Free will. What is it?

[Hazelelponi]

@Eternally-Grateful

My thoughts. A direct question is not a hypothetical question. A direct question is what you were asked.

One minute you say things that seem close to our beliefs so we try and get clarification because from what you say you're either really close to us or as far away as a chasm that's uncrossable.

I have began to come to the conclusion not even you know what you believe - all you know is that it's against whatever we believe.

This forum isn't very nosey, but they do want you to be as clear about what your beliefs are as your able since we are here discussing faith issues (as opposed to politics).

I don't know all my beliefs yet .. but what I do know and believe I can articulate within reason. I feel a little stupid sometimes but I figure that's always okay... Lol ..

 

[ElectedbyHim]

@Eternally-Grateful

My thoughts. A direct question is not a hypothetical question. A direct question is what you were asked.

One minute you say things that seem close to our beliefs so we try and get clarification because from what you say you're either really close to us or as far away as a chasm that's uncrossable.

I have began to come to the conclusion not even you know what you believe - all you know is that it's against whatever we believe.

This forum isn't very nosey, but they do want you to be as clear about what your beliefs are as your able since we are here discussing faith issues (as opposed to politics).

I don't know all my beliefs yet .. but what I do know and believe I can articulate within reason. I feel a little stupid sometimes but I figure that's always okay... Lol ..

One minute you say things that seem close to our beliefs so we try and get clarification because from what you say you're either really close to us or as far away as a chasm that's uncrossable.

Spot on.

This is how I get confused with @Eternally-Grateful belief system.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

What Is Free Will?

Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. [John 1:13]


What does it mean to have a free will? The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards said that free will is the ability of the mind to choose. While there is a distinction between mind and will, he said, the two are inseparable in action. We do not make a choice before our mind approves that choice.

Edwards provides the following rule: Free moral agents always act according to the strongest inclination they have at the moment of choice. We always choose according to our inclinations and according to our strongest inclination at a given moment. We do what we want to do. When we commit a sin, it means that at that moment our desire to sin is greater than our desire to obey Christ.

Even when we seem to choose something for no apparent reason, in fact we do have some kind of inclination. You come into an auditorium and take a seat. Why that particular seat? Maybe because you like to sit in the front or in the back or along the aisle. Maybe you take the nearest empty seat because you prefer not to wander around looking. Whatever the reason, there is some inclination behind your decision.

What about coercion? Well, if a man points a gun at me and says, “Your money or your life,” I still have a choice. I may not like either one, but I will make my choice in terms of my inclination—which will be my inclination to live and lose my money, rather than die and lose my money anyway.

John Calvin wrote that if we mean by free will that fallen humanity has the ability to choose what he or she wants, then, of course, fallen people have free will. If we mean that fallen humanity has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to fallen people. The will is free to follow our inclinations, but fallen inclinations invariably point away from God.

We are free to make decisions, but because of our sinful nature, there is one decision we will never want to make: the decision to bow the knee to our Creator. God must intervene to change our nature before we will do that.

Coram Deo

God lets us exercise our wills and make free choices. The problem is that, left to ourselves, we always choose the wrong thing when it comes to holiness. Ask yourself these questions: “Before conversion, on my own, could I have willed to love God?” “Who or what inclined my will toward God?”^[1]

---

^[1] R.C. Sproul, Before the Face of God: Book 4: A Daily Guide for Living from Ephesians, Hebrews, and James, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; Ligonier Ministries, 1994), 34–35.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes. If one has been born again by the Holy Spirit, he has received (and not as a result of anything endemic to who he is or what he has done): 1. the Spirit of God, as a receptacle for that Spirit. 2. all the 'immediate' benefits of that indwelling by the Spirit of God, to include salvific faith and salvation itself.

Then the person is saved. His or her sins has been forgiven, He is no longer dead through his trespasses and sins, and logically, he does not need to have saving faith, he is already forgiven He already has the spirit. and nothing else needs done, He will be in heaven with God forever. whether he has faith or not (this is how I see it. I do not see any other way to see it.)

