canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Gee thanks:jesus:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinists Please Explain Something for Me...
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
It was the Holy Spirit that caused the earthquake and opened all the cell doors. Doesn't have to be said, because it is understood from scripture that it is the Spirit (or an angel) who does these types of things.
It is also obvious that the man was convicted of his sins by what he said, he asked Paul, What must I do to be SAVED? So obviously this man was convicted of his sinfulness.
Nevertheless, he could not possibly have been regenerated. The word "regenerated" means to be made ALIVE AGAIN (which refutes Original Sin). You cannot be spiritually alive while you remain in your trespasses and sins. Only when a person believes and is forgiven or justified can they be spiritually alive.
You know as well as I do that this is true, I don't know why anybody would cling to false teaching.
That a person is dead in trespasses and sins until they believe is stated by Jesus himself.
Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Until you believe you remain in your sins, and will die in your sins unless you believe.
Again, I don't know why anyone would cling to falsehood. Total Inability is false, and the teaching that regeneration precedes faith is false. You cannot be alive UNTIL you believe.
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
I'm reminded of Cornelius.
Scripture teaches that no one in the flesh can please God, Romans 8:8.
(Of course there are some on here that will fight against said truth).
Yet Cornelius did please God, thus he could have no longer been unregenerate and in the flesh, and this prior to his coming to full knowledge. As we know it later lead him to Christ where he experienced from whence his regeneration and salvation did come.
More on that: I don't agree that any person anywhere who does good works is necessarily 'regenerate' as some here do, something akin to the Oprah Winfrey Gospel.
Scripture shows regeneration, true regeneration comes to full knowledge that Christ is the only way to the Father as per Acts 10 and the conclusions of Cornelius. Anything else that falls short of this is entirely cosmic consciousness, New Ageism and mysticism not grounded in Scripture, but is pure conjecture.
Scripture teaches that no one in the flesh can please God, Romans 8:8.
(Of course there are some on here that will fight against said truth).
Yet Cornelius did please God, thus he could have no longer been unregenerate and in the flesh, and this prior to his coming to full knowledge. As we know it later lead him to Christ where he experienced from whence his regeneration and salvation did come.
More on that: I don't agree that any person anywhere who does good works is necessarily 'regenerate' as some here do, something akin to the Oprah Winfrey Gospel.
Scripture shows regeneration, true regeneration comes to full knowledge that Christ is the only way to the Father as per Acts 10 and the conclusions of Cornelius. Anything else that falls short of this is entirely cosmic consciousness, New Ageism and mysticism not grounded in Scripture, but is pure conjecture.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Likewise, it was Holy Spirit that convicted the jailer of sin and causing him to come to Paul and ask "what must I do to be saved?", regenerating him at the appropriate moment. It doesn't have to be said, because it is understood from scripture that it is Holy Spirit who does these types of things.:smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
not at all, explain below
Those are both excellent examples. A soldier desired to save his buddies over his own life. Very good example, while most people will save their own life, this soldier had a greater desire for the lives of others. Your second example is excellent as well. While in both examples the people had a desire for their lives, they had a greater desire for others. They sacrificed for other people.
People always choose what they desire the most. And in some cases as you gave, their desire was very unselfish.
good examples!
You've actually hit upon a truth, though you do not know it. A man does not have to think in the flesh once he has been enlightened and taught by the Spirit through the Word of God. He is not regenerated, but he is enlightened. This is what is shown in Hebrews 6.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
There are two possibilities here, and they BOTH refute Calvinism.
#1 A person can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the Word and brought to the point of repentance, but fall away- This refutes Irresistible Grace.
#2 A person can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Word and fall away- This refutes Perseverance of the Saints.
That's it, under Calvinism these are the only two possibilities, and NEITHER option supports Calvinism.
Now, if Total Inability is not true (and it isn't), then a man can be enlightened and convicted by the Spirit and even brought to the point of repentance, yet resist God's grace and fall away in unbelief. This is EXACTLY what non-Cal and Arminian theology teaches. No conflict whatsoever.
