it this way because to me free will carries an undertone of judgment and blame under the idea we are always in control. Free will theology is based on taking responsibility for one's sin rather than blaming God. However free will theology then runs into questions about taking credit for doing good, rather than giving credit to God.

The image of God we hold to be true will predetermine OUR fundamental meanings of right and wrong etc. But either way, I don't get how your last sentence, there, follows.

How do we interpret responsibility for right and wrong, when we can be held responsible for not being merciful and understanding or for not showing wrath? In semantics it could be irresponsible to hold someone responsible.

Consider the summation brought forth by @Grip Docility : This hinges on the very phrase… “He who is forgiven much, Loves much”. The philosophical term Free will implying responsibility for one's actions gets lost in semantics when those who are forgiven much, love much, and those forgiven little, love little.

This is lost in semantics---> Many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first.
This is lost in semantics---> The Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind.
This is getting lost in semantics---> A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...

Also, are you equating "philosophical free will" with "libertarian free will" —as in, uncaused choice?

In this case, as a predicate, I'm qualifying the term free will as being responsible for one's choices.

I agree about the tempter, accuser, slanderer. But I don't see God saying that it was sin at the door of his heart that, manipulating his emotions, caused Cain's jealousy and murderous anger. (Not saying it wasn't that, either, but I don't see that sequence shown in the Genesis narrative).

God said if you don't do well sin lieth at the door. I believe the door that we open and let in or don't let in is in the heart according to what we believe or don't believe. In this way I believe love can be misguided into emotions such as jealousy. I see carnal vanity as vain comparisons of who's better than who, and as a result feeling either put down or lifted up in doing so.

We can see that Cain took it personally. I believe it's his pride being hurt by believing it's like a contest. I think that if I asked Cain if he gave the offering to please God or to look good, I think he would have thought about it and eventually say, "To please God". And I think that would have short-circuited his anger.

Mark Quayle said:
I think you would agree, though, that we (believers, even) also do that to ourselves without sometimes even realizing we do so, to ease conscience or to be able to talk ourselves into doing what we would not otherwise do.


No? Are you saying you never rebel against God, and never try to wiggle out from under your conscience?

"NO! Not me."
It's implying that I'm already wiggling out of admitting I do the moment you said it. A backwards way of saying yes, I do, without actually saying yes, I do.

Also, can you say that last sentence, "I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue", in another way? I'm not sure what you are saying. 'Squandering virtue' can be many things, such as developing bad habits or "quenching the Spirit" or being a lazy steward etc. So I don't follow your statement about 'appeasing the will of the flesh'.

"I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue"

Whatever God doesn't like is the most tempting.
The forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
It's funny when someone else falls.
The grass is greener on the other side.
The harder I get the less I have to care.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're right about that. I articulated it this way because to me free will carries an undertone of judgment and blame under the idea we are always in control. Free will theology is based on taking responsibility for one's sin rather than blaming God. However free will theology then runs into questions about taking credit for doing good, rather than giving credit to God.

How do we interpret responsibility for right and wrong, when we can be held responsible for not being merciful and understanding or for not showing wrath? In semantics it could be irresponsible to hold someone responsible.

Consider the summation brought forth by @Grip Docility : This hinges on the very phrase… “He who is forgiven much, Loves much”. The philosophical term Free will implying responsibility for one's actions gets lost in semantics when those who are forgiven much, love much, and those forgiven little, love little.

This is lost in semantics---> Many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first.
This is lost in semantics---> The Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind.
This is getting lost in semantics---> A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...


In this case, as a predicate, I'm qualifying the term free will as being responsible for one's choices.

ok But do you think being responsible for one's own choices implies "free will"? (I'm still trying to see where you are going with this)

God said if you don't do well sin lieth at the door. I believe the door that we open and let in or don't let in is in the heart according to what we believe or don't believe. In this way I believe love can be misguided into emotions such as jealousy. I see carnal vanity as vain comparisons of who's better than who, and as a result feeling either put down or lifted up in doing so.

I agree. I just don't see the text as saying all that.

