Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?

[Yeshua1]

And when you divorce yourself of the impoverished idea that anyone here is defending the claim that we are then your posts will be relevant to the discussion. No one believes that.

You mean NNE here on the board has posted that man can still freely chose to accept/reject Christ by themselves, act of their own violational will?

 

[Winman]

Percho, I almost always read your posts, but I almost never understand what you are talking about. I do not have this trouble with others.

You need to state a simple point you believe, and then show scripture to support it. We will respond whether we agree or not.

But we cannot figure out what you are thinking. You almost never state what point you are trying to make, so no one can understand you. At least I can't.

I am not trying to be mean or anything like that, but I rarely understand what you are saying. Maybe others do.

 

[jbh28]

You and JBH say that a person does what they most want to do. I say that a person controls their desire. The will overrides desires. What you finally want is what you will.

If man were a total slave of his desire, then man must necessarily be the worst he can be. A man would steal whatever he desired, a man would try to seduce every attractive woman he sees. He would be compelled by his desires.

If that was your greatest desire, then yes that would happen. But since it's not your greatest desire in the circumstance, you don't.

The fact that even unregenerate men do not do this proves that the will controls the desires. A man may see a car that he desires with the keys in the car. He could steal the car. But the man consciously wills not to steal the car. His will is not to be a thief. He knows it is wrong to steal, and so the man suppresses his desire for the car.

And therefore his desire to not steal is greater than any desire to steal.

If I were a total slave to my desires, I would take the day off every day.

No, you would go to work just as you have been doing because you have a greater desire to provide for your family than to take a day off.

 

[Winman]

If that was your greatest desire, then yes that would happen. But since it's not your greatest desire in the circumstance, you don't.

You speak of will and desire as if they are the same. Let's say you are flipping channels on your TV, and you happen to see a very beautiful naked woman. Your desire is to look, and it is natural, that is the way we are built. But your will is not to look, because you know it is sin, so you quickly change channels.

Now, you say your greatest desire is not to look. I say it isn't. You don't feel anything when you decide not to look, but you certainly do feel something when you do. You decide not to look because you reason it is wrong and a sin against God, not because you feel anything. Desire is a feeling.

Most anybody would feel desire if they look at a chocolate cake, or a nice juicy steak smothered with onions and mushrooms. That is desire. You feel it. Now, you are on a strict diet and you want to lose weight, so you will yourself to look away. This is not something you feel, it is not a desire, it is something you will, something you decide, no feelings or sensibilities are involved.

A person's will and a person's desires are not the same.

And therefore his desire to not steal is greater than any desire to steal.
No, you would go to work just as you have been doing because you have a greater desire to provide for your family than to take a day off.

Again, you feel the desire for the car. It arouses you. But your decision not to steal it is not a desire but a choice of the will based on reason.

Desire is a feeling. The will is not. A person who is trying to quit smoking will feel almost an overwhelming desire or feeling to smoke. It is real. But the person has reasoned to quit for health reasons and to save money. No feelings involved here, no desire. It is a choice of the will.

You are confusing will with desire.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You mean NNE here on the board has posted that man can still freely chose to accept/reject Christ by themselves, act of their own violational will?

No, but that is only ONE choice....you keep suggesting that LFW is the ability to choose ANYTHING....most adherents of LFW believe that there are limitations to what choices one can make. It is not the ability to:

chose all things!

Moreover, the non-Cals also believe that that ability (to choose Christ) is not inherent in man...and that a special grace given by God is required to have the option available....it is not inherent in fallen men....God's grace is still required....they just don't believe it is irresistable.

 

[Tom Butler]

From SN's post #110. If you haven't read it, do it now. It'll bless your heart.

Tom, is that story about the three deacons really true? I would like to meet them someday. LOL.

Without getting into a debate about the worthiness of an altar call, when the service was over, I walked up front, knowing that I was lost. The Lord saved me. Before that night, I the question never crossed my mind of not being saved. I had joined a church, and that was quite enough. That all changed that night.