The scriptures themselves prove that the natural man can believe, because Paul (and Peter) taught that you receive the Holy Spirit by faith.
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit by first believing on Jesus. Therefore, the natural man can believe, and when he does he receives the Spirit and is regenerated.
This is shown in several places.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Calvinism falsely teaches you must be regenerated to have the ability to repent and believe, but Peter said these men must repent and believe (because only believers are baptized) to receive the Spirit.
This utterly refutes you. The natural man cannot please God in the flesh, but the natural man can listen to God's word which enlightens him and enables him to believe. And if he will believe he receives the Spirit and is made alive.
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
This scripture clearly shows that Paul believed a person must believe the gospel to receive the Spirit. And until a man receives the Spirit he is a natural man. Therefore the natural man can believe when enabled by the Word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, you're content where you're at, that's fine with me, I've better things to do.
The greater desire would be to save the friends life AND your life, proving it is not the greatest desire driving decisions.
Nope, he had not believed, so he was dead in sins. He did not even know he had to believe or WHAT he had to believe. Oh yes, he was deeply convicted and knew he was lost, and he had a real desire to be saved, but he was not regenerated.
You just keep on insisting that a man dead in sin can be regenerated. You know very well that is impossible. The word regenerated means to be made ALIVE AGAIN, and you cannot be alive and dead in sin at the same time.
You can listen to false man made doctrine, or the Word of God, the choice is yours.
If both could be done, there wouldn't be a choice involved. Since both cannot be done, there is a choice and thus you choose that which is the greater desire of the options available to you.
That dynamic doesn't negate choice. That option very well may be on the table given the circumstances.
It could be on the table. And of course if it is, it's put into play. I see what you are saying, but if he doesn't believe it's a viable option, (he desires to save one verse none and he things if he tries to save both he will probably save none) so he saves one.
don't misunderstand me in thinking that desires are the only factor in decision making. But end the end, after we have weighed our viable options, we choose that which we desire the most in every decision we ever make.
I simply do not agree with this. I could give more examples but I suspect you would dismiss them.
Tell me, why is this idea so important to Calvinistic thought as it relates to the concept of free will?
Give me a couple of examples. I won't dismiss them, but show you how desire was the factor in the final decision.
DrJamesAch
New Member
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" Eph 1:13
Calvinist Order: Spirit, hear the word, trust, believe
The BIBLEs Order, hear the word, trusted, believed, THEN sealed by the Holy Spirit: "AFTER that ye believed, ye were sealed"
Don't expect to get answers or explanations on the verses given that are absolutely clear a 5th grader could understand them. But do always expect them to retreat the same misinterpreted proof texts.
From monergism:
Historically in the Church there has been disagreement about the order of salvation, especially between those in the Reformed and Arminian camps. The following two perspectives of God's order in carrying out His redemptive work reveals the stark contrast between these two main historic views. Keep in mind that both viewpoints are based on the redemptive work which Christ accomplished for His people in history:
In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.
Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that, according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other way around. This is no small matter ...understanding the biblical order, while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.
from James Boice'
Romans 8:29-30 does not contain a full list of the steps in a person's experience of salvation, only five of the most important steps undertaken by God on behalf of Christians. If the text were to include all the steps, what theologians call the ordo salutis, it would have to list these: foreknowledge, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification.5 The full list makes the point. After predestination, the very next thing is our calling, out of which comes faith which leads to justification.
The Bible never says that we are saved because of our faith. That would make faith something good in us that we somehow contribute to the process. But it does say that we are saved by or through faith, meaning that God must create it in us before we can be justified.
Historically in the Church there has been disagreement about the order of salvation, especially between those in the Reformed and Arminian camps. The following two perspectives of God's order in carrying out His redemptive work reveals the stark contrast between these two main historic views. Keep in mind that both viewpoints are based on the redemptive work which Christ accomplished for His people in history:
In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.
Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that, according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other way around. This is no small matter ...understanding the biblical order, while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.
from James Boice'
Romans 8:29-30 does not contain a full list of the steps in a person's experience of salvation, only five of the most important steps undertaken by God on behalf of Christians. If the text were to include all the steps, what theologians call the ordo salutis, it would have to list these: foreknowledge, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification.5 The full list makes the point. After predestination, the very next thing is our calling, out of which comes faith which leads to justification.
The Bible never says that we are saved because of our faith. That would make faith something good in us that we somehow contribute to the process. But it does say that we are saved by or through faith, meaning that God must create it in us before we can be justified.
DrJamesAch
New Member
FREE WILL-Norman Geisler-1
Concepts of the nature of human choice fall within three categories: determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism. A determinist looks to actions caused by another, an indeterminist to uncaused actions, and a self-determinist to self-caused actions.
Determinism
There are two basic kinds of determinism: naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic determinism is most readily identified with behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. Skinner held that all human behavior is determined by genetic and behavioral factors. Humans simply act according to what has been programmed into them.
All who accept strong forms of Calvinistic theology hold to some degree of theistic determinism. Jonathan Edwards related all actions ultimately to God as First Cause. "Free choice" for Edwards is doing what one desires, and God is the Author of the heart’s desires. God is sovereign, in control of all and so ultimately the cause of all. Fallen humanity is totally without freedom of the affections, so they can do whatever they want, but what they want will forever be in the control of their corrupt, world-directed heart. God’s grace controls actions as God controls desires and their attendant thoughts and actions.
Response to Determinism. Nondeterminists respond that a self-caused action is not impossible, and all actions need not be attributed to the First Cause (God). Some actions can be caused by human beings to whom God gave free moral agency. Free choice is not, as Edwards contends, doing what one desires (with God giving the desires). Rather, it is doing what one decides, which is not always the same thing. One need not reject God’s sovereign control to deny determinism. God can control by omniscience as well as by causal power.
Two forms of determinism may be distinguished, hard and soft. A hard determinist believes all acts are caused by God, that God is the only efficient Cause. A soft determinist holds that God as the Primary Cause is compatible with human free choice as the secondary Cause.
Indeterminism
According to the indeterminist, few if any human actions are caused. Events and action are contingent and spontaneous.
Arguments for indeterminism. The arguments for indeterminism follow the nature of free actions. Since they follow no determinate pattern, it is concluded that they are indeterminate. Some contemporary indeterminists appeal to Werner Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy to support their position. According to this principle, events in the subatomic realm (like the specific course of a given particle) are completely unpredictable.
According to the argument from the unpredictability of free acts, an act must be predictable in order to be determinate. But free acts are not predictable. Hence, they are indeterminate.
Critique of Indeterminacy. All forms of indeterminism fall shipwreck on the principle of causality, which asserts that all events have a cause. But indeterminacy asserts that free choices are uncaused events.
Indeterminism makes the world irrational and science impossible. It is contrary to reason to affirm that things happen willy nilly without a cause. Hence, indeterminacy reduces to irrationalism. Both operation and origin sciences are dependent on the principle of causality. Simply because a free act is not caused by another does not mean that it is uncaused. It could be self-caused.
Use of Heisenberg’s principle is misapplied, since it does not deal with the causality of an event but with unpredictability.
Indeterminism robs humans of their moral responsibility, since they are not the cause of these actions. If they are not, why should they be blamed for evil actions? Indeterminism, at least on a cosmic scale, is unacceptable from a biblical perspective, since God is causally related to the world as both originator (Genesis 1) and sustainer of all things (Col. 1:15-16).
Self-Determinism
According to this view, a person’s moral acts are not caused by another or uncaused, but are caused by oneself. It is important to know at the outset precisely what is meant by self-determinism or free choice. Negatively, it means that a moral action is not uncaused or caused by another. It is neither indeterminate nor determined by another. Positively, it is morally self-determined, an act freely chosen, without compulsion, in which one could have done otherwise. Several arguments support this position.
