Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

You are conflating logical sequence with temporal sequence.

You are also confusing co-incidence with causation.

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.

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

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!

Yes, and...?

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

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?

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

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".

we need to go back,. For some reason most of my post is skipped. I can not go forward until we go back.

I am a person that likes things organized. if we stop and say we have to go back, then I am at a loss. and organization is destroyed.

I answered your post. i responded point by point. which we all should (sadly many like to skip over things.. I like to be thorough) and was directed by a mod to resolve 4.4, on something I do not even know

lets get that done, then go back to the first part of my posts. then we will get to this.

so lets go back. and resolve whatever I am being charged with.. then move forward here..

This rule 4.4 whatever it is.. and saying we need to stop.. is confusing. and I do not see how anyone can converse..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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 will have to look up synergism to understand what is going on..lol


You all will have me studying more.. and that's a good thing!!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

On one hand you seem to say that man has a hand in salvation (believing)

But that's not exactly true

I received in faith

Like I said earlier to some one (I can not remember who. to many conversations going on..lol) and I adjusted a sentence so it fits our conversation..

I have 4 kids. You could say I created these 4 kids since I am the father.

All 4 of my kids have needs they can not fullfil. They have no ability to get these needs met.

So I go ahead. and pay out of my work for these needs to be met

2 of my kids see the value of my gift. and receive them in faith

2 of my kids do not trust me, they think I have ulterior motives, they doubt I really love them, and they in unbelief reject my gift.

the 2 kids that received my gift in faith did not give more then me, They did not do anything to earn the gift they received, and they did not give me anything in return, I did not receive anything

so they did not have a hand in these gifts. and they can not now boast because they earned the gifts I gave out of my blood sweat and tears. for they had no part. nor did they earn. they just recieved

The two who rejected my gift out of lack of faith had every chance to take the gift and get their needs met. In refusing, their needs are never met and they lost out..

Hopefully this now helps you understand

and on the other, that is all of God.

Yes. Just like the two kids that received by love gift. It was all on me not them..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

(synergism vs monergism seems to be where this thread has gone)

ouch, I tried by all means to prevent this from happening..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

please show an example

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

I have been consistent to the best I can, even in my examples.

If I have failed. please show so I can correct.

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.

Christian forums?

I am currently a member in that chat, this chat. Christian chat, and Berean appologetics.

I have memberships in a few more. but these are the 4 I have been active in.. Lately, I have tried to stay in here. since it can be confusing going back and forth

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

Yes. under my interpretation of free will (I understand not everyone holds to my interpretation)

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).

I believe Gods sovereignty, his love, and the free will he gave his creation work hand in hand.

 

[makesends]

ouch, I tried by all means to prevent this from happening..

It's ok, as long as that doesn't become the point of the thread. That's partly why I mentioned the fact.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It's ok, as long as that doesn't become the point of the thread. That's partly why I mentioned the fact.

reign us in!!! get us back on track!!! Thank you for not letting it get out of hand, appreciate it. And you!

 

[ElectedbyHim]

is this your defenition?

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

Some kind is not the same as strongest


yet some people are so proud. they chose the latter


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.



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

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

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.

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.

Eternally-Grateful said: 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​

It is by the grace of God's Holy Spirit that when He regenerates (new birth) someone that they will receive Him and be obedient.

Before regeneration there is nothing any human can do to come to God or receive Him.



Just a thought, I like this comment....



