Freedom (Free Will),Free Will Stopped at the Garden

[ituttut]

I really do not understand your argument here.

Many here say that after the fall, man lost free will, or rather the ability to willingly choose to worship God. Lev 1:3 proves this false, these persons were able of their own voluntary will to offer a sacrifice to God. That is worship.

And I would not be surprised if many reject my evidence, even though it is directly from the scriptures. Many choose to believe man-made doctrine over scripture, there's nothing I can do about that.

I agree with you, but the point I was making was what you provided in Lev. Cannot apply to us today. That was when God was dealing directly with His people. Today the whole world can come, for who so ever will. In those days the Gentile could come, but they were proselytes. They were not allowed to get near the Holy Place, and certainly not the Holy of Holies.

 

[Winman]

I agree with you, but the point I was making was what you provided in Lev. Cannot apply to us today. That was when God was dealing directly with His people. Today the whole world can come, for who so ever will. In those days the Gentile could come, but they were proselytes. They were not allowed to get near the Holy Place, and certainly not the Holy of Holies.

Non-Jews could participate in the Passover, which is a figure of Christ (Num 9:14)

 

[ryarn]

Gotta love the lowercase "i"s!

It's OK to use a capital I. That is proper writing, God is not going to strike you down for writing properly.

In addition, humility flaunted is false humility.

I'm sorry your a frustrated English teacher:laugh:

 

[jbh28]

Obviously we are not "free" to choose anything we want. But
we are free to choose whatever God Himself puts before us. If He says choose this day whom you will serve, then God has given us a choice between 2 things, serving Satan or serving God.

yes, thanks, we are free to choose anything that is available that we. If we have a choice between steak and chicken, I guess I can't choose lobster.

 

[ryarn]

yes, thanks, we are free to choose anything that is available that we. If we have a choice between steak and chicken, I guess I can't choose lobster.

And you probably will have less GAS also.:laugh:

 

[webdog]

yes, thanks, we are free to choose anything that is available that we. If we have a choice between steak and chicken, I guess I can't choose lobster.

...nor would lobster be considered a choice like accepting Christ is not a real choice for the non elect.

 

[jbh28]

...nor would lobster be considered a choice like accepting Christ is not a real choice for the non elect.

No, that option is available. That's the straw man that is always given. Choosing Christ or rejecting Christ. Because I have no desire for one doesn't mean it's not an available choice. If the non-elect were to accept Christ, and then be rejected because there were not elect, then it would not be an option. But that's not the case at all.

Remember, election is because God knows that men will reject him.

 

[matt wade]

Remember, election is because God knows that men will reject him.

Remember that, in calvinism, God knows what men will reject him because he doesn't allow them to accept him.

 

[jbh28]

Remember that, in calvinism, God knows what men will reject him because he doesn't allow them to accept him.

Again, straw man. Calvinism does NOT teach that God doesn't allow someone to accept him.

Not sure why you must continue to say these type things. If you think we are really wrong, you should be able to use what we really believe instead of these straw men.

 

[matt wade]

Again, straw man. Calvinism does NOT teach that God doesn't allow someone to accept him.

Not sure why you must continue to say these type things. If you think we are really wrong, you should be able to use what we really believe instead of these straw men.

I only relate what is conveyed to me by calvinists on this board. If my statements about calvinism are in error, then blame yourself and fellow calvinists for not being able to properly explain your convoluted and confusing theology.

 

[webdog]

No, that option is available.[\quote] If your choice is chicken or steak, lobster is not one of the choices.

That's the straw man that is always given. Choosing Christ or rejecting Christ.

There is no other choice.

Because I have no desire for one doesn't mean it's not an available choice.

Desire is irrellevant, if anything that is the strawman. If it is not a viable option, it is not a choice and there is no choosing involved.

If the non-elect were to accept Christ, and then be rejected because there were not elect, then it would not be an option. But that's not the case at all.

The non elect do not have that choice rendering your point moot. CAN the non elect choose Christ (forget desire, is it possible)?

Remember, election is because God knows that men will reject him.

That sounds arminian

 

[Amy.G]

Again, straw man. Calvinism does NOT teach that God doesn't allow someone to accept him.

What about those that God doesn't chose? Does He allow them to accept Him?

 

[jbh28]

There is no other choice.

There is no other choice than choosing Christ or rejecting Christ. Of course. Those are the two options.

Desire is irrellevant, if anything that is the strawman.

How can I have a straw man about my own argument? I'm misrepresenting what I believe? That doesn't even make sense. Desire has everything to do with it.