We can see that Cain took it personally. I believe it's his pride being hurt by believing it's like a contest. I think that if I asked Cain if he gave the offering to please God or to look good, I think he would have thought about it and eventually say, "To please God". And I think that would have short-circuited his anger.

Yes. Quite.

"NO! Not me."
It's implying that I'm already wiggling out of admitting I do the moment you said it. A backwards way of saying yes, I do, without actually saying yes, I do.

Ha! guess I took you too seriously.

"I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue"

Whatever God doesn't like is the most tempting.
The forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
It's funny when someone else falls.
The grass is greener on the other side.
The harder I get the less I have to care.

*Chuckling* Well, I've certainly enjoyed wrangling the riddles with you. I hope I haven't lost it all to semantics.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why not? I mean to me the race is judgment. In the big picture we're here to witness the Eternal in a temporal existence and even sin testifies to God.

I like that very much. Perceptive of you to see that this temporal is not about us. One of my theses is that the self-determinist is stuck in a world that revolves around the creature.

Anyway, this was my point: Free will theology poses the question, "If there is no free will, then why is there judgment?"... In deterministic theology, judgment is a formality.

My theology is, clinically, 'deterministic'. I consider all that comes to pass, subsequent to God's first causing, a result, by way of the chains of cause-and-effect, to God's causing. (Not that there aren't quite a few other compelling reasons to think so, but they can wait).

But a good Doctrine of God shows how his determining all things establishes his judgement as being no mere formality, though, ironically, in a logical sense the judgement was done concurrent with creation. The Lamb appeared slain from the foundation of the world. God is not stuck in this temporal POV.

 

[childeye 2]

ok But do you think being responsible for one's own choices implies "free will"? (I'm still trying to see where you are going with this)

To me the term free will is an unstable term to reason upon. I note that it's a fluid term so long as the adjective 'free' is not qualified. Also, people don't factor in that the term 'will' is not just the ability to reason and choose, but also the desire of the heart.

So, I'm going to answer your question in terms that indicate both the heart and mind. I THINK knowledge and ignorance are the ultimate determiners in the outcome of my mental deliberations. I don't BELIEVE I'm responsible for knowledge or ignorance. I KNOW I'm responsible for my actions, but I don't BELIEVE that's what causes me to care about how my actions affect others.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And which faith is not a work of man, but only the gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, Ac1348, 18;27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3),
for we cannot even see the kingdom of God (much less believe in it) apart from the new birth by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),
which itself is as sovereign (unaccountable) as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

Let's take a look at what each of the verses you claim teach that faith (assuming we're talking about saving faith here) "is not a work of man, but only the gift of the Holy Spirit" really mean.

Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

You are taking this verse out of context. This is not saying that faith is given to someone. What this is talking about is being given the opportunity to not only believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him. It's not saying that anyone automatically believes in Him and suffers for Him as a result of being given the gift of faith and suffering. Gift of suffering? Who has ever heard of such a thing? That can't be what Paul was saying there.

If it means to be given faith by the Holy Spirit then it would also have to mean to be given to suffer for Christ by the Holy Spirit. Is suffering for Christ a gift of the Holy Spirit? Would you try to claim that? I highly doubt it. I've never seen anyone try to claim that suffering is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, believing in him and suffering for him should be understood in the same context in terms of who it is that decides whether or not you believe in him and suffer for him. To me, it's very clear that God/Jesus doesn't make anyone suffer for Him and that is a choice that people make. The same must be true in regards to believing in Him or not as well. We are all granted the opportunity to believe in Him and suffer for Him. But, it is up to each of us to choose whether to believe in Him and suffer for Him or not. It might seem strange to see it as an opportunity to suffer for Him when we all tend to want to avoid suffering, but it's a privilege to suffer for Him and it results in great blessings when we do.

1 Peter 3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.

Okay, enough about that verse (Phil 1:29). Let's move on to the next one you listed (Acts 13:48). I will add a couple more verses for context.

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

You should not try to interpret verse 48 without taking verse 46 into account. Context is hugely important and so many people miss the context of scripture. They draw conclusions from single verses without looking at the surrounding context. That is a bad idea.