Arguments for Self-determinism. Either moral actions are uncaused, caused by another, or caused by oneself. However, no action can be uncaused, since this violates the fundamental rational principle that every event has a cause. Neither can a person’s actions be caused by others, for in that case they would not be personal actions. Further, if one’s acts are caused by another then how can he or she be held responsible for them? Both Augustine (in On Free Will and On Grace and Free Will) and Thomas Aquinas were self-determinists, as are moderate Calvinists and Arminians.
The denial that some actions can be free is self-defeating. A complete determinist insists that both determinists and nondeterminists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies freedom to change, which is contrary to determinism. If God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible, and it makes no sense to praise human beings for doing good, nor to blame them for doing evil.
A dimension of this controversy has to do with how the "self" is viewed. By "self" the self-determinist believes there is an "I" (subject) that is more than the object. That is, my subjectivity transcends my objectivity. I cannot put all that I am under a microscope to analyze as an object. There is more to "me" than objectivity. This "I" that transcends being objectified is free. The scientist who attempts to study personal self always transcends the experiment. The scientist is always on the outside looking in. In fact, "I" am free to reject "me." It is not determined by objectivity, not subject to being locked into scientific analysis. As such, the "I" is free.
Concepts of the nature of human choice fall within three categories: determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism. A determinist looks to actions caused by another, an indeterminist to uncaused actions, and a self-determinist to self-caused actions.
Determinism
There are two basic kinds of determinism: naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic determinism is most readily identified with behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. Skinner held that all human behavior is determined by genetic and behavioral factors. Humans simply act according to what has been programmed into them.
All who accept strong forms of Calvinistic theology hold to some degree of theistic determinism. Jonathan Edwards related all actions ultimately to God as First Cause. "Free choice" for Edwards is doing what one desires, and God is the Author of the heart’s desires. God is sovereign, in control of all and so ultimately the cause of all. Fallen humanity is totally without freedom of the affections, so they can do whatever they want, but what they want will forever be in the control of their corrupt, world-directed heart. God’s grace controls actions as God controls desires and their attendant thoughts and actions.
Response to Determinism. Nondeterminists respond that a self-caused action is not impossible, and all actions need not be attributed to the First Cause (God). Some actions can be caused by human beings to whom God gave free moral agency. Free choice is not, as Edwards contends, doing what one desires (with God giving the desires). Rather, it is doing what one decides, which is not always the same thing. One need not reject God’s sovereign control to deny determinism. God can control by omniscience as well as by causal power.
Two forms of determinism may be distinguished, hard and soft. A hard determinist believes all acts are caused by God, that God is the only efficient Cause. A soft determinist holds that God as the Primary Cause is compatible with human free choice as the secondary Cause.
Indeterminism
According to the indeterminist, few if any human actions are caused. Events and action are contingent and spontaneous.
Arguments for indeterminism. The arguments for indeterminism follow the nature of free actions. Since they follow no determinate pattern, it is concluded that they are indeterminate. Some contemporary indeterminists appeal to Werner Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy to support their position. According to this principle, events in the subatomic realm (like the specific course of a given particle) are completely unpredictable.
According to the argument from the unpredictability of free acts, an act must be predictable in order to be determinate. But free acts are not predictable. Hence, they are indeterminate.
Critique of Indeterminacy. All forms of indeterminism fall shipwreck on the principle of causality, which asserts that all events have a cause. But indeterminacy asserts that free choices are uncaused events.
Indeterminism makes the world irrational and science impossible. It is contrary to reason to affirm that things happen willy nilly without a cause. Hence, indeterminacy reduces to irrationalism. Both operation and origin sciences are dependent on the principle of causality. Simply because a free act is not caused by another does not mean that it is uncaused. It could be self-caused.
Use of Heisenberg’s principle is misapplied, since it does not deal with the causality of an event but with unpredictability.
Indeterminism robs humans of their moral responsibility, since they are not the cause of these actions. If they are not, why should they be blamed for evil actions? Indeterminism, at least on a cosmic scale, is unacceptable from a biblical perspective, since God is causally related to the world as both originator (Genesis 1) and sustainer of all things (Col. 1:15-16).
