Sign Up?

[Baptist Believer]

No argument just a statement of fact. By the way I never met a Calvinist who believed in free will. So what is your argument?

Every Calvinist I have met believes in free will, although they see it in terms of the ability to do things within one's nature:

If a person is dead in their sins, they have broad freedom to indulge in sin. They just have no ability to indulge in righteousness since that is outside of their nature. Just as a penguin does not have the ability to fly, even though he has wings, the sinner does not have the ability to be righteous.

If a person is alive in Christ, they have broad freedom to indulge in righteousness, as well as sin, because righteousness is now part of their nature through Christ. Just as an eagle can soar on their grand wings, a Christian can soar in righteousness because that is now part of their nature. That same eagle can also walk around in the mud, just as a true Christian can indulge in sin for a season, because that is still within their realm of ability even though it is not part of the new nature that Christ provides.

 

[freeatlast]

Every Calvinist I have met believes in free will, although they see it in terms of the ability to do things within one's nature:

If a person is dead in their sins, they have broad freedom to indulge in sin. They just have no ability to indulge in righteousness since that is outside of their nature. Just as a penguin does not have the ability to fly, even though he has wings, the sinner does not have the ability to be righteous.

If a person is alive in Christ, they have broad freedom to indulge in righteousness, as well as sin, because righteousness is now part of their nature through Christ. Just as an eagle can soar on their grand wings, a Christian can soar in righteousness because that is now part of their nature. That same eagle can also walk around in the mud, just as a true Christian can indulge in sin for a season, because that is still within their realm of ability even though it is not part of the new nature that Christ provides.

Well then that is not free will. That is limited will. Free will means the person hears the message about God and makes their own mind up totally apart from anything pre-determined by God.

 

[Winman]

Every Calvinist I have met believes in free will, although they see it in terms of the ability to do things within one's nature:

If a person is dead in their sins, they have broad freedom to indulge in sin. They just have no ability to indulge in righteousness since that is outside of their nature. Just as a penguin does not have the ability to fly, even though he has wings, the sinner does not have the ability to be righteous.

If a person is alive in Christ, they have broad freedom to indulge in righteousness, as well as sin, because righteousness is now part of their nature through Christ. Just as an eagle can soar on their grand wings, a Christian can soar in righteousness because that is now part of their nature. That same eagle can also walk around in the mud, just as a true Christian can indulge in sin for a season, because that is still within their realm of ability even though it is not part of the new nature that Christ provides.

You can't say a person is enslaved to their sin nature and also say they are free. That is a direct contradiction. The fact that Calvinists cannot see this direct contradiction is amazing.

Fact is, the scriptures do not say an unregenerate person is enslaved to always choose evil. Jesus himself said sinners can do good.

Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Jesus said sinners love those that love them. This is not sin, you should love those who love you. Yes, it is better if you also love those that hate you, nevertheless, it is still good to love those who love you.

Jesus also said that sinners do good to those that do good to them. Again, it would be a greater love that does good to those that hate us. Nevertheless, it is good, and no sin, to do good to those who do good to you.

If man was utterly enslaved to sin, he would always choose to do the most evil thing he can do. The fact that unregenerate men do not do this proves they are not enslaved to sin in the sense that they are compelled to sin.

We are enslaved to sin in the sense that we are under the condemnation of the law. We are condemned to death by the law. That is how we are enslaved. When we trust Christ we die to sin and come under grace, we are no longer under the dominion of sin and death.

Unregenerate men can do good, Jesus himself said so.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Well then that is not free will. That is limited will.

Sure it is (in the human sense).

This is a common fallacy. You have defined "free" in such an extreme way that the only Person who could be considered "free" is God.

Your response reminds me of a discussion that I had with an atheist friend of mine who was using this exact argument as a counter argument to the goodness of God since he claimed that free will cannot exist because he cannot fly without the aid of machines, he did not decide his ethnicity, nor the age in which he was born, and he does not have any control over the desires that he feels.

I pointed out that everything occurs within a context, and we have freedom to act within that context. I cannot fly without the aid of a machine because I am not built to fly. I am the ethnicity I am and was born in the era in which I live because of the decisions of others (especially God), and I cannot control what desires I feel, but I do have a say in how I respond to them.

Regarding sinful desires, a Calvinist would say that a person who is not redeemed has no choice but to sin... at least in the sense that one may externally do the right thing, but that one would ultimately do it for wrong, or at best, mixed motives.