Verse 46 indicates that the Jews who Paul and Barnabas were speaking the word of God to rejected it on their own volition. It wasn't as though they were not capable of accepting it. I say this because it says "you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life". This places the blame for rejecting the gospel squarely on those Jews. It doesn't say God didn't consider them worthy of eternal life. After all, He sent His Son to die for their sins, so God certainly believed they were worthy of eternal life (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). But, they decided they were not worthy by way of rejecting the offer of eternal life that comes through embracing the gospel message. So, this indicates that the reason for them to not obtain eternal life was not because God didn't want them to have it and didn't give them faith so that they could have it, but rather was because of their own foolish choice to reject God's offer of eternal life.

So, with all that in mind, what does verse 48 mean? Is it saying that the Gentiles believed because they were appointed to eternal life or that all who were appointed to believe did so? Which would imply that they didn't have any choice in the matter but just kind of somehow automatically believed because they were appointed to do so? No, it's not saying that at all. Especially considering that it would contradict what was indicated in verse 46, which is that believing the gospel or not is a choice that people need to make.

So, keeping verse 46 and all of scripture in mind while being careful not to contradict any other scripture instead of interpreting Acts 13:48 in isolation as Calvinists do, what does verse 48 say? It's simply saying what it says. All who were appointed to eternal life believed. Because that's what people who are appointed to eternal life do. They believe. It doesn't say they were appointed to believe. It doesn't say they were appointed for eternal life, so they automatically believed as a result. That's a case of reading something into the text that isn't there. It's simply saying all who were appointed for eternal life believed because that's what those who are appointed to eternal life do. There is no indication there that they were caused or made to believe as if they had no choice in the matter. That doesn't support the context as established in verse 46.

Let's move on to the next verse you listed.

Acts 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

This verse does not say that saving faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You are reading that into the verse. I would hope all of us, whether Calvinists, Arminians or whatever other label you want to reference, believe that no one can believe without God's grace. But, does that mean that God's grace automatically results in faith? Clearly not.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

This verse clearly indicates that God's grace is extended to all people, offering salvation to all people. Yet, not all people are saved. Why not? Because God's grace can be resisted and rejected. Calvinism somehow denies that despite verses like this. I don't get it. The only thing you can conclude from verses like this is that people have the free will (free agency, whatever you want to call it) to choose whether to repent and believe or not. Otherwise, there would be universal salvation and none of us here believes in that (I hope).

Okay, let's move on to the next one. This is taking longer than I thought, but I guess I might as well cover all of them.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

If you've read this far, you won't be surprised to see me say that you are again taking a verse out of context. This verse is not referring to personal saving faith. It is referring to the faith as in the Christian faith as a whole, not one's personal faith in Christ. This is referring to receiving the common blessings of being part of the Christian faith.

Also, scripture just doesn't teach that saving faith is given to us by God, so there's no reason to interpret 2 Peter 1:1 that way. Scripture repeatedly indicates that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9), all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and that Jesus died for the sins of all people (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). With that in mind, why would only some people have faith and not others if whether someone has faith or not was completely up to God? That would contradict His character in terms of His desire for all people to repent and be saved.

Keeping in mind that God wants all people to repent and be saved the only thing that makes sense as to why not all people do repent and not all people are saved is because God makes everyone responsible to choose whether to repent and believe or not. How can faith be something that is forced or caused without any choice in the matter? What kind of "faith" is that? Scripture says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Why would it please God if someone has faith if they only have faith because God gave it to them? That makes no sense. But, if someone willingly chose to have faith when they could have chosen to not have faith instead, it makes sense that this would please God.

Think about it. Scripture talks about God greeting people in heaven and saying "Well done, though good and faithful servant". If His servants only have faith because God gave it to them, why would God say that to them? Shouldn't He say "Well done, me" instead? I know that seems silly to say, but I'm just making a point and trying to get you to think about what you believe and think about whether it actually makes sense in light of what scripture teaches as a whole.