John does not say that this receiving is a result of the willed act of believing, nor by being convinced. I hope you read the last time we went through this. Can you show from Scripture where John says that the receiving of the Spirit and its immediate benefits, is a result of the willed act of believing? In fact, you can't even show that the believing is a willed act at all! As you indicate below, there is a lot you have been brought up believing as simple natural fact.

John does not say it was not a will act of obedience. Jesus however makes it clear in John 6. those who do not see. are those who do not believe. They are at a point that no amount of evidence will convince them, because their mind is made up.

Paul is quoted by Luke in the book of acts saying the same things Jesus said. and he also explains why, by using the OT

acts 28:
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,

‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;

here is why...


27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” ’

Just like Jesus said in John 6.

They (in unbelief)

close their eyes and they ears.

why? So they do not hear and they do not see.

why? Because if they did understand, Jesus would heal them (because they would have to believe)

we see this in the world today. look at American politics.. people are believing the lie, and not seeing the truth because they fear someone.

Also. Paul continues in eph 1

Eph 1: 13 – 14: 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[ is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

so you see here. Unless you think this is not willful belief or trust.

1. They heard
2. They trusted (by what power? themselves or God? I believe By Gods power)
3. Once they had faith they were given the HS of promise.

the HS here does not come in until AFTER faith. not before.

John 5: John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

again, the process

1. hear the word
2. Trust the word (salvic faith not mere belief)
3. Receive eternal life (born again) and given Gods promise you will not come unto judgment, But you have passed (after faith) from death to life (again, new birth)

and again, John ends his gospel with the following words

John 20:31 — 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

John wrote his gospel as a witness to the words and actions and events concerning Christ. so that we may
1. through these words trust God (same sequence of Paul in eph 1)
2. Through these words inspired by the Holy Spirit, and led by the Holy Spirit. and our faith given us by God as he is proven trustworthy. We may have life (again, life follows faith)

we also have the example of Abraham in romans 4 paul fives us. Remember so we can get context. Abraham believed God and it was accounted or imputed to him as righteousness. And paul makes it clear. we are saved by this same faith.

Romans 4:
Abrahams faith is credited as righteousness…

Romans 4: 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

We are saved by this same faith, as Abraham is father to not only Israel. But all of us (in you shall all nations)…

Faith is not works. you do not earn something by having faith

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

What was Abrahams faith?

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

So here we have everything the word says about faith

• Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen (heb 11)
• His faith was in this hope
• He did not waver in unbelief
• He was fully convinced and through this, his faith grew
• And because of this faith, he received the promise

so as you can see. I just can not agree with you that it is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act.

I am going to break this up. this is long. I will continue in another post.. (I have to step away for a few but will be back)

 

[makesends]

ElectedbyHim said:
Ask yourself these questions: “Before conversion, on my own, could I have willed to love God?” “Who or what inclined my will toward God?”

“He breaks me with breach upon breach; he runs upon me like a warrior” (Job 16:14).

“The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:8)

(BTW, the Amos quote is a particular favorite.)

But, I'm curious why you posted these. In the context of what @ElectedbyHim posted, to which you responded, it sounds like something @Eternally-Grateful might have said. He claims that indeed faith is given by God, in that it is God who convinces one to trust in Christ, which is not Arminianism (they invoke 'prevenient grace'), nor even Pelagianism (who claim fallen man is capable of salvific faith all on his own), quite.

If God convinces someone —salvifically— by speaking as God, like a lion roaring, then you would be agreeing with his synergism.

 

[Hazelelponi]

ElectedbyHim said:
Ask yourself these questions: “Before conversion, on my own, could I have willed to love God?” “Who or what inclined my will toward God?”

(BTW, the Amos quote is a particular favorite.)