Free will means the person hears the message about God and makes their own mind up totally apart from anything pre-determined by God.

So God did not predetermine to extend grace and give the potential convert the faith to give his assent to the offer of life in Christ?

I think you're doctrinally off-balance here.

 

[Benjamin]

Every Calvinist I have met believes in free will, although they see it in terms of the ability to do things within one's nature:

Brotha, 1) you don't get around much then. Let me introduce you to Iconoclast :laugh: Stand up and be counted Icon; make some use of yourself and bring forth the truth for a change. :laugh: 2) I got an answer for that according to one's nature stuff in my signature. 3) Yes, 3, I think that might be the best choice for you in this poll. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[freeatlast]

Sure it is (in the human sense).

This is a common fallacy. You have defined "free" in such an extreme way that the only Person who could be considered "free" is God.

Your response reminds me of a discussion that I had with an atheist friend of mine who was using this exact argument as a counter argument to the goodness of God since he claimed that free will cannot exist because he cannot fly without the aid of machines, he did not decide his ethnicity, nor the age in which he was born, and he does not have any control over the desires that he feels.

I pointed out that everything occurs within a context, and we have freedom to act within that context. I cannot fly without the aid of a machine because I am not built to fly. I am the ethnicity I am and was born in the era in which I live because of the decisions of others (especially God), and I cannot control what desires I feel, but I do have a say in how I respond to them.

Regarding sinful desires, a Calvinist would say that a person who is not redeemed has no choice but to sin... at least in the sense that one may externally do the right thing, but that one would ultimately do it for wrong, or at best, mixed motives.


So God did not predetermine to extend grace and give the potential convert the faith to give his assent to the offer of life in Christ?

I think you're doctrinally off-balance here.

No you need to read what I said. I believe in free will as I explained it, but I also believe in God's election. I simply accept what the bible teaches instead of trying to rationalize it and it teaches both election and free will.
So like I said I could sign that document becaus it is one sided.

 

[Iconoclast]

Brotha, 1) you don't get around much then. Let me introduce you to Iconoclast :laugh: Stand up and be counted Icon; make some use of yourself and bring forth the truth for a change. :laugh: 2) I got an answer for that according to one's nature stuff in my signature. 3) Yes, 3, I think that might be the best choice for you in this poll. :

Sure Benjamin.....no problem my friend:thumbs:

Benjamin has been paying attention!
There is no free will whatsoever...it only exists in Benjamins philosophical world of endless speculations.

The bible speaks of self will...in that we have a will but it is bound by our nature as the poster has correctly stated.Theologians use the term "free moral agent" to explain that men make choices. These choices have moral implications.
Jesus in john 8 explains that all men are bound in sin and need new birth to be free to serve the Lord.
The post was accurate concerning mans nature....but just needed to speak of it as free moral agency.....not ....FREE WILL.....

In heaven we will not be free or able to sin...being glorified.

God because he Is Holy ...His very nature and all attributes...are HOLY...

His Holy will cannot sin, it is not free to sin.

Free will is an idol....from Satan and fallen man that lets them believe they are in control instead of God.

Satan, being cast out of heaven, mans fall into death, bondage ,and sin... and the victory of the cross...Show us what we need to know concerning this..

Romans 6:16-21 addresses the nature!

Anytime Benjamin:type:

 

[agedman]

Sure Benjamin.....no problem my friend:thumbs:

Benjamin has been paying attention!
There is no free will whatsoever...it only exists in Benjamins philosophical world of endless speculations.

The bible speaks of self will...in that we have a will but it is bound by our nature as the poster has correctly stated.Theologians use the term "free moral agent" to explain that men make choices. These choices have moral implications.
Jesus in john 8 explains that all men are bound in sin and need new birth to be free to serve the Lord.
The post was accurate concerning mans nature....but just needed to speak of it as free moral agency.....not ....FREE WILL.....

In heaven we will not be free or able to sin...being glorified.

God because he Is Holy ...His very nature and all attributes...are HOLY...

His Holy will cannot sin, it is not free to sin.

Free will is an idol....from Satan and fallen man that lets them believe they are in control instead of God.

Satan, being cast out of heaven, mans fall into death, bondage ,and sin... and the victory of the cross...Show us what we need to know concerning this..

Romans 6:16-21 addresses the nature!

