Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse
Benjamin, perhaps my definition is mistaken, but to attribute such a motive is uncharitable. For whatever it is worth, Shandon Guthrie and John D. Laing are published Christian philosophers committed to LFW. In private and separate correspondences with me, they both agreed that my definition is accurate. If you can improve upon it, then I would be very appreciative.

First, whether intentional or mistakenly asserted the play on the word “sufficient” within your use of it through “your” definition remains an attempt to “poison the well” as spelled out. Second, that you continue to use this “venom” after Allan and I both spelled out to you the problem (which you continue to ignore; hence my bolded sentence starting with “not to ignore”.) and which includes using “your rendition” based on what still is a “proof surrogate” as there is neither context to go by nor any other information leading to credibility it does not change the status of your claim or remove the truth in mine which attributes the fallacy to your argument. On the other hand to attribute me as uncharitable for “unpacking” and revealing the fallacies within your argument is simply an Ad Hominem and adding another fallacy to your argument by doing so.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse
Allan certainly was questioning my definition. As to whether or not he intended a rebuke, I am not sure. Allan was mistaken in his understanding of the use of the terms ‘sufficient’ and ‘necessary’. I unpacked the technical meaning of these terms in my response to Allan.

Allan was only mistaken according to “your” prescibed understanding which attempts to separate “sufficient” into something more than just necessary (which Allan explained the necessity, God’s enabling is still there, but this was ignored) while you apparently hold sufficient and deterministic together while disregarding creaturely volition to fit your definition of what is necessary to be sufficient.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse
Benjamin, I explained in some detail what the technical terms ‘sufficient’ and ‘necessary’ mean. It seems you did not understand my response, and you continue to accuse me of intentional sophistry. This is an unjust accusation, rude and uncharitable. I just did a simple internet search and found this quote from Wikipedia in an article titled Necessary and Sufficient Condition.

Again, please stop with the Ad Hominem, criticism of the premises in your argument while pointing out your rhetorical devices hardly gives you call to jump into this role of playing the abused martyr. Your sophistry may not be intentional and if I made it sound that way I apologize as it may very well just be in your ignorance, but it is not unjust to disagree with your premise and tell you why it is fallacy, it is simply my attempt to reason for getting to the truth in the matter, I’m sorry if you find that rude and uncharitable.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse
As such, if C is a sufficient condition for me to believe, then if C obtains I necessarily must believe. This violates LFW, which says that given a set of circumstances C, I have the ability to either believe or not believe. In other words, my belief cannot be necessary. As such, C cannot be sufficient for me to believe even though it is necessary for me to believe. Hopefully, this will put to rest the concerns regarding my definition for LFW.

The statement in which you claim LFW violates the condition by lack of necessity to be sufficient is addressed through your own source:

“A condition can be either necessary or sufficient without being the other.”

This pretty much shoots down your claim of necessity as far as in one “must” believe.

“A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth.”

I know you Calvinists/Determinists do not usually care for the word “if” but if the condition is satisfied, (in this case regarding response to Divine influence) and it is positive toward belief it is sufficient to assure the statements truth...If not it only goes to show this truth has not yet been established, it does not disavow the possibility that the influence is there as a truth and the response has just not happened because of creaturely volition.

 

[Darrenss1]

Hello Darren,
Darren, are you committed to LFW? If so, is your commitment extra-Biblical? If not, then can you provide an argument from Scripture demonstrating the truth of LFW? If you are unable to do so, then you cannot with integrity claim that your commitment to LFW is based on what the Scriptures teach. The longer this thread goes with no one being able to present such an argument, the stronger my assertion seems to be. :smilewinkgrin

You aren't addressing what I said though, you've made no case yourself. Therefore you would have no claim to assert that you are right assuming you can't be proven wrong. You said before this isn't about Calvinism yet your assumptions seems to rely on the Calvinistic view. I believe the scriptures teach that man can and has rebelled against God; you would say God willed that to happen? I believe man can commit evil deeds against man and God, certainly God does NOT will that. I believe when God intervenes to reach out to man, man can either respond and believe or reject that. These are some of the facts the scriptures give account of.

Now if you want to assert the reverse, go ahead, you must build a case, rather than just assert and therefore have no burden of proof on your part.

