Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?

[jbh28]

I understand. You are redefining words.

I'm not redefining. I'm talking about usage.

Here is the definition of "desire" from the dictionary.



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.

Never have done that. But as usual, you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the discussion. I'm speaking about usage. And of course you don't desire to be robbed. Never said you did.

[snip- childlike personal attack]

What you really mean is a person "chooses" to give his wallet to the robber to hopefully avoid being killed.

actually, I've said that the ENTIRE TIME!!!!!!!!!!! And he chooses to give the wallet because his desire for his life is greater than his desire for his wallet!!!!!!!

You don't want to do it, but you choose to do it because in your reasoning it is your best option.

And because of your reasoning, you now want to do it more than not doing it and you have a desire to do it because it will keep you alive. Remember, the actual choices are. keep wallet and live. so which one do you desire the most? You desire to live more than you desire your wallet. So you choose to give up your wallet. you are then choosing that which you desired the most(live) over keeping the wallet which you desired less.

go read my post from last night about the wallet, death and family and you will understand. I'm not redefining the word. I'm using it exactly as your definition above. I'm talking about usage of the term and perspective. while you would never want to give the guy your wallet, you do want to now to keep from dying. your desire is to live.

again, look at my post and leave the childlike comment out. There is no need for ad hominem arguments.

 

[Skandelon]

you will choose the one you desire most.

So, what made me desire that one the most, if not me? Oh, wait, you are boycotting sensible questions like that, never-mind. :BangHead:

yes it does very much so. you wanted to give your four year old the cake more than you wanted the cake you could have, but it was your greatest desire and thus you choose it because of that.

You talk as if my desire have a will of their own and have control over me in such a way that I must act in accordance with their beckon call. Again, you seem to think a desire is tantamount to animal instinct or instinctive reflexes.

When I offered my parakeet a slice of bacon he refused it but he gladly took the bird seed. Why? Because it was his greatest desire. No, I think you mean it was his natural instinct as a herbivore. He didn't make a choice at all. He just did what his INSTINCT told him to do. Is that what you think human's are? Just instinctive creatures reacting to given stimuli? If not, explain the difference in the choices of man and beast in this regard? If the innate desire (instinct) is dictating what a person will do in any given situation, how is that not the same?

 

[Winman]

I'm not redefining. I'm talking about usage.

Never have done that. But as usual, you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the discussion. I'm speaking about usage. And of course you don't desire to be robbed. Never said you did.


actually, I've said that the ENTIRE TIME!!!!!!!!!!! And he chooses to give the wallet because his desire for his life is greater than his desire for his wallet!!!!!!!And because of your reasoning, you now want to do it more than not doing it and you have a desire to do it because it will keep you alive. Remember, the actual choices are. keep wallet and live. so which one do you desire the most? You desire to live more than you desire your wallet. So you choose to give up your wallet. you are then choosing that which you desired the most(live) over keeping the wallet which you desired less.

go read my post from last night about the wallet, death and family and you will understand. I'm not redefining the word. I'm using it exactly as your definition above. I'm talking about usage of the term and perspective. while you would never want to give the guy your wallet, you do want to now to keep from dying. your desire is to live.

again, look at my post and leave the childlike comment out. There is no need for ad hominem arguments.

I understand your view. It is true a person desires to live more than to keep their wallet, nevertheless, they do not desire to hand over their wallet at all.

If your view is correct, a defense attorney for a robber could argue the victim was not a victim at all, but willingly gave his wallet to the robber. It would not be a crime, in fact, it would be a gift from one person to another.

Now, you know as well as I do, that that argument would utterly fail in court.

The court would say the victim had no choice at all. They would say the victim had to give the wallet to the robber. So there goes your argument that a person has choice when they do not have options. Nobody in the whole world believes as you, except other Calvinists.

And the scriptures do not agree with you either. A person was to be punished for robbery.

You say the unregenerate is unable to believe. Therefore he has no options. He has no choice.

If you are born blind, can you choose to see? But if you are born with sight, can you choose to close your eyes and be willingly blind?

