Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[ReverendRV]

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.)

I will define it for him. Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will...

 

[ReverendRV]

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.)

If he believes in Instincts, he can't believe in Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will. When you run into a burning house to save your child, that's an Instinct. If you run out of a burning house and leave your child inside, then weep bitterly; that's an Instinct. The sad thing is, you really don't know which one you would do until it happens (that's the Moral of the "Saw" movie franchise). Saint Peter disowned Christ three times; and left weeping bitterly...

 

[fastfredy0]

I will define it for him. Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will...

Well, that's one definition the other side uses, but I didn't want to put words in his mouth. *giggle*
My guess is the Libertarian Free Will is not what @justbyfaith means ... usually I get an obtuse definition like "free will is the ability to choose"
Aside: I had to look up "Contra Causal".... that's a new one for me

 

[fastfredy0]

If he believes in Instincts, he can't believe in Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will. When you run into a burning house to save your child, that's an Instinct.

I suppose 'instinct' is just another word for desire.

Saint Peter disowned Christ three times; and left weeping bitterly...

Poor Peter ... gets to have billions of people read over and over how he fell short .... glad my faults are on such a public forum *giggle*

 

[ReverendRV]

Well, that's one definition the other side uses, but I didn't want to put words in his mouth. *giggle*
My guess is the Libertarian Free Will is not what @justbyfaith means ... usually I get an obtuse definition like "free will is the ability to choose"
Aside: I had to look up "Contra Causal".... that's a new one for me

That was Professor Flowers favorite thing to talk about on CARM, he was there all the time when I first joined. I think he stopped using it, because in a real Debate; we All know 'Cause and Effect' is Scientific. For evey Action there is an equal and opposite Reaction. This is Scientific Law. Our Willful choices are Reactions, and this Law demands that Reactions are Caused. The Bible says we're dragged away by Desire, I think Leighton had to drop it...

 

[JIM]

Free will in the theological context is the ability to choose whether or not to obey any given command of God.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Bad analogy because salad is not salvation. Comparing the two is a fallacious false equivalence. A more accurate analogy would have been she wanted to eat cake but instead sprouted wings and flew to the moon.

Non-believers are not believers. Those dead in sin who have only the faculties of the dead and enslaved sinful flesh CANNOT choose "salad." They do not and cannot choose Jesus for salvation.

It is not a Calvinist point of view.

Free will in the theological context is the ability to choose whether or not to obey any given command of God.

I repeat: the inability to choose salvation while still in the sinfully dead and enslaved state using the faculties of the sinful flesh is is not unique to Calvinism.

"In this state (the sinful state), the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (from Article VII of "Disputation 11" by Jacobus Arminius)​

​

​

​

Arminius was a subscriber to what we now call "Total Depravity." If salvation were the "salad," your wife could not have chosen the salad. It has nothing to do with Calvinism and if that isn't understood then it disqualifies a person from criticizing anything soteriological due to their lack of knowledge on the matter.

​

John 6:44, 65​

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day......... For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.​

​

​

God hauls the person to Christ and grants that person the ability to do so. Your wife could not have chosen and eaten the salad on her own unless God hauled her to the salad and granted her the ability to choose it.[/INDENT]

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

lol! Utterly fallacious post hoc ergo proctor hoc. An outcome does not explain its own cause.

 

[Josheb]

The notion those dead and enslaved by sin want to choose Jesus is refuted by scripture from beginning to end. None want to be saved. Adam did not ask for change; he blamed God for his actions! Later, when the effects of Adam's misbehavior became prominent, God looked down on the earth and saw the wickedness of man was great, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Everyone is/was dead in sin, and no one understands, and no one seeks God. Jesus himself looked his own disciples in the face and said, "You did not choose me, I chose you and appoint you to bear fruit." The mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and cannot please God. The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit; they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The flesh works to bear enmity, strife, division, idolatry, rivalry, dissent. Peace and love are fruit of the Spirit.

Yes, the word of God will save all if they want to be saved but none want to be saved. God must work to that effect with the purpose to change the want of sin into a want of God as LORD.

 

[Arial]

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.

It is not about making the right choice or the wrong choice.What is so difficult about it and so irrefutable, that "free willies" (hats off to @fastfredy0 ) skirt the point in order to defend what is indefensible? She chose according to the strongest motivator, not against the strongest motivator. The human will follows the strongest motivator within our fleshly desires.