Darren

 

[Brian Bosse]

Benjamin,

I really am not quite sure what to say. In your prior post you say things like...

This definition is a mere attempt to “poison the well” with a play on the word “sufficient”...IOW’s (Brian) holds to circular reasoning fallacy to support his strawman and keep the well poisoned…You have offered little more than rhetorical devices meant to influences beliefs by means of fallacy.

You accuse me of attempting to poison the well and to continue to poison the well. You accuse me of using rhetoric to influence by fallacy. All of this speaks to my intentions, which you do not know. However, you do not stop here. You go onto say that I am using "venom" and you offer some type of apology with...

Your sophistry may not be intentional and if I made it sound that way I apologize as it may very well just be in your ignorance, but it is not unjust to disagree with your premise and tell you why it is fallacy, it is simply my attempt to reason for getting to the truth in the matter, I’m sorry if you find that rude and uncharitable.

You say that if "my sophistry" is not intentional, then you apologize because I may just be ignorant! This is quite an apology. :thumbs: Back to your post...

The statement in which you claim LFW violates the condition by lack of necessity to be sufficient is addressed through your own source:

Benjamin, I hope you read what follows carefully. You go on to presumably quote the Wiki article....

A condition can be either necessary or sufficient without being the other.

At this point, you say...

This pretty much shoots down your claim of necessity as far as in one “must” believe.

Here is what you quoted me saying that is supposedly shot down...

As such, if C is a sufficient condition for me to believe, then if C obtains I necessarily must believe.

Now, let's look at the next Wiki quote you provided...

A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth.

Notice, this quote says that all satisfied sufficient conditions "assure the statement's truth." So, as I said above in the quote, if C is a sufficient condition for me to believe, then if C obtains (i.e., C is satified), then I must necessarily believe (i.e., my believing is assured). So, in what sense has anything been shot down? You do go on to say more...

I know you Calvinists/Determinists do not usually care for the word “if” but if the condition is satisfied, (in this case regarding response to Divine influence)…

Benjamin, you are not a careful reader. The condition we are speaking of is the set of causal circumstances C, *not* the person's response to those circumstances, which we have called action X. The person's response to Divine influnce is action X, not C! So, clearly you do not even understand the definition that you are attacking with such vitriol. Why don't you take a step back and seek for understanding before you criticize?

Brian

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Darren,

You aren't addressing what I said though, you've made no case yourself.

I do admit (and did so in my last post) that my assertion "LFW is a commitment brought to the text of Scripture rather than something that has been proved from Scripture" is just that...an assertion. It stands out there for anyone to refute. I would think this should be a relatively simple thing to do for those who are commited to LFW. So far, there have been only a couple of takers, but no arguments beyond simply quoting a verse or two. I find this interesting because in other threads there is no shortage of posts where people assert that LFW comes from the Scriptures.

Therefore you would have no claim to assert that you are right assuming you can't be proven wrong.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that for some reason my assertion cannot be proven. If this is so, you are correct that this does not constitue a proof of my assertion. However, what it does show is that those committed to LFW did not derive this committment from the Scriptures - rather they brought it to the Scriptures. This is really the main point I am trying to make. An LFWer's commitment to LFW is not based on them having proved it from the Scriptures.

You said before this isn't about Calvinism yet your assumptions seems to rely on the Calvinistic view.

Whatever assumptions that may have motivated me to start this thread really are immaterial. There are numerous people who trumpet LFW. This thread is simply an opportunity for those on this board who do so to prove from Scripture what they shout from the house tops.

I believe the scriptures teach that man can and has rebelled against God; you would say God willed that to happen?

This has nothing to do with this thread. But I will answer you. Yes, God willed the rebellion of man. If you want to discuss this further, then please show me the courtesy of starting another thread. I will be happy to engage you there.

I believe man can commit evil deeds against man and God, certainly God does NOT will that.

I understand this, and as such it would make a great thread. If you want to discuss whether or not God ordains the evil deeds of men, then please start a thread for that purpose. I promise I will participate in that thread. However, this is all beyond the scope of *this* thread.

Now if you want to assert the reverse, go ahead, you must build a case, rather than just assert and therefore have no burden of proof on your part.