You guys are something else, your whole theology is a house of cards.

 

[Skandelon]

Winman,

I don't think he is arguing that your greatest desire is to give away your wallet. He is arguing that you will always act upon your greatest desire and if that greatest desire is to remain alive in the face of a armed robber you will choose to give up your wallet. So, you do something you don't desire to do (give up you wallet) in order to accomplish your greatest desire at that moment, which is to stay alive.

So, either way, according to this view, you are acting in accordance with your greatest desire. The problem now is trying to figure out who, if not the individual making the choice, determines what desire is the greatest.

That is the crux of the matter and it is being ignored for a very good reason.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

I don't think he is arguing that your greatest desire is to give away your wallet. He is arguing that you will always act upon your greatest desire and if that greatest desire is to remain alive in the face of a armed robber you will choose to give up your wallet. So, you do something you don't desire to do (give up you wallet) in order to accomplish your greatest desire at that moment, which is to stay alive.

So, either way, according to this view, you are acting in accordance with your greatest desire. The problem now is trying to figure out who, if not the individual making the choice, determines what desire is the greatest.

That is the crux of the matter and it is being ignored for a very good reason.

Well, of course the robber forced that decision upon you, he took away any options you might have so that you have no choice in the matter.

He knows that, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to admit it.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, of course the robber forced that decision upon you, he took away any options you might have so that you have no choice in the matter.

Not so. I could refuse and be shot. In fact I known of some who have done just that. That is why we are FREE creatures. A given set of circumstances cannot necessarily guarantee a certain response.

 

[Van]

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.

Hi Herald, you win the prize, you are the two hundredth Calvinist to make the mindless claim that those who reject Calvinist do not understand it. Then you charge me with a dogmatic statement.

Next, you claim we need evidence for the observation that nearly everyone attending church desires salvation. Your view seems to be it is equally probably that those attending do so because they want to go to Hell. Lets just hope you were being disingenuous.

Next, you seem to challenge the premise our modern churches have tares within them. I based that assertion on scripture. But you are right, nobody should assume what the Bible says is right without supporting secular evidence. But wait, now I have caught the bug and am being disingenuous.

Folks, Calvinism is defended by questioning the qualifications and character of its opponents, and putting forth unbiblical assertions. The Bible teaches us that fallen men do seek God through works and faith, from Genesis to Revelation. Calvinism requires nullification of the entire Bible, including the existence of tares, as proclaimed by Jesus Himself.

 

[Winman]

Not so. I could refuse and be shot. In fact I known of some who have done just that. That is why we are FREE creatures. A given set of circumstances cannot necessarily guarantee a certain response.

Oh, I agree, but I do not think a court would consider being shot a "viable" choice. In fact, I know they would not.

It is amazing, Calvinism teaches the unregenerate man cannot choose to live, but he can choose to die. At the same time, JBH says the robbery victim will hand over his wallet because his greatest desire is to live.

How messed up is that?

 

[jbh28]

So, what made me desire that one the most, if not me? Oh, wait, you are boycotting sensible questions like that, never-mind. :BangHead:

no false speaker, I'm talking about one thing at a time. Please speak the truth when dealing with me. I'm talking about one thing at a time. You are just mad because I don't want to talk about what you want to talk about.

Again, show me where I'm wrong by giving one example where you didn't choose what you wanted. It can't be done.

 

[jbh28]

Winman,

I don't think he is arguing that your greatest desire is to give away your wallet. He is arguing that you will always act upon your greatest desire and if that greatest desire is to remain alive in the face of a armed robber you will choose to give up your wallet. So, you do something you don't desire to do (give up you wallet) in order to accomplish your greatest desire at that moment, which is to stay alive.

YES!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for finally understanding!

So, either way, according to this view, you are acting in accordance with your greatest desire. The problem now is trying to figure out who, if not the individual making the choice, determines what desire is the greatest.

That is the crux of the matter and it is being ignored for a very good reason.

