Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[JIM]

You are using them for a particular purpose.

And you do not????? Give me a break.

And by the way, is that again attacking the poster?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

The entire argument you have with Reformed theology rests on that clause, "If we want to be saved …" Those who are unregenerate never desire this.

[The inability to choose salvation] is overcome when the Holy Spirit draws us. This, however, does not guarantee salvation.

"And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified" (Rom 8:29-30). And the scripture cannot be broken (i.e., annulled, invalidated, or contradicted).

No; we have based it on a free will decision of whether or not we will exercise faith; and according to Ephesians 2:8-9, faith and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation.

Faith and works are not mutually exclusive. You needed to go just one verse further: "For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them" (v. 10). Those good works are prepared in advance for people of faith to do, not for the unregenerate wicked. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive.

I will only say to this that when the Spirit is drawing a man to Christ, he is free to make a choice (2 Corinthians 3:17). God doesn't force the issue on him.

God does not force a resistant man. That would be an exercise in futility. Instead, he makes the man willing (regeneration). The man chooses Christ because, for the first time in his life, he wants to. That was due to what God did in him (soli Deo gloria).

As I have said to you before—but your every post fails to reflect this correction—since "force" implies resistance, every time you use that word when arguing against Calvinism you're begging the question (fallacy).

Remember, even this post is now part of the historical record to which you so often refer.

She would have eaten the cake except that the desire to not eat the cake was stronger.

No; there was a motivation, not a desire, to eat the salad instead of the cake.

That, right here, is what I was referring to when I said, "It was also noticeable that you obfuscated the discussion by suddenly introducing a new term, ‘motivation’."

Here, one can observe you doing exactly that.

Calvinism is based on the acronym TULIP; not the Bible.

Incorrect.

First, Calvinism is a theological system, but TULIP pertains only to soteriology. For example, Calvinism includes specific doctrines about the nature of God, about baptism and the Lord's supper, about scriptures, and so on, none of which is contained in that narrow acrostic.

Second, those five points were developed to only refute the five points raised by the Remonstrants against Calvinism in the 17th century. It is an acrostic summarizing the Canons of Dort (one of the Three Forms of Unity, the confessional standards of the Reformed church). And the Canons of Dort are absolutely loaded with scriptural support, and it is easily accessible online.

They came up with the doctrines of Calvinism and then the acronym. It does not change the fact that today, to depart from the acronym is considered to be a departure from Calvinism, even if such a departure is merited by the teaching of the Bible.

Consistent with what I just said above, the degree to which someone departs from the acrostic TULIP constitutes a departure from Calvinist soteriology narrowly, not Calvinist theology broadly.

You all don't believe the same thing; and therefore there is disparity / disunity within your doctrine.

If you all agreed together, I would have more.

But if I bring up certain arguments, some of you will simply say, "that is not taught by Calvinism because I don't believe in it as a Calvinist".

ReverendRV asked you to point out a valid argument you have made. None of those are a valid argument:

1. You all don't believe the same thing, and therefore there is disparity/disunity within your doctrine.

That is an observation, not an argument.

2. If you all agreed together, I would have more.

That is an autobiographical statement, not an argument.

3. But if I bring up certain arguments, some of you will simply say, "That is not taught by Calvinism because I don't believe in it as a Calvinist."

That is the start of an argument—"If X, then Y"—but it is unfinished. You have provided a major premise, but you are missing a minor premise and a conclusion. That would make it an argument.

 

[ReverendRV]

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.

Not me, I'm a Fundamentalist; and I'm a Baptist...

I start with the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, and go from there. Fundamentals are Truths that every Christian agrees upon; IE Orthodoxy. By using the words in your Post, you are using a 'top down' method of Argumentation. As a Fundamentalist, I am using a 'bottom up' method of Argumentation...

I'm a 5-Point Calvinist; Fundamentally most Evangelicals are...

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The [acrostic] TULIP originates in a sermon, then a pamphlet, and then a book on theology, all written in English in the early 20th century.

And if anyone needs evidence for this, I have a document which details this history. You need only ask and I would be happy to supply it.

William H. Vail, "The Reader’s View: The Five Points of Calvinism Historically Considered," The Outlook (June 21, 1913). The document appears as "Appendix: The Earliest Known Reference to the TULIP Acronym" in Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (InterVarsity Press, 2011), 391–392.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

No one is forced to sin.

You don't need to force the willing. They are quite willing to sin.

To obey is a choice.

And to sin is likewise a choice—which, for the unregenerate, is the only choice they make.

 

[Arial]

Are you attacking the poster and not the post?