ON GRACE AND FREE CHOICE

On Grace and Free Choice (1128) proved to be the most profound and influential of Bernard’s dogmatic works.60 This treatise has been called Bernard’s commentary on Romans, as he addresses the essential problems of the relation of grace and freedom.61 Augustine’s treatises against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians are similar to this work. In it, Bernard asserted that, left to themselves, fallen human beings will only sin.62 Man’s power to do good, he claimed, was lost through sin. For this reason, Bernard saw grace as necessary to incline the will to God and holiness. “Grace,” he says, “changes the will from evil to good—not by destroying its freedom but by transferring its allegiance.”63 He adds: “What was begun by grace alone is completed by grace and free will together. This happens in such a way that they contribute to each achievement not singly but jointly, not in turns but simultaneously. It is not that grace does part of the work and free will the rest. But each does the whole work, according to its peculiar contribution. Grace does it all and so does free will—except that while all is done in free will, all is done out of [or “by”] grace.”64 In other words, Bernard contended that God’s grace transforms the nature of man’s will to good.

---

60 Bernard McGinn, “Introduction,” in Bernard, Treatises, Vol. 3: On Grace and Free Choice, in Praise of the New Knighthood, trans. Daniel O’Donovan (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1988), 3.
61 McGinn, “Introduction,” in Bernard, Treatises, Vol. 3, 5.
62 Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 111.
63 Bernard, On Grace and Free Choice, 14.47, cited in Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 111.
64 Bernard, On Grace and Free Choice, 14.47, cited in Treatises, Vol. 3, 106.
^[1] Bernard of Clairvaux, “Monastic Reformer,” in Pillars of Grace (AD 100–1564), vol. 2, A Long Line of Godly Men (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2011), 324.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I will have to look up synergism to understand what is going on..lol


You all will have me studying more.. and that's a good thing!!

Monergism:

• The term "monergism" comes from the Greek words "monos" (alone) and "ergon" (work), essentially meaning "one work."
  
  
• In theology, monergism is the doctrine that God alone is the active agent in salvation, particularly in the regeneration (new birth) of an individual.
  
  
• This view posits that human beings, in their fallen state, are spiritually dead and incapable of initiating or contributing to their salvation.
• Monergists believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, sovereignly works in the hearts of the elect, granting them the gifts of faith and repentance, enabling them to willingly respond to the Gospel.
• Key theological traditions that strongly emphasize monergism include Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology (including many Anglicans).
  

Synergism:

• The term "synergism" originates from the Greek words "syn" (with) and "ergon" (work), meaning "working together" or "cooperation."
  
  
• In theology, synergism is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and humanity.
  
  
• This view asserts that while God initiates the work of salvation through grace, human beings must freely choose to cooperate with that grace for salvation to be effective.
  
  
• Synergistic models often emphasize the role of human free will in responding to God's offer of salvation.
  
  
• Theological traditions that generally hold to synergistic views include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Arminianism (including Methodists), and some expressions within evangelicalism (sometimes leaning towards Semi-Pelagianism).

Key Differences and Historical Context:

The central point of divergence between monergism and synergism lies in the understanding of human nature and the role of free will in salvation.

• Human Ability: Monergism emphasizes the total inability of fallen humanity to initiate salvation, while synergism posits that humans retain some capacity to respond to God's grace.
• God's Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom: Monergism strongly affirms God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, asserting that His will is ultimately effective. Synergism seeks to uphold human freedom and responsibility in the process.
  
  
• Regeneration and Faith: Monergists typically believe that regeneration precedes faith and is a work of God that enables faith. Synergists often see faith as the human act that initiates the saving relationship with God, sometimes with God's grace enabling that initial act (prevenient grace).
  

 

[Hazelelponi]

I have been consistent to the best I can, even in my examples.

If I have failed. please show so I can correct.

I will point out in the future as I notice them. I'm not going to take the time to go back through posts.

When you said that I thought of CF, sorry.

@makesends noted why you are difficult for me to follow. Now that I know this it will be more helpful and perhaps easier to follow you.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

But that's not exactly true

I received in faith

Like I said earlier to some one (I can not remember who. to many conversations going on..lol)

John 6: 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 the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

the ones who come are those who believe. the ones who do not believe.. well they will never come.



yes. it is all of God.

And it is his will. whoever sees AND BELIEVES will not be cast out.

Your ability to "receive" and belief in faith is not produced from self.