But, I'm curious why you posted these. In the context of what @ElectedbyHim posted, to which you responded, it sounds like something @Eternally-Grateful might have said. He claims that indeed faith is given by God, in that it is God who convinces one to trust in Christ, which is not Arminianism (they invoke 'prevenient grace'), nor even Pelagianism (who claim fallen man is capable of salvific faith all on his own), quite.

If God convinces someone —salvifically— by speaking as God, like a lion roaring, then you would be agreeing with his synergism.

No.... I wasn't referencing synergism.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Note by mod: Read the end of post #590 concerning site rule #4.4 Resolution must occur before continuing the argument.

Yep. And, FWIW, both you and I will change a lot more. You and I both learned the hard way, and we have a lot more to learn.

we have to have this mindset. If we do not. if we think we know it all. we will not grow. and we limit God and his ability to help us..

Not at all. Man is taken from death to life. No longer dead in sin. The Reformed view is that man, through no act of his own —that is, totally by the Grace of God— is transformed from death to life. No longer dead in sin.

then as I said in my last post. He is saved. he has no need to have faith to be justified. his justification has taken place.

Are you saying that he has to no longer be dead in sin in order to be transformed, or in order to become transformed from death to life?

No. he needs to no longer be under the penalty of sin in order to be made alive, Justification MUST precede regeneration.

that seems to be the sticking point between the people in this conversation.

one says regeneration comes first

the other says regeneration comes after.

makesends said:
But he has an 'elect only' policy.

Says the doctrine of 'Election', as taught by Scriptures, all over the place.

What do you think the "Doctrine of Election" is? I'm going to try to assume you're not playing games. You do agree that the Bible uses the word, "elect", or "chosen" concerning a certain group of people, no?

God foreknew

who he foreknew he did predestine

The issue is, what (or who) did God foreknow. prognosis - to know beforehand, to have prior knowledge. to know before it takes place

This is another sticking point..

Yes, well, when you said represented what I said, as though this issue of God causing that there be evil was an end in itself, with no other considerations, you were misrepresenting what I said. A yes or no answer would not have been accurate.

Here is what you said:
Eternally-Grateful said:
So your saying God created man to curse them with a curse that would bring mankind multiple times to the point of extinction (the flood first, and second Matt 24, the end time period where Jesus has to intervene or no flesh would survive)

I'm saying that that is not what I was saying, as it implies that that was the reason he created man. I don't even begin to think that, nor does what I say reduce to that. He created man for the purpose of 'producing' the "particular creation", the People of God, that will be seen in Heaven. All that you mentioned was part of what it takes to produce that chosen group from within humanity.

forgive me then, You must think differently. Another user I was discussing with and many calvin debates. this is in effect what they are saying.

I did what I try to avoid. and ask others not to do, and assume thing.. Forgive me

makesends said:
Go back to the beginning. Why did God create anything? For the glory of his praise.

Which he gets by creating a people he can serve.
remember, In Gods wisdom, it is better to give than receive.

adams will full act of disobedience broke this cycle. because it alienated Gods creation from himself.

I don't get the relevance of that statement. What does that have to do with what we had been talking about, or with what it was responding to, or with freewill?

trying to explain what I see.. and why we believe certain things.. all of us..

makesends said:
How does his creating bring that about? By making a particular creation that would be his particular People, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God. How does he accomplish that particular creation? By, among many other things, the creation of those who would reject him. To those he did not show mercy nor 'install' his Holy Spirit to dwell in them and raise them from death to life in Christ. Instead his intention toward them was reprobation FOR THAT PARTICULAR CREATION, AND THAT, FOR THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY. Look at Romans 9 again, verse 23, in the immediate context of verses 19 to 23, or 11-24, or the whole chapter, or the whole book, or the whole Bible.

If I read you right. God created all mankind for the few that would believe in him (the body of Christ) but to do this, he had to create those who would not believe also? (Am I reading you right?

If so. I disagree.

he created mankind (all) for his good pleasure to serve them,

He gets no pleasure or glory when he will have to send them to outer darkness for eternity.

however. He gets all praise and glory from not only the body of Christ, but all creation, when he died for them, and they willfully turned him down.

as for romans 9, I think we already see it is difference in interpretation. so I would not see what you see.

