Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[justbyfaith]

I did not contradict myself. Please stop misrepresenting what people say.

There is no such thing as free will.
It is free to choose what it desires.
It is not free to choose what it does not desire. If the will is restricted by anything it is not free. And what I said goes to the doctrine of utter depravity, that says we cannot choose Christ because we do not desire to. We are at enmity with God. Not only that a sinful being cannot approach a holy God without FIRST being cleansed.

"the will is not free (no such thing as free will)"

"it is free"

self-contradiction.

 

[justbyfaith]

My wife really wanted to eat cake today for dessert...

but chose to eat a salad instead.

I guess she was free to do what she didn't want to do...because she did it.

 

[fastfredy0]

"the will is not free (no such thing as free will)"

"it is free"

self-contradiction.

Read a certain way there is a contradiction; but more likely you have a misunderstanding.
First off, one should define Free Will as there are several definitions and that may be the root of the problem.
@Arial can explain herself best ... but as I understand her ....

The will is free to do what it desires most (this is Augustine's definition and probably best represents the definition of Calvinism and it's my definition)
The will is NOT free to choose its desires according to Calvinists. Arminians, at least when it comes to a decision to believe salvificly or not, disagree; they believe people can choose their desires in this situation.
I think that's where the seeming contradiction is explained. Again, Calvinists contend that we have free will to follow our desires which is a free choice, but we do not have free will to choose our desires. According to Calvinists, no one desires to believe in Christ until they are regenerated by the Spirit which 100% of the time causes a person's desires to be change such that they now desire to believe and in fact always follow this desire and believe.

Again, the will cannot choose what it wills (desires). That is circular logic. God determines all our desires.

Aside: I don't think you've acted as a troll in the many post I've read by you ... I think you've conducted yourself well. (that being said, I may have missed something ... giggle)

 

[justbyfaith]

Read a certain way there is a contradiction; but more likely you have a misunderstanding.
First off, one should define Free Will as there are several definitions and that may be the root of the problem.
@Arial can explain herself best ... but as I understand her ....

The will is free to do what it desires most (this is Augustine's definition and probably best represents the definition of Calvinism and it's my definition)
The will is NOT free to choose its desires according to Calvinists. Arminians, at least when it comes to a decision to believe salvificly or not, disagree; they believe people can choose their desires in this situation.
I think that's where the seeming contradiction is explained. Again, Calvinists contend that we have free will to follow our desires which is a free choice, but we do not have free will to choose our desires. According to Calvinists, no one desires to believe in Christ until they are regenerated by the Spirit which 100% of the time causes a person's desires to be change such that they now desire to believe and in fact always follow this desire and believe.

Again, the will cannot choose what it wills (desires). That is circular logic. God determines all our desires.

Aside: I don't think you've acted as a troll in the many post I've read by you ... I think you've conducted yourself well. (that being said, I may have missed something ... giggle)

Actually, according to John 6:44, no one desires to believe in Christ until they are drawn to Christ.

This is not regeneration.

It only gives the person an opportunity to receive Christ by enabling them to receive Christ without the hindrances of the flesh or the demonic.

Being drawn overcomes the inability to come to Christ, of the sinner; but it does not guarantee that the sinner will come to Christ; believing in Him to follow Him.

My wife, today, wanted to eat a piece of cake; but for the sake of her health chose to eat a salad instead.

She did what she didn't want to do...which indicates that we can choose to do what we don't want to do, contrary to @Arial's assertion elsewhere.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, btw.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My wife really wanted to eat cake today for dessert...

but chose to eat a salad instead.

I guess she was free to do what she didn't want to do...because she did it.

Why did she choose the salad? The answer will reveal which desire of hers was stronger than her desire for cake.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why did she choose the salad? The answer will reveal which desire of hers was stronger than her desire for cake.

The point is that we can have conflicting desires and have the capacity to choose between one or another, isn't it?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The point is that we can have conflicting desires and have the capacity to choose between one or another, isn't it?

The point is (a) that we are free to choose what we desire most, and (b) that the desires of those who are enslaved to sin are only and always sinful. As Arial said, "If the will is restricted by anything"—like enslavement to sin—"it is not free."

 

[justbyfaith]

The point is (a) that we are free to choose what we desire most, and (b) that the desires of those who are enslaved to sin are only and always sinful. As Arial said, "If the will is restricted by anything"—like enslavement to sin—"it is not free."

Those who are being drawn to Christ may indeed have sinful desires...however they can choose one desire over another in order that they might receive Christ.

For in being drawn to Christ, they are given motivation to receive Christ (thus their desires are affected).

However, their sinful desires may prevail over the motivation given to them by God...or the motivation to receive Christ may prevail over their desire to keep their sin and reject Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin.