Darren, if someone does not want to or cannot defend their commitment to LFW, then they do not have to. They can simply not participate in this thread. However, if someone is committed to LFW, and wants to play in this thread, then they should put forth an argument for how the Bible proves that man has LFW. It really is as simple as that. So, Darren, do you believe that man has LFW? Do you believe that the Bible teaches LFW? Assuming that you answered 'yes' to both questions, why have not put forth your argument?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Benjamin]

Brian,

At this point I could only suggest that you learn the ABC's of philosphy before getting to the X,Y,and Z's. The fallacies I pointed out to you are 101 and unfortunately instead of learning from it, addressing it and/or adjusting you take that personally and resort to martyrdom and AD Hominem. Everybody is ignorant of something, that term does not have to be taken as an insult unless maybe you don't think it ever has any business of applying to you. If your fallacies weren't intentional then obviously I was only giving you the benefit of the doubt that they may be in ignorance. Venom was in reference to poison...as in continuing in your endeavor to inject it into the well, and was not personal.

There is a lot to be said about your whining and turning things personal, but I am not going to let this go into a personal brawl because you can't handle criticism of your argument. Your use of Ad Hominem, if intentional, to turn this into something personal is a shameful and desperate way of avoiding the issues and shows you have little other to offer in rebuttal to the criticism of your argument. If nothing else I hope you come to understand that basic philosophical point and how it adds to your fallacy.

Happy debating,

Ben

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Everyone,

Because of my lack of philosophical maturity, my whining, my turning things personal, my inability to receive criticism, and my desperate and shameful ways, Benjamin has decided to bow out of the discussion.
:wavey:

I am hoping the rest of you have chosen not to bow about because of these things. Since we are three pages into this thread and I am concerned things have become a little side tracked, allow me to reiterate the challenge. There are many on this board who rather vigorously insist that mankind has libertarian free will (LFW). There are numerous threads where this philosophical commitment is not only brought into the discussion, but is the motivating commitment. It is my position the LFW is not something these people have derived from the Scriptures, but rather it is something they *import* into Scripture. As such, I am asking anyone to prove from the Bible that man has LFW. Now, for the purposes of this discussion, I have defined LFW as...

Libertarian Free Will (def.) = Person A performs action X given circumstance C with libertarian free will if and only if C does not constitute a set of influences sufficient to cause A to perform X.

I believe this definition captures LFW. There is no intention to mislead anybody or put things on an uneven ground. As such, if someone thinks they have a better definition, or would prefer to work with a different definition, that is ok with me. I provided the definition for the sake of facilitating this thread.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[OldRegular]

Hello BB Forum Members,

It is my contention that the commitment to Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is an extra-Biblical philosophical commitment that is brought to the text of Scripture rather than something that Scripture has brought to us. As such, I challenge all of those who are committed to LFW either to demonstrate that the Bible teaches LFW or acknowledge that they bring this philosophical commitment to the text of Scripture. Now, I know there are those who like to simply post a bunch of verses along with different colors, fonts, sizes, emphasis, etc., thinking that what they are doing constitutes an actual argument. I will call this type of posting the Vacuous Verbosity Fallacy (VVF). In an effort to avoid VVF, I would ask that those who choose to accept the challenge would pick one passage that they say teaches LFW, and then demonstrate through argumentation that the passage actually does teach LFW.

The gauntlet has been cast down. Will there be any takers?

Sincerely,

Brian

I am not sure what you mean by LFW. I would simply say what I posted on another thread: Though man will agree to the "Fall" they will not agree that "free will" went with it.

BTW, I took the liberty of adding a little emphasis.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello OldRegular,

I am not sure what you mean by LFW.

I defined LFW in the post prior to your previous post.

I would simply say what I posted on another thread: Though man will agree to the "Fall" they will not agree that "free will" went with it.

I would argue that prior to the fall mankind did not have LFW. As such, I do not see LFW as a result of the fall. However, I do think the strong commitment to LFW is a result of the fall.

Are there going to be any takers in this thread?

Brian

 

[OldRegular]

Hello OldRegular,



I defined LFW in the post prior to your previous post.