This is only done by the work of Holy Spirit through the new birth.

Only fleshly pride says I did something in my salvation, that is very close to a works based salvation in my opinion.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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

According to rule 4.4, the two of you are required to acknowledge and resolve the accusation of a fallacy. It cannot be just ignored or dismissed with a wave of the hand. That's what he means.

NOTE TO ALL USERS: When a fallacy has been alleged and must be resolved, that doesn't mean the rest of the discussion must be suspended. The discussion may continue but it must include resolving the alleged fallacy.

 

[makesends]

we need to go back,. For some reason most of my post is skipped. I can not go forward until we go back.

I am a person that likes things organized. if we stop and say we have to go back, then I am at a loss. and organization is destroyed.

I answered your post. i responded point by point. which we all should (sadly many like to skip over things.. I like to be thorough) and was directed by a mod to resolve 4.4, on something I do not even know

lets get that done, then go back to the first part of my posts. then we will get to this.

so lets go back. and resolve whatever I am being charged with.. then move forward here..

This rule 4.4 whatever it is.. and saying we need to stop.. is confusing. and I do not see how anyone can converse..

We adopted the rule as explicitly intended to prohibit the cascade effect of overwhelming a debate opponent with accusations of logical/argument fallacy. The idea is that once a single claim has been made, (that an opponent has used a fallacy), the two involved in that argument must resolve the claim, one way or another, before continuing argument. The staff has so far only pressed that those two must not continue their debate until the accusation has been resolved.

(True it does stifle continued conversation between the two participants, and sometimes, I should think, between others involved in two groups arguing, but that is better than continued contention and unfair debate tactics. But, one perhaps unanticipated effect is that, as part of the resolution, the subject may be discussed as part of what it takes to resolve the issue; thus it is better to stop at one item before continuing on to the next claim of fallacy.)

(Please note: We admit that none of us follow the rules without fault—we are not perfect, nor are the staff quite consistent. We do, after all, have only OUR points of view, and often forget to apply the rules to ourselves, or even fail to see when we have broken a rule. Like anybody else, we justify ourselves unwarranted.)

Please be careful in resolving a volatile situation—if it seems unavoidable that attempted resolution will come across as contentious, it needs to go to direct/private messaging instead of staying public (no, the rules don't say that, but that is my judgement on the matter). And even then, it still needs to follow the site rules. Be courteous and to-the-point, instead of attacking.

 

[makesends]

we need to go back,. For some reason most of my post is skipped. I can not go forward until we go back.

I am a person that likes things organized. if we stop and say we have to go back, then I am at a loss. and organization is destroyed.

I answered your post. i responded point by point. which we all should (sadly many like to skip over things.. I like to be thorough) and was directed by a mod to resolve 4.4, on something I do not even know

lets get that done, then go back to the first part of my posts. then we will get to this.

so lets go back. and resolve whatever I am being charged with.. then move forward here..

This rule 4.4 whatever it is.. and saying we need to stop.. is confusing. and I do not see how anyone can converse..

You are not being charged with anything. You have claimed I used a logical fallacy. No rule violation has been committed there. It only needs resolved before continuing argumentation between the two of us.

We did this once before by me charging you with having used a fallacy, and we resolved it on Direct Messaging.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@ElectedbyHim posted the following

Monergism:

• The term "monergism" comes from the Greek words "monos" (alone) and "ergon" (work), essentially meaning "one work."
  
  
• In theology, monergism is the doctrine that God alone is the active agent in salvation, particularly in the regeneration (new birth) of an individual.
  
  
• This view posits that human beings, in their fallen state, are spiritually dead and incapable of initiating or contributing to their salvation.
• Monergists believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, sovereignly works in the hearts of the elect, granting them the gifts of faith and repentance, enabling them to willingly respond to the Gospel.
• Key theological traditions that strongly emphasize monergism include Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology (including many Anglicans).

