Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?

[Yeshua1]

:thumbsup: I agree with WebDog. This is an excellent post and thus far his prediction of it being ignored is unfortunately accurate.

My quesytion back though would be just how much free will do non cals seeing God granting us, and how much did the fall of adam affect that?

 

[Skandelon]

My quesytion back though would be just how much free will do non cals seeing God granting us, and how much did the fall of adam affect that?

My answer back though be would just as much will thats free so cals seeings God us grants, and the fall of that which affects it than.

 

[Yeshua1]

My answer back though be would just as much will thats free so cals seeings God us grants, and the fall of that which affects it than.

God originally granted Adam free will as the arms would define it as being, but his choice to sin meant that God permited to have our wills restricted/bound up as sinners now!

 

[Skandelon]

God originally granted Adam free will as the arms would define it as being, but his choice to sin meant that God permited to have our wills restricted/bound up as sinners now!

Restricted than is bound now as cals would define granted by his freedom if permited to have being originally. Right?

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup: I agree with WebDog. This is an excellent post and thus far his prediction of it being ignored is unfortunately accurate.

there is no scripture base to it....useless speculation

 

[Skandelon]

there is no scripture base to it....useless speculation

One bad turn deserves another...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

there is no scripture base to it....useless speculation

1.) There is no Scriptural base to the proposition that 2+2=4
2.) There is no Scriptural base to the proposition that:

our choices are always based on our desires.

that is an assumption and a bald assertion. You accept that readily because your determinist masters have asserted it...But you will find no Scripture which teaches that "choices" are solely caused by wants or desires. It is an unproved and unprovable assumption....It is a perfectly intuitively reasonable one....but why do you accept that premise? Not because the Scriptures teach it.
3.) There is no Scriptural base to the idea that anything which is to be thought, understood or believed must be found in Scripture.
4.) Why do you believe the Scriptures anyway Icon? Is it because the Scriptures tell you to believe that they are true? The koran does as well. So now you are in a pickle because, I assume...according to your logic....you should believe BOTH no?
5.) You believe many things which are not based in Scripture....The Scriptures have never taught you that you should drive upon the right side of the road either....you merely infer that you should...since the Scriptures do indeed tell you to obey laws etc.
6.) It is not "speculation" either...it is an argument...the idea that

our choices are always based on our desires.

IS in fact a speculation...a perfectly plausible one...though I disagree with it, but it is speculation...it has to be assumed.
7.) You would do better to merely fail to respond or say...."I don't know how to argue it so I ain't touching it" and then allow someone else...if they wish... to tackle it. I assure you, there are those...and on this board... who have heard arguments like the one I proposed before... and have responses for them. But your post merely dismisses it because you have no idea how to respond to it.
8.) I do not understand Trigonometry or Calculus myself, so I leave it to those who do to debate....but I do not call them "useless speculation".

 

[percho]

About this Compatibilistic view:

Let us first realize that a compatibilitic explanation for things would not even exist if the committment to determinism were not already in place. It is not as though a compatibilist model is somehow inherently obvious. Compatibilism only exists as a means to attempt to reconcile the incompatible notion that determinism can be true on the one hand....and human responsibility can be maintained on the other. If Compatibilism fails to reconcile these irreconcilable proposals then one or both of them will be abandoned. Ask a compatibilist this:

Can we choose what are our greatest desires? If not...then they are the result of antecendent or prior conditions (i.e. an inherited sin nature...an utterly depraved nature). The "choice" then, was pre-determined by exterior causes not generated by the agent in question: namely, we as human beings. They were in fact completely sufficient and prior conditions (both logically and temporally) chosen not by US as humans but rather a combination of God's decree...the sin of Adam....laws of nature..et.al. These conditions are sufficient to guarantee the outcome of any "choice" made.
Therefore, that "choice" was compelled....and ultimately...it was compelled by the decree of a Totally Sovereign God. Hence, God is morally responsible for all decisions good or evil. Thus, God is the author of evil.

Compatibilism is consistent with determinism
It is not consistent with moral responsibility.