Okay, let's move on to the last verse you listed. I'll add more verses for context.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Yes, that's right. You have once again taken a verse out of context. Romans 12:3 is not talking about God giving people saving faith in Jesus Christ here. If you read past verse 3, you can see that Paul is talking about spiritual gifts here. Like he does in 1 Corinthians 12, he talks here about each person being given different gifts of the Holy Spirit. Well, gifts of the Holy Spirit are things that manifest AFTER someone has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. So, "the measure of faith" that Paul talks about here cannot possibly be the faith we initially put in Christ upon conversion.

Instead, this is talking about an extra measure of faith that God gives us in order to use the spiritual gifts that He gives us. Notice in verse 6 that it talks about prophesying according to the proportion (or measure) of faith given to do so. This suggests that the measure of faith needed to do that is not the same as the measure of faith needed to use the gift of teaching, for example. When it comes to saving faith, there are not different measures of it. You either believe and trust in Christ or you don't. There's no certain measure of saving faith you need to be saved, so Romans 12:3 cannot possibly be referring to saving faith.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare73 said:
And which faith is not a work of man, but only the gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, Ac1348, 18;27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3),
for we cannot even see the kingdom of God (much less believe in it) apart from the new birth by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),
which itself is as sovereign (unaccountable) as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

You are taking this verse out of context. This is not saying that faith is given to someone

What does the word, "granted", mean? I see no reference to "given the opportunity to believe", here, nor in context. You are lensing it. And, yes, to suffer for him is indeed a gift, in spite of your scorn of the notion. Paul says many things that go against your standard of, "who has ever heard of...", for affirmation of truth and meaning.

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

You should not try to interpret verse 48 without taking verse 46 into account. Context is hugely important and so many people miss the context of scripture. They draw conclusions from single verses without looking at the surrounding context. That is a bad idea.

Verse 46 indicates that the Jews who Paul and Barnabas were speaking the word of God to rejected it on their own volition. It wasn't as though they were not capable of accepting it.

You apparently haven't noticed that @Clare73 doesn't take verses out of context, though she may quote shortened passages, or even give just the references for the sake of brevity. (Compare her post to your 'wall-of-text'. You should be honored if she even took you seriously enough to bother to read it. I only wish I could write as concisely as she.). Every one of these she has considered WAS considered in context, and in a simple, logical hermeneutic. Your interpretation and use of them, however, consistently takes them, and some parts of their contexts, as only seen through your lens of self-determination. That is, you assume things —that the world revolves around your choices, and other similar, related notions— before bending the text to fit what you believe. Examples of this is demonstrated farther below.*

Clare73 doesn't claim that anyone makes decisions automatically, or against "their own volition". That is a strawman you have manufactured to beat down; I only hope you didn't build it too strongly.

Acts 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

This verse does not say that saving faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You are reading that into the verse. I would hope all of us, whether Calvinists, Arminians or whatever other label you want to reference, believe that no one can believe without God's grace. But, does that mean that God's grace automatically results in faith? Clearly not.

*What do you assume "grace" means? Why the strawman that claims "grace" means "automatic"?

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

This verse clearly indicates that God's grace is extended to all people, offering salvation to all people. Yet, not all people are saved. Why not? Because God's grace can be resisted and rejected. Calvinism somehow denies that despite verses like this. I don't get it.

True that you don't get it. Calvinism, (which, BTW, is not @Clare73 ), does not deny that God's grace can be resisted and rejected. It claims that the one specific grace, i.e. regeneration, is done apart from advice, permission or even consultation with the will of the recipient of God's mercy.

*But, what do you think Calvinism claims that "offer" means, here? And have you not considered what "all people" can mean? Calvinism doesn't deny that nobody has any excuse for rejecting the offer.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

...you are again taking a verse out of context. This verse is not referring to personal saving faith. It is referring to the faith as in the Christian faith as a whole, not one's personal faith in Christ. This is referring to receiving the common blessings of being part of the Christian faith.

Your asserting so doesn't make it so. However, you may be surprised someday to find that both saving faith and —what do you call it?— Christian faith, are, or at least should be, the same thing —and both are a gift of God. *Common modern USE of the term "the Christian faith" has no authority over Scriptural use of the notion.

