A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

[Skandelon]

Your actions are very queer to me.
You make an argument, then I answered.

Then you run off to another OP.
Deal with the verses and my arguments.

First time I've ever been accused of being queer. Congrats.

I addressed many of these same issues in the other OP, so forgive me for not wanting to retype all the same arguments here. That is a far cry from running off, so please refrain from such accusations, okay?

I too could list dozens of verses that appear to support the idea that men have the ability to willingly choose between viable options from a LFW perspective, but I've been in these discussions enough to know how you would address those verses, plus I could simply pick up one of many reformed commentaries and see how you handle those verses. It take a lot of time to attempt to address every passage presented in every thread, so sometimes I choose one particular topic and verse to discuss in a particular thread so as to make the discussion somewhat manageable. If you would like to read Adam Clarke's commentary you can see how we (non-Calvinists) would most likely address all the verses you threw at me.

If I only had a dime for all the arguments I've presented that have been ignored I'd be a rich man, but I assure you that I'm in no way avoiding your arguments or running from this discussion. If a particular passage is significant enough to warrant a full discussion I request you start a new thread, but there is nothing wrong with the OP's author to use discretion in narrowing down the subject matter of his particular thread. Thus, let's avoid such accusations in the future, okay?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Slave4Christ you are defending a position called compatibles. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom or LFW)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." (as you have argued here) It is my contention that this is an insufficient explanation to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts (and nature) of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom or LFW)."

You have changed your definition.
Here is you first definition of LFW.

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.

The section in bold is our reference.
Your position is defeated; if it can be biblically proven that both believers and non-believers do not have the "ability" to refrain or not refrain, because "antecedent conditions and "causal laws" determine a choice.

This is developed in the following verses.

As to the believer' ability:

Verse 1. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course.

Who has planned man's course?

Verse 2.(Ephs. 1:17-19)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The believer's power is given from God, not self-generated.

Verse 3. (Ephs. 2:10)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is an "antecedent condition" that determines choice.
Can a "true" believer walk (choose) opposite to God's ordination?

Verse 4. (Philippians 1:6)
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This verse gives both "antecedent condition" and "causal law" as determining a believer's choice.

Verse 5. (Philippians 2:12,13)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This verse needs no explanation, as to our current debate.


As to the unbeliever's ability:

10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

"No one understands", this is an "antecedent condition" that determines ability.


7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

"It, the mind of flesh, cannot", this is a "causal law" that prohibits ability.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.(Eph. 2:1-3)

"Carrying out the desires...", what choice does he have or even want.


What about when a man truly, through the Law of God, sees "good and evil" the way GOD views it.
Does he then have ability, without outside determination, to "refrain or not refrain?

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Paul knows what is good and what is not good, but still has no self-determining ability to perform it.

You say, "he must trust in Christ, then he will be able".
Is trusting Christ "doing right"?
Then according to Paul's confession, how can you trust Christ without Christ's power, ie. "antecedent condition" and "causal law"?

We cannot!
We must have a deliverer. One to come where we are, in our "inability", and rescue us.

Here again is a quote from Alvin Plantinga, from "Warranted Christian Belief".

The ravages of sin were of two sorts.
First, affective effects: sin induces a sort of madness of the will whereby we fail to love God above all; instead, we love ourselves above all. But the damage was also cognitive.
Sin induces a blindness, dullness, stupidity, imperceptiveness, whereby we are blinded to God, cannot hear his voice, do not recognize his beauty and glory, may even go so far as to deny that he exists.

No wonder Paul cried from his inability....
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!



The debate is not "compatibilism" verses "LFW".
The debate is does LFW exist.
The Word of God says no, at least as you have defined LFW.

 

[HankD]

You have changed your definition.
Here is you first definition of LFW.



The section in bold is our reference.
Your position is defeated; if it can be biblically proven that both believers and non-believers do not have the "ability" to refrain or not refrain, because "antecedent conditions and "causal laws" determine a choice.

