Leaving Calvinism?

[DaveXR650]

I just read through the text again and Flowers does not even suggest that he has a free will that operates like God's as you claim he does.

Look at the opening video from the 22 minute mark to 23:30. Flowers does indeed outline how God does a free will decision and then specifically states that that is how a free will decision is made.

Quoting Flowers again "is it just truths related to God’s nature and provision that people are naturally unable to understand and accept as true?" If so, why?

We've had this exact same conversation. Yes, there is a difference.

You speak of your natural bent but for a 5 point calvinst your natural bent is determined by God just as whether you are one of the "elect".

I'm not a 5 point Calvinist and more important, our natural bent is our natural bent. It is not determined by God. You are saying that we would have been if not good then at least neutral unless God had done something to us. I'm saying that our own natural bent, according to our own free will tends towards animosity to God, unless we need him to gain an advantage and in addition, our natural free will bent is not to savor the things of God unless they happen to coincide with our own agenda. It's the way we are and it should make you happy because it is the way we naturally want to be. It is what we are and do when given complete freedom without God's interference. If the Holy Spirit were to withdraw from Earth within 3 years or so we would descend into complete barbarity.

 

[Silverhair]

Look at the opening video from the 22 minute mark to 23:30. Flowers does indeed outline how God does a free will decision and then specifically states that that is how a free will decision is made.

22:57you to exist surely you don't believe that God needs you to exist does he therefore certainly no one would suggest
23:04 that God was not free to refrain from creating humanity or creating you or saving you was he okay so he made a
23:11 libertarianly free will what determined God's choice to create if not the mysterious function of his own
23:17 free autonomous will he could have refrained or not refrained from that
23:22 given option that's what libertarian freedom is in short whether one appeals to the mystery regarding the
23:28 function of man's free will or the function of the Divine will we all eventually appeal to mystery

The text does not support your contention Dave. God has an autonomous free will we as humans have a God given free will.

God has an
We've had this exact same conversation. Yes, there is a difference.

Just saying there is a difference does not answer the question "is it just truths related to God’s nature and provision that people are naturally unable to understand and accept as true?" If so, why?
So your answer is that the God that desires all to come to repentance actually does not want all to come to repentance because He does not make the truths understandable to the vast majority of people. And we are supposed to believe that this same God makes the lie of false religions understandable. If this is the God of calvinism then it is no wonder that most people reject calvinism.
Now if you have a logical reason why God would allow people to understand and accept a lie but not the truth then please present it.

I'm not a 5 point Calvinist and more important, our natural bent is our natural bent. It is not determined by God. You are saying that we would have been if not good then at least neutral unless God had done something to us. I'm saying that our own natural bent, according to our own free will tends towards animosity to God, unless we need him to gain an advantage and in addition, our natural free will bent is not to savor the things of God unless they happen to coincide with our own agenda. It's the way we are and it should make you happy because it is the way we naturally want to be. It is what we are and do when given complete freedom without God's interference. If the Holy Spirit were to withdraw from Earth within 3 years or so we would descend into complete barbarity.

You have said before that you are not a 5 point calvinist but the points are so dependent upon each other that you can not separate them and be a consistent calvinist. What point or points do you hold to? What do you think of the WCF or LBCF? I only ask because it seems that many on this board call themselves calvinists and they do not even hold to basic calvinism.

So if God does not determine our natural bent then there is nothing to say that a person could not freely trust in God. The bible is clear that man can hear and believe and we are told that those that call out to God will be saved. If it we not possible for man to freely believe then why the gospel message or all the warnings to not neglect the offer.

It seems to me that you are basing your views on what some man has told you the bible says rather than on what the bible actually says.

Dave your view does not pass muster.

 

[DaveXR650]

The text does not support your contention Dave. God has an autonomous free will we as humans have a God given free will.

It's Flowers that likens the way we choose something to the way God chooses something. It's his video, he made the comparison. If that is how you see it go with him. I happen to think that destroys his own argument.

Just saying there is a difference does not answer the question "is it just truths related to God’s nature and provision that people are naturally unable to understand and accept as true?" If so, why?