Are you saying that he did not make man for that final end of man—to be all he will be in heaven? Or is there something else that you are saying you disagree with? Lol, this format is discouraging, trying to keep up with who said what in response to what. I gotta give you credit, I'm only responding to one or two here, you are trying to hold down 5 or 10 conversations at once!

He created man to serve them, Death was not part of his plan. Rebellion was not part of his plan. Imagine an earth were no one ever sinned.. Not only would so much credit and glory be given to God. the world would be a much better place.

I think God wanted that. But saw it was not going to happen. so made a plan to save it the best he could.. and in the end, He will still get all the glory.. when he restores all things to himself.

(as well as he will have eliminated the possibility of any rebellion for the rest of eternity)

I gotta give you credit, I'm only responding to one or two here, you are trying to hold down 5 or 10 conversations at once!

It can be nerve-wracking..lol I just have to remember to keep my cool or walk away when I get frustrated..

this post is too long again, have to break it up.

to continue....

Note by mod: Read the end of post #590 concerning site rule #4.4 Resolution must occur before continuing the argument.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Note by mod: Read the end of post #590 concerning site rule #4.4 Resolution must occur before continuing the argument.

makesends said:
That is what I said, yes. But the self-determinist does look at God's love or justice according to human love and justice.

Yes, to some degree that is inevitable. I try to take myself skeptically, however, which leads me to distrust my notions of God's love and justice, and to discard my notions altogether if they are not reasonable nor scriptural.

I feel the same, amen!! 100%

I find simple logic to say that if God is God, then all that follows was his plan. Regardless of the best way to describe that, it is also what I find in Scripture, and when it seems Scripture says otherwise, I look a little farther into Scripture, and every time, so far, sure enough, God still planned precisely what came about. Otherwise, he is not God. God is not like us.

That may be too simple?

I see a God who is all knowing. Who has plans. and makes those plans work. inspite of mankind and Satan's rebellion and continued attempt to thwart those plans.

makesends said:
The one insisting on self-determinism thinks it all depends on himself, to include his concepts and definitions.

I suppose you are referring to some incident or statement there, but don't know which or what. I'll leave it alone.

I can;t remember..lol

makesends said:
When he [the self-determinist] runs into a logical roadblock, at the very best he thinks, "Well, I don't know it all so I give up thinking about it —my concepts of love and justice are human only, and not the way God sees it, so I give up trying to make sense of it all. I'll stick by my concepts because they work well up to a point, and ignore the logical implications and contradictions, because I can't abide even any beginning of a notion of an unjust God."

Of course. But that is what those insisting on self-determinism do.

Agreed

Who made that rule?

Who made the rule a creator can create all these beings, and claim to the universe he is a God of love. but does not love all his creation?

It is not, if that was his plan from the beginning. You want equal love for all, but that is not what he had in mind. Grace.

No. I do not want equal love, that's impossible. God loved Israel more than Esau

but if he loved Israel in a way he saved them all. But did not even offer Esau the chance to be saved, Then can we really call it grace? Can we really call it love?

I personally do not think so.

In the story of the workers in the field, those who had been there all day said it was not fair that those who came late to work got paid the same amount as those who had been there all day. The owner said, you got what you bargained for—why are you upset that I do with my own money what I want, generously toward some?

The point is everyone was saved and recieved money.

In the other senerio. The owner did not even offer everyone jobs, but turns many away and picked and chose people for whatever reason.

in essence, he would have held the group he chose above those he did not chose..

I suppose you mean, if love does not apply equally to everyone... But, even if not, who came up with that rule?

Again, Who come up the rule that God can hate this group and not offer them anything, and hold this group up by loving them

and then call himself a God of love.

All creation belongs to God. He can do as he will, and it may not look nice to some. "Who are you, oh man, [to tell God he is unfair]?"

Yes he can.

But remember, All creation is looking at what God does..