I would argue that prior to the fall mankind did not have LFW. As such, I do not see LFW as a result of the fall. However, I do think the strong commitment to LFW is a result of the fall.

Are there going to be any takers in this thread?

Brian

Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello OR,

Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise.

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to start a discussion around this in another thread, then please feel to do so. I promise to participate if you do.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello OldRegular,



I defined LFW in the post prior to your previous post.



I would argue that prior to the fall mankind did not have LFW. As such, I do not see LFW as a result of the fall. However, I do think the strong commitment to LFW is a result of the fall.

Are there going to be any takers in this thread?

Brian

Why should there be?

You didn't listen to the arguments posed already which showed where you begin flawed and end up in the same place. You make the presumtion you know it all already and anyone not in conformity to your view is wrong even if they know their view better than you do. :BangHead:

 

[Allan]

Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall.

So you contend that man does not choose sin willingly but is forced to sin?
I'm just wondering now, whom it is that forces man to sin since he does not choose to sin freely?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Allan,

You didn't listen to the arguments posed already which showed where you begin flawed and end up in the same place. You make the presumtion you know it all already and anyone not in conformity to your view is wrong even if they know their view better than you do.

I do not understand this. All I have done is asserted that LFW is not a doctrine derived from Scripture, but is rather read into Scripture. I have challenged those who disagree to present an argument from Scripture demonstrating the truth of LFW. That's it. No more, no less. There is no argument that I have put forth that can be said to be flawed because I have put no argument forth. Now, I have presented a definition for LFW to help faciliate the discussion. You questioned me on it, and I answered your questions. So, I am not sure what the issues are. If you think my definition is wrong, then present your own definition for LFW. I don't care. I just want someone committed to LFW to try and demonstrate it from the Scriptures. So far, the only ones that have taken me up on the request simply quoted a verse or two with no explanation how those verses assert LFW.

Allan, are you committed to LFW? If so, do you believe your commitment is derived from Scripture? If so, why not present an argument? It is funny that there are many on this board who vigorously defend their commitment to LFW in other threads, but when asked to make their commitment explicit from Scripture they become strangely silent.

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

Hello again

I am not sure what you mean here. Since A, X and C are arbitrary, how do you know that C is necessary for A to perform X? Let's say that you are person A. Let's say that C is a set of circumstances such that you are in a Billy Graham crusade. Let's say that X is the LFW action of you believing the gospel. Why is your being at a Billy Graham crusade necessary for you to believe? Couldn't you exercise belief in a different circumstance?

We are not talking about physical circumstances here but spiritual. God uses the physical in conjunction with the spiritual but only as the vehicle through which He wishes to do His work. Therefore being at the Billy Graham crusade neither the 'necessary' nor 'sufficient influence' considering the crusade is the vehicle of the means - the Holy Spirit.

I think you may be confusing the technical use of the term 'sufficient' with 'necessary'.

No, I know quite well what I am talking about.
The issue isn't my usage but your presupposition that sufficient is to mean 'resulting in a singular and partiticular action'. For you the issue is making a person believe and for those in opposition it is about bringing a person to the point of choise - to believe or not.

Therefore, as I see it, the problem is that you want people to interact with you using your terms and your defintions, and your preconceived notions/view. That isn't how it is done.

If X represents a sufficient influence to cause Y, then if you have X, you have Y. For example, if a sufficient influence is present to boil the water in the pan, then the water will boil.

True, but only if you are speaking of something that has no choice.
It is in this you have a flawed premise because you have not proven man is without choice. Therefore you entire point is purely speculation at best till you establish this point.

Now I will give you this credit to your view brother, in that you are at least consistant. Man has no choice now because he had not choice prior. If you can prove the 'prior' is true, then it follows the rest of your argument must also be true. Now that would be something interesting indeed :thumbs:

If X represents a necessary influence to cause Y, then if you do not have X, you do not have Y. For example, if gasoline is necessary for my engine to run, then if I do not have gas, then my engine will not run. By the same token, if you do have gas, then my engine may or may not run. Gasoline is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

With respect to your examples, both imply simply that the absense of gas equates to the the car not working and therefore the presence of gas is condition for the car to operate. So 'gas' is both 'sufficient' and 'necessary' - however neither guarantee the car will start unless the operator who has been given the gas starts the car.