Also, scripture just doesn't teach that saving faith is given to us by God, so there's no reason to interpret 2 Peter 1:1 that way. Scripture repeatedly indicates that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9), all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and that Jesus died for the sins of all people (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). With that in mind, why would only some people have faith and not others if whether someone has faith or not was completely up to God? That would contradict His character in terms of His desire for all people to repent and be saved.

That is circular reasoning. You can't prove that a verse does not teach that saving faith is given to us by God, by saying that scripture does not teach that saving faith is a gift of God.

I'll leave alone for now arguments against your use of "God wants", "all people" and "for"...

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Romans 12:3 is not talking about God giving people saving faith in Jesus Christ here. If you read past verse 3, you can see that Paul is talking about spiritual gifts here. Like he does in 1 Corinthians 12, he talks here about each person being given different gifts of the Holy Spirit. Well, gifts of the Holy Spirit are things that manifest AFTER someone has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. So, "the measure of faith" that Paul talks about here cannot possibly be the faith we initially put in Christ upon conversion.

Instead, this is talking about an extra measure of faith that God gives us in order to use the spiritual gifts that He gives us. Notice in verse 6 that it talks about prophesying according to the proportion (or measure) of faith given to do so. This suggests that the measure of faith needed to do that is not the same as the measure of faith needed to use the gift of teaching, for example. When it comes to saving faith, there are not different measures of it. You either believe and trust in Christ or you don't. There's no certain measure of saving faith you need to be saved, so Romans 12:3 cannot possibly be referring to saving faith.

Once again, you may be surprised to find that the faith that we can increase and subdue is indeed the same faith by which we are saved. Note that I am not teaching that it IS the same, but we know that it is of the same source and, in its pure form (that is, not polluted by our notions) it is of the same power. The quality of the faith given in differing measure is altogether powerful, and is not of human derivation (nor even of human measure). It is a GIFT of God.

*Saving faith is not a question of how WE hold to it, but of its nature. The measure of saving faith is irrelevant as to its power. You say, "You either believe and trust in Christ or you don't." True enough, but it is not because saving faith is a lot of faith, but because of who gives it. It is not generated by the recipient of God's grace. God gives it, or God doesn't, according to HIS mercy, not OUR effort.

 

[Clare73]

Let's take a look at what each of the verses you claim teach that faith (assuming we're talking about saving faith here) "is not a work of man, but only the gift of the Holy Spirit" really mean.
Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
You are taking this verse out of context. This is not saying that faith is given to someone. What this is talking about is being given the opportunity to not only believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him.
There is no promise of "salvation" in the OT covenants.
There is promise only of an "everlasting possession;" i.e., heavenly land (Heb 11:13-16).
It's not saying that anyone automatically believes in Him and suffers for Him as a result of being given the gift of faith and suffering. Gift of suffering? Who has ever heard of such a thing? That can't be what Paul was saying there.
If it means to be given faith by the Holy Spirit then it would also have to mean to be given to suffer for Christ by the Holy Spirit. Is suffering for Christ a gift of the Holy Spirit? Would you try to claim that? I highly doubt it. I've never seen anyone try to claim that suffering is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, believing in him and suffering for him should be understood in the same context in terms of who it is that decides whether or not you believe in him and suffer for him. To me, it's very clear that God/Jesus doesn't make anyone suffer for Him and that is a choice that people make. The same must be true in regards to believing in Him or not as well. We are all granted the opportunity to believe in Him and suffer for Him. But, it is up to each of us to choose whether to believe in Him and suffer for Him or not. It might seem strange to see it as an opportunity to suffer for Him when we all tend to want to avoid suffering, but it's a privilege to suffer for Him and it results in great blessings when we do.

1 Peter 3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.

Okay, enough about that verse (Phil 1:29). Let's move on to the next one you listed (Acts 13:48). I will add a couple more verses for context.

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

You should not try to interpret verse 48 without taking verse 46 into account. Context is hugely important and so many people miss the context of scripture. They draw conclusions from single verses without looking at the surrounding context. That is a bad idea.