 

[fastfredy0]

It is not about making the right choice or the wrong choice.What is so difficult about it and so irrefutable, that "free willies" (hats off to @fastfredy0 ) skirt the point in order to defend what is indefensible? She chose according to the strongest motivator, not against the strongest motivator. The human will follows the strongest motivator within our fleshly desires.

Agreed.... that is the WILL aspect of FREE WILL. The part people have difficulty exploring is the FREE part of FREE WILL; what/who determines what our strongest desires (motivator/instinct/whatever) are?
Calvinists say GOD (First Cause/Law of Causality) determines our desires (aside: they hedge their bets when it come to evil desires)
Non-calvinists tend to not want to go that deep as their free-willyism falls apart if they do so IMO.

 

[atpollard]

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

"it is free"

self-contradiction.

Define “free” will. Free from what? Free to do what?
Are you FREE to exercise your will (force of personality) to live a sinless life apart from any outside influence of God?

[EDIT: Never mind, I see others have already covered this ground.]

 

[Josheb]

She chose according to the strongest motivator, not against the strongest motivator.

...and had the ability to do so.

The human will [freely] follows the strongest motivator within our fleshly desires.

...within its limited options and abilities.

 

[Josheb]

The notion those dead and enslaved by sin want to choose Jesus is refuted by scripture from beginning to end. None want to be saved. Adam did not ask for change; he blamed God for his actions! Later, when the effects of Adam's misbehavior became prominent, God looked down on the earth and saw the wickedness of man was great, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Everyone is/was dead in sin, and no one understands, and no one seeks God. Jesus himself looked his own disciples in the face and said, "You did not choose me, I chose you and appoint you to bear fruit." The mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and cannot please God. The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit; they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The flesh works to bear enmity, strife, division, idolatry, rivalry, dissent. Peace and love are fruit of the Spirit.

Yes, the word of God will save all if they want to be saved but none want to be saved. God must work to that effect with the purpose to change the want of sin into a want of God as LORD.

I forgot to add: nearly every singled-out proof-texted verse a synergist will ever quote in defense of the unregenerate sinner's volitional agency is a verse spoken to an already covenant people. They were not written to the atheist, nor were they written about the atheist. Every time that context is ignored scripture is abused.

 

[atpollard]

The human will follows the strongest motivator within our fleshly desires.

...within its limited options and abilities.

I agree with both and would add the observation from Romans 1:18-32 that it is further limited by God’s restraining hand of general grace that permits evil desires to extend only “so far” … until God lifts his restraint and “gives them over” to greater depths of their fallen desires (Romans 1:24, 26, 28).

 

[atpollard]

aside: they hedge their bets when it come to evil desires

… so does scripture.

[James 1:13-15 NASB20] No one is to say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it has run its course, brings forth death.

 

[ReverendRV]

I agree with both and would add the observation from Romans 1:18-32 that it is further limited by God’s restraining hand of general grace that permits evil desires to extend only “so far” … until God lifts his restraint and “gives them over” to greater depths of their fallen desires (Romans 1:24, 26, 28).

As y'all can see, it's easy to defeat the Libertarian Free Will Argument. But it's not easy to defeat people who do not care about the Truth, and just want to win. This is why it's good to be on this Forum; we can Moderate people who do this...

 

[Arial]

Free will in the theological context is the ability to choose whether or not to obey any given command of God.

If free will in the free willers theological context is the ability to choose whether or not to obey any given command of God, you have based salvation on works. And it does not address the real issue. Which is that of choosing Christ by one's own desires independently of God, and therein achieving salvation.

You need to clarify two things so that points are addressed withthe knowledge of the others premise.

Define what you mean by free will in salvation.
Define what you say the Calvinist stance is on the will not being free in salvation.

 

[fastfredy0]

Hands @justbyfaith a 'get out of jail free' card to compensate for being 'ganged up' upon by a pack of zealous Calvinists.

 

[ReverendRV]

Hands @justbyfaith a 'get out of jail free' card to compensate for being 'ganged up' upon by a pack of zealous Calvinists.

He will just tell us that we should be at Church right now...

 

[fastfredy0]

He will just tell us that we should be at Church right now...

That thought crossed my mind too ... don't give him ammo