They are given to Christ when the motivation to receive Christ as Lord prevails; and they receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

The point is (a) that we are free to choose what we desire most, and (b) that the desires of those who are enslaved to sin are only and always sinful. As Arial said, "If the will is restricted by anything"—like enslavement to sin—"it is not free."

It is not free, but it is free, is her contention...

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Here once more is what I said:

The point is (a) that we are free to choose what we desire most, and (b) that the desires of those who are enslaved to sin are only and always sinful. As Arial said, "If the will is restricted by anything"—like enslavement to sin—"it is not free."

And it was hard to miss that you couldn't bring yourself to agree with either of those points. It was also noticeable that you obfuscated the discussion by suddenly introducing a new term, "motivation."

If you want to understand what Calvinists believe, I am more than happy to help with that, but you have to set aside these rhetorical strategies and focus.

If you just want to explain your beliefs, well, you don't need me for that.

 

[justbyfaith]

Here once more is what I said:


And it was hard to miss that you couldn't bring yourself to agree with either of those points. It was also noticeable that you obfuscated the discussion by suddenly introducing a new term, "motivation."

If you want to understand what Calvinists believe, I am more than happy to help with that, but you have to set aside these rhetorical strategies and focus.

If you just want to explain your beliefs, well, you don't need me for that.

It should be clear by now that I am here to explain my own beliefs in light of what is taught by Calvinists.

I feel that I understand what they believe; but I have had to ask them to set forth their beliefs on these occasions because if I don't; and they don't; it is pretty clear to me that they will revert to saying that the thing that I am refuting is not really taught by Calvinism.

But if I can get them to say the thing that I desire to refute first, there can be no arguing that certain Calvinists believe what I am refuting.

Of course, another of them will come along and say that they don't believe what I am refuting and that it is not a part of Calvinism.

So, I contend that there is disparity / disunity in Calvinism and that Calvinists need to really seek to bring doctrinal unity into their ranks.

For it is written,

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

[justbyfaith]

Here once more is what I said:


And it was hard to miss that you couldn't bring yourself to agree with either of those points. It was also noticeable that you obfuscated the discussion by suddenly introducing a new term, "motivation."

If you want to understand what Calvinists believe, I am more than happy to help with that, but you have to set aside these rhetorical strategies and focus.

If you just want to explain your beliefs, well, you don't need me for that.

Also, what is wrong with introducing a new term "motivation"?

Does it not refer to anything that might affect the desires of an individual?

How is that "obfuscating the discussion"?

Define "obfuscating"...

 

[Arial]

My wife, today, wanted to eat a piece of cake; but for the sake of her health chose to eat a salad instead.

She did what she didn't want to do...which indicates that we can choose to do what we don't want to do, contrary to @Arial's assertion elsewhere.

She desired the cake. She had a greater desire to protect her health. Here health was the strongest motivator on her will.

 

[JIM]

She desired the cake. She had a greater desire to protect her health. Here health was the strongest motivator on her will.

Yes, so in that case she made the right CHOICE. She was free to make the wrong CHOICE. She had the free will to CHOOSE.

 

[ReverendRV]

Shifting onus.

This op stems from comments you, @justbyfaith made that were not evidenced, much less proven. You are supposed to be responsible for, culpable for, and accountable for your own words in your own posts and here you are trying to foist the responsibility for proving your own claims onto others.

You are not giving Cal an opportunity. You are shirking your responsibility.

And don't forget, shifting the burden...

 

[ReverendRV]

I showed forth Arial's belief that free will is non-existent. She is a Calvinist.

But according to you, what Calvinists believe is not the teaching of Calvinism.

@Arial would confess the Liberty of the Will, as described in the WCF c3 p1. She would not confess Free Will as defined in the @justbyfaith Dictionary...

What you are doing is using Semantics to control the direction of the discussion, Posters opinions; and the Lurkers...

Ask her; she will tell you that she agrees with the Confession...

 

[ReverendRV]

"the will is not free (no such thing as free will)"

"it is free"

self-contradiction.

Again, you are using Semantics to your benefit. We don't believe in Free Will as you define it...

 

[ReverendRV]

My wife really wanted to eat cake today for dessert...

but chose to eat a salad instead.

I guess she was free to do what she didn't want to do...because she did it.

The Power of Sin ~ by ReverendRV * November 3

James 1:14,15 NIV; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

This is perhaps the most succinct and precise example of the Power of Sin in all the Bible. Simply put, it draws the image of a Rape. Temptation is a powerful enemy, so powerful that it revives Sin, which is so potent that it will drag you away; after it violates you there WILL be a Conception. Sin is like a Cancer that Metastasizes, but instead of giving birth, it brings forth death at its end. ~ If a Rapist were on the loose at your local College Campus, an Alert would be broadcasted. “Be careful, stay home at night and lock your doors. If you do have to go out, take a friend with you.” We’re taught at a young age to rely on the ‘Buddy System’, because your life is precious. The right thing to do is send out a warning when there’s such a danger; wouldn’t you agree?