I bogart this statement from:

http://www.sorites.org/Issue_15/ferraiol.htm

"Even if we assume the compatibilist account of free agency, we must conclude that free will is an illusion in a deterministic world. If determinism is true, human behaviors, including acts of will, are compelled by antecedent conditions and laws of nature, and none of them could have been avoided -- unless the world had turned out differently. But the world is, of course, as it is and not as it might have been. Similarly, the agent's causal history and environment are fixed antecedents and concomitants of each of the agent's internal states. These conditions compel the agent's choices. Compelled choices compel behaviors. If determinism is true, we are not free and we cannot be legitimately held morally responsible for our actions."

What our compatibilist brethren have done is push the problem of human culpability back one step...but it still ultimately fails.

Let me ask. Why did God do this?

Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

What was the purpose of God in Genesis 1:27?

Genesis 2:7,8 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Instructions to the man, for he was then alone, and then) 18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Help meet is a very interesting word.)
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (It appears Satan, the devil, the serpent was already in the garden.) (Why?)

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Why did God make man is his image male and female and then this? Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Are the following verses relative to the preceding verse?) Matt.1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

Was God determined about his purpose? Just what was his purpose?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Let me ask. Why did God do this?

I think these are interesting questions...and I would enjoy engaging them...I will prolly tackle this later...'cause wife wants the validation that I love her :love2: as much as BB...:laugh:

 

[percho]

God originally granted Adam free will as the arms would define it as being, but his choice to sin meant that God permited to have our wills restricted/bound up as sinners now!

As in: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, (Being transgressors of the law, therefore under the law.)

Now do we put ourselves under grace by having faith, or was it by the faith, of one, that brought grace and by which we receive the promise of the Spirit, putting (baptizing) us into Christ who God the Father raised from the dead, therefore we are now under grace?

 

[percho]

I think these are interesting questions...and I would enjoy engaging them...I will prolly tackle this later...'cause wife wants the validation that I love her :love2: as much as BB...:laugh:

I know what you mean. I am retired but the other half is still a WW. Working Wife.

 

[jbh28]

6.) It is not "speculation" either...it is an argument...the idea that IS in fact a speculation...a perfectly plausible one...though I disagree with it, but it is speculation...it has to be assumed.

Why would you disagree that our choices are based on our desires? Think about every single choice you have ever made? It was based on your desires. No one has been able to give one example of where you made a choice and it wasn't based on desires.

 

[Tom Butler]

I have no problem with preaching on hell, I think it should be done often. The day I was saved the pastor preached on hell and it scared me to death. I did not want to go another second with my soul in peril. At the invitation I went down and was shown from the scriptures that I was a sinner, that the wages of sin is death, that Jesus is the Son of God who died for my sins on the cross and rose again, and that if I call on him and trust him to save me he would. I prayed and asked Jesus to forgive all my sins and save me. I was 100% sincere when I prayed this, that is what matters.

Yes, agreed.

But this preaching that folks can sincerely call on Jesus to save them and yet be lost is unscriptural and harmful.

Yes, agreed again.

You leave folks wondering what this mysteriious faith they are supposed to have is. In Calvinism, a person is taught they do not have the ability to believe, and any faith they might have is self generated and false. I can only imagine how utterly helpless a person would feel hearing a message like this. All a man can do is cry out for mercy like the publican in Luke 18:13.

As you know, I am a Calvinist. I believe that the ability to believe is a gift from God. I have never heard, nor do I believe, that faith is self-generated.

Folks want to complicate the gospel. It is simple, and any man who cries out to Jesus to save him the way this poor publican did will be saved.

Yes, we do. For instance, I have never heard anyone who instructed a sinner to cry out for mercy to stop there. The lost man is often told to "say this prayer," or "repeat this after me." Such a prayer is treated as some "magic words."

When one's sole testimony of salvation is "I prayed the prayer," it makes me really nervous.

I also get nervous when I hear someone describe their salvation experience as "I walked the aisle."

Even preachers get caught up in it. I'm sure you've heard a preacher stand down front and exhort people to "come to Christ." Meaning, down here where I am.

I sometimes think we are in a Baptist culture which does not trust the Holy Spirit to do his enlightening and convicting work, and so we have to help Him do his job. I fantasize about the preacher's exhorting, "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (or confess him as Lord)" and then he just shuts up and waits for the Spirit to do his work.