Hmmmm, let's see, you were a deacon at the time, weren't you? I wonder if......

 

[Winman]

Here is our point of agreement: the ability to believe is a gift from God. Whether it's given to everybody, as you believe, or whether it's given only to the elect is not at issue here

The question whether all men are able to believe, or only those who are regenerated is HUGE. If a man can only believe if God regenerates him, then it must be that God did not desire to regenerate the non-elect and desires that person goes to hell. If all men have the ability to believe when they hear the gospel (which enables them), then the man only is responsible if he refuses the free gift. In my view, God desires all men to be saved. The preaching of the gospel enables a man (you cannot believe what you have never heard). If the man rejects the gospel, he alone is responsible for his own damnation.

These are very different views of God. Calvinists MUST believe God wills to damn men, or else he would regenerate them. The non-Cal view is that God desires every man to be saved, but men refuse of their own free will and damn themselves.

The difference between our views is night and day.

I believe than when one calls on the name of the Lord in repentance and faith, he will be saved. The problem is not with him, it's with those who are instructing the lost man regarding the way of salvation. More than once I have asked someone (after going through the scriptures) "Do you want God to save you? Then ask him." Then I shut up. If I have to tell him the words to say, then I have failed to properly instruct him.

And what would you say? Tell me what you would tell the man.

Just curious, when you prayed for salvation, were you told what to say? It doesn't sound like it from your testimony, but I was just wondering.

I was instructed (I was only 10 or 11 years old), but I listened to what was said and agreed with it. I told Jesus I was a sinner, I believed God's word that the wages of sin is death. I believed God's word that Jesus is the Son of God and died for me, and rose from the dead. I also believed God's word that if I would trust Jesus and call on him to save me he would. I sincerely called upon Jesus to save me, and I meant it with all my heart. I in no way thought I was reciting a magic formula, I was talking to Jesus directly from my heart.

Oh, absolutely. And thank God for them. But I can cite instances of those who haven't darkened the door of a church in years, but insist they are saved because they "said the prayer."

So what? If that person sincerely asked Jesus to forgive their sins and save them, they are saved whether they go to church or not. We are not saved by works, we are saved by trusting Jesus to save us.

When Jesus healed the ten lepers, only one returned to thank him. Does this mean the other nine were not healed? No, they were just as healed as the one leper who returned and thanked Jesus.

I also walked an aisle in 1947 and the Lord has kept me to this day. But my testimony is not that I walked the aisle, and it is not my hope of heaven.

I don't think walking down an aisle saved me either, I think I was saved when I prayed to Jesus and asked him to save me after I walked down the aisle.

Exactly. Careful, Winman, this sounds as if you're coming over to the dark side. We're agreeing here.

I will never agree with Calvinism. I believe God loves all men and desires all men to be saved. I believe the gospel message is quick and powerful, it convicts a man of his need to be saved, and instructs him what he must do to be saved. If a man will trust Jesus he will be saved.

I do not believe God handpicks certain persons to be saved and chooses to pass by the rest as Calvinism believes. If a man must be regenerated to believe, then it must be so that God desires only those he regenerates to be saved, and God must desire that the rest be damned. That is not the God I worship.

Incidentally, when the Lord saved me, I never prayed a prayer, nor was I instructed to. I came under deep convictio
n for the first time in my 9-year-old life. My pastor simply asked me a series of questions.

Why are you coming?
Do you understand what it means to be a sinner?
Do you understand the consequences of your sins?
Do you repent of your sins?
Do you wish to trust Jesus and Him alone for your salvation?
Sit down right over there.

It is the same thing. If you "wished" to trust Jesus, that is all that matters. Jesus knows the heart. In your heart you were calling out to him whether you expressed it in prayer or not.

We're on the same page here. Except if you were still wallowing in sin, it might raise a question as to whether you did it just to keep from going to hell.

Well, I certainly haven't quit sinning 100%, have you?

I've never told anyone that, and never heard it from the pulpit, even from Calvinist preachers. The exhortation has always been "repent and trust Christ."

