Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[justbyfaith]

Would you like to talk about Prevenient Regeneration?

Would you like to talk about God's Primary Causation?

Say whatever you want to say about them; but I am getting burnt out at the present moment.

 

[JIM]

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.

Calvinists do not go by what He tells us any more than do non-Calvinists. Calvinists interpret what they read just like everyone else. To argue otherwise is to engage in extreme egoism. It is arrogance beyond belief. And if fact I would argue that Calvinists are more prone to eisegesis than most of the rest of Christendom.

 

[JIM]

Yes, Paul did. So did Jesus and John.

No one is forced to sin. To obey is a choice.

 

[JIM]

Where does the Bible say when we are draw to Christ we are given motivation to receive Him? Scriptures please.

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.
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

 

[makesends]

No one is forced to sin. To obey is a choice.

Just by mere serendipitous chance, I was uncaused to happen upon this thread, so I haven't read everything; but somebody said that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice?

 

[JIM]

Just by mere serendipitous chance, I was uncaused to happen upon this thread, so I haven't read everything; but somebody said that we are forced to sin, and that obedience is not a choice?

Reply #120

 

[fastfredy0]

My belief is that everyone has an unhindered ability to make a free decision to receive or reject Christ at whatever juncture in their lives that they are being drawn to Him (2 Corinthians 3:17).

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.

 

[fastfredy0]

Say whatever you want to say about them; but I am getting burnt out at the present moment.

LOL... I give you props for being strong enough to face this Calvinistic Firing Squad ... lol

 

[fastfredy0]

Just by mere serendipitous chance, I was uncaused to happen upon this thread

OH NO ... you've the first to have broken the Law of Causality .... the foundation of all knowledge as we know it has been disrupted (hyperbole)

 

[atpollard]

No one is forced to sin. To obey is a choice.

I happen to like math and statistics ... so just for the record, how many people have made the 'choice' to live a sinless life?
When does "coincidence" become statistical correlation implying "cause-effect"?

Let us take an example. The sun rose this morning. The sun also rose yesterday. Was that just a coincidence? How many mornings does the sun need to rise before I can conclude that the sun rises EVERY morning and will rise tomorrow morning?

I did not love God with all my EVERYTHING every day prior to today. I did not even measure up to that yardstick THIS MORNING. Mother Teresa and Billy Graham also claim to have failed to live up to that yardstick. So who is it that has CHOSEN to obey (as you posit we all can)? When EVERYONE fails, when does coincidence become a scientific "law"?

 

[atpollard]

But if God is the First Cause of everything then He is responsible for murder and rape and incest.

I have a problem with THAT theology.

I am familiar with TWO distinct "Calvinistic" answers:

1. God endowed ADAM with "free will". ADAM had something that we do not. ADAM could choose free of corrupting internal influences. When ADAM fell, that option left and we are born into a corrupted world with corrupted secondary influences. God is not the CAUSE of EVIL, but EVIL is subject to the will of God. As illustrated in the story of Joseph, what men intended for EVIL, God allowed and PURPOSED for GOOD (His greater plan). As Romans 1:18-32 describes, God restrains evil and "gives men over to" (permission to follow) dark human desires ... God is an agent of restraint that allows evil to go "only so far" (as Job illustrated).
2. YES. Sovereign is sovereign. God is in control of all things and created EVIL to serve a purpose that is part of His plan and incomprehensible to us. Who ever said that God should answer to US and OUR sense of morality ... Read God's response when Job demanded an explanation.

Personally, I lean towards #1 and @fastfredy0 leans towards #2 (although he would probably word it slightly different, but agree that God is in control of EVERYTHING - including evil). He and I have spilled many electrons in friendly debate ... me defending God's "honor" as I see it and he defending God's "sovereignty" as he sees it. [and both of us acknowledging that God is likely 'facepalming' our efforts in the background].

FYI: We came to the ultimate conclusion that if God were to chime in and post a response, it would probably be: "You are both idiots, but I love you."

 

[Arial]

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.
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

There is no word and no concept of motivation in those passages. You have had every one of them thoroughly expounded on, run through exegesis, aligned with the whole counsel of God, by the Calvinists you are trying to refute.