This is developed in the following verses.

As to the believer' ability:

Verse 1. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course.

Who has planned man's course?

Verse 2.(Ephs. 1:17-19)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The believer's power is given from God, not self-generated.

Verse 3. (Ephs. 2:10)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is an "antecedent condition" that determines choice.
Can a "true" believer walk (choose) opposite to God's ordination?

Verse 4. (Philippians 1:6)
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This verse gives both "antecedent condition" and "causal law" as determining a believer's choice.

Verse 5. (Philippians 2:12,13)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This verse needs no explanation, as to our current debate.


As to the unbeliever's ability:

10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

"No one understands", this is an "antecedent condition" that determines ability.


7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

"It, the mind of flesh, cannot", this is a "causal law" that prohibits ability.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.(Eph. 2:1-3)

"Carrying out the desires...", what choice does he have or even want.


What about when a man truly, through the Law of God, sees "good and evil" the way GOD views it.
Does he then have ability, without outside determination, to "refrain or not refrain?

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Paul knows what is good and what is not good, but still has no self-determining ability to perform it.

You say, "he must trust in Christ, then he will be able".
Is trusting Christ "doing right"?
Then according to Paul's confession, how can you trust Christ without Christ's power, ie. "antecedent condition" and "causal law"?

We cannot!
We must have a deliverer. One to come where we are, in our "inability", and rescue us.

Here again is a quote from Alvin Plantinga, from "Warranted Christian Belief".

The ravages of sin were of two sorts.
First, affective effects: sin induces a sort of madness of the will whereby we fail to love God above all; instead, we love ourselves above all. But the damage was also cognitive.
Sin induces a blindness, dullness, stupidity, imperceptiveness, whereby we are blinded to God, cannot hear his voice, do not recognize his beauty and glory, may even go so far as to deny that he exists.

No wonder Paul cried from his inability....
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!



The debate is not "compatibilism" verses "LFW".
The debate is does LFW exist.
The Word of God says no, at least as you have defined LFW.

OK I'm back.

Will AFW work? Apparent Free Will.

HankD

 

[Skandelon]

You have changed your definition.
Here is you first definition of LFW.

I'll address the rest of your post, but first can you help me understand how these two definitions are at odds with each other:

1. "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action."

and

2. "If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it."

If, the second is defeated, according to your arguments, does the first still stand? If so, how would you defeat the first definition given the same proof of the OP? If not, then what does it matter?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

OK I'm back.

Will AFW work? Apparent Free Will.

HankD

Apparent- manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Is it possible for mankind to think he possesses free will based on his experience, yet God's word gives the true perspective?

Hank, there is no doubt that we make choices, but God's Word tells us these choices have boundaries, sometimes very limited boundaries.

And it is God, not man, that sets these boundaries.
(Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course

 

[Skandelon]

This is developed in the following verses.

As to the believer' ability:

Verse 1. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course.

Who has planned man's course?

You could be reading too much into the intent of the author. The Psalmist wrote that a man chooses his way but the Lord guides his step, which acknowledges both truths: (1) that men have a choice and (2) that God can and will accomplish His purposes despite those choices. Jeremiah very well could be acknowledging the same truth regarding God's control over our course in life while never intending to undermining the truth that man does make genuine choices.

Verse 2.(Ephs. 1:17-19)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The believer's power is given from God, not self-generated.

We affirm that the power if from God, we only take issue that such ability is effectually applied in such a way that man cannot do otherwise. The ability still comes from God regardless of which camp you are in so this passage no more supports your position than it does ours.

Verse 3. (Ephs. 2:10)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is an "antecedent condition" that determines choice.
Can a "true" believer walk (choose) opposite to God's ordination?