Synergism:

• The term "synergism" originates from the Greek words "syn" (with) and "ergon" (work), meaning "working together" or "cooperation."
  
  
• In theology, synergism is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and humanity.
  
  
• This view asserts that while God initiates the work of salvation through grace, human beings must freely choose to cooperate with that grace for salvation to be effective.
  
  
• Synergistic models often emphasize the role of human free will in responding to God's offer of salvation.
  
  
• Theological traditions that generally hold to synergistic views include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Arminianism (including Methodists), and some expressions within evangelicalism (sometimes leaning towards Semi-Pelagianism).

Key Differences and Historical Context:

The central point of divergence between monergism and synergism lies in the understanding of human nature and the role of free will in salvation.

• Human Ability: Monergism emphasizes the total inability of fallen humanity to initiate salvation, while synergism posits that humans retain some capacity to respond to God's grace.
• God's Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom: Monergism strongly affirms God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, asserting that His will is ultimately effective. Synergism seeks to uphold human freedom and responsibility in the process.
  
  
• Regeneration and Faith: Monergists typically believe that regeneration precedes faith and is a work of God that enables faith. Synergists often see faith as the human act that initiates the saving relationship with God, sometimes with God's grace enabling that initial act (prevenient grace).

in looking at these (and why I hate to deal with isms?

I have some aspects of both of these. but disagree with the totality of both of these.

I do believe it is God alone.

But I do not believe we co-operate (we have no part in our salvation.) God saves us, period.

which again, I like to talek about what each of us believe, not in ISMS, because when we try to plant people in a group. and if they are not 100 % in line with that group. we will never understand what that persons believes.

Maybe this is what is going on here. Your trying to see me as a synergist or however you say it?

I am no more a synergist than I am a calvinist or arminian

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Your ability to "receive" and belief in faith is not produced from self.

I never said it was

I am not sure why people keep bringing this up.

Try to see me by what I says, and all people that way. and try not to put them in a circle..or a group. I think that is the problem here. People assume because i say things, I must believe or think this..

This is only done by the work of Holy Spirit

Amen

through the new birth.

No.

Only fleshly pride says I did something in my salvation, that is very close to a works based salvation in my opinion.

I did not do something, and I would ask you and everyone please stop accusing me of this.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

According to rule 4.4, the two of you are required to acknowledge and resolve the accusation of a fallacy. It cannot be just ignored or dismissed with a wave of the hand. That's what he means.

NOTE TO ALL USERS: When a fallacy has been alleged and must be resolved, that doesn't mean the rest of the discussion must be suspended. The discussion may continue but it must include resolving the alleged fallacy.

what fallacy?

please show me what fallacy.

that is what I asked.

What fallacy as user @makesends accuse me of or I accused him of that is drawing this attention.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We adopted the rule as explicitly intended to prohibit the cascade effect of overwhelming a debate opponent with accusations of logical/argument fallacy. The idea is that once a single claim has been made, (that an opponent has used a fallacy), has been made, the two involved in that argument must resolve the claim, one way or another, before continuing argument. The staff has so far only pressed that those two must not continue their debate until the accusation has been resolved.

(True it does stifle continued conversation between the two participants, and sometimes, I should think, between others involved in two groups arguing, but that is better than continued contention and unfair debate tactics. But, one perhaps unanticipated effect is that, as part of the resolution, the subject may be discussed as part of what it takes to resolve the issue; thus it is better to stop at one item before continuing on to the next claim of fallacy.)

(Please note: We admit that none of us follow the rules without fault—we are not perfect, nor are the staff quite consistent. We do, after all, have only OUR points of view, and often forget to apply the rules to ourselves, or even fail to see when we have broken a rule. Like anybody else, we justify ourselves unwarranted.)

Please be careful in resolving a volatile situation—if it seems unavoidable that attempted resolution will come across as contentious, it needs to go to direct/private messaging instead of staying public (no, the rules don't say that, but that is my judgement on the matter). And even then, it still needs to follow the site rules. Be courteous and to-the-point, instead of attacking.