God is a very particular God. His plan is specific.

Yes it is we agree.

we just disagree on how that plan is implemented and maybe what it is

Note by mod: Read the end of post #590 concerning site rule #4.4 Resolution must occur before continuing the argument.

 

[makesends]

Then the person is saved. His or her sins has been forgiven, He is no longer dead through his trespasses and sins, and logically, he does not need to have saving faith, he is already forgiven He already has the spirit. and nothing else needs done, He will be in heaven with God forever. whether he has faith or not (this is how I see it. I do not see any other way to see it.)




John does not say it was not a will act of obedience. Jesus however makes it clear in John 6. those who do not see. are those who do not believe. They are at a point that no amount of evidence will convince them, because their mind is made up.

Paul is quoted by Luke in the book of acts saying the same things Jesus said. and he also explains why, by using the OT

acts 28:
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,

‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;

here is why...


27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” ’

Just like Jesus said in John 6.

They (in unbelief)

close their eyes and they ears.

why? So they do not hear and they do not see.

why? Because if they did understand, Jesus would heal them (because they would have to believe)

we see this in the world today. look at American politics.. people are believing the lie, and not seeing the truth because they fear someone.

Also. Paul continues in eph 1

Eph 1: 13 – 14: 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[ is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

so you see here. Unless you think this is not willful belief or trust.

1. They heard
2. They trusted (by what power? themselves or God? I believe By Gods power)
3. Once they had faith they were given the HS of promise.

the HS here does not come in until AFTER faith. not before.

John 5: John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

again, the process

You are conflating logical sequence with temporal sequence.

You are also confusing co-incidence with causation.

1. hear the word
2. Trust the word (salvic faith not mere belief)
3. Receive eternal life (born again) and given Gods promise you will not come unto judgment, But you have passed (after faith) from death to life (again, new birth)

and again, John ends his gospel with the following words

John 20:31 — 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

John wrote his gospel as a witness to the words and actions and events concerning Christ. so that we may
1. through these words trust God (same sequence of Paul in eph 1)
2. Through these words inspired by the Holy Spirit, and led by the Holy Spirit. and our faith given us by God as he is proven trustworthy. We may have life (again, life follows faith)

we also have the example of Abraham in romans 4 paul fives us. Remember so we can get context. Abraham believed God and it was accounted or imputed to him as righteousness. And paul makes it clear. we are saved by this same faith.

Romans 4:
Abrahams faith is credited as righteousness…

Romans 4: 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

We are saved by this same faith, as Abraham is father to not only Israel. But all of us (in you shall all nations)…

Faith is not works. you do not earn something by having faith

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

What was Abrahams faith?

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Here you continue to attribute co-incidence with causation, and to conflate causal sequence with temporal sequence.

Let me try to demonstrate: Abraham, being "not weak in faith...did not waver at the promise...but was strengthened...and convinced...and therefore it was counted to him as righteousness." (Leaving alone for now, what it means that "it was counted to him as righteousness"), the faith was already there, in the beginning of the quote. That faith given him was already active when the rest of the quote comes to bear, but you put it as a result of being convinced, instead of being convinced being a result of, or even endemic to, that faith. Also, (leaving alone for now that "was strengthened in faith" does not translate directly to "grew" as you below take it to mean), "being fully convinced" does not precede the faith. It is a result of the faith.

So here we have everything the word says about faith

• Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen (heb 11)

Notice it doesn't say that faith is the result of the evidence.

• His faith was in this hope

In what hope —that he would be the father of a nation? How is that Salvific Faith? Maybe that was the result of salvific faith!

• He did not waver in unbelief

Yes, and...?

• He was fully convinced and through this, his faith grew

Why do you say his faith grew? (I'm not saying it didn't, but here it is not proven).

• And because of this faith, he received the promise

so as you can see. I just can not agree with you that it is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

Let's grant for the sake of argument that this faith was a willed act, can you show how this is salvific faith it is referring to?

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act.