This is the worst kind of preaching. The scriptures do teach us to make our salvation sure, this is done by giving a clear presentation of the gospel that any man can understand. A man doesn't need to know the depths of theology to be saved.

Again, agreed. But we need to blow a certain trumpet, and not throw other stuff in there. The gospel is not praying a prayer, walking an aisle, signing a card and straightening out your life. We need to be clear about what the gospel is, and also clear about what it is not.

 

[convicted1]

Yes, agreed.

Yes, agreed again.

As you know, I am a Calvinist. I believe that the ability to believe is a gift from God. I have never heard, nor do I believe, that faith is self-generated.


Yes, we do. For instance, I have never heard anyone who instructed a sinner to cry out for mercy to stop there. The lost man is often told to "say this prayer," or "repeat this after me." Such a prayer is treated as some "magic words."

When one's sole testimony of salvation is "I prayed the prayer," it makes me really nervous.

I also get nervous when I hear someone describe their salvation experience as "I walked the aisle."

Even preachers get caught up in it. I'm sure you've heard a preacher stand down front and exhort people to "come to Christ." Meaning, down here where I am.

I sometimes think we are in a Baptist culture which does not trust the Holy Spirit to do his enlightening and convicting work, and so we have to help Him do his job. I fantasize about the preacher's exhorting, "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (or confess him as Lord)" and then he just shuts up and waits for the Spirit to do his work.

Again, agreed. But we need to blow a certain trumpet, and not throw other stuff in there. The gospel is not praying a prayer, walking an aisle, signing a card and straightening out your life. We need to be clear about what the gospel is, and also clear about what it is not.

Very good post, especially about the "come to Christ" bunk. We don't come to Him, He comes to us.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Why would you disagree that our choices are based on our desires? Think about every single choice you have ever made? It was based on your desires. No one has been able to give one example of where you made a choice and it wasn't based on desires.

I would say that merely acting upon our greatest desires (however they may be warring against each other) is an insufficient explanation for all choices made. Certainly, desire is probably the single most powerful "factor" I do not deny that....but it simply is insufficient, and so their must be more. I will pose only 1 reason here so as not to go too long:

Consider this thought experiment:

Suppose Greg was in the New York City subway system and there was a baby on the tracks with an oncoming train. Further, equidistant from Greg in the opposite direction, was another baby on tracks, with another separate oncoming train. The trains are traveling at identical speeds identical distances away from the respective babies. Greg is the only one who has seen either case, and is the only one who can help either baby, but he cannot help both in time. There are no others around to help, and Greg has mere seconds to act. Greg’s greatest desire is to save both babies. More properly, Greg experiences an equal level of desire to save both babies. In this thought experiment, no prejudices cloud Greg’s mind, and he has no fear for his own safety. Provided Greg was at a vantage point to see and realize at exactly the same time the plight of each baby, which one will he choose to save?

Given Greg's predispostion to act upon his greatest desire: He is paralized, he has no desire to distinguish between one or the other...and his desire is to save both. The result would be...he saves neither.

Greg chooses to save neither baby because there are no remaining factors to determine Greg's choice:

1.) People act upon or "choose" their greatest desire
2.) Greg's greatest desire was to save both babies
3.) There were no factors to distinguish between 1 baby or another.
4.) Given no other factors...Greg "chooses" to save neither baby, or (more accurately) simply not to act

from 1,3 and 4
5.) Greg's greatest desire was to save neither baby

from 5 and 2

6.) Greg's greatest desire was to save neither baby, and Greg's greatest desire was to save both babies

This is absurd

I accept the notion that desires are probably the single greatest factors involved in decision-making...but that seems to be insufficient....there would (I contend) be MORE factors...namely... un-caused human volition.

 

[Winman]

Yes, agreed.

Yes, agreed again.

As you know, I am a Calvinist. I believe that the ability to believe is a gift from God. I have never heard, nor do I believe, that faith is self-generated.

