Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?

[Winman]

correct

correct again

Again, I've never denied reason. But after reason, you will choose according to your desire. In your first situation, you realized that you only had 2 options. Thus you choose the option you desired more. In the 2nd situation, you had another option because you realized you could escape and thus would take that option because it would be your greatest desire over the other ones.

No, because when you look at the situation, you will limit your options because you would rather live and have your wallet. Since you realize that the option(like in situation 1 above) is not available, you greater desire is now to give the man your wallet.

again, yes you would if you reasoned that was your best option. If you realized that you only had two options, then you want to give that man your wallet more than than keeping your wallet because you know that keeping your wallet means you would die. you are looking at this incorrectly. You are isolating "desire" from the situation and you cannot do that. Of course you wouldn't normally desire to give the man the wallet and neither do you want to give it to him now. BUT, your desire to keep your wallet is not greater than your desire to live. So you want to give him your wallet more than you want to keep it and die.

Let's assume for the moment for simplicity that you only have 2 options. you realize that you cannot run away. He has the gun at your head. There is no option to run away. Even the Flash himself would die. Ok, so now, which option do you desire more? You do understand the phrase "lesser of the two evils" correct? Under normal circumstances, you would desire neither. But in this situation, you have a greater desire to give the man your wallet than to die.

would you rather have 2 teeth pulled or 4 teeth pulled. Ok, really we would probably want to keep all our teeth. But since that option is not available, we would probably rather to have to lose just 2 teeth instead of 4.

Let's change the situation. Suppose you are not deciding on keeping your wallet but protecting your family. The guy says hand me your child or I'll kill you. I bet your decision will be a bit different because I'm sure your desire to protect your family greatly outweighs your desire for you wallet. And I bet it does so to such an extent that your decision would be different. You would protect your family even if it meant dying. Such wouldn't' be the case for the wallet as your desire to keep your wallet is no where near the desire to protect your family.

So I would imagine your desire list would be like this.

1. protect family
2. Live
3. Have wallet.

so while you would choose to live over having the wallet, you probably wouldn't choose to live over the lives of your family.

yes we do as I have proven over and over and over again. Remember, its what you most desire to do with the options available to you at that moment. You will use common sense and reasoning that can limit your options. Like knowing that you can run away or not.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? You are isolating "desire" outside of the situation. We cannot do that. I'm using "desire" within the circumstance.

I understand all of your points, it is not difficult, but it is still error. I do not desire to give the man my wallet, neither do I desire to die, but I would do so if I reasoned it was the best path to take.

And yes, I am isolating desire from reason, that is my whole point, we make decisions based on reason. If you want to say I "desired" to give the man my wallet (which I don't), it is because by reason I chose that desire. It is not that the desire caused me to make my decision. As Webdog argued (and is correct), our greatest desire is always to live and keep our wallet. That is what we REALLY want. If so (if your view is correct), we would always choose to attempt to escape, even if our reason said that would be a foolish decision and that we would most likely be killed.

You don't get it, there is a reason it is called "robbery". You do not desire to give the man your wallet. If you did, there would be no crime, it would be a gift. Try making your argument in a courtroom, they will laugh you out of the place.

 

[convicted1]

I am exercing my greatest desire in not getting involved in this discussion. Carry on.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If you don't know, you cannot rule out desire as you are not qualified to make such a statement .

Fine: I submit "eeny meeny miny-mo"

Now, his desire is to save a baby. he will save the baby he believes will be the easiest to save.

No, neither baby is easier to save, and although that seems reasonable....we do not know that for sure.

Why? because his greatest desire that's now available to him is to save at least one baby and thus will make decisions based on that.

Yes...he will save at least one....inasmuch as circumstances prevent him from saving both....and presumably his greatest desire is now to save at least one...but the decision he has to make now is "which" one.

He will choose one and he will choose the one he wants.

"Want" has nothing to do with which one he chooses...you submit one factor below yourself:

He may be right handed and thus go to his right.

The status of his being right or left handed is not desire-related

There are many factors(and maybe even subconscious factors)

Precisely my point....desire is not the exclusive factor involved in decision-making

that he will make a choice and he will choose which one he wants more.

He wants neither particular baby more....and yet ONE of them will be chosen...His right-or left handedness would (I agree) be a possible factor...

your situation would be more of an exception(which I don't believe it is anyway).