I don't mind repeating this but you never seem to get it.
First of all. We are human beings so our development of a decision on something is not like God does it. Unlike God, our decision making is based on proclivities in combination with everything else we hold as important as well as our knowledge base and so on. Our free will is indeed a wonderful thing and I believe we have true freedom. But when you take this to the level you and Flowers do you ignore the reality of the proclivities and the action of a person's nature, which I for the life of me cannot understand. Why would you refuse to take that into account?

You can bank on the fact that I will fix myself something to eat tomorrow. Why? Because I choose to is what you would say. I say that while that's true, the real reason is that I have a desire to obtain food which becomes powerful if I don't act on that. That is a natural desire that God has provided and it functions well enough even in our fallen world that the direct action of the Holy Spirit is not necessary to ensure I will obtain food.

But it's even more important that a person comes to Christ by faith. Again, you and Flowers say that given the right instruction we should be able to do that using our free will. I say that we all have proclivities and a nature that fights against that to the point where it is not going to happen that someone comes on their own free will unless the Holy Spirit acts on them directly.

Now, we can go around on this forever, which is what you tend to do. But just know that as much as you hate Calvinism, the fact is this view is also the view of classic Arminianism. You and Flowers are lining up against Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, and Free Will Baptists. I have looked into this enough that I can produce the quotes in all those examples. This view is semi-Pelagian at the least. Not that it matters, since in my opinion, semi-Pelagians are completely orthodox but it is what it is. Just know where you stand in the range of orthodox Christian theology.

So if God does not determine our natural bent then there is nothing to say that a person could not freely trust in God.

Technically that is correct. They could, but unless something else can overcome that natural bent they will follow their natural bent. The Holy Spirit can intervene. Don't you see what you are doing? You have decided that if God doesn't cause your natural inclination in all cases then it isn't there. Our natural bent to have enmity against the things of God and wish to have our own way is real, it is there, it is part of our natural makeup which determines our own free will. Without the Holy Spirit we have no way to come back - because we truly don't want to. The people that do not benefit from the Holy Spirit are called reprobate. If you read Bunyan, they are those who God allows to continue on in their free will. In their sad cases, God has indeed respected their natural free will.

 

[Silverhair]

It's Flowers that likens the way we choose something to the way God chooses something. It's his video, he made the comparison. If that is how you see it go with him. I happen to think that destroys his own argument.

I don't mind repeating this but you never seem to get it.
First of all. We are human beings so our development of a decision on something is not like God does it. Unlike God, our decision making is based on proclivities in combination with everything else we hold as important as well as our knowledge base and so on. Our free will is indeed a wonderful thing and I believe we have true freedom. But when you take this to the level you and Flowers do you ignore the reality of the proclivities and the action of a person's nature, which I for the life of me cannot understand. Why would you refuse to take that into account?

You can bank on the fact that I will fix myself something to eat tomorrow. Why? Because I choose to is what you would say. I say that while that's true, the real reason is that I have a desire to obtain food which becomes powerful if I don't act on that. That is a natural desire that God has provided and it functions well enough even in our fallen world that the direct action of the Holy Spirit is not necessary to ensure I will obtain food.

But it's even more important that a person comes to Christ by faith. Again, you and Flowers say that given the right instruction we should be able to do that using our free will. I say that we all have proclivities and a nature that fights against that to the point where it is not going to happen that someone comes on their own free will unless the Holy Spirit acts on them directly.

Now, we can go around on this forever, which is what you tend to do. But just know that as much as you hate Calvinism, the fact is this view is also the view of classic Arminianism. You and Flowers are lining up against Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, and Free Will Baptists. I have looked into this enough that I can produce the quotes in all those examples. This view is semi-Pelagian at the least. Not that it matters, since in my opinion, semi-Pelagians are completely orthodox but it is what it is. Just know where you stand in the range of orthodox Christian theology.