Anytime Benjamin:type:

Very good! :thumbs::thumbs:

The only difference between us MIGHT be that I consider the unregenerate expressing "free moral agency" as not expressing any "freedom," but only able to make a decision from a number of lines that ALL lead to destruction and failure. There is no "freedom of choice" for all choice comes with results. Because the unregenerate cannot choose right, then the ultimate ends will remain unrighteous.

To this end, the Arminian and Pelagian face the same problem with their view. The desire some man generated ability to conform to God, in which the Scriptures in no place gives such ability.

We would agree that with the NEW nature comes the new Godly will, which sets up the "war of the worlds" in which Paul discussed in Romans.

Unregenerate man can only choose that which is evil.

The regenerate man has the ability to choose that which is righteous.

 

[Benjamin]

Theologians use the term "free moral agent" to explain that men make choices.

Caught you trying to rely on some of them carnal philosophical terms and reasonings again, eh? It's okay...I won't tell anyone.

Thanks for the prompt verification. :thumbs:

 

[Benjamin]

Anyone who couldn't agree to hold to the articles it is because they are know their system is vitally dependent on determinism alone to stand on all points of the TULIP; they must deny man's volition, which the articles are clearly spelling out must exist, for there to be any kind of a compromise with the Calvinist. Those articles pin the conclusions that hyper-determinism leads to concerning free will, moral responsibility and the "real" ability to choose. Thus, hyper-determinist can not agree to it. It does a good job of drawing them out of the woodwork and exposing them through their refusals to agree with it indeed.

At best the Calvinist offer double-talk on the issues, but their refusal to agree with the simple logical components of volition and how that relates to the Gospel canniot be escaoed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Caught you trying to rely on some of them carnal philosophical terms and reasonings again, eh? It's okay...I won't tell anyone.

Thanks for the prompt verification. :thumbs:

Correct Benjamin. To my dismay I am saddled with having to use terminolgy that is already in the marketplace in an effort to communicate in a meaningful way. Thanks for keeping it a secret between us:thumbs:

If I need philosophical expressions...I will call upon you.But since Ravi Zacahrias has not called me lately...I am good for now.
Any cal questions...feel free to call:type:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Could sign it. Not gonna.

I think the statement precipitates a problem that simply wasn't a signicant enough for the amount of arguing and bitterness that will result. Just look through the threads here, acrimony everywhere!

 

[agedman]

Anyone who couldn't agree to hold to the articles it is because they are know their system is vitally dependent on determinism alone to stand on all points of the TULIP; they must deny man's volition, which the articles are clearly spelling out must exist, for there to be any kind of a compromise with the Calvinist. Those articles pin the conclusions that hyper-determinism leads to concerning free will, moral responsibility and the "real" ability to choose. Thus, hyper-determinist can not agree to it. It does a good job of drawing them out of the woodwork and exposing them through their refusals to agree with it indeed.

At best the Calvinist offer double-talk on the issues, but their refusal to agree with the simple logical components of volition and how that relates to the Gospel canniot be escaoed.

Benjamin,

Because you post that Calvinism is not true, then start with your assumption of "free will" and the "ability (of unregenerate) to choose" what is righteous.

Prove by Scripture when ANY unregenerate chose righteousness over unrighteousness without the direct and purposed interaction of the grace of God.

Even Pelagius in one of his letters states, "In all men free will exists equally by nature, but in Christians alone is it assisted by grace.
We confess free will in such a sense that we declare ourselves to be always in need of the help of God."

If Pelagius (considered a heretic by all on the BB) understands that the grace of God MUST assist in actual free will, show me what Scriptures would support the view that the unregenerate has any "free" will when the very natural will is as desperately unregenerate as any other element of the fallen nature.

If you cannot prove this single area, then your view remains as it does, unscriptural.

You can post your demeaning statements all you desire on the BB, but we who consider the Scriptures the final authority are not swayed by your attitudinal displays of froth.

 

[Iconoclast]

Anyone who couldn't agree to hold to the articles it is because they are know their system is vitally dependent on determinism alone to stand on all points of the TULIP; they must deny man's volition, which the articles are clearly spelling out must exist, for there to be any kind of a compromise with the Calvinist. Those articles pin the conclusions that hyper-determinism leads to concerning free will, moral responsibility and the "real" ability to choose. Thus, hyper-determinist can not agree to it. It does a good job of drawing them out of the woodwork and exposing them through their refusals to agree with it indeed.