If it is not a viable option, it is not a choice and there is no choosing involved.

yes there is. There are two options. My lack of desire for one doesn't make it not an option.

The non elect do not have that choice rendering your point moot. CAN the non elect choose Christ (forget desire, is it possible)?

It has everything to do with desire. The non-elect will never want/desire to come to Christ. That doesn't mean that the option isn't there, nor does it mean that there isn't a choice. It's just that there is only a desire to go to one of the available options.

That sounds arminian

It means that God knows that all men will reject him, so he has elected to save some.

Election is not that men are coming to Christ and he doesn't accept some and accepts others(as many arguments imply), instead it's that all men are going away from Christ(rejection) and God elects to save some. The rest, he leaves to do exactly what they desire.

 

[jbh28]

What about those that God doesn't chose? Does He allow them to accept Him?

If they accepted him, sure. God has said that everyone that believes will be saved. So there will be on one that he doesn't allow to accept Him.

Election is not about keeping people out of heaven but keeping people out of hell. I understand that you may not agree with me(which is fine as long as you are getting your doctrine for the Bible!) but that's what I believe the Bible teaches. I don't subscribe to God having a neutral list of people and choosing some to heaven and some to hell. Instead God has a list of people that will reject him and everyone is on that list, so He chooses to save some.

One of the difficulties in discussing this subject is that some Calvinist subscribe to double predestination and others, such as my self, do not. Many arguments against election are against double predestination. I have no argument for that because I don't believe the Bible teaches double predestination(really should be called double election.)

 

[Amy.G]

I don't subscribe to God having a neutral list of people and choosing some to heaven and some to hell. Instead God has a list of people that will reject him and everyone is on that list, so He chooses to save some.

Actually, God has a book of life where the names of all the redeemed are written. The unsaved do not appear in this book, but I know of no book or list that God has of people who reject Him (book of unredeemed?). That is not scriptural.

 

[Robert Snow]

Obviously he was a Godly man so he had the choice to do GOD's will or not to do GOD's will and accept the consequences of his actions if he didn't.If he was not GOD's he would have no choice.:smilewinkgrin:

Hogwash!

If my lost neighbor gets drunk, drives and has an automobile accident where someone is killed, you are saying that he did not have any choice whether or not to commit this act? He was "forced" to act the way he did?

 

[Skandelon]

Again, straw man. Calvinism does NOT teach that God doesn't allow someone to accept him.

Let's unpack this jbh, okay?

If the elect must be ENABLED then doesn't it reason the non-elect aren't ABLE?

And why aren't they ABLE? Is it because of something THEY themselves did? Or is it a result of God's choice to punish mankind for the sin of Adam in the Fall?

In Calvinism, wasn't it God's choice to DISABLE man to respond to God's appeal? If not, please explain?

 

[Skandelon]

It has everything to do with desire. The non-elect will never want/desire to come to Christ.

Why? Because God has removed their ability to want Christ, right? So, how does that avoid the argument?

That doesn't mean that the option isn't there

Sure it does. If I give you a pill which makes you absolutely unwilling to hear my appeal to become friends, then you don't have the option to choose to be my friend. By giving you a pill to make you unable to want to be my friend I have made that option obsolete. What is worse is if I made a honest appeal for you to be my friend in front of everyone acting as if I really desired to be your friend and then condemned you as being a mean and unfriendly jerk for not being my friend after giving you that pill.

That is what Calvinism does to God's character.

 

[Winman]

Actually, God has a book of life where the names of all the redeemed are written. The unsaved do not appear in this book, but I know of no book or list that God has of people who reject Him (book of unredeemed?). That is not scriptural.

Actually, the scriptures speak of men whose names are BLOTTED OUT of the Book of Life. God intended they have life, their names were there, but because they reject Christ their names are blotted out or erased.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Once again, Calvinists teach the exact opposite of scripture. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[freeatlast]

Actually, the scriptures speak of men whose names are BLOTTED OUT of the Book of Life. God intended they have life, their names were there, but because they reject Christ their names are blotted out or erased.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Once again, Calvinists teach the exact opposite of scripture. Doesn't that tell you something?

No Win that is not what the passage is suggesting at all. The passage is a promise that once a name is entered it cannot be blotted out, not that there was ever blotting out done. It is a promise that once in the book we have eternal security. God did not put men's names in the book in hopes they would be saved and then blot them out because they did not get saved. That is not in the passage at all. It is a book of the saved. Once in the book it will never be removed. That is the promise.