It's not ignored as you false say. I said(which you are not purposefully misrepresenting by saying "ignored" and "boycott" which is very much untrue.) that I am speaking about ONE aspect and then we can move on. It appears that you may finally be understanding that we choose based on our greatest desire at the moment of the choice with the options available to us. what causes our desires is a different discussion that I'm more than happy to engage in when I'm done discussing this aspect.

 

[jbh28]

Oh, I agree, but I do not think a court would consider being shot a "viable" choice. In fact, I know they would not.

of course not. You are showing your misunderstanding of the subject with statements like this

At the same time, JBH says the robbery victim will hand over his wallet because his greatest desire is to live.

How messed up is that?

Oh, so you would keep your wallet? No, you already said you would give him your wallet so you would live.

A person never desires to give a robber their wallet. You do it to save your life, but you have not the least desire.

less you don't believe me.

don't be so quick to mock me.

Not so. I could refuse and be shot.

yes. you have a choice of 1) keeping your wallet and being shot and 2) giving him your wallet and living

Your desire of course is to live and its a greater desire than having your wallet, so you will choose your life. Because that's what what you want.

If we are on the same page, we can move on to what determines our desires.

 

[jbh28]

You guys are something else, your whole theology is a house of cards.

You are going on ignore for you unchristlike talk. It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to constantily have talk like this. You argue a straw man (which skan pointed out) and then want to insult me.

 

[Winman]

You are going on ignore for you unchristlike talk. It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to constantily have talk like this. You argue a straw man (which skan pointed out) and then want to insult me.

You have always ignored what non-Cals say, what's the difference?

 

[Winman]

of course not. You are showing your misunderstanding of the subject with statements like this

It is impossible to understand the nonsensical.

Oh, so you would keep your wallet? No, you already said you would give him your wallet so you would live.

I don't know what I would do, because I am not in that situation. I do know this, I would not desire to give the robber my wallet. If I saw that the possibility of escape was feasible, I think I would take that chance. How do I know the guy might not shoot me anyway to get rid of a witness?

less you don't believe me.

don't be so quick to mock me.

yes. you have a choice of 1) keeping your wallet and being shot and 2) giving him your wallet and living

And I might make either choice according to the situation. But I would determine that choice by reasoning, not desire.

Your desire of course is to live and its a greater desire than having your wallet, so you will choose your life. Because that's what what you want.

No, my greatest desire is to both live AND keep my wallet. Do you deny that? If so, in your view I must always try to escape, regardless of my reasoning.

It is like the false argument of Total Depravity Calvinists make. They say the unregenerate do not have the ability to choose for God. At the same time they contradict themselves and say a man is not as bad as he might be. That is a contradiction. If you are utterly enslaved to sin, you will ALWAYS choose the most evil thing you could do. The fact we don't refutes Calvinism's view.

If we are on the same page, we can move on to what determines our desires.

You don't want to go there or you would have. Remember your greatest desire?

You want folks to agree with your fiction, but nobody is buying it. That is why I keep telling you to try this argument in a court of law. You know as well as I do that they would laugh you out of the joint.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, show me where I'm wrong by giving one example where you didn't choose what you wanted. It can't be done.

I'm not arguing that I don't chose what I wanted. I'm arguing that my wants don't determine that choice, I do. I chose which of my many desires to act upon, so regardless of which desire I end up appeasing it certainly could be said I chose what I wanted. That doesn't mean the desire made the choice for me though.

 

[jbh28]

I'm not arguing that I don't chose what I wanted. I'm arguing that my wants don't determine that choice, I do. I chose which of my many desires to act upon, so regardless of which desire I end up appeasing it certainly could be said I chose what I wanted. That doesn't mean the desire made the choice for me though.

your choices are based on your desires every single time(with of course understanding reasoning and limits to those choices based on circumstances). What you have been dying to talk about, the question now is what determines our desires. Now, if you determine your desires, then you would be correct above. But we haven't established that yet. (I think there's a begging term for that )

so, I'll let you go first. What/who determines your desires. Can you change those desires at any time.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Van posted...