Technically that is correct. They could, but unless something else can overcome that natural bent they will follow their natural bent. The Holy Spirit can intervene. Don't you see what you are doing? You have decided that if God doesn't cause your natural inclination in all cases then it isn't there. Our natural bent to have enmity against the things of God and wish to have our own way is real, it is there, it is part of our natural makeup which determines our own free will. Without the Holy Spirit we have no way to come back - because we truly don't want to. The people that do not benefit from the Holy Spirit are called reprobate. If you read Bunyan, they are those who God allows to continue on in their free will. In their sad cases, God has indeed respected their natural free will.

 

[Silverhair]

It's Flowers that likens the way we choose something to the way God chooses something. It's his video, he made the comparison. If that is how you see it go with him. I happen to think that destroys his own argument.

You still do not seem to understand what free will is.

I don't mind repeating this but you never seem to get it.
First of all. We are human beings so our development of a decision on something is not like God does it. Unlike God, our decision making is based on proclivities in combination with everything else we hold as important as well as our knowledge base and so on. Our free will is indeed a wonderful thing and I believe we have true freedom. But when you take this to the level you and Flowers do you ignore the reality of the proclivities and the action of a person's nature, which I for the life of me cannot understand. Why would you refuse to take that into account?

So what your saying is that we as humans can take the information that we have presented to us and then considering our proclivities we can make a free will decision. But logically if it is a free will decision we can choose otherwise. We are not controlled by our proclivities they are just our usual way of doing things. But with our free will we can do otherwise. But I can understand that as a determinist you can not understand that concept. Coming from a free will perspective I can look at each situation and make a choice but that is not something that is available to the determinist is it.

You can bank on the fact that I will fix myself something to eat tomorrow. Why? Because I choose to is what you would say. I say that while that's true, the real reason is that I have a desire to obtain food which becomes powerful if I don't act on that. That is a natural desire that God has provided and it functions well enough even in our fallen world that the direct action of the Holy Spirit is not necessary to ensure I will obtain food.

But it's even more important that a person comes to Christ by faith. Again, you and Flowers say that given the right instruction we should be able to do that using our free will. I say that we all have proclivities and a nature that fights against that to the point where it is not going to happen that someone comes on their own free will unless the Holy Spirit acts on them directly.

How do you think someone comes to faith? Are they dragged into it as some calvinists posit or do they respond to the various means that God provides for knowing Him? Our faith does not save us it is the one we have our faith in that saves us. Why do you insist on misrepresenting what people say. It seems you have not read the verse that tells you the gospel is the power of God for salvation but even then one has to hear and believe before they will be saved. That is free will Dave ,m you will just not accept what the bible tells you.

Now, we can go around on this forever, which is what you tend to do. But just know that as much as you hate Calvinism, the fact is this view is also the view of classic Arminianism. You and Flowers are lining up against Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, and Free Will Baptists. I have looked into this enough that I can produce the quotes in all those examples. This view is semi-Pelagian at the least. Not that it matters, since in my opinion, semi-Pelagians are completely orthodox but it is what it is. Just know where you stand in the range of orthodox Christian theology.

Technically that is correct. They could, but unless something else can overcome that natural bent they will follow their natural bent. The Holy Spirit can intervene. Don't you see what you are doing? You have decided that if God doesn't cause your natural inclination in all cases then it isn't there. Our natural bent to have enmity against the things of God and wish to have our own way is real, it is there, it is part of our natural makeup which determines our own free will. Without the Holy Spirit we have no way to come back - because we truly don't want to. The people that do not benefit from the Holy Spirit are called reprobate. If you read Bunyan, they are those who God allows to continue on in their free will. In their sad cases, God has indeed respected their natural free will.

Again you miss what the bible clearly says. Man has to respond to the influence of the HS or creation or the gospel message or whatever other means that God uses to draw people to Him. But the bottom line is man has to respond via his free will. You just cannot accept that truth and you use extra biblical authors to support your view. Scripture is clear that we are responsible for the choices we make and we can choose to trust in God for our salvation. As scripture says salvation is a gift of God received through faith.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

You come so close to grasping the truth then fall back to your calvinism and extra biblical authors.