Verse 46 indicates that the Jews who Paul and Barnabas were speaking the word of God to rejected it on their own volition. It wasn't as though they were not capable of accepting it. I say this because it says "you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life". This places the blame for rejecting the gospel squarely on those Jews. It doesn't say God didn't consider them worthy of eternal life. After all, He sent His Son to die for their sins, so God certainly believed they were worthy of eternal life (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). But, they decided they were not worthy by way of rejecting the offer of eternal life that comes through embracing the gospel message. So, this indicates that the reason for them to not obtain eternal life was not because God didn't want them to have it and didn't give them faith so that they could have it, but rather was because of their own foolish choice to reject God's offer of eternal life.

So, with all that in mind, what does verse 48 mean? Is it saying that the Gentiles believed because they were appointed to eternal life or that all who were appointed to believe did so? Which would imply that they didn't have any choice in the matter but just kind of somehow automatically believed because they were appointed to do so? No, it's not saying that at all. Especially considering that it would contradict what was indicated in verse 46, which is that believing the gospel or not is a choice that people need to make.

So, keeping verse 46 and all of scripture in mind while being careful not to contradict any other scripture instead of interpreting Acts 13:48 in isolation as Calvinists do, what does verse 48 say? It's simply saying what it says. All who were appointed to eternal life believed. Because that's what people who are appointed to eternal life do. They believe. It doesn't say they were appointed to believe. It doesn't say they were appointed for eternal life, so they automatically believed as a result. That's a case of reading something into the text that isn't there. It's simply saying all who were appointed for eternal life believed because that's what those who are appointed to eternal life do. There is no indication there that they were caused or made to believe as if they had no choice in the matter. That doesn't support the context as established in verse 46.

Let's move on to the next verse you listed.

Acts 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

This verse does not say that saving faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. You are reading that into the verse. I would hope all of us, whether Calvinists, Arminians or whatever other label you want to reference, believe that no one can believe without God's grace. But, does that mean that God's grace automatically results in faith? Clearly not.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

This verse clearly indicates that God's grace is extended to all people, offering salvation to all people. Yet, not all people are saved. Why not? Because God's grace can be resisted and rejected. Calvinism somehow denies that despite verses like this. I don't get it. The only thing you can conclude from verses like this is that people have the free will (free agency, whatever you want to call it) to choose whether to repent and believe or not. Otherwise, there would be universal salvation and none of us here believes in that (I hope).

Okay, let's move on to the next one. This is taking longer than I thought, but I guess I might as well cover all of them.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

If you've read this far, you won't be surprised to see me say that you are again taking a verse out of context. This verse is not referring to personal saving faith. It is referring to the faith as in the Christian faith as a whole, not one's personal faith in Christ. This is referring to receiving the common blessings of being part of the Christian faith.

Also, scripture just doesn't teach that saving faith is given to us by God, so there's no reason to interpret 2 Peter 1:1 that way. Scripture repeatedly indicates that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9), all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and that Jesus died for the sins of all people (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). With that in mind, why would only some people have faith and not others if whether someone has faith or not was completely up to God? That would contradict His character in terms of His desire for all people to repent and be saved.

Keeping in mind that God wants all people to repent and be saved the only thing that makes sense as to why not all people do repent and not all people are saved is because God makes everyone responsible to choose whether to repent and believe or not. How can faith be something that is forced or caused without any choice in the matter? What kind of "faith" is that? Scripture says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Why would it please God if someone has faith if they only have faith because God gave it to them? That makes no sense. But, if someone willingly chose to have faith when they could have chosen to not have faith instead, it makes sense that this would please God.

Think about it. Scripture talks about God greeting people in heaven and saying "Well done, though good and faithful servant". If His servants only have faith because God gave it to them, why would God say that to them? Shouldn't He say "Well done, me" instead? I know that seems silly to say, but I'm just making a point and trying to get you to think about what you believe and think about whether it actually makes sense in light of what scripture teaches as a whole.