That is the giveaway. No Calvinist preacher would ever tell a sinner that God must regenerate him to believe before he believes. No, Calvinists preach just like Arminians and non-Cals to simply believe.

After the person believes he is told God regenerated him.

If a man was told what Calvinists truly believe, many men would be utterly confused and waiting for this regeneration "experience". How do you know when you have been regenerated? Do you see a flash? Do you feel something? Do you see Jesus like Paul did on the road to Damascus?

How do I know my faith isn't some false faith? How do I know my faith is the real faith that was generated by God in me?

Good luck getting folks saved if you tell them what you really believe. They will go away more confused and in more doubt than when they came in.

 

[jbh28]

Again, you feel the desire for the car. It arouses you. But your decision not to steal it is not a desire but a choice of the will based on reason.

And you also desire to not steal the car. Here you have multiple desires.

1. You want the car
2. You want to obey the law

So which do you desire the most? It's option 2. You rather obey the law and have the car, so therefore you have greater desire to obey the law than steal the car.


We all have multiple desires. You may have a desire for nice cars. Why don't you steal one? Well, because you also desire to do right. You will always choose that which you desire the most in the specific circumstance with the options available to you. No one yet can come up with one decision you ever make that wasn't your greatest desire at the specific time of the options available to you.

You are confusing will with desire.

No, actually I'm not. however, you may want to look up the words. They can be synonymous depending on how they are used. I'm being very clear on how I'm using the word desire.

Will: "desire, wish"

 

[webdog]

You mean NNE here on the board has posted that man can still freely chose to accept/reject Christ by themselves, act of their own violational will?

Nope, never seen it. Perhaps since you keep up with this accusation it is time to actually support it with a quote.

 

[webdog]

which is why I've stated that you always choose your greatest desire with the options available to you. Obviously you will have a greater desire that isn't an option. but within the options available to you, you will always choose your greatest desire.

As with the robbery example. you either give your money or you don't. There is no option to be in another location, though we both would say would be a much greater desire at that moment. But that option isn't available, so you choose the greatest desire within the options available to you.

...but if your greatest desire is to not even be in that situation you would automaticallly turn and run, as it has been determined you would follow the greatest desire, but you don't...because compatibilism is not true. You weigh the many options depending on the circumstance and act / react accordingly.

 

[Winman]

And you also desire to not steal the car. Here you have multiple desires.

1. You want the car
2. You want to obey the law

So which do you desire the most? It's option 2. You rather obey the law and have the car, so therefore you have greater desire to obey the law than steal the car.


We all have multiple desires. You may have a desire for nice cars. Why don't you steal one? Well, because you also desire to do right. You will always choose that which you desire the most in the specific circumstance with the options available to you. No one yet can come up with one decision you ever make that wasn't your greatest desire at the specific time of the options available to you.


No, actually I'm not. however, you may want to look up the words. They can be synonymous depending on how they are used. I'm being very clear on how I'm using the word desire.

Will: "desire, wish"

Oh, I am very familiar with how you use words.

In scripture, desire is called lust. It is not the same word used for will. Lust is not always evil or negative, there can be good lust, as when Jesus said he "desired" to eat the passover.

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Look up "desire" and "desired" in your concordance, you will see they are often translated lust. This is speaking of a sensibility, a craving, a lust. It is something you feel.

Now, it is true that will and desire often mean the same thing, but in most instances the word "will" in scriptures means to purpose, to intend, to resolve, to determine. This is not a feeling.

Like I said before, a person on a diet might be very hungry and see a chocolate cake. They desire it, and it is a strong feeling. This cannot be denied. But they are resolved and determined to stay on their diet, so they will to turn and walk away from it. This is not a feeling whatsoever. This person has suppressed their desire through their will.

You can deny, but everybody when they fail always says, "I did not have enough willpower to walk away from that cake". People instinctively recognize the difference between their wills and their desires, although the desires can overpower the will or vice versa.

 

[jbh28]

Oh, I am very familiar with how you use words.

