Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[JIM]

So, in essence according to that objective truth in the Bible is unknowable.

No, but I certainly would not look to the Calvinist as the only source of that objective truth.

Or is the position really "No one should say they know any truth as objective truth because someone else will come along and say their truth is objective truth."

Well that sure happens all the time.

The doctrines in Calvinism (as opposed to ALL Calvinists) were derived from the Bible and only from the Bible, using exhaustive means of systematic study and exegesis.

That claim is made by just about every major denomination in Christendom, and even many lessor denominations. You can put yourself in that lineup as well.

Does that make it infallible? No, and it does not claim to be. What it does is make the above quote nothing more than a personal opinion that did not even bother to give any evidence of itself.

I have said before and it is worth repeating here for your benefit. Every statement you make concerning any aspect of the Bible, except a direct word for word quote is your personal opinion. You can find some who will agree with you, there are just as many and perhaps many more who will disagree with you. I say again, when you state anything biblical, except to provide a direct quote from the Bible, is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

If your statement has any validity, why does the Bible tell us to contend for the faith, to discern the spirits, warn against false teachers, and false prophets, say these will come into our midst, tell us to ground ourselves in the word, tell us we have a Helper in this?

Do you not understand that there are those out there who make that same statement regarding what you preach? Do you really think you are any different?

 

[JIM]

Those terms do not meaningfully apply to the situation.
When a crack addict goes into withdrawal and begins climbing out of his/her skin until they get another fix ... was that "willingly" or "forced"?

We are SLAVES to SIN ... in BONDAGE to our fallen nature. "Willing" and "forced" do not apply to such a state of slavery.

[EDIT: after salvation, all sin is a choice ... but it is a choice that all saints make, just not EVERY time.]

Are you one who believes that absolutely everything a sinner does is a sin? It sounds as that might be the case.

 

[JIM]

In order for that statement to have any bearing on anything it would need to be supported with examples of Calvinist eisegesis laid alongside correct exegesis of specific scriptures. And since you also qualify it as Calvinists (which implies all of them) compared to MOST of the rest of Christendom, you have made even a larger task of supporting you opinion with substance.

But I will give you a break. Give me two examples of eisegesis by a Calvinist, compared to the same scriptures exegesis by those other Christians. I will even accept you using yourself as an example of the correct exegesis----as long as you provide the exegesis.

Removed by admin for failing to address anything in the post above, but simply making more unverified accusations and making a derogatory comment about the poster. If those refuting Calvinism would actually refute it this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't believe that.

I get it that you don't believe it, but it's pretty easy to show...

All who believe they are Saved by Grace, lean Calvinistic; right?

 

[Josheb]

@justbyfaith,

Have you been paying attention to the results of Post 64? By my count all but one Cal has affirmed the posts cited and none have dissented. Here is evidence of unity and homogeneity.

What say you?

 

[JIM]

I get it that you don't believe it, but it's pretty easy to show...

All who believe they are Saved by Grace, lean Calvinistic; right?

Absolutely not. I believe with all my heart that I have been saved by grace. And I thoroughly reject, again with all my heart, the soteriology of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

 

[Arial]

Because I believe that Calvinists, more than most, attach Calvinist-assigned meanings to words and phases that are not really biblical. Every key element of TULIP falls into that. Words like "election", "foreknowledge", "sovereignty" etc. fall there as well. So many of those take on special meanings not found outside of Calvinism/Reformed theology.

Why do you say they are not biblical? On what basis do you reach that conclusion? Historically they were defined the way in which Calvinists define them and the reason is because those definitions produce a consistency within the Bible. If they are not defined that way it produces an inconsistency and confusion. Their definitions begin and end with the doctrine of God.