An exception is all I need to posit that desire is not the only factor involved in decision-making...and in this particular situation...it is one where it appears it plays no roll at all. And it is a logically possible one.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not discussing that point yet. It is a deviation from what I'm discussing. I will only respond currently to what I'm discussing. When we get this point down, we then can discuss what/who determines what is the greatest desire.

I cannot even imagine how this question is not relevant to this point.

You believe we choose based on our greatest desires, and we believe that we determine our greatest desires by choosing from among them. That point is established. Move on.

The next question for our camp is, "Why did a free moral agent choose to act in accordance with one desire instead of another?" (a question I've answered at least 2 dozen times on this forum).

The next question for your camp is, "Who, if not the chooser, determined what desire would be the greatest?" (a question I've yet to hear any Calvinist attempt to answer)

But you are wrong. You choose to post this because you wanted to. Correct?

No, I posted this because I chose to. I wanted to do many things. I chose to do this thing. Again, desires don't make determinations, people do.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am exercing my greatest desire in not getting involved in this discussion. Carry on.

You can play to Willis....like this:
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.:laugh::laugh::laugh:


Then you say......is it really a mulberry bush,,,I do not think it really is? then the other person says I think it is, but was it really a cold and frosty morning, or just cold and damp....??? Did you want to go around the mulberry bush? or just hang around the mulberry bush???? What if someone thought it was a mulberry bush....but it really was not?
Then there is always someone who jumps in and says......if it was a mulberry bush...then it follows the T in tulip cannot be correct....fiddlesticks....lol

 

[Van]

If the "T" of the Tulip were true, then a person could not want to be saved and then not be saved. In order to want to be saved, they would have to be under the influence of irresistible grace. However the Bible is full of examples of men wanting to be saved and seeking the righteousness of God through works and through faith. Three of the four soils received the gospel. Recall the question, what must we do to work the works of God? Today we could look at church attendance, with nearly everyone attending desiring salvation, but the tares among us have not been saved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the T of the Tulip is false doctrine, defended not with scripture but with the clever stories of men.

 

[Herald]

If the "T" of the Tulip were true, then a person could not want to be saved and then not be saved. In order to want to be saved, they would have to be under the influence of irresistible grace. However the Bible is full of examples of men wanting to be saved and seeking the righteousness of God through works and through faith. Three of the four soils received the gospel. Recall the question, what must we do to work the works of God? Today we could look at church attendance, with nearly everyone attending desiring salvation, but the tares among us have not been saved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the T of the Tulip is false doctrine, defended not with scripture but with the clever stories of men.

First, I don't think you understand what total depravity is.

Second, you make a dogmatic statement, such as, "Today we could look at church attendance, with nearly everyone attending desiring salvation, but the tares among us have not been saved" without any empirical data to back it up. Are we supposed to accept your statement as fact? I can use the same tactic against those who deny total depravity but it would be disingenuous.

 

[jbh28]

I understand all of your points, it is not difficult, but it is still error. I do not desire to give the man my wallet, neither do I desire to die, but I would do so if I reasoned it was the best path to take.

Of course not, but when the gun is to your head, your desire(how very small it is and so much so that would say you have none) is to give him your wallet because that's the only way you know to live. If you valued your wallet more than your life, then you would have kept the wallet. So your desire to keep your wallet is less than your desire to live. No one is saying that you wanted to give the guy your wallet except that when the gun was pointed at your head, you wanted to do that more than to keep it because you wanted to live.

The rest of your post is just repeat of your obvious misunderstanding of the point. Sorry if I got to deep for you.

 

[jbh28]

No, neither baby is easier to save, and although that seems reasonable....we do not know that for sure.

there would be something different to one of the babies unless they were both occupying the exact space.

Yes...he will save at least one....inasmuch as circumstances prevent him from saving both....and presumably his greatest desire is now to save at least one...but the decision he has to make now is "which" one.

Which will be a choice that gives him the best chance to save one. He will do which choice he wants because his desire is to save at least one. Just like the story of the robbery, you would give you wallet because you know that would let you live. Here, he would choose one baby because he would have a better chance to save(assuming that the babies are exactly the same).

"Want" has nothing to do with which one he chooses...you submit one factor below yourself:

He wants to save a baby. That's his choice.

The status of his being right or left handed is not desire-related

sure it is. If he wants to save the baby and his greatest desire is to save at least one(since he has ruled out that saving both is not possible) so he wants to choose the option that gives him the best opportunity.