Self-Determinism
According to this view, a person’s moral acts are not caused by another or uncaused, but are caused by oneself. It is important to know at the outset precisely what is meant by self-determinism or free choice. Negatively, it means that a moral action is not uncaused or caused by another. It is neither indeterminate nor determined by another. Positively, it is morally self-determined, an act freely chosen, without compulsion, in which one could have done otherwise. Several arguments support this position.
Arguments for Self-determinism. Either moral actions are uncaused, caused by another, or caused by oneself. However, no action can be uncaused, since this violates the fundamental rational principle that every event has a cause. Neither can a person’s actions be caused by others, for in that case they would not be personal actions. Further, if one’s acts are caused by another then how can he or she be held responsible for them? Both Augustine (in On Free Will and On Grace and Free Will) and Thomas Aquinas were self-determinists, as are moderate Calvinists and Arminians.
The denial that some actions can be free is self-defeating. A complete determinist insists that both determinists and nondeterminists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies freedom to change, which is contrary to determinism. If God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible, and it makes no sense to praise human beings for doing good, nor to blame them for doing evil.
A dimension of this controversy has to do with how the "self" is viewed. By "self" the self-determinist believes there is an "I" (subject) that is more than the object. That is, my subjectivity transcends my objectivity. I cannot put all that I am under a microscope to analyze as an object. There is more to "me" than objectivity. This "I" that transcends being objectified is free. The scientist who attempts to study personal self always transcends the experiment. The scientist is always on the outside looking in. In fact, "I" am free to reject "me." It is not determined by objectivity, not subject to being locked into scientific analysis. As such, the "I" is free.
DrJamesAch
New Member
FREE WILL-Norman Geisler-2
Objections to Self-determinism.
Free will rules out sovereignty. If human beings are free, are they outside God’s sovereignty? Either God determines all, or else he is not sovereign. And if he determines all, then there are no self-determined acts.
It is sufficient to note that God sovereignly delegated free choice to some of his creatures. There was no necessity for him to do so; he exercised his free will. So human freedom is a sovereignly given power to make moral choices. Only absolute freedom would be contrary to God’s absolute sovereignty. But human freedom is a limited freedom. Humans are not free to become God themselves. A contingent being cannot become a Necessary Being. For a Necessary Being cannot come to be. It must always be what it is.
Free will is contrary to grace. It is objected that either free, good acts spring from God’s grace, or else from our own initiative. But if the latter, they are not the result of God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-9). However, this does not necessarily follow. Free will itself is a gracious gift. Further, special grace is not forced coercively onto the person. Rather, grace works persuasively. The hard determinist’s position confuses the nature of faith. The ability of a person to receive God’s gracious gift of salvation is not the same as working for it. To think so is to give credit for the gift to the receiver, rather than to the Giver.
A self-caused act is logically impossible. It is objected that self-determinism means to cause oneself, which is impossible. Someone cannot be prior to oneself, which is what a self-caused act entails. This objection misunderstands determinism, which does not mean that one causes himself to exist, but rather causes something else to happen. A self-determined act is one determined by oneself, not another.
Self-determinism is contrary to causality. If all acts need a cause, then so do acts of the will, which are not caused by the self but by something else. If everything needs a cause, so do the persons performing the actions.
There is no violation of the actual principle of causality in the exercise of free actions. The principle does not claim that every thing (being) needs a cause. Finite things need a cause. God is uncaused. The person performing free actions is caused by God. The power of freedom is caused by God, but the exercise of freedom is caused by the person. The self is the first-cause of personal actions. The principle of causality is not violated because every finite thing and every action has a cause.
Self-determinism is contrary to predestination. Others object that self-determinism is contrary to God’s predestination. But self-determinists respond that God can predetermine in several ways. He can determine (1) contrary to free choice (forcing the person to do what he or she does not choose to do); (2) based on free choices already made (waiting to see what the person will do); and (3) knowing omnisciently what the person will do "in accordance with his foreknowledge" (1 Peter 1:2). "Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Rom. 8:29). Either positions 2 or 3 are consistent with self-determinism. Both insist that God can determine the future by free choice, since he omnisciently knows for sure how they will freely act. So, it is determined from the standpoint of God’s infallible knowledge but free from the vantage point of human choice.