I also believe that the ability to believe is a gift from God, except I believe every person has this ability. We use faith every day in hundreds of ways. Every time you use an elevator you are exercising faith, you are trusting the elevator to take you to the 6th floor without falling and killing you.

I do not understand why folks believe all men have the ability to trust an elevator, but do not have the ability to trust the gospel when they hear it. It doesn't make sense.

Yes, we do. For instance, I have never heard anyone who instructed a sinner to cry out for mercy to stop there. The lost man is often told to "say this prayer," or "repeat this after me." Such a prayer is treated as some "magic words."

I completely disagree. When I prayed to Jesus I did not believe I was reciting magic words, I believed (I know) I was praying directly to Jesus.

When we get married we are often told to "repeat after me" and give our vows. Now, you either mean what you are saying or you don't. The sincere person realizes they are not just saying words but making actual promises to their spouse. It is the same with a sinner.

When one's sole testimony of salvation is "I prayed the prayer," it makes me really nervous.

And yet you can find literally tens of thousands of faithful Christians who have been serving the Lord for decades who will tell you this is how they were saved.

I also get nervous when I hear someone describe their salvation experience as "I walked the aisle."

I walked the aisle 48 years ago and I still believe in Jesus.

Even preachers get caught up in it. I'm sure you've heard a preacher stand down front and exhort people to "come to Christ." Meaning, down here where I am.

Many preachers will tell you they walked the aisle and prayed a prayer to trust Jesus.

I sometimes think we are in a Baptist culture which does not trust the Holy Spirit to do his enlightening and convicting work, and so we have to help Him do his job. I fantasize about the preacher's exhorting, "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (or confess him as Lord)" and then he just shuts up and waits for the Spirit to do his work.

OK, and where does that leave the believer? The sinners prayer is really a help and assurance to the believer. Paul said whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, but he then asked, and how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? The prayer doesn't save you, the prayer is the evidence of the faith you already had. If you truly do not believe in Jesus, you are not going to pray to him.

You know, sometimes we doubt. We shouldn't, but we do. Well, when I doubt, I can recall that I called on Jesus to save me. I KNOW I did this, and I KNOW I meant it. I also KNOW that the scriptures say whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Thus, from God's word I KNOW I am saved. That is why verses like Romans 10:13 are given in the scriptures, to reassure us. It is an evidence of the faith we exercised in Jesus.

But what if folks are told they must experience supernatural regeneration before they are able to believe, where does this leave a person? They are left waiting for some mysterious, magical experience that never happens. And when this "experience" never happens, they may worry they were never saved and never one of God's elect. You have made simple faith that we use every day into some mysterious thing that is not easily understood, and never experienced.

Believing is something you can KNOW you have done. When you rode the elevator down 6 floors, you KNOW you believed the elevator, it is not some mysterious magical thing.

It is folks who confuse people on what faith is and who can have it that makes salvation difficult.

Again, agreed. But we need to blow a certain trumpet, and not throw other stuff in there. The gospel is not praying a prayer, walking an aisle, signing a card and straightening out your life. We need to be clear about what the gospel is, and also clear about what it is not.

And the scriptures say whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. This is as simple as it gets. A person can know from this verse if they call upon Jesus to forgive their sins and save them they will be saved. But then folks come along and tell them it is more complicated than that and cause the person to doubt and fear. No wonder so many folks are filled with doubt.

 

[Iconoclast]

1.) There is no Scriptural base to the proposition that 2+2=4

this is not the math board...it is the baptistboard



2.)

There is no Scriptural base to the proposition that: that is an assumption and a bald assertion. You accept that readily because your determinist masters have asserted it...But you will find no Scripture which teaches that "choices" are solely caused by wants or desires. It is an unproved and unprovable assumption....It is a perfectly intuitively reasonable one....but why do you accept that premise? Not because the Scriptures teach it.

this is not the carnal philosophy board....it is the baptist board

3.) There is no Scriptural base to the idea that anything which is to be thought, understood or believed must be found in Scripture.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God
also psalm 119



4

.) Why do you believe the Scriptures anyway Icon?