Nothing is said here about God determines believers to do a specific work, but only in general that God has preordained or chosen the works which believers will be called to accomplish in the work as his disciple. Consider Jesus' words in this regard: "Those who do not carry their own cross and come after me cannot be my disciples. 28 If one of you is planning to build a tower, you sit down first and figure out what it will cost, to see if you have enough money to finish the job. 29 If you don't, you will not be able to finish the tower after laying the foundation; and all who see what happened will make fun of you. 30 "You began to build but can't finish the job!' they will say. 31 If a king goes out with ten thousand men to fight another king who comes against him with twenty thousand men, he will sit down first and decide if he is strong enough to face that other king. 32 If he isn't, he will send messengers to meet the other king to ask for terms of peace while he is still a long way off. 33 In the same way," concluded Jesus, "none of you can be my disciple unless you give up everything you have."

Jesus' followers are called to consider the cost of following him and told of what difficult works (taking up their cross) they will be expected to do. He compares this to the deliberation of one looking to build a tower or go to war. Thus, the works God has foreordained must be contemplated by people before they come to Christ to be his disciple. They must decide if they want to take up this cross and walk in these "good works" which God has ordained.

Verse 4. (Philippians 1:6)
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This verse gives both "antecedent condition" and "causal law" as determining a believer's choice.

Again, this doesn't say enough to support your view anymore than it does mine in that we both affirm God's initiative work and his continual work of sanctification...we just deny the effectuality of believing upon Christ through the "effectual call", which isn't addressed here unless you come to the text with that presumption.

Verse 5. (Philippians 2:12,13)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This verse needs no explanation, as to our current debate.

Again, same issue as the verses above. We both affirm God work in giving us that ability to willingly follow. After all faith cometh by hearing and where does the gospel come from? Him.

As to the unbeliever's ability:

10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

"No one understands", this is an "antecedent condition" that determines ability.

No one is attempting to argue that man seeks God on his own. The debate at hand is whether man can respond to a God who is seeking them. Can they respond to God's message of reconciliation? More specifically, with regard to this OP, the question is about whether a believer, saved by Grace, set free by Christ, has the ability to willingly refrain from temptation or willingly succumb to it, so this verse has no bearing on our discussion whatsoever.

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

"It, the mind of flesh, cannot", this is a "causal law" that prohibits ability.

How does an unsaved man's inability to submit to God's law in any way address a saved man's ability to sin or resist temptation?

Same is true with the rest of these verses...none of them even touch the discussion at hand.

 

[webdog]

So then everyone that is "part" of the group of believers is a "true" believer?

I didn't say that, but from the immediate context of Acts and their actions of selling their stuff it is apparent Ananias and his wife were believers.'

You cannot put Acts into context using 1 John.

 

[glfredrick]

OK I'm back.

Will AFW work? Apparent Free Will.

HankD

Nope... Like an "actual" infinity, it cannot exist.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

I'll address the rest of your post, but first can you help me understand how these two definitions are at odds with each other:

1. "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action."

and

2. "If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it."

If, the second is defeated, according to your arguments, does the first still stand? If so, how would you defeat the first definition given the same proof of the OP? If not, then what does it matter?

What is categorical ability?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

You could be reading too much into the intent of the author. The Psalmist wrote that a man chooses his way but the Lord guides his step, which acknowledges both truths: (1) that men have a choice and (2) that God can and will accomplish His purposes despite those choices. Jeremiah very well could be acknowledging the same truth regarding God's control over our course in life while never intending to undermining the truth that man does make genuine choices.

You may not be reading enough into the author's intent.
Please cite the reference for your quote.
Can man choose opposite to God's guiding of his steps?
If by "genuine choice" you mean LFW, then how are you not "begging" your own question?

We affirm that the power if from God, we only take issue that such ability is effectually applied in such a way that man cannot do otherwise. The ability still comes from God regardless of which camp you are in so this passage no more supports your position than it does ours.

One could "choose" to cut a board with a skill saw, but if the saw is not "plugged" in; then no choice can be made.
Therefore, the "Power" determines the ability. The power is an "antecedent condition".

