Prevenient grace?

[makesends]

Well, perhaps we make a mountain out of a relative mole hill ... the mole being "prevenient Grace" and the mountain being a "depraved nature" for which my "free will" never choose to be given me and is a violation of man's concept of Free Will where I, with Gordy's help, define Free Will as:
The choosing comes from the individual rather than an outside force the decision is made freely. Gordon Clark

Aside: God's will be done. Only His will is free by Gordy's definition.

I don't follow what you are saying there.

But your conclusion, even aside from Gordy's definition, is correct, if by freewill, libertarian freewill is meant. Only God's will is free, in that sense.

 

[fastfredy0]

I don't follow what you are saying there.

I guess I am saying the being imputed a 'sin nature' is a greater violation of my Free Will than being given hypothetical "prevenient grace". I didn't choose to have either one.
Where FREE WILL is defined as "uninfluenced by an outside source". (I wasn't meaning Libertarian Free Will). I only believe in being free to choose what I desire most at the time, but my desires ultimately are the result of God.

 

[makesends]

I guess I am saying the being imputed a 'sin nature' is a greater violation of my Free Will than being given hypothetical "prevenient grace". I didn't choose to have either one.
Where FREE WILL is defined as "uninfluenced by an outside source". (I wasn't meaning Libertarian Free Will). I only believe in being free to choose what I desire most at the time, but my desires ultimately are the result of God.

According to what I've been told is "libertarian free will' it is by definition "uninfluenced by an outside source", or at least, "indifferent to any outside influence" or "independent of outside causes", in which "outside source" and "outside causes" include even (and maybe specially) God himself. This is not to say that 'libertarian free will' does not allow the freewiller to consider these influences and causes, but that they are not the cause of his decisions.

It all sounds reasonable enough, until one pushes them a little further —"Is God the original cause of all subsequent things, to include the very choices one makes?"; "Is choice entirely spontaneous?"; etc.

 

[fastfredy0]

According to what I've been told is "libertarian free will' it is by definition "uninfluenced by an outside source", or at least, "indifferent to any outside influence" or "independent of outside causes", in which "outside source" and "outside causes" include even (and maybe specially) God himself. This is not to say that 'libertarian free will' does not allow the freewiller to consider these influences and causes, but that they are not the cause of his decisions.

It all sounds reasonable enough, until one pushes them a little further —; "

Well, my understanding of Libertarian Free Will is a little different than yours if I understand you correctly.
My understanding includes yours, that we are non influenced by any outside entity and goes further to say our will is INDIFFERENT. We could decide to do A in one instance and B in the exact same circumstance.

The definition I found is:
Libertarian Free Will 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. Indifference and therefore amorality belongs to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibrio (equilibrium in uncertainty). Author Unknown

... it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, in their view, always means that we could have done otherwise. John W. Hendryx

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.
Therefore, one must reject the neutral-will (free) theory because it is irrational.
The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause.
It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices. R.C. Sproul Chosen by God https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will

"Is God the original cause of all subsequent things, to include the very choices one makes?"

My opinion: YES
Maybe God is the First Cause of everything .... otherwise, you have deism?

• Acts 17:28 “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
• Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them.
• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

[makesends]

Well, my understanding of Libertarian Free Will is a little different than yours if I understand you correctly.
My understanding includes yours, that we are non influenced by any outside entity and goes further to say our will is INDIFFERENT. We could decide to do A in one instance and B in the exact same circumstance.

The definition I found is:
Libertarian Free Will 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. Indifference and therefore amorality belongs to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibrio (equilibrium in uncertainty). Author Unknown

... it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, in their view, always means that we could have done otherwise. John W. Hendryx

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.
Therefore, one must reject the neutral-will (free) theory because it is irrational.
The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause.
It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices. R.C. Sproul Chosen by God https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will


My opinion: YES
Maybe God is the First Cause of everything .... otherwise, you have deism?

• Acts 17:28 “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
• Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them.
• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Agreed, and Deism is irrational, supposing that God is, in effect, mere mechanical fact, which I cannot conceive of how mere mechanical fact is not governed by outside principle. First Cause cannot be governed, in any way, by any outside principle.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Prevenient grace (or enabling grace).

There is one question I must ask, does the bible teach such a doctrine as prevenient grace? If so, where?

So, prevenient grace is, everyone is given enough grace (externally) to make it possible to respond to Christ by our own free will. Then, those who respond, are the elect.

Already there is an issue here. If prevenient grace is merely external to man, then it fails! I mean what good is it after all, if it's offered outwardly to spiritually dead creatures?
And if you say it's something God does in man's heart, then I have to ask, why then is it not always effective?
Which begs the question, why do some choose to cooperate with prevenient grace and others choose to not cooperate?

Doesn't everyone get the same amount of prevenient grace? So, why does one person say yes and another says no?

Besides the doctrine of prevenient grace not being in scripture, this is another big issue.

Discarding all the "Religious Buzz words" that have nothing practical to do with being Born again, God DRAWS US to him, by Showing us our status before Him, and the approaching JUDGEMENT for our SIN, and when we realize that, we surrender, and REPENT crying out to Him to save us. No "theology required" just God and YOU and a decision that you have to make. And then everything changes, and you're NEW, and pure.