Is it because the Scriptures tell you to believe that they are true? The koran does as well. So now you are in a pickle because, I assume...according to your logic....you should believe BOTH no?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

5.) You believe many things which are not based in Scripture....The Scriptures have never taught you that you should drive upon the right side of the road either....you merely infer that you should...since the Scriptures do indeed tell you to obey laws etc

.


2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

6.) It is not "speculation" either...it is an argument...the idea that IS in fact a speculation...a perfectly plausible one...though I disagree with it, but it is speculation...it has to be assumed.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

7.) You would do better to merely fail to respond or say...."I don't know how to argue it so I ain't touching it" and then allow someone else...if they wish... to tackle it. I assure you, there are those...and on this board... who have heard arguments like the one I proposed before... and have responses for them. But your post merely dismisses it because you have no idea how to respond to it.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

8.) I do not understand Trigonometry or Calculus myself, so I leave it to those who do to debate....but I do not call them "useless speculation

"

What happens to often on bb is those who cannot reason scripturally,divert the threads into subjective reasonings that are fruitless attempts to explain away scriptures.....hence USELESS SPECULATIONS

...................

 

[jbh28]

I would say that merely acting upon our greatest desires (however they may be warring against each other) is an insufficient explanation for all choices made. Certainly, desire is probably the single most powerful "factor" I do not deny that....but it simply is insufficient, and so their must be more. I will pose only 1 reason here so as not to go too long:

Consider this thought experiment:

Suppose Greg was in the New York City subway system and there was a baby on the tracks with an oncoming train. Further, equidistant from Greg in the opposite direction, was another baby on tracks, with another separate oncoming train. The trains are traveling at identical speeds identical distances away from the respective babies. Greg is the only one who has seen either case, and is the only one who can help either baby, but he cannot help both in time. There are no others around to help, and Greg has mere seconds to act. Greg’s greatest desire is to save both babies. More properly, Greg experiences an equal level of desire to save both babies. In this thought experiment, no prejudices cloud Greg’s mind, and he has no fear for his own safety. Provided Greg was at a vantage point to see and realize at exactly the same time the plight of each baby, which one will he choose to save?

Given Greg's predispostion to act upon his greatest desire: He is paralized, he has no desire to distinguish between one or the other...and his desire is to save both. The result would be...he saves neither.

Greg chooses to save neither baby because there are no remaining factors to determine Greg's choice:

1.) People act upon or "choose" their greatest desire
2.) Greg's greatest desire was to save both babies
3.) There were no factors to distinguish between 1 baby or another.
4.) Given no other factors...Greg "chooses" to save neither baby, or (more accurately) simply not to act

from 1,3 and 4
5.) Greg's greatest desire was to save neither baby

from 5 and 2

6.) Greg's greatest desire was to save neither baby, and Greg's greatest desire was to save both babies

This is absurd

I accept the notion that desires are probably the single greatest factors involved in decision-making...but that seems to be insufficient....there would (I contend) be MORE factors...namely... un-caused human volition.

It's your greatest desire with the options available to you. So with Greg here, the option to save both is not available. Also like the example with the gun robbery, I'm sure the guy in the alley greatest desire would be to be retired and sitting at a beach, but that option isn't available to him. What the truth is that in any situation, we always choose that which is our greatest desire with the options available to you at the time.

 

[Amy.G]

Why do you believe the Scriptures anyway Icon?

A common question of non believers is "why do you believe the bible is true?"

I have tried to answer in many ways, some on a factual basis (such as the amazing history of the bible), some based on my own opinion, but in truth the only way a person believes the bible is true is because of the witness of the Holy Spirit within them. God Himself testifies that the bible is truth.

That doesn't satisfy the unbeliever, but there it is. There is no other way.

 

[Skandelon]

Why would you disagree that our choices are based on our desires? Think about every single choice you have ever made? It was based on your desires. No one has been able to give one example of where you made a choice and it wasn't based on desires.

Do you mean 'based on desires' or do you really mean 'determined by desires?' The agent is the determiner, not the desire. A desire is an influence, not a determiner. We are determiners. We make the determinations based on a host of influential factors. An actor determines the act. A chooser determines the choice. A determiner makes a determination. So to suggest some innate desire dictates what a person will do or not do is tantamount to animal instinct and we aren't animals.