Even Arminnenianists define them the same way except for foreknowledge, they just apply them in different ways and to different things. And in order to have a god who would never violate man's free will, the meaning of sovereignty must be changed from He rules over all and governs all, establishes and tears down kings and kingdoms, numbers the hairs on our head, knows every sparrow that falls, creates us in the womb, made all that exists, is the beginning and the end, etc. to He leaves the efficacy of the Son's death on the cross dependant on not His will, but the will of the creature. Changes sovereignty over all things to simply greater than all. It changes omniscience to only knowing all things, instead of knowing because He ordains. Even though He says He ordains all things. an 4:35; Prov 16:9; Is 46:10.

They have God electing people because He knows they will choose Him, rather that God electing people, choosing Him, and bringing them to faith.

 

[ReverendRV]

Absolutely not. I believe with all my heart that I have been saved by grace. And I thoroughly reject, again with all my heart, the soteriology of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

I'm glad you are Saved by Grace, so are we; Grace is one of the 5-Solas. We have this much in common, right?

We have more Calvinism in common than even this; isn't it true that Grace is the Unmerited Favor of God?

 

[atpollard]

Are you one who believes that absolutely everything a sinner does is a sin? It sounds as that might be the case.

Interesting way to word it.

Sin is "missing the mark" ... with God's goodness being "the mark". So can a man do anything that meets God's approval without God?
So I think the answer to your question is "yes". Even feeding the poor, if done for human motives, will not be acceptable to God.

Matthew 7:21-27 [NASB]
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; LEAVE ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and [yet] it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and its collapse was great."

Can a man please Him without knowing Him?
Can a man obey commands without knowing Him?

I think not. Those who practice LAWLESSNESS cannot please God ... and displeasing God is sin.

Ephesians 2:10 [NASB]
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Why would God prepare good works for those that are not His workmanship?

 

[Josheb]

I wasn't presenting it as an analogy.

That post proves otherwise, and this one proves you're dishonest - again.

is overcome when the Holy Spirit draws us...

This, however, does not guarantee salvation.

Do you ever read your own words before posting them? You just contradicted yourself. According to you the inability to choose salvation is overcome but that is not a guarantee of salvation. The Holy Spirit overcame sin but did not overcome sin. Not only did the Spirit not overcome what He overcame, but He left the efficacy of His labor in the mind and will of the still unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh!

We are simply enabled to make a decision for or against Christ.

Prove it.

Cite one verse that actually explicitly states, "I, God, have overcome the inability to choose salvation and simply enabled the will of the still sinfully dead and enslaved flesh to make a decision for or against My Son."

Show me. Do not show me verses you eisegetically read to infer the claim. Show me the verse that explicitly states that claim; and if you cannot find such a verse then please have the honesty and integrity to immediately post "There is no such verse; my position is obtained only by inference."

 

[Josheb]

Romans 10:9 clearly is in reference to those who are not yet saved.

No, it is not.

Are you the one with whom I just spent days and dozens of posts showing how the verse, the chapter, the three-chapter narrative, and the salutation of the epistle identify the audience and applicable group as saints, those chosen of Christ? If you are not that guy, then just say so and I will link you to that thread because I am not reposting it.

 

[Josheb]

I, the author of this OP, have consistently said that a person can only come to Christ when he is drawn to Christ.

Just like every Calvinist here says.

 

[Josheb]

Absolutely not. I believe with all my heart that I have been saved by grace. And I thoroughly reject, again with all my heart, the soteriology of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

Do you believe you are saved by grace alone, or saved by grace-plus-your-unregenerate-will-of-the-sinful-flesh?

 

[Arial]

No, but I certainly would not look to the Calvinist as the only source of that objective truth.

Why not? Who would you look to?

Well that sure happens all the time.

But is that how you look at it? That is what I asked. I am well aware that it happens all the time.

That claim is made by just about every major denomination in Christendom, and even many lessor denominations. You can put yourself in that lineup as well.

We actually have proof of it the case of Calvinism though in all the protestant confessions of the Reformation.