Nothing is said here about God determines believers to do a specific work, but only in general that God has preordained or chosen the works which believers will be called to accomplish in the work as his disciple.

Do you contend, that what God has ordained will not come to fruition?

Jesus' followers are called to consider the cost of following him and told of what difficult works (taking up their cross) they will be expected to do. He compares this to the deliberation of one looking to build a tower or go to war. Thus, the works God has foreordained must be contemplated by people before they come to Christ to be his disciple.

This parable serves to illustrate who "truly" is a disciple of Christ. Those that follow Him are true. Those that don't follow Him aren't true.
27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

The "causal law" in coming to Christ is understood from John 6:64,65.

64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

They must decide if they want to take up this cross and walk in these "good works" which God has ordained.

"...before ordained that we should walk in them."
If any "decide" not to do what Christ wants, then they don't belong to the Ephesians 2:10 group.

No one is attempting to argue that man seeks God on his own. The debate at hand is whether man can respond to a God who is seeking them. Can they respond to God's message of reconciliation? More specifically, with regard to this OP, the question is about whether a believer, saved by Grace, set free by Christ, has the ability to willingly refrain from temptation or willingly succumb to it, so this verse has no bearing on our discussion whatsoever.

In the LFW system God is reduced to nothing more than an influence.

You are asking can a believer choose one or the other. But your question is a false dilemma, because a single choice can and does have many factors that determine the choice.
A single choice is not made in a vacuum.

:laugh:Could we do a scientific experiment?:laugh:

Hypothesis: If LFW (ie. a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it. is true, then you could stop critiquing the Doctrines Of Grace.

Experiment: Freely choose to remove your blog and remain neutral concerning DoG on the BB for 24 months.

Hypothetical Observations: If you are "able" to make the choice then we can deduce you are correct about LFW, because it was freely performed.
If you are "unable", then we may deduce that LFW is incorrect; because you "could" not stop. Then we might correctly asked what determined your choice.

Conclusions: To be observed

 

[HankD]

Nope... Like an "actual" infinity, it cannot exist.

Oh ratzlefratz!!

HankD

 

[HankD]

Apparent- manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Is it possible for mankind to think he possesses free will based on his experience, yet God's word gives the true perspective?

Hank, there is no doubt that we make choices, but God's Word tells us these choices have boundaries, sometimes very limited boundaries.

And it is God, not man, that sets these boundaries.
(Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course

You mean I'm not the master of my own destiny!?

Ya, I knew that. I'de mess it up anyway.

HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh ratzlefratz!!

HankD

Come on, GL will tell you, we do limits at infinity and infinite limits everyday in calculus. It is true, that some infinities are larger than other infinities. In reality, nothing in mathematics actually "exists". Even on the most rudimentary level, it is ALL simply a construct of the mind of mankind.

 

[quantumfaith]

Apparent- manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Is it possible for mankind to think he possesses free will based on his experience, yet God's word gives the true perspective?

Hank, there is no doubt that we make choices, but God's Word tells us these choices have boundaries, sometimes very limited boundaries.

And it is God, not man, that sets these boundaries.
(Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course

So, if we only have "choices" contained within parameters, means we really dont have choices?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

So, if we only have "choices" contained within parameters, means we really dont have choices?

Almost makes one believe God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thoughts.

I know He knows; and if I need to know He will let me know, as I seek to know.

The rest is what I think I know. You know what I mean.

Charles Spurgeon tells how he came to know.

"One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

 

[Tom Butler]

If I can return to the OP, the answer it yes, it does matter if you're a Calvinist. It matters if you're not one.

It matters because each soteriology contains certain assumptions, from which each presents the gospel.

For instance, non-Calvinists believe that God has given everyone free will, and the ability to make choices. They believe that as a result, it is possible to persuade men, starting with the preaching of the gospel, followed by any number of methods to get one to make a "decision" for Christ.

