Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[atpollard]

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.

It feels a little silly to affirm my own post, but “for the record” … I affirm Posts 49, 52 & 54.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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 all three posts.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

Instead of trying to contrast your view with what all Calvinists believe—because no two Christians agree on everything, not even two Roman Catholics—why not try contrasting it with what one Calvinist believes, such as Arial or myself? Just straight up ask what the person believes about this or that and compare the response you're given with your view. Sure, another Calvinist may chime in and say, "That wouldn't work against my view, which is slightly different," but you could then simply show how your view continues to succeed even against that person's view.

However, if you're committed to showing how your view is superior to what Calvinists believe generally, you could contrast it with the view presented by a confessional document (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith) or a particular Calvinist theologian (e.g., R. C. Sproul). Just pull relevant quotes from specific published material, whether in print or online, in order to demonstrate verifiably what they believe and how your view succeeds where theirs falls short.

<> <> <>​

Here is a thought experiment worth conducting, even if only privately. Articulate a comprehensive description of what you believe about the nature of God, the imago Dei, and salvation. Now, try and find one other Christian who agrees with you on absolutely everything you believe about just those three things alone. You will discover that you can't find even one, because every Christian will have a slightly different view about at least one thing pertaining to just those three subjects. Maybe they know something you don't, or maybe you perceive an error they haven't detected yet, or maybe there is a difference in your hermeneutics or fundamental commitments. There are a number of possible reasons for such disagreement. But what would this lack of unity say about your system of belief, if anything? Or would you say that all belief systems are false to whatever degree they disagree with yours?

 

[Arial]

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.

Clarify. What do YOU THINK I meant? I asked that of you in post 75 and all I got back was the same thing you said before I asked, repeated. This sort of thing is going to stop. Posts that do it will simple be deleted. So stick to the subject, respond to the content of what is posted, debate the issue supporting your view, disproving the other view, with valid points. Otherwise it is just endless stupid arguing and shows either an inability to articulate and support one's position, or no sincere desire to do so, only a desire to be disruptive and abusive.

 

[atpollard]

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.

How about this:

There are 4 types of “works” that one can view as leading to salvation.

1. There is the view that salvation can be gained by works of man and by man without any assistance from God needed. This would typically fall into the “Semi-Pelagian” camp of salvation [since there are VERY FEW true Pelagians]. The basic idea is that men can simply choose to do what is right and BE HOLY (no atonement necessary).
2. There is the LEGALISM view that salvation can be gained through careful observance of the LAW and rules set down by God. God provided a means for men to earn their own salvation based on meritorious actions. This was the Pharisaical view that Jesus and Paul attempted to counter with the SPIRIT of FAITH over the LETTER of the LAW as the emphasis of our salvation. These are the “works” that are “filthy rags” before the holiness of God.
3. There is the view that salvation is gained by a cooperative venture between God and Man where the works of Christ purchase the opportunity for salvation and the works of man secure the realization of that opportunity. This would fall into the “SYNERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that God and man must work together with each doing their part.
4. There is the view that salvation is gained through the works of God [period]. Man provides nothing but the “sin” that needs forgiving. This would fall into the “MONERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that salvation is 100% about God (who God chose, what God did, what God does, what God will do).
   

Only #4 falls in the Calvinist soteriology. I learned about #3 at the Church of God Anderson. I learned about #2 from Paul and Jesus arguing against it in Scripture. I learned about #1 from radical posters on “Christian” forums that all had special revelations and required no Church to tell them Biblical Truth (they had direct revelation from God) … and strongly argued that we should all obey them as modern prophets.

That is what THIS Calvinist (Particular Baptist flavor) knows and is talking about with respect to “works” and salvation.

 

[Arial]

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

What is clear is not that you are trying to explain your own beliefs----there is no need to do that in the light of Calvinism. You are only refuting Calvinism.

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.