And that's correctly according to their definition.

Like I said before, a person on a diet might be very hungry and see a chocolate cake. They desire it, and it is a strong feeling. This cannot be denied. But they are resolved and determined to stay on their diet, so they will to turn and walk away from it. This is not a feeling whatsoever. This person has suppressed their desire through their will.

No, they have a desire to stay on their diet. They have more than one desire.

Like I said before, a person on a diet might be very hungry and see a chocolate cake. They desire it, and it is a strong feeling. This cannot be denied. But they are resolved and determined to stay on their diet, so they will to turn and walk away from it. This is not a feeling whatsoever. This person has suppressed their desire through their will.

They have a desire to be on the diet.

You can deny, but everybody when they fail always says, "I did not have enough willpower to walk away from that cake". People instinctively recognize the difference between their wills and their desires, although the desires can overpower the will or vice versa.

But still, they had multiple desires. They gave into their desire for the cake instead of the desire to be on the diet. In this case, the desire for the cake was greater than the desire for the diet.

I'm using the word correctly and you know I'm right as I already quoted you the dictionary on it. words have multiple meanings and you know exactly how I'm using the term. Don't play a red herring and try to talk about other definitions.

 

[quantumfaith]

...but if your greatest desire is to not even be in that situation you would automaticallly turn and run, as it has been determined you would follow the greatest desire, but you don't...because compatibilism is not true. You weigh the many options depending on the circumstance and act / react accordingly.

WD, honest question, does "compatibilism" assume the position of one always choosing their greatest desire? Is that a core principle of compatibilism?

 

[jbh28]

...but if your greatest desire is to not even be in that situation you would automaticallly turn and run, as it has been determined you would follow the greatest desire, but you don't...[snip- not relevant].

If that's one of your options and that was your greatest desire, then you would run away. But if you run with a gun right at your head, your and idiot. or maybe know the gun isn't loaded....

but in any case, you will always choose your greatest desire with the options available to you at the that time.

You weigh the many options depending on the circumstance and act / react accordingly.

Of course and then choose the option that is available to you in the circumstance that you desire the most.

 

[Skandelon]

We always make our choices based on our desires. So when I have a choice in front of me, I'll choose the one I want the most.

And who, if not you, determined what you wanted the most?

 

[jbh28]

And who, if not you, determined what you wanted the most?

Do you agree with me that we always choose our greatest desire with the options available to us at the time of the choice?

 

[webdog]

If that's one of your options and that was your greatest desire, then you would run away. But if you run with a gun right at your head, your and idiot. or maybe know the gun isn't loaded....

I thought we already determined to not be there in that situation is the greatest desire? You do realize you are now arguing against compatibilism?

but in any case, you will always choose your greatest desire with the options available to you at the that time.

based on this you must run away. You cannot reason as you are controlled by your desire.

Of course and then choose the option that is available to you in the circumstance that you desire the most.

this is contradictory. The only option is the greatest desire according to compatibilism.

 

[webdog]

WD, honest question, does "compatibilism" assume the position of one always choosing their greatest desire? Is that a core principle of compatibilism?

Yes.......

 

[Skandelon]

Do you agree with me that we always choose our greatest desire with the options available to us at the time of the choice?

Please answer this question:
WHO determines what desire is the greatest?

I believe we choose from among our desires thus we determine what desire is 'greatest.' You seem to think the desire makes the determination but you seem unwilling to answer the question above. I think we all know why. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jbh28]

I thought we already determined to not be there in that situation is the greatest desire? You do realize you are now arguing against compatibilism?

based on this you must run away. You cannot reason as you are controlled by your desire.

How so? Who says that you cannot reason? I sure didn't. Haven't heard anyone else say it either.

this is contradictory. The only option is the greatest desire according to compatibilism.

I'm not arguing for or against "compatibilsm." Please address what I'm saying. It's not contradictory at all. You have multiple options and you will always choose that which is your greatest desire. If one disagrees, show me an instance where one would choose against their greatest desire withing the options available to him.