 

[makesends]

Discarding all the "Religious Buzz words" that have nothing practical to do with being Born again, God DRAWS US to him, by Showing us our status before Him, and the approaching JUDGEMENT for our SIN, and when we realize that, we surrender, and REPENT crying out to Him to save us. No "theology required" just God and YOU and a decision that you have to make. And then everything changes, and you're NEW, and pure.

And still, no explanation how it is, that one does decide for Christ and another does not. Is one intrinsically BETTER? Was God kinder to one than the other? Are some smarter than the others? Where's the fairness I hear that Calvinism doesn't allow?

 

[brightfame52]

makesends

Was God kinder to one than the other?

Yes, God shows mercy and compassion on some, wherein to others He shows strict justice, and nothing external of Him causes this, its according to His own will,

Rom 9:15-19

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

 

[makesends]

makesends

Yes, God shows mercy and compassion on some, wherein to others He shows strict justice, and nothing external of Him causes this, its according to His own will,

Rom 9:15-19

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Agreed. Yet, that is the complaint against Calvinism. God is no respecter of persons, they quote, as if that means God treats everybody the same, and everybody has an equal "chance" to accept him. Nobody yet has shown me how it is possible that one does, while another does not, choose God, if all their protests against Calvinism are true.

 

[fastfredy0]

Nobody yet has shown me how it is possible that one does, while another does not, choose God

Ouija board?

Sorry, couldn't resist a comedic interlude. Back to seriousness.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Agreed. Yet, that is the complaint against Calvinism. God is no respecter of persons, they quote, as if that means God treats everybody the same, and everybody has an equal "chance" to accept him. Nobody yet has shown me how it is possible that one does, while another does not, choose God, if all their protests against Calvinism are true.

The "U" in Calvinist theology is misleading - dealing only with OUR PERCEPTION of "Worthiness" based on our "Deeds".

God HAS HIS OWN REASONS that we know not of, for showing mercy to one, and hardening another as is made clear in Rom 9. So the whole Calvinist "Election" theology is meaningless, and of no practical use.

To the Evangelist, Missionary, ALL PEOPLE are potentially "Elect". One only discovers that they're "Elect" AFTER they're "Born Again".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Chuckle!! I just discovered that if you "Contract" the term "Calvinist", this DIscussion board will autonomously substitute the words "Biblical Calvinist" in place of it. One learns something new all the time!!!

BUT HEY!! "Forewarned" gives you two additional arms!! I was wondering who was changing my posts, now I know.

 

[makesends]

The "U" in Calvinist theology is misleading - dealing only with OUR PERCEPTION of "Worthiness" based on our "Deeds".

Wrong. It has no relation to our perception. Furthermore, it specifically asserts that there is nothing, (not just works), intrinsic to anyone, that warrants anyone's election.

God HAS HIS OWN REASONS that we know not of, for showing mercy to one, and hardening another as is made clear in Rom 9. So the whole Calvinist "Election" theology is meaningless, and of no practical use.

Your second sentence there is dead wrong, and, ironically, as shown by your first sentence. Your first sentence could have been a quote from a Calvinist —You admit to God being particular, and that, for his own reasons: If so, then why would Calvinist "Election" be meaningless?

As for it being of "no practical use", I vehemently disagree. First, all truth is of practical use. You don't have any idea how it is practical, so how can you judge whether it is or not? But I'm thinking if you had inclined your mind to it, you'd have seen some very practical reasons for it. In short, I have both: 2. confidence of justice being done concerning me, because the question of whether or not I am saved is no longer based on the integrity of my decision, but based on God's mercy alone; and, 1. full joy in the knowledge that GOD is the one doing this salvation, sanctification and life itself, and is pleased with the working out of his plan —through Unconditional Election, I find that I am no longer the focus of my life nor even of my sanctification. Christ is; and 3. ...oh, I said "both".. That's two.

To the Evangelist, Missionary, ALL PEOPLE are potentially "Elect". One only discovers that they're "Elect" AFTER they're "Born Again".

Wrong. Some don't even discover it then. And some never even heard there was an elect. And those that are his sheep know his voice.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

And still, no explanation how it is, that one does decide for Christ and another does not.

We HAVE "Free will", and we all have our own "Personal baggage ". SO when God blesses us us with CONVICTION OF SIN, but we know that a CHANGE IN OUR LIVES will result, and we've still got our personal agenda, there's a DECISION that has to be made.

Will we SURRENDER, and repent, or REFUSE, and run back into spiritual death. I wasn't personally willing to Surrender until I reached the "end of my rope" at the age of 20, far from home, and completely hopeless.

Some folks come easier than others, and Some fight it tooth and nail, maybe NEVER surrendering by the time they die.

Why did YOU come into Life (If you did)???

Where's the fairness I hear that Calvinism doesn't allow?

Who cares about "Calvinism"??? it's just another "ISM" among many, and essentially meaningless for the non-Christian.