That is a false assertion. It has been shown to you that you do not understand Calvinism because you always state what you believe about it incorrectly from what it is. What you get back is not just the Calvinist saying it is not Calvinism but they show you why it is not by telling you what the true doctrine states so you then have knowledge of in what way you misunderstood or misstated it. When that is done our ARE having their beliefs set before you. You cannot refute something in Calvinism that isn't in Calvinism, yet you continue with that approach. Rather than refuting what you have been told is in Calvinism.

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.

That is because you are still refuting what is not in Calvinism even though you have been told where you are mistaken and what is in the theology.

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

You are doing the same thing even in this post. You have been shown there is no disparity/disunity in Calvinism or among Calvinists on doctrinal issues. Only different lenses, a different way of expressing the same thing, tweeks here or there. And yet you still say there is and announce that we must all believe exactly the same things, say them the way you want them said, and using this to prove that Calvinism is false. There is no substance or anchor or validity to that approach. It makes no sense.

 

[JIM]

How about this:

There are 4 types of “works” that one can view as leading to salvation.

1. There is the view that salvation can be gained by works of man and by man without any assistance from God needed. This would typically fall into the “Semi-Pelagian” camp of salvation [since there are VERY FEW true Pelagians]. The basic idea is that men can simply choose to do what is right and BE HOLY (no atonement necessary).
2. There is the LEGALISM view that salvation can be gained through careful observance of the LAW and rules set down by God. God provided a means for men to earn their own salvation based on meritorious actions. This was the Pharisaical view that Jesus and Paul attempted to counter with the SPIRIT of FAITH over the LETTER of the LAW as the emphasis of our salvation. These are the “works” that are “filthy rags” before the holiness of God.
3. There is the view that salvation is gained by a cooperative venture between God and Man where the works of Christ purchase the opportunity for salvation and the works of man secure the realization of that opportunity. This would fall into the “SYNERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that God and man must work together with each doing their part.
4. There is the view that salvation is gained through the works of God [period]. Man provides nothing but the “sin” that needs forgiving. This would fall into the “MONERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that salvation is 100% about God (who God chose, what God did, what God does, what God will do).

Only #4 falls in the Calvinist soteriology. I learned about #3 at the Church of God Anderson. I learned about #2 from Paul and Jesus arguing against it in Scripture. I learned about #1 from radical posters on “Christian” forums that all had special revelations and required no Church to tell them Biblical Truth (they had direct revelation from God) … and strongly argued that we should all obey them as modern prophets.

That is what THIS Calvinist (Particular Baptist flavor) knows and is talking about with respect to “works” and salvation.

You came close but didn't quite get to the most obvious way that works can lead to salvation. That is, obey each and every law that God has issued. Be aware that in fact is a very good argument against Original Sin. Imagine for the moment that there was someone (in addition to Jesus) who did keep every command of God. Keep in mind that while Paul said that all of sinned, he never said that no one could be free from sinning. In such a case, one would think that God would indeed accept him as one of His children. But the Calvinist says that even if that were the case, he would be condemned because of Adam's sin. I don't believe God would do such a thing.

 

[JIM]

How about this:

There are 4 types of “works” that one can view as leading to salvation.

1. There is the view that salvation can be gained by works of man and by man without any assistance from God needed. This would typically fall into the “Semi-Pelagian” camp of salvation [since there are VERY FEW true Pelagians]. The basic idea is that men can simply choose to do what is right and BE HOLY (no atonement necessary).
2. There is the LEGALISM view that salvation can be gained through careful observance of the LAW and rules set down by God. God provided a means for men to earn their own salvation based on meritorious actions. This was the Pharisaical view that Jesus and Paul attempted to counter with the SPIRIT of FAITH over the LETTER of the LAW as the emphasis of our salvation. These are the “works” that are “filthy rags” before the holiness of God.
3. There is the view that salvation is gained by a cooperative venture between God and Man where the works of Christ purchase the opportunity for salvation and the works of man secure the realization of that opportunity. This would fall into the “SYNERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that God and man must work together with each doing their part.
4. There is the view that salvation is gained through the works of God [period]. Man provides nothing but the “sin” that needs forgiving. This would fall into the “MONERGISTIC” camp of salvation. The basic idea is that salvation is 100% about God (who God chose, what God did, what God does, what God will do).

