Featured Libertarian Free Will???

this is what Calvinists in England have told me!

 

I would say it more like that while God desires that all sinners repent and come to Christ and get saved, it is His will that only the elect are enabled to do just that.

 

"desires that all sinners repent", but "wills only the elect"? And Scripture for this? This does not sound like the God of the Bible, "Who will that all men are saved...and that none perish...", meaning of course in their plain description, the salvation of the "entire human race". John Calvin gets this right, "Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race. (Mark 14:24) And, "He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated" (Colossians 1:14). Calvin gets both God's "desire and will" here right!

 

these "idiots" where seminary Reformed students!

 

You are wrong brother! I don't have to agree with them, just because I listen! I read the stuff you post on here, but don't agree with the greater majority! I could say the same about you then, about being half-educated, as some of your posts certainly betray this!

 

"Except "free will" has absolutely nothing to do with making choices. Everybody makes choices, every day."

"Everybody" has nothing to do with every person! I'm going to claim the definition of EVERYBODY, it means PEANUT BUTTER! So peanut butter makes choices. And then ALL mean's SOME, and elect means STUPID.

That's what you sound like trying to rewrite the definition of one's "free will" 1500 years later.

Can we even get a vote that free will has absolutely nothing to do with making choices? Is it a free document that dead people leave behind property for others.

When we are talking about TOTAL DEPRAVITY we all know the subject is about if you can do anything GOOD ie make any good choice. And not FAKE GOOD, but actual GOOD choice.

Calvinist got like 20 adjectives for every word! They not even Calvinist! its BUMPY Calvinist and hyper Calvinist and 3 pointer Calvinist.



There is an INTENSE lack of common sense when someone who is SELF-PROCLAIMED ELECT is trying to convinced a REPROBATE of ANYTHING.

 

Says "Reformed" theology, but NOT in the Holy Bible!

 

The only solution a Calvinist should be allowed in convincing others Calvinism is right......is to ask God to make the other guy a Calvinist.

Anything beyond that is a SIN. Because it is totally against their own principle.

 

John Calvin was not a "Calvinist" as he never believed in the "L" of T.U.L.I.P!

 

Well There is ways I think it might be possible to make the TULIP work with some good contemplation and thinking.

Lets take the example of someone who is damned. Did Jesus' death save them?

I wouldn't agree that Jesus had no intention of saving them, he still died for them.

 

Jesus' Death is a "sacrifice for sins", while for the whole world, does not have any "affect" on the sinner, unless they repent of their personal sins and accept what Jesus has done for them. "repent and believe" is what Jesus taught in Mark 1:15 and elsewhere, which is something that the sinner must do for starters. A sinner is damned because of their rejection in Jesus Christ as the Saviour for their sins, and not because He did not want them saved, as some wrongly contend for! "you will not come that you might have life" (John 5:39-40), not that they "could not", but chose not to.

 

Among general providence proponents, traditional Arminians hold that humans have free will, by which they mean libertarian or noncompatibilist freedom. They emphasize that God could have created a world in which all the details were determined, but instead chose to limit himself, one major illustration of which is found in the incarnation. They see numerous biblical passages that teach human freedom and responsibility as evidences that humans determine many of the details of what happens.

Some hold that God is indeed sovereign over everything, and that humans have libertarian free will, but regard the relationship between these two factors as ultimately paradoxical. Finally, more extreme Arminians, such as open theists, regard God as a risk taker. Although God may have a plan for how He will bring things to pass, not knowing future actions of free moral agents, He often has to change his plans in light of unforeseen developments. Although they contend that specific sovereignty’s objection to general sovereignty is a matter of Calvinism versus Arminianism, open theists differ significantly from traditional Arminians, who generally hold that God does foresee the future.

(Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 666-67)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for your reply.

I am thankful that God had/has the free-will to choose me to be His child! From the human standpoint, I agree: "...the relationship between these two factors as ultimately paradoxical."

 

Jesus stated that ALL of us were slaves to sin and children of Satan before getting saved, so what real free will for slaves?

 

Who must have slept thru their systematic theology courses!

 

Jesus stated that he first chooses us, and then we can choose Him, seems pretty simple!

 

The truth value of premise 2 depends on exactly what you mean when you speak of choices being caused.

Choices are caused by free agents, because to make choices is the very nature of a free agent. If you instead are asking whether there is some cause—some mechanism—within the free agent itself (“what made him choose x?”), then the answer is no.

Again, to make choices is the very nature of a free agent, an no internal mechanism is needed. To ask for such would be like asking by what internal mechanism 2 and 2 make 4.

And if choices are necessarily the result of deterministic processes, how can God make choices?

Furthermore, how can choices be morally relevant if they are not chosen, but are caused deterministically by natural forces?

If man has no capacity for choice, then what is the spirit, since it is not that thing which makes choices? It is consciousness, you may say—but then it experiences the punishment for that which it didn’t not choose.