At best the Calvinist offer double-talk on the issues, but their refusal to agree with the simple logical components of volition and how that relates to the Gospel canniot be escaoed.

Lets take a closer look B-

Anyone who couldn't agree to hold to the articles it is because they are know their system is vitally dependent on determinism alone to stand on all points of the TULIP

on determinism alone.....no


On the scriptures alone what they reveal about God's decree.

they must deny man's volition, which the articles are clearly spelling out must exist

No.... we just understand what scripture declares about the fall into sin and death. We believe Adam died in the fall,unlike the unbiblical nonsense this statement offers in contrast to Romans 5.

for there to be any kind of a compromise with the Calvinist.

When romans 5 is trashed like this statement does, there cannot be any compromise with any biblical calvinist. To have some people also trash Al Moehler when he held back from blasting this statement is also very repulsive.
Anyone railing against this man needs to examine themself to see if they are in the faith...or do they have their own religion.

It does a good job of drawing them out of the woodwork and exposing them through their refusals to agree with it indeed.

Calvinists are open and honest with what they believe.When they try and "play nice" like the BFM....they get stabbed in the back.

All who like this horrendous statement should depart and start their own group. Maybe Mandy could lead them:thumbs:

 

[Benjamin]

Could sign it. Not gonna.

I think the statement precipitates a problem that simply wasn't a signicant enough for the amount of arguing and bitterness that will result. Just look through the threads here, acrimony everywhere!

Option 3 then ...if such a conflict isn't significantly justified enough to uphold waht youhold as a truth as it relates to the Gospel Message being one genuinely given for all mankind for you put your name on it.










Chicken! :laugh:

 

[Benjamin]

No way to get around that all points of the TULIP vitally hinging on strict/hyper-determinism boys. That's the point, all those that have taken determinst doctrines to the point that they can't sign the articles as they relate to the Gospel Message are hyper-determinist and such doctrines can not be tolerated. Time to sort out things out so we know what we're up against and show the results of such doctrines to everyone envolved. No more hiding for you! Transparency and informed decisions...TRUTH...will prevail...

 

[jonathan.borland]

Oops. R.C. Sproul didn't get the memo:laugh:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/great-quotes-when-worlds-collide/

"But thanks be to God that He has given us a way of salvation by which we can escape His fury." —R.C. Sproul, When Worlds Collide

LOL! Too funny, Jerome!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Mark Dever too? Say it ain't so!:laugh:

"There you have the good news! God has made a way of salvation for all of us alike—alike in our sin—through Jesus Christ." —Mark Dever, The Message of the New Testament

Laughing so hard I can hardly finish typing thi

 

[menageriekeeper]

Chicken! :laugh:

Good try my friend, but I rarely find that anger and acrimony are compatible with a Christ like life. So I'm gonna let you get away with this.




This time.

Option 3 then ...if such a conflict isn't significantly justified enough to uphold waht youhold as a truth as it relates to the Gospel Message being one genuinely given for all mankind for you put your name on it.

No, not option 3 either as it says "avoid conflict at all costs" and that doesn't represent what I think either. I believe instead that THIS conflict doesn't rise to the level of there needing to be such a statement in the SBC.

I believe that the truth of the mechanics of how God draws and causes us or allows us to respond is somewhere in the middle and neither Calvin nor Arminius had it all right or all wrong. There IS middle ground between the two as well as tension in the scriptures between the two. It is us humans that become dogmatic over this issue. God simply didn't say "believe in Christ and Calvin and be saved" any more than He said "Believe in Christ and Arminius and be saved". Believing in Christ is crux. Everything else is mere decoration. We forget we are to be like "little children". What little child would even ask these sorts of questions?

 

[agedman]

No way to get around that all points of the TULIP vitally hinging on strict/hyper-determinism boys. That's the point, all those that have taken determinst doctrines to the point that they can't sign the articles as they relate to the Gospel Message are hyper-determinist and such doctrines can not be tolerated. Time to sort out things out so we know what we're up against and show the results of such doctrines to everyone envolved. No more hiding for you! Transparency and informed decisions...TRUTH...will prevail...

So rather than responding with Scriptures, you rely on ..... fluff.

Are you one who has a form of Godliness, but denies the power thereof?

To what is the "thereof" referring?