An unwilled act is not, "by definition...a forced act." It is a caused act.

I am going to break this up. this is long. I will continue in another post.. (I have to step away for a few but will be back)

That's good, because here you have charged me with fallacy. Rule 4.4 says we need to resolve that charge before proceeding.

So, can you convince me how an act is by definition "forced", if it is not willed? Or can you drop the idea to a more clinical, "caused".

 

[makesends]

No.... I wasn't referencing synergism.

Yes, I know. But what you said did not counter synergism. In the context of the thread, I'm wondering why you said it, specially since it was compatible with what @Eternally-Grateful has been saying, and the type of synergism he has been promoting.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, I know. But what you said did not counter synergism. In the context of the thread, I'm wondering why you said it, specially since it was compatible with what @Eternally-Grateful has been saying, and the type of synergism he has been promoting.

I'm sorry, I was not thinking.

I wasn't thinking about the potential of my quote being misconstrued to be synergistic.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful

My thoughts. A direct question is not a hypothetical question. A direct question is what you were asked.

And My direct answer is I am not going to answer a question that to me is a hypothetical question. that is my answer. There will be no more answers.

One minute you say things that seem close to our beliefs so we try and get clarification because from what you say you're either really close to us or as far away as a chasm that's uncrossable.

I have began to come to the conclusion not even you know what you believe - all you know is that it's against whatever we believe.

Well I am sorry you think this way. I know what I believe. sadly, as has been shown here. Some try to show they think I believe this or that. and it is not even close to what I believe.

This forum isn't very nosey, but they do want you to be as clear about what your beliefs are as your able since we are here discussing faith issues (as opposed to politics).

If he wants to be clear. Just tell me his point.

I have been around Christian forums for many years now, And while I applaud this forum on its decorum and the fact that we can have conversations even when we disagree in a humble and gentle manner (at least some of us) I see some of the sdame stuff in arguments

one thing I see and avoid like the plague is when one asks leading questions.. In my view. that is what this is. and I chose not to participate. because again, it is a hypothetical in my view. and I see no value in playing the game. (I have done so in the past trying to be nice, and regretted instantly that move, because it turned out exactly like i thought it would)

as I told him, if he wants to make a point. make it..

I would!! and I have

I don't know all my beliefs yet .. but what I do know and believe I can articulate within reason. I feel a little stupid sometimes but I figure that's always okay... Lol ..

oh I feel you.. I have changed many of my views for this very reason.. which is why I have learned to test each spirit.. I have been led astray alot in the past.. and am not set in stone now.. Like I told another user, when we think we know it all. we are doomed..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Spot on.

This is how I get confused with @Eternally-Grateful belief system.

what is confusing about it?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What Is Free Will?

Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. [John 1:13]

is this your defenition?

What does it mean to have a free will? The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards said that free will is the ability of the mind to choose. While there is a distinction between mind and will, he said, the two are inseparable in action. We do not make a choice before our mind approves that choice.

Edwards provides the following rule: Free moral agents always act according to the strongest inclination they have at the moment of choice. We always choose according to our inclinations and according to our strongest inclination at a given moment. We do what we want to do. When we commit a sin, it means that at that moment our desire to sin is greater than our desire to obey Christ.

I showed earlier why I disagree with this notion.

we do not always act according to our strongest inclination.. Trusting in a God to save you and give you thing you can not really prove. would not be anyone's strongest inclination.

me getting up when my strongest inclination is to stay in bed. is another example

Even when we seem to choose something for no apparent reason, in fact we do have some kind of inclination.

Some kind is not the same as strongest

You come into an auditorium and take a seat. Why that particular seat? Maybe because you like to sit in the front or in the back or along the aisle. Maybe you take the nearest empty seat because you prefer not to wander around looking. Whatever the reason, there is some inclination behind your decision.