Connected with the argument from strong determinism is that, while Adam had free choice (Rom. 5:12), fallen human beings are in bondage to sin and not free to respond to God. But this view is contrary to both God’s consistent call on people to repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38) and believe (e.g., John 3:16; 3:36; Acts 16:31), as well as to direct statements that even unbelievers have the ability to respond to God’s grace (Matt. 23:37; John 7:17; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 9:17; Philem. 14; 1 Peter 5:2).
This argument continues that if humans have the ability to respond, then salvation is not of grace (Eph. 2:8-9) but by human effort. However, this is a confusion about the nature of faith. The ability of a person to receive God’s gracious gift of salvation is not the same as working for it. To think so is to give credit for the gift to the receiver rather than to the Giver who graciously gave it.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1100W3.htm
See also Monergism vs Synergism
Objections to Self-determinism.
Free will rules out sovereignty. If human beings are free, are they outside God’s sovereignty? Either God determines all, or else he is not sovereign. And if he determines all, then there are no self-determined acts.
It is sufficient to note that God sovereignly delegated free choice to some of his creatures. There was no necessity for him to do so; he exercised his free will. So human freedom is a sovereignly given power to make moral choices. Only absolute freedom would be contrary to God’s absolute sovereignty. But human freedom is a limited freedom. Humans are not free to become God themselves. A contingent being cannot become a Necessary Being. For a Necessary Being cannot come to be. It must always be what it is.
Free will is contrary to grace. It is objected that either free, good acts spring from God’s grace, or else from our own initiative. But if the latter, they are not the result of God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-9). However, this does not necessarily follow. Free will itself is a gracious gift. Further, special grace is not forced coercively onto the person. Rather, grace works persuasively. The hard determinist’s position confuses the nature of faith. The ability of a person to receive God’s gracious gift of salvation is not the same as working for it. To think so is to give credit for the gift to the receiver, rather than to the Giver.
A self-caused act is logically impossible. It is objected that self-determinism means to cause oneself, which is impossible. Someone cannot be prior to oneself, which is what a self-caused act entails. This objection misunderstands determinism, which does not mean that one causes himself to exist, but rather causes something else to happen. A self-determined act is one determined by oneself, not another.
Self-determinism is contrary to causality. If all acts need a cause, then so do acts of the will, which are not caused by the self but by something else. If everything needs a cause, so do the persons performing the actions.
There is no violation of the actual principle of causality in the exercise of free actions. The principle does not claim that every thing (being) needs a cause. Finite things need a cause. God is uncaused. The person performing free actions is caused by God. The power of freedom is caused by God, but the exercise of freedom is caused by the person. The self is the first-cause of personal actions. The principle of causality is not violated because every finite thing and every action has a cause.
Self-determinism is contrary to predestination. Others object that self-determinism is contrary to God’s predestination. But self-determinists respond that God can predetermine in several ways. He can determine (1) contrary to free choice (forcing the person to do what he or she does not choose to do); (2) based on free choices already made (waiting to see what the person will do); and (3) knowing omnisciently what the person will do "in accordance with his foreknowledge" (1 Peter 1:2). "Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Rom. 8:29). Either positions 2 or 3 are consistent with self-determinism. Both insist that God can determine the future by free choice, since he omnisciently knows for sure how they will freely act. So, it is determined from the standpoint of God’s infallible knowledge but free from the vantage point of human choice.
Connected with the argument from strong determinism is that, while Adam had free choice (Rom. 5:12), fallen human beings are in bondage to sin and not free to respond to God. But this view is contrary to both God’s consistent call on people to repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38) and believe (e.g., John 3:16; 3:36; Acts 16:31), as well as to direct statements that even unbelievers have the ability to respond to God’s grace (Matt. 23:37; John 7:17; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 9:17; Philem. 14; 1 Peter 5:2).