Only #4 falls in the Calvinist soteriology. I learned about #3 at the Church of God Anderson. I learned about #2 from Paul and Jesus arguing against it in Scripture. I learned about #1 from radical posters on “Christian” forums that all had special revelations and required no Church to tell them Biblical Truth (they had direct revelation from God) … and strongly argued that we should all obey them as modern prophets.

That is what THIS Calvinist (Particular Baptist flavor) knows and is talking about with respect to “works” and salvation.

The real point of interest with respect to works, is that the Calvinist refuses to accept the fact that God, in His sovereignty, is free to place conditions upon one receiving salvation. In the Calvinist's view such conditions would constitute works and Paul has stated that salvation is not by works. That is a false argument. Paul's argument of not by works is not that perfect obedience to God's law wouldn't provide for salvation. His point is that no one has ever, nor will ever, be perfectly obedient. The weakness is not in the law or the works. Works isn't the problem. The problem is us. God knowing that needed to provide an alternate means; He did that through the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of the world. That alternate means is precisely the gospel message.

 

[Arial]

You came close but didn't quite get to the most obvious way that works can lead to salvation. That is, obey each and every law that God has issued. Be aware that in fact is a very good argument against Original Sin. Imagine for the moment that there was someone (in addition to Jesus) who did keep every command of God. Keep in mind that while Paul said that all of sinned, he never said that no one could be free from sinning. In such a case, one would think that God would indeed accept him as one of His children. But the Calvinist says that even if that were the case, he would be condemned because of Adam's sin. I don't believe God would do such a thing.

The Law was our tutor to lead us to Christ. It is the Law that condemned us. It was the curse of the Law that Christ set us free from.

Calvinists do not deal in what ifs. They are irrelevant. Nor does it base its theology on what they believe God would or would not do. They go by what He tells us. To argue against something on the basis of a what if is arguing from logical fallacy.

 

[justbyfaith]

We are obviously free to do what we want to do.

So, if we want to be saved, we are free to do what is necessary and prescribed in order to procure salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

usually I get an obtuse definition like "free will is the ability to choose"

That definition is not obtuse as far as I'm concerned.

 

[justbyfaith]

Bad analogy because salad is not salvation.

I wasn't presenting it as an analogy.

 

[justbyfaith]

the inability to choose salvation

is overcome when the Holy Spirit draws us...

This, however, does not guarantee salvation.

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

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

Again, when we are drawn to Christ, motivation is given to receive Christ; while it may not be the strongest motivation present in the person's life.

The motivation is equal to all others when a person is motivated to receive Christ. For one person, it may be enough for them to receive Christ (because the motivation to keep their sin is a lesser motivation. For another, the motivation to keep sin may be greater than the equal motivation to receive Christ.

God does not increase the level of motivation to receive over any kind of situation where the resistance is greater.

 

[ReverendRV]

is overcome when the Holy Spirit draws us...

This, however, does not guarantee salvation.

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

Enabled?

 

[justbyfaith]

Calvinists say GOD (First Cause/Law of Causality) determines our desires

So, what of evil desires. (what do you mean, they hedge their bets)?

It seems to me that if God is the First Cause of evil desires, that God is therefore the author of evil.

 

[justbyfaith]

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.]

Again, every person is influenced by the Lord at some point in their life (John 12:32).

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

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

 

[justbyfaith]

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...

Yes, you can censor us, can't you?

Then you don't have to deal with our very valid arguments against your position.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, you can censor us, can't you?

Then you don't have to deal with our very valid arguments against your position.

I can...

But go ahead and have a real Debate with someone. This is your last chance...