Calvinists believe that God employs all the means necessary to bring his elect to salvation--including the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating, convicting, drawing and regenerating. Even repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are gifts from God to his elect. Thus, the gospel is preached, the lost are exhorted to repent and believe, and the results left to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let's don't get sidetracked here by a debate on the extent of the atonement. The point is that salvation is all of God and none of man. The debate is not over the ability to choose; it is over when that ability is given.

But that difference makes the difference in how each presents the gospel.

In fact, if you visit a church, but don't know whether the pastor is a Calvinist or a non-Cal, listen carefully to the exhortation (altar call, invitation). It will provide you enough for you to make a good guess. If no invitation is given, that's another clue.

Let me conclude this post by saying that God is not boxed in by our methods. Each soteriology can preach a pure gospel, and God is pleased to save the lost in Cal and non-Cal churches. But there is a difference in the way each calls men and women to Christ.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

If I can return to the OP, the answer it yes, it does matter if you're a Calvinist. It matters if you're not one.

It matters because each soteriology contains certain assumptions, from which each presents the gospel.

For instance, non-Calvinists believe that God has given everyone free will, and the ability to make choices. They believe that as a result, it is possible to persuade men, starting with the preaching of the gospel, followed by any number of methods to get one to make a "decision" for Christ.

Calvinists believe that God employs all the means necessary to bring his elect to salvation--including the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating, convicting, drawing and regenerating. Even repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are gifts from God to his elect. Thus, the gospel is preached, the lost are exhorted to repent and believe, and the results left to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let's don't get sidetracked here by a debate on the extent of the atonement. The point is that salvation is all of God and none of man. The debate is not over the ability to choose; it is over when that ability is given.

But that difference makes the difference in how each presents the gospel.

In fact, if you visit a church, but don't know whether the pastor is a Calvinist or a non-Cal, listen carefully to the exhortation (altar call, invitation). It will provide you enough for you to make a good guess. If no invitation is given, that's another clue.

Let me conclude this post by saying that God is not boxed in by our methods. Each soteriology can preach a pure gospel, and God is pleased to save the lost in Cal and non-Cal churches. But there is a difference in the way each calls men and women to Christ.

Tom,
Did you mean to post this on the "does Calvinism matter" thread.

 

[Tom Butler]

So, if we only have "choices" contained within parameters, means we really dont have choices?

We all operate freely within our natures.

My human nature will limit my ability to fly.

My sinful nature as a lost person prevented me pleasing God, or wanting to.

My new nature, given to me as a new believer, freed me from those chains.

But I still can't fly.

 

[canadyjd]

.....Actually, its typically Compatiblists who argue that a choice is free if it is according to what one desires. Clearly Paul speaks here of not doing the things he desires, which if anything would seem to contradict the concept that a man always follows his greatest inclinations.

This war Paul speaks of in the heart of a believer from a libertarian perspective is a prime example of self-determiniation as the new nature battles with the old. That is the very heart of LFW.

What!!! Your definition of LFW denies a determining influence outside of the person's will.

Romans 7:20 very clearly states that sin is a determining influence concerning a person's decisions.

Therefore, the definition of LFW that you gave is clearly contrary to scripture.

And yet, you have forgotten the former argument and now state that there is a battle on-going between the new nature and the old (both the new and old are antecedent conditions... which... according to your definition, have no determining influence). This battle of influences, you now say, is the very heart of LFW.

How can there be a war of natures when those natures (the new and the old) never had a determining influence on a person's decisions in the first place?

Your definition has been proven false by your own arguments made for it.

peace to youraying:

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom,
Did you mean to post this on the "does Calvinism matter" thread.

Actually, I did mean to. I realized it and thought I had zapped it, but obviously not. I probably wouldn't have noticed it without your calling it to my attention. Thanks. And folks, please don't respond to it here.

In the meantime, I have posted it in the other thread.

I realize that it doesn't fit very well in this thread, does it?

Hmm, that's the first mistake I've made in I don't remember how long.