This argument continues that if humans have the ability to respond, then salvation is not of grace (Eph. 2:8-9) but by human effort. However, this is a confusion about the nature of faith. The ability of a person to receive God’s gracious gift of salvation is not the same as working for it. To think so is to give credit for the gift to the receiver rather than to the Giver who graciously gave it.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1100W3.htm
See also Monergism vs Synergism
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
Classic example of calvinist scripture twisting
Here folks is a classic example of how Calvinist read things into the Bible, and deduce things that just are not there.
First of all, Romans 8:8 does not say that God can not be pleased by a person who does a righteously moral act. Romans 8 (ch 6-8 in fact) is about a person who LIVES in the flesh, contrary to God.
A good deed is still a good deed whether the person performing the good deed is saved or not. A good deed merely falls short of God's standard of perfection in being positionally righteous before God in justification, which is why Christ is necessary. Cornelius was called a just man, though he was not saved yet.
Yet notice the equivocation here in this statement:
"Yet Cornelius did please God, thus he could have no longer been unregenerate and in the flesh" and in the very next paragraph, " I don't agree that any person anywhere who does good works is necessarily 'regenerate' as some here do"
This is an argument from PROGRESSIVE REGENERATION that is dragged out from the time that Cornelius sought God (more on that part in a second) to the time that Peter expounded the gospel to him MORE THAN 24 HOURS LATER(Acts 10:9).
Surely if Cornelius was regenerated during this time, he would not have fell down and worshipped Peter (Acts 10:25).
Now another conundrum for Calvinists here is that in Calvinism, a person dead in sin can not seek God without regeneration first. Yet Cornelius CLEARLY sought God BEFORE HE WAS SAVED. The Calvinist attempt to explain progressive regeneration fails because their process of regeneration requires the Holy Spirit FIRST, and yet the Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit did not come upon Cornelius until Peter preached to them LONG AFTER CORNELIUS SOUGHT GOD.
This evolutionary form of logic where generation can be indefinitely suspended in time until completed (progressive regeneration) is asinine and totally unsupported in Scripture.
Here folks is a classic example of how Calvinist read things into the Bible, and deduce things that just are not there.
First of all, Romans 8:8 does not say that God can not be pleased by a person who does a righteously moral act. Romans 8 (ch 6-8 in fact) is about a person who LIVES in the flesh, contrary to God.
A good deed is still a good deed whether the person performing the good deed is saved or not. A good deed merely falls short of God's standard of perfection in being positionally righteous before God in justification, which is why Christ is necessary. Cornelius was called a just man, though he was not saved yet.
Yet notice the equivocation here in this statement:
"Yet Cornelius did please God, thus he could have no longer been unregenerate and in the flesh" and in the very next paragraph, " I don't agree that any person anywhere who does good works is necessarily 'regenerate' as some here do"
This is an argument from PROGRESSIVE REGENERATION that is dragged out from the time that Cornelius sought God (more on that part in a second) to the time that Peter expounded the gospel to him MORE THAN 24 HOURS LATER(Acts 10:9).
Surely if Cornelius was regenerated during this time, he would not have fell down and worshipped Peter (Acts 10:25).
Now another conundrum for Calvinists here is that in Calvinism, a person dead in sin can not seek God without regeneration first. Yet Cornelius CLEARLY sought God BEFORE HE WAS SAVED. The Calvinist attempt to explain progressive regeneration fails because their process of regeneration requires the Holy Spirit FIRST, and yet the Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit did not come upon Cornelius until Peter preached to them LONG AFTER CORNELIUS SOUGHT GOD.
This evolutionary form of logic where generation can be indefinitely suspended in time until completed (progressive regeneration) is asinine and totally unsupported in Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stating the truth is not arrogance.
This whole discussion is based on a false premise—that a good tree can bring forth corrupt fruit. That is the noncalvinist's definition of freedom.
It is impossible for God to lie. That is freedom.