Precisely my point....desire is not the exclusive factor involved in decision-making

never said it was. I said that its more of the final factor. You choose what you want with the options available to you at the time of the decision. Obviously, the options available will be limited by other factors including reasoning. (like running away from a guy with a gun would be stupid so we wouldn't do it.)

He wants neither particular baby more....and yet ONE of them will be chosen...His right-or left handedness would (I agree) be a possible factor...

Right, and let's say he knows that going to his right gives him the best chance, so therefore he wants to go to the right because it gives him the best chance to save the baby.

An exception is all I need to posit that desire is not the only factor involved in decision-making...and in this particular situation...it is one where it appears it plays no roll at all. And it is a logically possible one.

never said it was the "only factor"

how many times must I say this before you guys finally get it. I do say heir, that you are much closer to my point than the other guys that just refuse to get it. At least you gave a pretty decent situation. But, I never said that other factors don't play in the picture, only that end the end, we will choose what we want. In your situation, what he wants is to save a baby and thus his choices will be based on that.

 

[jbh28]

I cannot even imagine how this question is not relevant to this point.

You believe we choose based on our greatest desires, and we believe that we determine our greatest desires by choosing from among them.

I never said it wasn't relevant. I said I'm not discussing it currently. It is relevant, but a separate discussion. I'm simply showing that we choose what we desire. We can discuss what determines those desires after we get this point down.

No, I posted this because I chose to.

and you chose to because you wanted to.

I wanted to do many things.

but at this moment, you wanted to post on this forum. If you wanted to do something else, you would have. You always choose that which you desire the most. We can after you guys finally understand this point talk about what determines our desires.


Heir is the only one that has even come close btw. winman keeps not understanding and skan wants to talk about what determines our desires instead of what we are discussing(which is that our choices are based on our desires).

 

[jbh28]

I am exercing my greatest desire in not getting involved in this discussion. Carry on.

exactly. Your desire to not discuss this is greater than discussing it.

 

[Skandelon]

Heir is the only one that has even come close btw. winman keeps not understanding and skan wants to talk about what determines our desires instead of what we are discussing(which is that our choices are based on our desires).

Ok, I concede. You believe that our choices are determined by our desires and we don't. Now, can you tell us what you believe determines our desires?



I can assure you that Heir and Winman would agree that my question gets to the heart of the problem with Compatibilistic reasoning regarding man's so called freedom (acting in accordance with one's desires.) If our desires determine our choices and our desires are determined by God then clearly he is the one determining our choices, which in turn means that God determined for Dahmer to desire to molest, kill and eat children thus determining his choices and actions to do so, which is of course grossly unbiblical.

 

[jbh28]

Ok, I concede. You believe that our choices are determined by our desires and we don't. Now, can you tell us what you believe determines our desires?

no point if you don't understand the basic point that our decisions are based on our desires. When we get this point down, then yes we can discuss that. Until then, I won't. btw, all you have to do is give an example of a decision that wasn't chosen because you wanted to choose it. But of course you can't do that. All you guys do is disagree but can't backup your postings.

 

[Winman]

no point if you don't understand the basic point that our decisions are based on our desires. When we get this point down, then yes we can discuss that. Until then, I won't. btw, all you have to do is give an example of a decision that wasn't chosen because you wanted to choose it. But of course you can't do that. All you guys do is disagree but can't backup your postings.

Give me a break, I have given you a perfect example of a person making a choice they didn't want to make. Nobody DESIRES to be robbed. Nobody DESIRES to give a robber their wallet.

A person never desires to give a robber their wallet. You do it to save your life, but you have not the least desire. A woman may surrender to an attacker to save her life, but she does not desire to be raped.

If your view was correct, there would be no such thing as robbery or rape. You are being silly to insist a person has a desire to do such things.

 

[jbh28]

Give me a break, I have given you a perfect example of a person making a choice they didn't want to make. Nobody DESIRES to be robbed. Nobody DESIRES to give a robber their wallet.

A person never desires to give a robber their wallet. You do it to save your life, but you have not the least desire. A woman may surrender to an attacker to save her life, but she does not desire to be raped.

If your view was correct, there would be no such thing as robbery or rape. You are being silly to insist a person has a desire to do such things.