Not at all.

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.

You said those isolated scriptures showed that seeing Christ motivated us to choose Him, without showing anything but the isolated scriptures which leaves the opposition with no knowledge of how you came to the conclusion they were teaching motivation to choose Him. So there was nothing on which to base agreement of dispute. We only have your word for it. Are you denying that it is pleasant to you? Will you provide what we need to know whether you are correct or not? The "otherwise" means without that we are left with something being given as proof of something, but we are still left with no conclusion. I am already familiar with those scriptures. I never understood them to be a motivation to choose Christ. Help me to see your view by explaining it with something besides confirmation bias and presupposition.

 

[Arial]

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.

So, in essence according to that objective truth in the Bible is unknowable. Or is the position really "No one should say they know any truth as objective truth because someone else will come along and say their truth is objective truth." The doctrines in Calvinism (as opposed to ALL Calvinists) were derived from the Bible and only from the Bible, using exhaustive means of systematic study and exegesis. Does that make it infallible? No, and it does not claim to be. What it does is make the above quote nothing more than a personal opinion that did not even bother to give any evidence of itself.

If your statement has any validity, why does the Bible tell us to contend for the faith, to discern the spirits, warn against false teachers, and false prophets, say these will come into our midst, tell us to ground ourselves in the word, tell us we have a Helper in this?

 

[atpollard]

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.

Thank you. Your "taint so" is noted.
(I told you the truth ... only God is in charge of changing hearts and minds.)

I leave you with my blessings.

 

[Arial]

They came up with the doctrines of Calvinism and then the acronym. It does nto change the fact that today, to depart from the acronym is considered to be a departure from Calvinism, even if such a departure is merited by the teaching of the Bible.

What the heck kind of argument is that? To depart from the actual doctrines that are expressed in the acronym would be to depart from Calvinism because they contain what Calvinism IS in that particular area.

Next.

 

[atpollard]

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.

See, I knew you would reword it but agree God was in control.

 

[Arial]

Enough with it, why?

Because it defeated your argument...

We could take a poll I guess if it is that important to you to think you WON!!

 

[Arial]

Your pretending that I don't have valid arguments does not make any of my arguments invalid.

He asked for an example of a valid argument. Rather than this sort of thing why not just give one? You are skating on thin ice with him in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[Arial]

I will only say to this that when the Spirit is drawing a man to Christ, he is free to make a choice (2 Corinthians 3:17).

God doesn't force the issue on him.

Psa 110:3, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Ps 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: Thou hast the dew of Thy youth.

 

[Arial]

No; we have based it on a free will decision of whether or not we will exercise faith; and according to Ephesians 2:8-9, faith and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation.

Circular argument.

 

[Arial]

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.

That is the point. We may not want to go to hell, if maybe there is one, but we do not want to give up our sins and answer to God in order to do so. We do not want Him as Lord over our life.

 

[JIM]

I'm a 5-Point Calvinist; Fundamentally most Evangelicals are...

I don't believe that.

 

[Arial]

The facts presented by those verses provide the motivation for anyone who believes what is said

What causes one to believe what is said? Is it that they have been given a motivation to believe? Or is it because they do believe? Or not believe whichever the case may be?

 

[JIM]

You don't need to force the willing. They are quite willing to sin.

You, of course, continue to sin. Do you do so willingly or are you forced?

And to sin is likewise a choice—which, for the unregenerate, is the only choice they make.

That is simply not true. Most unregenerates do not steal, most do not murder, etc., etc.

 

[Arial]

And if fact I would argue that Calvinists are more prone to eisegesis than most of the rest of Christendom

In order for that statement to have any bearing on anything it would need to be supported with examples of Calvinist eisegesis laid alongside correct exegesis of specific scriptures. And since you also qualify it as Calvinists (which implies all of them) compared to MOST of the rest of Christendom, you have made even a larger task of supporting you opinion with substance.

But I will give you a break. Give me two examples of eisegesis by a Calvinist, compared to the same scriptures exegesis by those other Christians. I will even accept you using yourself as an example of the correct exegesis----as long as you provide the exegesis.

 

[atpollard]

You, of course, continue to sin. Do you do so willingly or are you forced?

Those terms do not meaningfully apply to the situation.
When a crack addict goes into withdrawal and begins climbing out of his/her skin until they get another fix ... was that "willingly" or "forced"?

We are SLAVES to SIN ... in BONDAGE to our fallen nature. "Willing" and "forced" do not apply to such a state of slavery.

[EDIT: after salvation, all sin is a choice ... but it is a choice that all saints make, just not EVERY time.]