Yes, I think I understood this,

I am asking what fallacy did you and I get into a discussion about that we need to resolve before we can continue?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You are not being charged with anything. You have claimed I used a logical fallacy. No rule violation has been committed there. It only needs resolved before continuing argumentation between the two of us.

We did this once before by me charging you with having used a fallacy, and we resolved it on Direct Messaging.

Yes, i did this at the end of a discussion you and I were having. is that what you are talking about?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

@ElectedbyHim posted the following

Monergism:

• The term "monergism" comes from the Greek words "monos" (alone) and "ergon" (work), essentially meaning "one work."
  
  
• In theology, monergism is the doctrine that God alone is the active agent in salvation, particularly in the regeneration (new birth) of an individual.
  
  
• This view posits that human beings, in their fallen state, are spiritually dead and incapable of initiating or contributing to their salvation.
• Monergists believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, sovereignly works in the hearts of the elect, granting them the gifts of faith and repentance, enabling them to willingly respond to the Gospel.
• Key theological traditions that strongly emphasize monergism include Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology (including many Anglicans).

Synergism:

• The term "synergism" originates from the Greek words "syn" (with) and "ergon" (work), meaning "working together" or "cooperation."
  
  
• In theology, synergism is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and humanity.
  
  
• This view asserts that while God initiates the work of salvation through grace, human beings must freely choose to cooperate with that grace for salvation to be effective.
  
  
• Synergistic models often emphasize the role of human free will in responding to God's offer of salvation.
  
  
• Theological traditions that generally hold to synergistic views include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Arminianism (including Methodists), and some expressions within evangelicalism (sometimes leaning towards Semi-Pelagianism).

Key Differences and Historical Context:

The central point of divergence between monergism and synergism lies in the understanding of human nature and the role of free will in salvation.

• Human Ability: Monergism emphasizes the total inability of fallen humanity to initiate salvation, while synergism posits that humans retain some capacity to respond to God's grace.
• God's Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom: Monergism strongly affirms God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, asserting that His will is ultimately effective. Synergism seeks to uphold human freedom and responsibility in the process.
  
  
• Regeneration and Faith: Monergists typically believe that regeneration precedes faith and is a work of God that enables faith. Synergists often see faith as the human act that initiates the saving relationship with God, sometimes with God's grace enabling that initial act (prevenient grace).

in looking at these (and why I hate to deal with isms?

I have some aspects of both of these. but disagree with the totality of both of these.

I do believe it is God alone.

But I do not believe we co-operate (we have no part in our salvation.) God saves us, period.

which again, I like to talek about what each of us believe, not in ISMS, because when we try to plant people in a group. and if they are not 100 % in line with that group. we will never understand what that persons believes.

Maybe this is what is going on here. Your trying to see me as a synergist or however you say it?

I am no more a synergist than I am a calvinist or arminian

I was just pointing our the difference of each.

I have some aspects of both of these. but disagree with the totality of both of these.

I do believe it is God alone. But I do not believe we co-operate (we have no part in our salvation.) God saves us, period.

That seems to contradict.

I do not believe that someone can believe in monergism and synergism at the same time concerning soteriology.

Maybe this is what is going on here. Your trying to see me as a synergist or however you say it?

Not really, iguess just feeling you out.

which again, I like to talek about what each of us believe, not in ISMS, because when we try to plant people in a group. and if they are not 100 % in line with that group. we will never understand what that persons believes.

I am a firm believe that one cannot hold to doctrine without theolog, in my mind they are inseparable.

There have have been many a conversation with christians who believe anything outside of the Bible is man made and should not be used.

They believe Holy Spirit will teach them all truth (John 14:26)

They hate anything with Theology.

Please understand I am not relating this to you, you told me you have studied the systematic.

There is now wonder they are in error of their personal doctrine.