Again, I will point out that your example above is speaking of something with no ability to act of choice but only respond and even in that, only to the desired end of the one making it respond. This necessitates the person/thing which causes said action to happen to not only be the orginator or author of said action but the finisher of that action as well, because the author will not relent until desired action is completely done.

If water will not boil without fire then the person who sets the fire is responsible for the boiling. So it must also be true with sin. If a person has no freedom to will/choose (even in a limited sense) then by virture of the above view -a person who commits any action (whether sin or not) does so because God has set the influence there to make or force them do what He so desires, whether or sin unto death or anything.

You however are correct in that it is necessary for gasoline to be in my car to run, but it will not run unless the person chooses to start the car.

For example, I need spark plugs in addition to gasoline. Given this understanding, for A to be able to perform action X with LFW, then C cannot be a sufficient influence. If C were sufficient, then A *must* perform action X. This would violate LFW.

WHat?
This is where you are missing the entire argument.
The 'influence' is the Holy Spirit not the means or devices He uses such as a Billy Graham crusade. He is both necessary and sufficient to bring about the event the event in question - that being to believe or reject what He has revealed.

No, that is not what my definition entails. My definition for LFW simply says that the influence of the grace of God is necessary but not sufficient. If it were sufficient, then you would believe.

No one has ever stated that 'grace' alone is what brings people to salvation.
I agree that grace is necessary but of itself does not do anything. This is why the argument is about the operation of the Holy Spirit, not grace alone.

The above might be true only if one does not have choice, but that has not been proven at this time.

I think what you are meaning to say is that God provides some but not all of the influences needed for me to believe. In other words, God's influence is necessary, but not sufficient.

Then I would encourage you to reread what I said because that is not even close.

If God provided all of the influences needed for me to believe (i.e., sufficient influences for me to believe), then I would believe because there would be nothing else needed for me to believe.

Again, only if you think the object in question has no choice. This so far is only hypothosized.

If there is something else needed (this is what LFW say is the case - for example, I must personally decide in and of myself to believe), then what God provided was not sufficient for me to believe even though it was necessary.

No, it is sufficient to bring us 'to' belief but not that we 'will' believe.
Here is your biggest flaw in the entire thread. There are no scriptures you give that quantifiably state your ascertion. Even Paul never uses the term 'sufficient' in the manner you do.

This is good advice. My definition is mine, but it has been agreed to in private coorespondence with two published Christian philosophers who subscribe to LFW and have written about LFW. As such, I stand by my definition.

Then you choose to ignore the very basic rules of debate. it isn't about what 'you' think it means but agreeing to a common ground truth that both sides agree with. You are not debating with those 'two' people here so it stands to reason that since others here disagree with your 'proposed' definition that their version of LFW is not consistant with what is commonly understood.
Seriously, there are multiple online resources on the subject who definition are consistant but are in opposition to your own.

I think the misunderstanding was simply around my use of the technical terms 'sufficient' and 'necessary'. I should have provided my definition in the opening post, and I should have explained exactly what it meant. Hopefully, I have cleared up things in this post. Are you good with my definition now?

You have cleared up what you meant but your definition is still lacking.
If you want to debate someone on something they believe it must be in accordance with their views and beliefs, not yours.

That said, I do not hold LFW but I do understand their conception of it. Just like I do not hold to Calvinism but I do understand their conception of it. Therefore I can debate with either using their views as the basis for discussion.

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

Hello.

All I have done is asserted that LFW is not a doctrine derived from Scripture, but is rather read into Scripture.

This is an argument and one without any substance.

I have challenged those who disagree to present an argument from Scripture demonstrating the truth of LFW.

Actaully the burden of proof is on you. You make a claim but give no substance to validate your hypothosis.

There is no argument that I have put forth that can be said to be flawed because I have put no argument forth.

Umm.. Yes. In this very post, you give two arguments that start with a flawed premise. One, you give nothing to validate your claim/view. Two, that no scripture speaks to the fact that God allows man choice.

Now, I have presented a definition for LFW to help faciliate the discussion. You questioned me on it, and I answered your questions. So, I am not sure what the issues are.

But you aren't listening to any but yourself.