Okay, let's move on to the last verse you listed. I'll add more verses for context.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Yes, that's right. You have once again taken a verse out of context. Romans 12:3 is not talking about God giving people saving faith in Jesus Christ here. If you read past verse 3, you can see that Paul is talking about spiritual gifts here. Like he does in 1 Corinthians 12, he talks here about each person being given different gifts of the Holy Spirit. Well, gifts of the Holy Spirit are things that manifest AFTER someone has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. So, "the measure of faith" that Paul talks about here cannot possibly be the faith we initially put in Christ upon conversion.

Instead, this is talking about an extra measure of faith that God gives us in order to use the spiritual gifts that He gives us. Notice in verse 6 that it talks about prophesying according to the proportion (or measure) of faith given to do so. This suggests that the measure of faith needed to do that is not the same as the measure of faith needed to use the gift of teaching, for example. When it comes to saving faith, there are not different measures of it. You either believe and trust in Christ or you don't. There's no certain measure of saving faith you need to be saved, so Romans 12:3 cannot possibly be referring to saving faith.

I couldn't even begin to address this as eminently well as @Mark Quayle did in post #131.

You want thoroughness?. . .You got it there!
And by the way, in addition to keeping me from having to labor the obvious, he also expressed my view with eloquence, as usual.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Your asserting so doesn't make it so. However, you may be surprised someday to find that both saving faith and —what do you call it?— Christian faith, are, or at least should be, the same thing —and both are a gift of God. *Common modern USE of the term "the Christian faith" has no authority over Scriptural use of the notion.

Correct. Anybody who can distinguish between fides quae and fides quia by definition has personal saving faith in the historic Christian faith.

 

[Fervent]

ok But do you think being responsible for one's own choices implies "free will"? (I'm still trying to see where you are going with this)

This seems...rather obvious that it must. At least if we're using the term "responsible" to mean "morally accountable". Because the effective cause of a "choice" is what is ultimately responsible for that choice. As the old adage goes "guns don't kill people, people do."

 

[childeye 2]

This seems...rather obvious that it must. At least if we're using the term "responsible" to mean "morally accountable".

It may seem that way, but we need to factor in what Jesus taught, that we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others. Now I don't like to conflate terms, but when we equate "responsible" with "morally accountable", it looks like this---> We're held morally accountable according to what measure we use to hold others morally responsible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This seems...rather obvious that it must. At least if we're using the term "responsible" to mean "morally accountable". Because the effective cause of a "choice" is what is ultimately responsible for that choice. As the old adage goes "guns don't kill people, people do."

If that is all 'free will' means —'responsible choice'— then I fully agree. But if it means 'uncaused', I vehemently disagree.

 

[childeye 2]

If that is all 'free will' means —'responsible choice'— then I fully agree. But if it means 'uncaused', I vehemently disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "uncaused" when contrasted with responsible choice. Are you implying "Responsible" becomes an assertion since the opposite of responsible is irresponsible?

This is a circular argument ----> Question: Why did you do that? Answer: Because I could. Hence Free will = a circular argument.

To me accountable implies being subject to explaining why I did to someone else that which I wouldn't want done to me. In other words, being held responsible for my moral/immoral choice = free will. <--- That could be interpreted as finding a reason to justify judgement even though there could be other reasons to justify judgment.

I believe the knowledge of good and evil enabled the judging of one another in mankind, and subsequently to create the occasion to find fault where there wasn't any through vainglory; so, this definition looks a lot to me like the knowledge of good and evil = free will.

 

[Fervent]

If that is all 'free will' means —'responsible choice'— then I fully agree. But if it means 'uncaused', I vehemently disagree.

The efficient cause of a decision is what or who is responsible for it. If we have no causal influence on our own decisions, then whatever the actual cause is is responsible for them and not us.

 

[childeye 2]

The efficient cause of a decision is what or who is responsible for it. If we have no causal influence on our own decisions, then whatever the actual cause is is responsible for them and not us.

This is a circular argument ----> Question: Why did you do that? Answer: Because I could.
The presence of a choice/option in your path means a choice/option is the cause of a choice/decision.

 

[Fervent]

This is a circular argument ----> Question: Why did you do that? Answer: Because I could.

All arguments ultimately come down to either a dogmatic statement or a circular argument. Supposedly theres an infinite regress, but I've yet to actually encounter anyone who doesn't come to one or the other.