Dominion vs determinism 2

[Silverhair]

Except the scriptures does not support notion of lost sinners having capacity within themselves to decides choices like that, those of a spiritual nature

Do you not have these verses in your bible?

Deu 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Jos 24:15 "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve:...

Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

om 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Are you suggesting that these all refer to people that are already saved.

It would seem that you are letting your philosophy determine what you believe rather than trusting the word of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

From Robert Picirilli in his book "Free Will Revisited". At the beginning:
"And I offer, now, a basic definition of free will that I think we can use as a starting point for further discussion: Free Will is a way of saying that a person is capable of making decisions, that a person can choose between two or more alternatives when he or she has obtained (by whatever means) the degree of understanding of those alternatives required to choose between them."

I'm OK with that. Edwards would be too. But his very next sentence is this: "I intend for this definition to involve what is traditionally stated as 'the power of alternative choice,' also sometimes called 'libertarian freedom'." Picirilli is a free will Baptist, an Arminian, a theologian, and a professor, and he also uses libertarian freedom as a criteria when discussing free will. In my opinion, where Arminian theology gets into trouble with their view of free will, is that once you really have an absolute ability to choose between alternatives, the question will immediately be raised as to how the "influence and persuasion" work (as they describe as the method the Spirit uses), can still be describes as essential. Would you not now be back with the Calvinists. The obvious way out is to say a certain amount of prevenient grace is given to everyone, not just some, and that helps, but the question then becomes whether scripture indicates such - or are we really just talking about natural ability and making a small apparent concession to Calvinists in hopes of keeping peace. And don't get me wrong, I find Arminianism comforting, but is that because scripture supports it or is it honestly that I, like everyone else, want to feel that at least we had something to do with our salvation, even if it's nothing more than our own consent!

 

[percho]

Abraham and Paul. Yes and Esther too. I believe that these people who we use as examples of people who couldn’t resist being called. Should it not be did not resist being called?
Esther 4:14
For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?


I see a decision to be made in every case. Not that any of these people decided to be the father of a great nation or save a nation or be the apostle to the gentiles, to write Scripture, etcetera. They submitted to the Lord. The plan was the Lord’s. They accepted the plan of God in their lives. I believe any of them could have ignored God’s plan. That they did not is not proof that they could not.

Free will is nothing more than the ability to control your own choices with what God has given you. I cannot decide to be Abraham. I cannot decide to be Joshua or Moses or Paul. If I get up and move and go someplace where I have no idea where I am going to be the father of a great nation, we won’t start the OT again even if it happened to work out in my favor.
It is not free will to invent salvation or belief.

It is freedom to believe the gospel that is preached to all men. Freedom to come to God by Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for man, not in secret, but in plain view of the whole world, as He became the propitiation for the whole world.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jer 1:5

Free will or determined of God?

 

[JonC]

Someone should start a thread defending this. I don't think it is often thought through, but it feels comforting.

They have in the past (on this board).

Some (it seems most here, in the past) view Christ as drawing all men but men maintaining the influence of the flesh that equates to a legitimate choice.

Others have presented it by degrees (like an influence that, if not rejected, would lead to a greater influence).

Classic Arminianism holds that man can only reject God out of their natural will, but can freely "come and drink" by the grace of God, the choice of whom to serve being left up to man.

It is interesting to read about. If you are interested, Robert Picirilli describes Clasdic Arminianism fairly well.

But at the end of the day it is a philosophical rather than theological (theology proper) debate.

 

[JonC]

From Robert Picirilli in his book "Free Will Revisited". At the beginning:
"And I offer, now, a basic definition of free will that I think we can use as a starting point for further discussion: Free Will is a way of saying that a person is capable of making decisions, that a person can choose between two or more alternatives when he or she has obtained (by whatever means) the degree of understanding of those alternatives required to choose between them."

I'm OK with that. Edwards would be too. But his very next sentence is this: "I intend for this definition to involve what is traditionally stated as 'the power of alternative choice,' also sometimes called 'libertarian freedom'." Picirilli is a free will Baptist, an Arminian, a theologian, and a professor, and he also uses libertarian freedom as a criteria when discussing free will. In my opinion, where Arminian theology gets into trouble with their view of free will, is that once you really have an absolute ability to choose between alternatives, the question will immediately be raised as to how the "influence and persuasion" work (as they describe as the method the Spirit uses), can still be describes as essential. Would you not now be back with the Calvinists. The obvious way out is to say a certain amount of prevenient grace is given to everyone, not just some, and that helps, but the question then becomes whether scripture indicates such - or are we really just talking about natural ability and making a small apparent concession to Calvinists in hopes of keeping peace. And don't get me wrong, I find Arminianism comforting, but is that because scripture supports it or is it honestly that I, like everyone else, want to feel that at least we had something to do with our salvation, even if it's nothing more than our own consent!

I do not think Picirilli adequately defines "libertarian free will" (because in that sane book he insists that men can choose Christ only by the work of the Spirit.

In his arguments against Calvinism I remember thinking he severely misrepresented an issue to argue against Calvinism, but I can't recall that issue (it had been awhile since I read the book).