Be on the lookout for Sin’s suspect, here is an ‘All Points Bulletin’; IE the APB. ~ What do you call someone who Lies to you? A Liar. Have you ever told a Lie? Hmm, you look like a Suspect; put on the Hoodie from the APB. What do you call someone who Steals? A Thief, right? Have you ever stolen ANYTHING? Then put on the Suspects gloves. Have you ever committed Adultery? No? Jesus said that if you’ve ever Lusted after someone, you’ve Committed Adultery in your heart. This has to Violate the other persons intentions; doesn’t it? Now you fit the Profile of the Rapist for sure! Do you think that we have enough evidence to arrest the Suspect? We haven’t even made it through all of the Ten Commandments yet, are you ready to make a Confession? ~ The Apostle Paul said that when the Commandment not to Covet came to him, Sin came alive and he died. You may not yet realize it but something irresistible has just happened to you; Sin has come to life inside you and now you recognize its Profile. It knows that you’ve found it out; and it will turn on you, drag you away and have its way with you when you Lust again. ~ What you need is for a Good Samaritan to save you…

There is something even more powerful than Temptation and Sin. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Power of God unto Salvation to all who believe! It is SO powerful that Jesus said it is like Seed sown on a hard path; if the birds did not come and eat the seed, it would have taken root even without the tilling of the ground. This is the Irresistible Gospel. For God so Loves the world and sent his only begotten Son into this world to live a Sinless life. Jesus Christ died on a Cross and shed his blood to wash Sin away; but he arose from the dead as proof that his mission in life was finished. We are Saved by God’s free Grace through Faith in the Risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, apart from meritorious Works we might could do. Put your Faith in Jesus as your Lord God and you will not be ashamed on Judgment Day. Read the Bible, Repent of Sin, and find a good Church. ~ If you do not believe this and leave your Dorm Room at night, ‘The Wolf of College St’ will be on the prowl…

Genesis 4:7 GNT; If you do well, won't you be accepted? But if you don't do well, sin is lying outside your door ready to attack. It wants to control you, but you must master it."

 

[ReverendRV]

The point is that we can have conflicting desires and have the capacity to choose between one or another, isn't it?

It's a Philosophical Tenet that we always follow our strongest Desire; this is why Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will doesn't exist. This is the Free Will that @Arial Objects to; Semantics, right?

Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will would have you believe that every Desire is equal, so you are Free to choose between them. But Philosophers tell us, the Desire we chose was the stronger Desire. Thus the stronger Desire is a Cause, and "Contra Causal / without Cause" is refuted. This is why the Bible says Sinful Desire carries us off and has its way with us. Now, your Wife's Desire may have not been Sinful but it was the strongest Desire she had at the time. Her Will was under It's control...

Standing desires are desires one has that are not playing any role in one's psyche at the moment. Occurrent desires, on the other hand, are desires that are playing some role in one's psyche at the moment. Notice here that occurrent desires need not be in control of one's actions: my desire to laze in bed is occurrent even while I am getting up and making breakfast, for my desire is leading me to think longingly of bed, and is perhaps acting upon my mechanisms of action production in a way that would lead me back to bed if only I did not also desire to get some things done. Desires of which one is not aware, but which are current causes of one's behavior, are also occurrent on this way of thinking about things: a desire for a new inkstand might cause one to move clumsily so as to destroy one's current inkstand without affecting one's thoughts or feelings, and if so it would be occurrent at the moment of clumsiness.

Some philosophers hold that only occurrent desires are real desires. So-called standing desires are really just dispositions to generate desires, on this way of thinking. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/#StrWeaDes

 

[fastfredy0]

My wife, today, wanted to eat a piece of cake; but for the sake of her health chose to eat a salad instead.

She did what she didn't want to do...which indicates that we can choose to do what we don't want to do, contrary to @Arial's assertion elsewhere.

She did what she wanted to do most at the time. That is IMO the definition of FREE WILL put forth by Calvinism though I don't know if that is an official part of a REFORMED creed so I stand to be corrected. So what she did follows my definition of Free Will. YOU HAVE NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DEFINED FREE WILL. What is it so I know what you are talking about.
My definition: We always do what we desire most at the time. (Note: there can be contrary desires, but the strongest desires always wins. You CAN'T choose your desires and therefore from that stand point your will is NOT FREE but your will is free to follow your strongest desire. You are free to eat ice cream with manure on it on not on it. You will always free to follow your strongest desire but you can't chose what you desire strongest.)