As you now say they are teaching motivation to choose Christ it behooves you to do the same work that was done for you, so that we might see and understand how "motivation" is being taught in them.

Otherwise your claim has nothing on which to hang its hat, and you are simply deciding what the Bible says in a way that is pleasant to you, rather than finding out whether you are correct or not.

 

[Arial]

Then reject what I am saying ("harden your heart to it"); it is no skin off my back...

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

 

[JIM]

I happen to like math and statistics ... so just for the record, how many people have made the 'choice' to live a sinless life?
When does "coincidence" become statistical correlation implying "cause-effect"?

Let us take an example. The sun rose this morning. The sun also rose yesterday. Was that just a coincidence? How many mornings does the sun need to rise before I can conclude that the sun rises EVERY morning and will rise tomorrow morning?

I did not love God with all my EVERYTHING every day prior to today. I did not even measure up to that yardstick THIS MORNING. Mother Teresa and Billy Graham also claim to have failed to live up to that yardstick. So who is it that has CHOSEN to obey (as you posit we all can)? When EVERYONE fails, when does coincidence become a scientific "law"?

Your example does not present coincidence. It presents a scientific fact that results from scientific law.

The fact that everyone fails does not establish a scientific law of cause and effect. It does establish a theological truth, but not a scientific law of cause and effect.

 

[JIM]

Otherwise your claim has nothing on which to hang its hat, and you are simply deciding what the Bible says in a way that is pleasant to you, rather than finding out whether you are correct or not.

Are you attacking the poster and not the post?

 

[JIM]

There is no word and no concept of motivation in those passages. You have had every one of them thoroughly expounded on, run through exegesis, aligned with the whole counsel of God, by the Calvinists you are trying to refute.

Those verses simply state facts. You can argue all day long what the mean to you, but that doesn't change what they say. As far as having had them thoroughly expanded on, that is more than a stretch, coming from a Calvinist.

As you now say they are teaching motivation to choose Christ it behooves you to do the same work that was done for you, so that we might see and understand how "motivation" is being taught in them.

The facts presented by those verses provide the motivation for anyone who believes what is said. Given that faith comes by hearing the word about Christ, anyone interested in obtaining faith would be motivated to listen and learn about Christ. I see that happening all the time.

 

[fastfredy0]

FYI: We came to the ultimate conclusion that if God were to chime in and post a response, it would probably be: "You are both idiots, but I love you."

God is in control of all things and created EVIL

Neither proposition thinks God created evil. Evil is not a thing; rather, it's a lack of something. The earth and Adam as originally created was good. @CCShorts is the expert on proposition #2.

 

[ReverendRV]

Calvinists do not go by what He tells us any more than do non-Calvinists. Calvinists interpret what they read just like everyone else. To argue otherwise is to engage in extreme egoism. It is arrogance beyond belief. And if fact I would argue that Calvinists are more prone to eisegesis than most of the rest of Christendom.

Why?

 

[Arial]

Those verses simply state facts. You can argue all day long what the mean to you, but that doesn't change what they say.

You are using them for a particular purpose. That the scriptures themselves are motivators. Here they are again in response to the question "Where does the Bible say that when we are drawn to Christ we are motivated to receive Him?"

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.
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

You have removed those scriptures from the full counsel of God and used them as "proof" texts, rather than actually showing they mean what you say. What if I were to show you this text?
John 6

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”


41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 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. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Is it still saying that looking at Christ is a motivator to choose Him?

The facts presented by those verses provide the motivation for anyone who believes what is said. Given that faith comes by hearing the word about Christ, anyone interested in obtaining faith would be motivated to listen and learn about Christ. I see that happening all the time.

What do the facts presented by the full context provide? The Jews who were present couldn't even understand all this talk about Jesus being the bread of life and eating and drinking His blood, and Jesus was standing right in front of them. Which goes to show, one cannot choose to believe something. Either they do or they don't. They don't choose to believe it and they don't choose to not believe it. They either believe what they hear or they don't believe what they hear. Now what do you suppose makes the difference? Those scriptures alone will tell you, and the rest of the Bible consistently backs it up. Choosing is not the issue or the catalyst. Believing is what Jesus said made the difference between those who have eternal life and those who do not.

 

[JIM]

Why?

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.