If you think my definition is wrong, then present your own definition for LFW.

It is but you still contend your defintion is sufficient the debate even though it has already been argued you are incorrect in your understanding of it.

I just want someone committed to LFW to try and demonstrate it from the Scriptures. So far, the only ones that have taken me up on the request simply quoted a verse or two with no explanation how those verses assert LFW.

If anyone can show you any verse or verses in which man is asked to choose (whether by God or for God) then that, in and of itself defies your very hypothosis.

Allan, are you committed to LFW?

No, at least not according to those who hold that position but then again most reformed/calvinist say I do. Funny huh.

If so, do you believe your commitment is derived from Scripture?

I believe that scripture speaks to the fact that God allows man to choose and that this choice is limited to those things which God brings to man.

If so, why not present an argument?

Most likely because of how it typically ends up;
You don't believe the scripture; heresy; if you would actaully read scripture; etc...

But there are numerous places in scripture from which the argument is derived. I will give two just for discussion:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. 

    
Notice if you will that only after they 'choose' life, THEN they will love the Lord thy God, Obey His voice, cleave/cling to Him, and receive both spiritual life and physical livelyhood. Not before but 'after'.

Then you have Paul making this statement in Hebrews concerning choice:

Hbr 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
Hbr 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

To sum up, when you hear God speaking to you don't harden your heart (negitive choice) but obey Him (positive choice).

Both illistration are action done by the people and therefore are not passive (being done to them) but active (they are the doers).

It is funny that there are many on this board who vigorously defend their commitment to LFW in other threads, but when asked to make their commitment explicit from Scripture they become strangely silent.

If you notice, they are not silent, you just aren't listening.

 

[Winman]

I presented verses where God himself spoke of a man's "own voluntary will". I don't understand how it can get any clearer than that.

Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

What part of "he shall offer it of his own voluntary will" do you not understand?

The word "voluntary" proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a man has the ability to make his own choices. The Calvinists argue that an unsaved man is a slave to his own evil will, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Deut 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

This verse makes no sense unless a man has the ability to turn to God.

Deut 11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

This shows man has within his own power to chose for God or against him.

Deut 29:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Again, this shows man is responsible for his own choices.

It's really past absurd to argue with those who do not believe men have their own free will, there are literally hundreds of verses that prove otherwise.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Ezra 3:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

 

[MB]

Hi Brian;

This thread has *nothing* to do with Calvinism. This thread is simply a challenge to those who are committed to LFW to pony up an argument from Scripture. So far, no one has been able to do so. All of those who have tried to present an argument have simply quoted a verse and cried, “Q.E.D.!” If the verse in question really does prove LFW, then all I am asking is for them to make the argument explicit.

It is man's willingness to listen to the gospel. He doesn't ask to hear it because he has no idea what it is until someone tells him. When someone tells him the gospel he can either accept it as truth or rebel against it. Some rebel right away and never listen but a few will passively listen to start with.
Why does a man listen? The answer is interest because no one wants to die. After a man has heard the gospel he either becomes willingly convinced of it or he rejects it. If he becomes convinced he then believes and belief is the answer to how to be saved.
The Jailer who asked Paul how to be saved in Acts listened to paul preaching in the jail and was convinced of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was infact seeking Salvation and willingly so. Didn't he willingly ask Paul how to be saved.
MB

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall.

So you contend that man does not choose sin willingly but is forced to sin?
I'm just wondering now, whom it is that forces man to sin since he does not choose to sin freely?

Allan please reread my post above but first take off your biased glasses.

Did I say anything about sin? Did I say anything about man choosing to sin? Did I say anything about man being forced to sin?

 

[Rippon]

Allan was asked if he was committed to LFW.

He replied :"No, at least according to those who hold that position."

Brian said: "All I have done is asserted that LFW is not a doctrine derived from Scripture, but is read into Scripture."

And that prompted Allan to say:"This is an argument without any substance."

So which is it Allan, do you, or do you not, hold to LFW? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Rippon]

Allan please reread my post above but first take off your biased glasses.

Did I say anything about sin? Did I say anything about man choosing to sin? Did I say anything about man being forced to sin?

Allan has the tendency to read anything he wishes into the comments of others.