Wrong. It has no relation to our perception. Furthermore, it specifically asserts that there is nothing, (not just works), intrinsic to anyone, that warrants anyone's election.

Your second sentence there is dead wrong, and, ironically, as shown by your first sentence. Your first sentence could have been a quote from a Calvinist —You admit to God being particular, and that, for his own reasons: If so, then why would Calvinist "Election" be meaningless?

As for it being of "no practical use", I vehemently disagree. First, all truth is of practical use. You don't have any idea how it is practical, so how can you judge whether it is or not? But I'm thinking if you had inclined your mind to it, you'd have seen some very practical reasons for it. In short, I have both: 2. confidence of justice being done concerning me, because the question of whether or not I am saved is no longer based on the integrity of my decision, but based on God's mercy alone; and, 1. full joy in the knowledge that GOD is the one doing this salvation, sanctification and life itself, and is pleased with the working out of his plan —through Unconditional Election, I find that I am no longer the focus of my life nor even of my sanctification. Christ is; and 3. ...oh, I said "both".. That's two.

Wrong. Some don't even discover it then. And some never even heard there was an elect. And those that are his sheep know his voice.

SO Nothing, then -

 

[makesends]

We HAVE "Free will", and we all have our own "Personal baggage ".

That doesn't explain the variety between us. WHY do we all have our own "Personal Baggage"? How does that happen? How do the differences between one and another come about? You've, without knowing it, I think, begun down the road of causation without realizing it, but you refuse to finish the thought. Of course we are all different. WHY?

Do you subscribe to "equal chance" to repent, "equally bad/good originally", God being absolutely fair, with equal love and equal treatment for all? No, I see you don't. Then, if you don't, why not see that God does choose to whom to show mercy? Then pursue the matter logically and see what the Bible demonstrates —that from the beginning God created whatever comes to pass: Some for one purpose, others for another purpose, each one for what God made them.

SO when God blesses us us with CONVICTION OF SIN, but we know that a CHANGE IN OUR LIVES will result, and we've still got our personal agenda, there's a DECISION that has to be made.

Will we SURRENDER, and repent, or REFUSE, and run back into spiritual death. I wasn't personally willing to Surrender until I reached the "end of my rope" at the age of 20, far from home, and completely hopeless.

Some folks come easier than others, and Some fight it tooth and nail, maybe NEVER surrendering by the time they die.

You seem to wander off from the debate here. Of course we have to make a decision. Who said otherwise?

Why did YOU come into Life (If you did)???

Because God had plans, and he is using me for those plans.

Who cares about "Calvinism"??? it's just another "ISM" among many, and essentially meaningless for the non-Christian.

That's fine. I don't care about it. I don't consider myself Calvinist, nor Reformed, but identify as such for easier communication with like-minded believers. I was not raised in it, and did not come to believe what they believe by being taught it. Ha! In fact, it was rather humorous, or ironic, or something, when I found out that what I had only known of as a caricature turned out to agree with what I had found out to be true.

SO Nothing, then -

SO what's your point?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That doesn't explain the variety between us. WHY do we all have our own "Personal Baggage"?

For the same reason that YOU have "personal baggage"

Of course we are all different.

So you've answered your own question above.

WHY?

Because we're all individuals. When we Adopted, I recall being told that "a newborn baby is a blank slate". We actually believed that LIE, until we found out the truth later.

Do you subscribe to "equal chance" to repent,

SInce NOBODY has any chance at all to "Repent" UNLESS they're "Drawn by God", your question really is: Who does God draw???
PERSONALLY, I don't know. He "DREW" me. DId he "Draw" you??

why not see that God does choose to whom to show mercy?

Why wouldn't I SEE that??? Rom 9 spells out in detail????

 

[Ritajanice]

Some folks come easier than others, and Some fight it tooth and nail, maybe NEVER surrendering by the time they die.

Hi Bob.....have you any scripture to support what you say here?....what do they fight tooth and nail?....are you talking God here?

If so can you explain how they do this?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Hi Bob.....have you any scripture to support what you say here?....what do they fight tooth and nail?....are you talking God here?

Absolutely!! Read the parable of the SOWER AND THE SEED (Mat 13:3-9, 18-23, MK 13: 3-9, 14-20, Luke 8:4-15)

If so can you explain how they do this?

The parable explains.

 

[Ritajanice]

Absolutely!! Read the parable of the SOWER AND THE SEED (Mat 13:3-9, 18-23, MK 13: 3-9, 14-20, Luke 8:4-15)

The parable explains.

Hi Bob...

Here is the scripture you asked me to read....can you explain and interpret what it means please...I understand it, I believe I do..or maybe I have misinterpreted it... I will wait for you, then I will interpret it..if that’s ok?

My question is...how do you hear his voice and reject it?...how do you know it was God’s voice..if you weren’t already Born Again?

For myself, not only did I hear his word, I received his word straight into my heart!...therefore he birthed me in the Spirit, which is a supernatural act that only God can do,imo/ belief.

Matthew 13:18-23 KJV​

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

 

[Ritajanice]

Here is another word from God.

Isaiah 55:11​

​

King James Version​

​

​

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


And my interpretation of his word here is.....Amen!!!