EDIT: You are using desire like one would use an Amazon wish list. You put things on an Amazon wish list that you want(desire). What I'm speaking of is putting every item that Amazon sells on that list and then ranking them from the most wanted to the least. The last two items on the list you would say that you do not want. However, if you had to choose between those two items, there would be one ranked above the other. and in that sense, you would "desire" it more.


you need to re-read what I have written. You are vastly misunderstanding what I'm writing. I've dealt with this already. Go back and re-read my post from last night. The one where you ignored part of it.

You either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Here it is again.

Again, I've never denied reason. But after reason, you will choose according to your desire. In your first situation, you realized that you only had 2 options. Thus you choose the option you desired more. In the 2nd situation, you had another option because you realized you could escape and thus would take that option because it would be your greatest desire over the other ones.

No, because when you look at the situation, you will limit your options because you would rather live and have your wallet. Since you realize that the option(like in situation 1 above) is not available, you greater desire is now to give the man your wallet.

again, yes you would if you reasoned that was your best option. If you realized that you only had two options, then you want to give that man your wallet more than than keeping your wallet because you know that keeping your wallet means you would die. you are looking at this incorrectly. You are isolating "desire" from the situation and you cannot do that. Of course you wouldn't normally desire to give the man the wallet and neither do you want to give it to him now. BUT, your desire to keep your wallet is not greater than your desire to live. So you want to give him your wallet more than you want to keep it and die.

Let's assume for the moment for simplicity that you only have 2 options. you realize that you cannot run away. He has the gun at your head. There is no option to run away. Even the Flash himself would die. Ok, so now, which option do you desire more? You do understand the phrase "lesser of the two evils" correct? Under normal circumstances, you would desire neither. But in this situation, you have a greater desire to give the man your wallet than to die.

would you rather have 2 teeth pulled or 4 teeth pulled. Ok, really we would probably want to keep all our teeth. But since that option is not available, we would probably rather to have to lose just 2 teeth instead of 4.

Let's change the situation. Suppose you are not deciding on keeping your wallet but protecting your family. The guy says hand me your child or I'll kill you. I bet your decision will be a bit different because I'm sure your desire to protect your family greatly outweighs your desire for you wallet. And I bet it does so to such an extent that your decision would be different. You would protect your family even if it meant dying. Such wouldn't' be the case for the wallet as your desire to keep your wallet is no where near the desire to protect your family.

So I would imagine your desire list would be like this.

1. protect family
2. Live
3. Have wallet.

so while you would choose to live over having the wallet, you probably wouldn't choose to live over the lives of your family.

yes we do as I have proven over and over and over again. Remember, its what you most desire to do with the options available to you at that moment. You will use common sense and reasoning that can limit your options. Like knowing that you can run away or not.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? You are isolating "desire" outside of the situation. We cannot do that. I'm using "desire" within the circumstance.

 

[Skandelon]

no point if you don't understand the basic point that our decisions are based on our desires.

Translation: If you don't agree with my premise that desires determine decisions then I won't continue having a discussion with you about who determines our desires.

Wow.... Ok, I've been doing this for a number of years now and have never ran across this approach.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume all our decisions are determined by our greatest desires. I am conceding this point. Now, will you tell us what or who determined our greatest desires?

btw, all you have to do is give an example of a decision that wasn't chosen because you wanted to choose it. But of course you can't do that. All you guys do is disagree but can't backup your postings.

How would you suggest that we demonstrate the inner workings of a human will and all the influential factors involved in the determination process? Is the fact that YOU claim that all decisions are determined by our desires make it so? Because that is the only 'backup' to your postings thus far, why is the demand for us higher than for you?

You claim I choose to respond to your post because it was my greatest desire. You provide nothing more than your claim to back that belief.

I respond by telling you that it was my CHOICE to act upon the desire to either respond or not respond and do something else. I provide my CLAIM and an argument regarding the determination of desires to support my view yet you refuse to answer that argument all the while claiming I'm not providing an argument to back my claim. CONFOUNDING!

 

[Skandelon]

sLets try it this way:

A piece of cake is sitting in front of me right now. Here are my conflicting desires:

1. I like the taste of cake and it looks very good.
2. I'm hungry right now.
3. My 4 year old wants the last piece.
4. I'm trying to lose weight and want to be healthy.
5. There is a fly that has landed on it a couple times and it might have been sitting out a bit too long.
6. I like cake with milk and we are out of milk.

There a probably more desires and certainly more factors but this will suffice. Now, here is the question. Will any one of these desire or influential factors make the determination to eat or not eat the cake, or will I, the chooser, make that determination?