 

[DaveXR650]

So what your saying is that we as humans can take the information that we have presented to us and then considering our proclivities we can make a free will decision.

Yes. We as humans have a unique ability to "consider our proclivities" as we make a decision. But why do you keep insisting that after doing all that and then taking a decision that according to your definition of free will, you have to have been able to do otherwise. Otherwise than what, your own free will decision? What is really happening here is that you have an over optimistic view of who we really are naturally and what you are calling "free will" is an attempt to preserve a virtuous, mythical "self" that has enough independent virtue of it's own to get right with God. The fact, Christianity, probably alone, is the religion that truly assesses our natural state.

Coming from a free will perspective I can look at each situation and make a choice but that is not something that is available to the determinist is it.

I'm not a determinist but I have a lower view of this magnificent free will you keep talking about. It does not exist at the virtuous level you think it does.

How do you think someone comes to faith?

I know that from our point of view any conscious interaction with God will be rational and in the framework of thought. I also know that more is going on. "The wind bloweth where it listeth" in John 3 and we do not know why some people decide to believe and others don't. We do know that some people refused to come because "they loved darkness rather than light". That is the type of free will we really do have. Their bent toward evil was more than their self evaluation of the benefits of the gospel. The problem is that that describes all of us unless the Holy Spirit draws us enough to convince us, not just convict. And that is probably more confirmed by history, scripture, and personal experience than any other truth known to us.

 

[DaveXR650]

How do you think someone comes to faith?

One other thing regarding this. In John chapter 3 when Jesus said that the wind bloweth where it listeth, so is everyone born of the spirit here is my question. If "belief" is up to you and then you are born again why would Jesus present this as a mysterious thing. Would it not be a simple cause and effect? Yet Jesus compares it to the wind which you can see the effects of yet you cannot directly observe.

Notice I am not asserting here that the Calvinistic view that regeneration must come before faith is proved. But I am saying that there is more going on than a simple rational decision based on your human intellect. If that were true then Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus makes no sense at all.

 

[Silverhair]

I have listened to Flowers and James White debate and my conclusion is Flowers is a heretic, denying the Gospel of Gods Grace.

BF you call him a heretic but what do you base your comment on.

Does he teach anything that is not biblical?
Does he deny Christ or salvation though faith in God?
Does he deny the birth death and resurrection of Christ?
Does he deny one is save by faith in the risen Christ?
Does he deny that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world and that all can be saved through Him?

The list could go on but you get what I am asking.

What you claimed needs to be supported by facts not just your view.

A heretic is a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma or an accepted belief or doctrine.

So you, BF, could be labeled as one. I disagree with your theological position but I would not call you a heretic, rather just misinformed.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes. We as humans have a unique ability to "consider our proclivities" as we make a decision. But why do you keep insisting that after doing all that and then taking a decision that according to your definition of free will, you have to have been able to do otherwise. Otherwise than what, your own free will decision? What is really happening here is that you have an over optimistic view of who we really are naturally and what you are calling "free will" is an attempt to preserve a virtuous, mythical "self" that has enough independent virtue of it's own to get right with God. The fact, Christianity, probably alone, is the religion that truly assesses our natural state.

You still do not understand what free will is do you. Yes the person used the information to make a decision but using the same information they could have chosen otherwise. People can hear the gospel message and choose to accept or reject the information. It is not the final decision the marks free will it is that they have the ability to choose either way. That is a concept that you just fail to grasp.

I'm not a determinist but I have a lower view of this magnificent free will you keep talking about. It does not exist at the virtuous level you think it does.

Free will is free will. One either has free will or they do not. If one has the free will to choose to believe a false religion they also have the free will to choose to believe the truth. When the bible tells us the HS convicts the whole world are you suggesting that He only convicts some to believe the truth?

