Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[Arial]

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

No. The point is that we choose according to the greatest desire. This is always true. Now put it into the topic of free will in salvation, present your assertion, define what you think is the Calvinist assertion. Then we can debate it.

 

[Arial]

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

No that is not my contention. My contention is that it is not free, even though it freely makes choices. Does the Bible tell us that we are in bondage to sin? What is bondage to sin? And how does that affect the choices of our flesh? And how would that affect our desire to choose Christ?

 

[Arial]

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.

She would have eaten the cake except that the desire to not eat the cake was stronger. It is't about whether whe made a good choice or a bad choice, it is about why she made the choice she made. It isn't about that there were conflicting desires, it is about which of the conflicting desires won that internal battle and why.

 

[Josheb]

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).

Yep.

Let's see if we can use your post to show some commonality. ALL CALVINISTS: post your affirmation of Posts 49, 52, and 54. Those in dissent say so. Use the numbers "49, 52, and 54" so we can all see the unity.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yep.

Let's see if we can use your post to show some commonality. ALL CALVINISTS: post your affirmation of Posts 49, 52, and 54. Those in dissent say so. Use the numbers "49, 52, and 54" so we can all see the unity.

I affirm...

 

[JIM]

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.

When all else fails, throw in that tired old ******* of works salvation, something that most Calvinists have on the tip of their tongues and yet haven't a clue of what they are talking about.

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.

I don't know anyone who holds such a ridiculous view as that.

 

[Josheb]

When all else fails, throw in that tired old ******* of works salvation, something that most Calvinists have on the tip of their tongues and yet haven't a clue of what they are talking about.

Nice ad hominem. Calvinists are ignorant so their soteriology is wrong. How about addressing the substance of her comment and doing so op-relevantly with scripture and not being part of the problem to be solved?

I don't know anyone who holds such a ridiculous view as that.

Sure you do. The author of this op has repeatedly asserted human volition and autonomous free will as the means of salvation. He likened salvation to a salad and stated the salad could be eaten simply if someone chose to do so even if they wanted something else. Leighton Flowers has created an entire new soteriology he calls Provisionism whereby total depravity is denied, and it is asserted anyone who has heard the gospel can choose it with the faculties of his sinful not-yet-regenerate flesh. His soteriology is built on the heresy of Pelagius to which some still subscribe even to this day.

 

[JIM]

Nice ad hominem. Calvinists are ignorant so their soteriology is wrong.

You said it, I didn't.

 

[Josheb]

You said it, I didn't.

Yes, I did. Your protest was utterly fallacious because ad hominem is always and everywhere fallacious. The entire post was worthless and without any merit because arguing something is wrong because of and attributes of its adherents is fallacious the appeal to personal anecdotal experience is factually incorrect. Everyone's time, including your own, was wasted with that post because nothing scriptural, logical, exegetical, factual, or truthful was accomplished.

I did say it.

 

[JIM]

I did say it.

And In many ways I think you are correct.

 

[ReverendRV]

And In many ways I think you are correct.

Could you name one way please?

 

[Josheb]

And In many ways I think you are correct.

I am correct. Ad hominem is a fallacy and fallacies are always and everywhere irrational, illogical, worthless (and works of flesh). There are many examples of volitional agency asserted in soteriology, some of them very old and well-established in the history of debate and at least two of I have seen you engage in the forums. Because the first statement was fallacious and the other statement factually incorrect the post wasted everyone's time and did not further the discussion of free will in Calvinism (the specific subject of this op) one iota.

I am correct, and correct in all ways, not just many.

 

[JIM]

Could you name one way please?

Total Depravity.

 

[JIM]

I am correct, and correct in all ways, not just many.

Well, I must say, you are the first that I have ever come across that was correct in all ways. Good, or at least interesting, to meet you.

 

[Arial]

When all else fails, throw in that tired old ******* of works salvation, something that most Calvinists have on the tip of their tongues and yet haven't a clue of what they are talking about.

Not addressing the post.

I don't know anyone who holds such a ridiculous view as that.

Except for everyone who believes they do that. Maybe you misunderstood me. What do your think I meant by

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.

When you answer that it will be actually addressing the post.

 

[Arial]

deleted. double post.

 

[JIM]

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.

That is a common complaint by Calvinists against non-Calvinists. But as I said, I don't know anyone who believes that. The real issue is that you think there are such people who believe that.

 

[Arial]

Let's see if we can use your post to show some commonality. ALL CALVINISTS: post your affirmation of Posts 49, 52, and 54. Those in dissent say so. Use the numbers "49, 52, and 54" so we can all see the unity.

49. Agree. Not in the habit of kicking myself.
52.Agree
54. Agree

So we see how multifaceted and far reaching into all corners and depths of the Bible the doctrines in Calvinism are. We never stop seeing a new dimension within it. And why is that? Because there is no end of the depth and discovery of the Bible on which the doctrines are based. And no constraints upon the ways of expressing those truths casting upon them the lenses of our own personal walk and discovery.

It is sad that some see that as disparity.

 

[Josheb]

Here, I want to give Calvinists the opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with Josheb here when he says that Calvinism teaches that mankind has free will.

Track down an electronic copy of Calvin's "Institutes...." and do a word search of "free will." You'll find he uses the phrase more than 150 times.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states,

CHAPTER 9​

Of Free Will​

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
4. When God converts a sinner and translates Him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only."

​

God humans with a "natural liberty." It is not forced to be good or evil. The freedom and power to do good and please God existed but was liable to change. Once changed into the state of sin any previous liberty to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation was lost, and humans in that state cannot in their own might change that condition. God frees the sinner from that bondage, enabling the creature to once again to choose and do that which is spiritually good, but he remains imperfect on this side of the grave and only in resurrection is s/he incorruptible, perfectly and immutably free.


That the chief doctrinal statement to which we adhere.

 

[Arial]

Track down an electronic copy of Calvin's "Institutes...." and do a word search of "free will." You'll find he uses the phrase more than 150 times.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states,

​

​

CHAPTER 9​

​

Of Free Will​

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
4. When God converts a sinner and translates Him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only."

​

​

God humans with a "natural liberty." It is not forced to be good or evil. The freedom and power to do good and please God existed but was liable to change. Once changed into the state of sin any previous liberty to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation was lost, and humans in that state cannot in their own might change that condition. God frees the sinner from that bondage, enabling the creature to once again to choose and do that which is spiritually good, but he remains imperfect on this side of the grave and only in resurrection is s/he incorruptible, perfectly and immutably free.


That the chief doctrinal statement to which we adhere.

Agree.