What about coercion? Well, if a man points a gun at me and says, “Your money or your life,” I still have a choice. I may not like either one, but I will make my choice in terms of my inclination—which will be my inclination to live and lose my money, rather than die and lose my money anyway.

yet some people are so proud. they chose the latter

John Calvin wrote that if we mean by free will that fallen humanity has the ability to choose what he or she wants, then, of course, fallen people have free will. If we mean that fallen humanity has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to fallen people. The will is free to follow our inclinations, but fallen inclinations invariably point away from God.

again, I did not chose righteousness. Non of us did. we could not chose righteousness. any more than we had the ability to be righteous. that ship sailed long before we even understand what righteousness or moral goodness even ment.

We are free to make decisions, but because of our sinful nature, there is one decision we will never want to make: the decision to bow the knee to our Creator.

Again, I can not agree.. in fact. this makes no sense whatsoever. If I can not bow. as the tax collector. I will forever remain dead in my sin

God must intervene to change our nature before we will do that.

Well this I can agree. but we disagree as to how this is done

Coram Deo

God lets us exercise our wills and make free choices. The problem is that, left to ourselves, we always choose the wrong thing when it comes to holiness. Ask yourself these questions: “Before conversion, on my own, could I have willed to love God?” “Who or what inclined my will toward God?”^[1]

I can not be holy. no matter how hard I try.

it is for this reason. I must be rescued.

I do not chose to be holy. I chose to let a savior rescue me because I am not holy and I am punished with the death that comes with sin.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

what is confusing about it?

On one hand you seem to say that man has a hand in salvation (believing) and on the other, that is all of God.

 

[makesends]

I'm sorry, I was not thinking.

I wasn't thinking about the potential of my quote being misconstrued to be synergistic.

No problem. I welcome what you said, but was hoping you had a context I wasn't seeing. I want the truth, and those verses are great, but, in other words, are they relevant to salvation, or do they represent what follows salvation, or are they, irrelevantly, speaking of the effect of the 'untameness' of God?

If they are intended as support for monergism (synergism vs monergism seems to be where this thread has gone), I don't see how they counter @Eternally-Grateful 's position.

Let me put it like this: I can see posting that as mere support for monergism and Calvinistic views concerning free will, due to the extreme nature of the overwhelming power of God, and for that it works. I was wondering if that was your aim. It counters 99% of the self-deterministic views I have run into concerning free will. Well done, if that was your intent.

The position @Eternally-Grateful has shown —that God convinces the sinner of his trustworthiness (the same way a husband has learned to trust his wife), and therefore it can be said that salvific faith comes from God— is, among synergists, a rather unique presentation of salvific faith. For that I give him credit. He's not a copy cat.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

If God convinces someone —salvifically— by speaking as God, like a lion roaring, then you would be agreeing with his synergism.

I guess I am going to have to study these isms.. lol

 

[Hazelelponi]

ing questions.. In my view. that is what this is. and I chose not to participate. because again, it is a hypothetical in my view. and I see no value in playing the game. (I have done so in the past trying to be nice, and regretted instantly that move, because it turned out exactly like i thought it would)

You have been posting in these couple of threads and it's too much to try and go through every one to find an example but you're not being consistent in your use of Scripture.

You will agree with an interpretation of a verse in one respect and disagree with the same later.

Trying to figure out what you hold as a constant is very difficult, and without a consistent interpretation how can we converse?

The only constant I see is that whatever verse we examine it's reading must conform to the philosophical concept of freewill, whether it's context calls for that or not.

And this is nicer than CF. But that's because we can talk about what we actually believe.

Is the concept of freewill simply the constant you see all Scripture through?

For me the constant is God's sovereignty and time (literally time itself as I don't have a God confined inside of time, but rather, one who created it and Himself stands outside it. I see all things as being fulfilled in the past - even my life, that is to say, my life is already written, all I'm doing is walking in the steps God determined).

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

can some one please explain this to me?

Note by mod: Read the end of post #590 concerning site rule #4.4 Resolution must occur before continuing the argument.

I have multiple conversations going on at the moment, I have no idea what this means or what resolution he is talking about.