I know that from our point of view any conscious interaction with God will be rational and in the framework of thought. I also know that more is going on. "The wind bloweth where it listeth" in John 3 and we do not know why some people decide to believe and others don't. We do know that some people refused to come because "they loved darkness rather than light". That is the type of free will we really do have. Their bent toward evil was more than their self evaluation of the benefits of the gospel. The problem is that that describes all of us unless the Holy Spirit draws us enough to convince us, not just convict. And that is probably more confirmed by history, scripture, and personal experience than any other truth known to us.

Dave even your comment in support of your special type of free will shows that man has a free will. Notice the words you use: convince, convict. The only time you can say something has convinced a person is after that person has chosen to trust the information. But if we go by your logic since the HS convicts the whole world of their sin why does the HS not convince the whole world of salvation through faith in God? Because even though He convicts the whole world they still have to make a free will choice whether to accept or reject the drawing to God.
Bottom line Dave, you can only say someone is convinced after they have made that free will decision. Before that it is just information that the person has to evaluate.

 

[Silverhair]

One other thing regarding this. In John chapter 3 when Jesus said that the wind bloweth where it listeth, so is everyone born of the spirit here is my question. If "belief" is up to you and then you are born again why would Jesus present this as a mysterious thing. Would it not be a simple cause and effect? Yet Jesus compares it to the wind which you can see the effects of yet you cannot directly observe.

Notice I am not asserting here that the Calvinistic view that regeneration must come before faith is proved. But I am saying that there is more going on than a simple rational decision based on your human intellect. If that were true then Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus makes no sense at all.

First lets clarify one thing, faith/belief does not save you. It is the condition that God has set so that He will save you. If faith saved you then why would Christ say that not everyone that claimed to believe would be saved? God judges by the heart not your actions or words.

You have to read this understanding who Christ was speaking to, a Jew. The concept of salvation as we understand it was not part of their theology. Jews were already God's chosen people they were saved so for Nicodemus what Christ was saying would seem odd, a mystery. Why would they have to be born again to be saved as they were already.

Let me ask you a question, how is one born again? Now a second question, why is one born again? By grace one is saved through faith. God saves those that believe. John 3:14-18

Yes more is going on than just the rational relationship. Try to explain salvation, heaven, being in Christ, Christ being in us. Yes we actually take a great deal on faith just as we are told. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Man is either forced to believe or we choose to believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't really know where else to go with this or what to say. Like I said, I like the rationalism of Edwards "Freedom of the Will" as opposed to Luther's writing on the subject. You obviously don't see it that way which is fine but there is no sense repeating the concepts over and over. For what it's worth, I don't think Flowers, or you are heretics. It is necessary that we trust in Christ and believe. It is not necessary that we can explain how this comes about.

 

[Silverhair]

I don't really know where else to go with this or what to say. Like I said, I like the rationalism of Edwards "Freedom of the Will" as opposed to Luther's writing on the subject. You obviously don't see it that way which is fine but there is no sense repeating the concepts over and over. For what it's worth, I don't think Flowers, or you are heretics. It is necessary that we trust in Christ and believe. It is not necessary that we can explain how this comes about.

Well I don't think are a heretic either, misguided but not a heretic.

I think the main difference is that you are trusting in some man, Edwards, Owen etc. When I read any of the commentaries or books I see them as a guide. All any of them, calvinist or not, are doing is giving their opinion which at best is a biased one.

Numerous people have come to faith in God never having read or even heard of these men. They just trusted what the word of God lead them to believe. By grace we are saved through faith.

You obviously don't see it that way which is fine but there is no sense repeating the concepts over and over. It just comes down to what we consider the primary source of our view.

 

[kyredneck]

I have listened to Flowers and James White debate and my conclusion is Flowers is a heretic, denying the Gospel of Gods Grace.

Ah, at the very least he's just another dime-a-dozen ranting anti-Cal. I feel sorry for the families of these obsessed quacks.

Think mabe Skandelon (his BB moniker) could be making a little money from this?

 

[Silverhair]

Ah, at the very least he's just another dime-a-dozen ranting anti-Cal. I feel sorry for the families of these obsessed quacks.

Think mabe Skandelon (his BB moniker) could be making a little money from this?

The reason that he speaks out against calvinism is because he is pro bible.