Does my desire for cake determine that I will eat it, or is that just one of the many influential factors affecting my determination?

Again, desires do not make determinations. PEOPLE DO. If anyone one of these desires determines my choice then that desire has become greater than me. That desire has become the agent and the determiner of me. That would be called an instinctive response, not merely a desire.

BTW, I just let my four year old have the cake. Does that prove the desire to please or show love and preference for my child was greater than my desire to eat the cake prior to that choice being made? No, it proves that I chose to act on that desire over the others thus putting it as the greatest desire. I determined which desire was the greatest by choosing to act upon it. I could have done otherwise. Would someone like to suggest that God determined my desires and thus my choice in such a way that I couldn't have chosen otherwise?

 

[jbh28]

Translation: If you don't agree with my premise that desires determine decisions then I won't continue having a discussion with you about who determines our desires.

No, Its just as I said. Please don't post false info. Im discussing one point and that point alone. I've said I'll discuss that. But right now, I'm discussing this. Got it? It shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. I'm sorry I'm not doing as you want, but I'm discussing one point and will not follow you down your usual path. I'll discuss the next thing when this one when I say, not you.

Wow.... Ok, I've been doing this for a number of years now and have never ran across this approach.

discussing one thing at a time? getting a foundation before going on. That's all I'm doing.

You claim I choose to respond to your post because it was my greatest desire. You provide nothing more than your claim to back that belief.

prove it wrong if its wrong or admit your error.
it was your greatest desire within your current situation with available options.

remember, I'm only discussing this one point. "translation" is just a cover to say something false.

 

[jbh28]

sLets try it this way:

A piece of cake is sitting in front of me right now. Here are my conflicting desires:

1. I like the taste of cake and it looks very good.
2. I'm hungry right now.
3. My 4 year old wants the last piece.
4. I'm trying to lose weight and want to be healthy.
5. There is a fly that has landed on it a couple times and it might have been sitting out a bit too long.
6. I like cake with milk and we are out of milk.

There a probably more desires and certainly more factors but this will suffice. Now, here is the question. Will any one of these desire or influential factors make the determination to eat or not eat the cake, or will I, the chooser, make that determination?

you will choose the one you desire most.

BTW, I just let my four year old have the cake. Does that prove the desire to please or show love and preference for my child was greater than my desire to eat the cake prior to that choice being made?

yes it does very much so. you wanted to give your four year old the cake more than you wanted the cake

No, it proves that I chose to act on that desire over the others thus putting it as the greatest desire. I determined which desire was the greatest by choosing to act upon it. I could have done otherwise.

you could have, but it was your greatest desire and thus you choose it because of that. It was your desire and then you choose it. You have it backwards. You don't choose something and then it becomes your desire. It was your desire and thus you choose it.

[snip- not talking about that yet]

 

[Winman]

EDIT: You are using desire like one would use an Amazon wish list. You put things on an Amazon wish list that you want(desire). What I'm speaking of is putting every item that Amazon sells on that list and then ranking them from the most wanted to the least. The last two items on the list you would say that you do not want. However, if you had to choose between those two items, there would be one ranked above the other. and in that sense, you would "desire" it more.


you need to re-read what I have written. You are vastly misunderstanding what I'm writing. I've dealt with this already. Go back and re-read my post from last night. The one where you ignored part of it.

You either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Here it is again.

I understand. You are redefining words. Here is the definition of "desire" from the dictionary.

de·sire/dəˈzī(ə)r/
Noun:
A strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
Verb:
Strongly wish for or want (something).
Synonyms:
noun. wish - longing - craving - request - lust - will - want
verb. wish - want - will - crave - like - yearn - long - covet

I do not have a strong feeling or a wish to be robbed and give the robber my wallet. I do not long for it, crave it, request it, have a lust for it, will for it to happen, want it, yearn for it, etc...

You change the definition of words whenever it suits you. Words can have any meaning in your Calvinist dictionary.

This is like arguing with a teenager who knows they are wrong but will never admit it. Absolutely immature.

What you really mean is a person "chooses" to give his wallet to the robber to hopefully avoid being killed. You don't want to do it, but you choose to do it because in your reasoning it is your best option.

We are discussing an action here, the action of giving my wallet to the robber. Do I want to do it? NO. In this case I am doing something I do not desire to do.