I have said before and it is worth repeating here for your benefit. Every statement you make concerning any aspect of the Bible, except a direct word for word quote is your personal opinion. You can find some who will agree with you, there are just as many and perhaps many more who will disagree with you. I say again, when you state anything biblical, except to provide a direct quote from the Bible, is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

Yes. But there are those who show how they arrived at that opinion, and then the process and conclusion can be examined and debated, and then there are other who just state the opinion as if that is good enough. And just for your information, even quoting scriptures contain the opinion of the one who gives them as a "proof" text, and then doesn't bother to exegete the scripture quoted. We certainly have ample evidence of that on the forum, possibly because those doing it never thought about the "proof" text within its proper context, and have no idea how to go about it. Truthfully, if they did do the exegesis correctly and in a way that kept it consistent with all other truths of the Bible, they would find that what they said it said, it did not say at all, in fact made mince meat out of it, and the party they are trying to refute, had it right all along.

That always happens when a person tries to refute truth with untruth by using the Bible to do it.

Do you not understand that there are those out there who make that same statement regarding what you preach? Do you really think you are any different?

I am not concerned with what statements "those out there" make about what I preach. I asked you a question and you deflected five miles from answering it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hmmm.... that would be Libertarian Free Will which is "the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. It determines its own volitions; so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without itself, nor determined by anything prior to its own acts."
The empirical evidence proves "an unhindered ability to make a free decision for Christ" to be false as children have a strong tendency to follow the religious beliefs of their parents. See https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2020/09/10/shared-beliefs-between-parents-and-teens/
Your definition contradicts: John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This verse literally says that no one has the ability, in and of themselves, to cause themselves to believe in Christ which contradicts your definition. This one verse denies free will in the libertarian sense and is sufficient grounds l to reject this idea. Romans 8:7-8 Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
There are 50+ verses saying our ability to decide to believe in Christ is hindered which invalidates your statement. 1 Corinthians 2:14 Job 14:4 Psalm 58:3 Romans 7:18

I'll give you props for standing up for what you believe and taking time to confirm your beliefs in your mind ... I've said my peace.

My statement takes John 6:44 into account. I have said that a person can make a free will decision to receive or reject Christ at whatever juncture that they are being drawn to Christ.

Because being drawn does not guarantee being given. Otherwise, Universalism is the teaching because of John 12:32.

Being drawn to Christ overcomes inability...while it does not guarantee that the person will receive Christ.

It presents an opportunity in which they become able to receive Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

IOW you are unable to support what you say, it is just something you choose to believe?

Just that I cannot think of any scripture that specifically states what I am trying to say to you.

Which does not mean that what I am trying to say isn't true or even biblical.

Because I could ask you if you can find any Bible that contradicts what I am saying and you wouldn't be able to find any.

 

[justbyfaith]

The entire argument you have with Reformed theology rests on that clause, "If we want to be saved …" Those who are unregenerate never desire this.

Until they are drawn by the Holy Spirit to Christ. At that point, they are given a motivation to receive Christ.

And, everyone is drawn at some point (John 12:32).

 

[justbyfaith]

"And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified" (Rom 8:29-30). And the scripture cannot be broken (i.e., annulled, invalidated, or contradicted).

Specifically, those who are called are those who have been baptized in Jesus' Name according to scripture (Acts 2:38-39).

 

[justbyfaith]

Faith and works are not mutually exclusive. You needed to go just one verse further: "For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them" (v. 10). Those good works are prepared in advance for people of faith to do, not for the unregenerate wicked. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive.

Works don't save (Ephesians 2:9); faith does (Ephesians 2:8).

 

[justbyfaith]

God does not force a resistant man. That would be an exercise in futility. Instead, he makes the man willing (regeneration). The man chooses Christ because, for the first time in his life, he wants to. That was due to what God did in him (soli Deo gloria).

As I have said to you before—but your every post fails to reflect this correction—since "force" implies resistance, every time you use that word when arguing against Calvinism you're begging the question (fallacy).

Remember, even this post is now part of the historical record to which you so often refer.

So, the man must be willing before he is regenerated; otherwise God is regenerating him while he is resistant to being regenerated.