Hi Herald, you win the prize, you are the two hundredth Calvinist to make the mindless claim that those who reject Calvinist do not understand it. Then you charge me with a dogmatic statement.

Its one of their most reliable diversionary tactics.

 

[Skandelon]

your choices are based on your desires every single time

Well only a mentally ill person would chose something contrary to his desire, so I'm not denying that desires are involved. I just don't believe they are determinative. They aren't instinctive. Can you see the difference in an instinct and a desire? A carnivore instinctively desires meat, thus no choice is needed when offered a steak or a salad. His desire determines the result. We are different. Morally accountable choices are different. The desire doesn't dictate what I will do, I make the choice based on reason and deliberation with competing desires influencing my decision, but not determining it.

so, I'll let you go first. What/who determines your desires. Can you change those desires at any time.

Some of my desires are innate and instinctive. Hunger, thirst, and the like, which can lead to influence me when faced with a moral dilemma (like gluttony or whatever). Some desires are birthed out of sinful behaviors and choices along the way. And typically are perversions of natural desires (i.e. sexual fetishes etc).

Now, I think you are asking what determines which of my many different desires will I act on in a given situation, right? To lie or not tell the truth, etc. My contention is that I make that determination. I have the desire to save face by lying and the desire to be honest (I'll just pick two for simplicity). If I chose to lie then I have chosen to act in accordance with that desire and if I chose to be honest I have chosen to act in accordance with that desire. I'm determining which desire is the greatest by deciding which thing I value the most.

The problem with your view is that you assume a desire is greater prior to being selected, but you give no reason as to why that desire is greater. What determines that desire is greater if not the chooser?

 

[percho]

Because Winman and others have said they cannot understand my post
I am going to move something to this thread to try to clarify my post.

If this is not allowed someone can delete.

From the Calvinism and marriage thread.
_______________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dh1948 View Post
I look at it this way....

If Dr. Graham has 5,000 people profess to be saved at one of his crusades and you have 50 profess to be saved in your church over the period of a year.

Now, suppose we say that only 30% of those in Dr. Graham's crusade were really saved. That would be 1500 people who were genuinely saved.

I would guess your percentage of genuine professions would be about the same: 30%. If so, that means you had 15 people genuinely saved.

Why question the number of people who professed Christ at a Graham crusade when you would probably be very happy to report that you had 50 saved at your church over a year's span...without a disclaimer!
So if the Father did not give them to the Son I guess they must have come down that aisle by faith other than real faith.

John17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Therefore, just what would be, real faith?


With permission from dh1948 and all else I could move this to the thread," Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by gb93433 View Post
Hebrews 11:1. Hebrews 11:6 tells how we can please God.

Is Heb 11:1 / 6 not that what the 5000 to 50 did in the previous post of which we are hypothetically assigning 30% as being genuine?

If the faith of Hebrews 11 is our faith, something we are generating, what determines whether it is genuine or not? Is it genuine only if we can quit sinning all together, or most of the time, or some of the time, every now and then?

I should have moved it for it may help Winman and others understand my posts in that thread.
________________________________________________________________

My point: Per the OP of this thread. These people want to be saved, it is their desire. Yet because of their life we question whether their faith is genuine or not.

By grace through the faith. Eph 2:8 I believe to be the same faith of Hebrews 11.

However whose faith? The faith of the one named? What about all who passed through the sea? Did they, all, have that kind of faith? Or did they all pass through the sea because of the faith, to come? The faith of Jesus Christ.

Back to the post from the other thread. If it was 30 % of the 5000 or whatever actually saved, then it was through election of God the 30% would have been called by God, given the Holy Spirit, through the faith of Jesus Christ, who had also received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father Acts 2:33 after the resurrection from the dead, Verse 32 which was the Grace of God.

With this thought in mind re-read my post and agree, disagree, or ask questions. It is a discussion board. with all my heart.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van posted...



Its one of their most reliable diversionary tactics.

it is actually true....you still do not get it:thumbsup: