Simple way that the bible teaches Free Will

[Iconoclast]

That argues against complete free will. I agree with you there. It does not argue against a limited free will which most Calvinist(the vast majority) acknowledge.

Most Calvinists do not believe in free will at all.
Some because they know many people have this idea will use the term but with a carefully worded explanation.
I do not play around with it that way. I have looked at this years and can only defend what I know to be so.
A person's will is bound by their nature
God's Holy nature does not allow Him to act contrary to it.
A Holy God is not free to sin
In heaven we will not be free to sin.

 

[Reynolds]

Most Calvinists do not believe in free will at all.
Some because they know many people have this idea will use the term but with a carefully worded explanation.
I do not play around with it that way. I have looked at this years and can only defend what I know to be so.
A person's will is bound by their nature
God's Holy nature does not allow Him to act contrary to it.
A Holy God is not free to sin
In heaven we will not be free to sin.

I admit "free will" becomes a word game very quickly.
Do you believe man has freedom of will to make any decisions? Are you free to decide whether you will eat bacon or sausage for breakfast?

 

[Iconoclast]

I admit "free will" becomes a word game very quickly.
Do you believe man has freedom of will to make any decisions? Are you free to decide whether you will eat bacon or sausage for breakfast?

Of course we make choices, We have self will.
Our will is bound by our nature however, consider this;
rom6
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

vs 18.free from sin, servant of righteousness
vs20;servants of sin, free from righteousness

As believers we are only free to serve, not free to sin.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Therefore, “free will” is a lie

then the Bible is a lie!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Most Calvinists do not believe in free will at all.

most Calvinists have their doctrines based in "theology", and not the Holy Bible! They call the "Five Points", of "Calvinism", to give the "impression" that John Calvin is their authority for this, when it is very clear that Calvin himself never believed or taught that the Redemption blood of Jesus Christ is in any way limited! In fact, Calvin says that it is for "everyone wihtout exception", which is a non-Calvinistic phrase!

 

[atpollard]

Even your fellow Calvinists on here admit to free will, just not as it pertains to salvation.

It comes down to the definition of "free will".

1. If one speaks of the ability to make any choice at all, as distinct from being a robot, then everyone has "free will"
2. If one speaks of "libertine" free will (the ability to choose any action, good or evil, with no sinful nature or outside forces predisposing one to one choice or another), then there is no such thing. Even psychology and sociology acknowledge that "nature" and "nurture" play a role in our predisposition to one choice over another and we are guided by circumstances and experiences to make no decision free from outside influences.

So his "fellow Calvinists" are acknowledging "free will" in the first sense, and I suspect that Iconoclast is arguing against "libertine free will" in the second sense. It is a semantic distinction.

 

[atpollard]

most Calvinists have their doctrines based in "theology", and not the Holy Bible! They call the "Five Points", of "Calvinism", to give the "impression" that John Calvin is their authority for this, when it is very clear that Calvin himself never believed or taught that the Redemption blood of Jesus Christ is in any way limited! In fact, Calvin says that it is for "everyone wihtout exception", which is a non-Calvinistic phrase!

It was the Lutheran State Church in Germany that named the Reformed Movement "Calvinists" to imply that their Biblical doctrines were man-made ... just as YOU have used the term. They called themselves REFORMERS because they believed that the Lutheran Church still contained too much Catholicism that contradicted the Bible. Calvin was just one of many Reformers, not the first nor the last, but just a widely published Reformer. The Synod of Dort was more of an "authority" on what Reformers believed.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It was the Lutheran State Church in Germany that named the Reformed Movement "Calvinists" to imply that their Biblical doctrines were man-made ... just as YOU have used the term. They called themselves REFORMERS because they believed that the Lutheran Church still contained too much Catholicism that contradicted the Bible. Calvin was just one of many Reformers, not the first nor the last, but just a widely published Reformer. The Synod of Dort was more of an "authority" on what Reformers believed.

so WHY call T.U.L.I.P "the Five Points of Calvinism"? This is misleading to say the least, and dishonest as Calvin NEVER accepted the L!

 

[atpollard]

then the Bible is a lie!

non sequitur.

You may want to offer more than trolling snipes.

 

[atpollard]

so WHY call T.U.L.I.P "the Five Points of Calvinism"? This is misleading to say the least, and dishonest as Calvin NEVER accepted the L!

Most now prefer to call Calvinism the "Doctrines of Grace" with "T.U.L.I.P." being a convenient sotieriological mnemonic acronym.
Now, as then, it is primarily our opponents that like to refer to it as Calvinism because it makes it easier to claim that we are "following the teaching of men" and "rejecting scripture" when the testimony of those that have embraced TULIP is overwhelmingly that we once believed different but could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence we saw IN SCRIPTURE.

One also must admit that "Calvinist" is a lot shorter to type over and over than "Doctrines of Grace-ist", so part of it is just tradition and convenience. To be technically accurate, I am a Particular Baptist, which distinguishes me from Presbyterians that also accept TULIP, but believe in Paedobaptism ("baptizing families"). So you may refer to the "Calvinists" on this board as "Particular Baptists" if you would like ... because we believe that Jesus died to save Particular people (aka. His sheep) and not all people in General (everyone without exception). So we believe TULIP, the Five points of Particular Baptism.

 

[JD731]

Joshua 24:15
... choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD

In order for that verse to say to choose, we must look at the definitions of "choice"


Webster says

: power of choosing

Choosing what?

Between a number of options or alternative courses of action

Webster says options are.

something that may be chosen: such as
a: an alternative course of action

So if the bible states to choose, that MUST mean (words have actual meanings), we have the power to choose between alternative courses of actions.

Or it's not a choice, and God couldn't say "choose"

If determinism is true, we have no alternative courses of action to what is determined, so we have no options, therefor its not a "choice" And we can't choose.

So choose this day= Choice

Which God you will serve= Options.


Therefor calvinists deny free will, they just make up a proposition to make A = ~A

I have come to the definite conclusion that Calvinism, whether it is hyper Calvinism or unhyper Calvinism is pseudo Christianity and is as dangerous as a cocked gun to the soul of man. If one has to wonder if a person has free will or not just means that he has moved away from reality and common sense and reason and logic and intelligent thought. Absolutely nothing about it is true and none of it's doctrines comes from a careful and thoughtful application of the words we are given in the scriptures.

On this idea of free will, the scriptures does not make it a doctrine to be studied as do Calvinists, the Bible just assumes it. No man can have the free will to believe God unless he hears from God. There are more conditions than one for being saved from our sins and yet Calvinists teaches the theory that salvation is unconditional. How about that for pure denial of truth?

Salvation from sin is based upon what God did for sinful man through his son on the cross. God has told men about it and has made promises based on what he has done. He has told men that he will save from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire, if they will simply believe his promise that he will save anyone and everyone who will come to him through Jesus Christ and in his name.

The first condition for any lost man is that he must know of the promise. The second condition is that he must believe the promise. God has said there is no difference in sinners and the same conditions applies for every one no matter gender, status, ethnicity, or age. Whosoever will may come, he says. You may read about him saying it here; Please read it carefully and refrain from parsing the words of God;

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How does God fulfill the first condition? The answer is that he sends preachers to make him known and to preach his word. He does not do it himself. He does it through other men who have experienced salvation themselves. They are the only ones who can preach this wonderful gospel with any conviction. Look here and answer these rhetorical questions that are asked in the text:

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and
how shall they hear without a preacher?15 And
how shall they preach, except they be sent?

as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

How can one obey the gospel? Well the text says they did not believe it when they heard it, so logically, obeying it is believing it.

Glad tidings of good things from the preacher to those who have not heard??? Not so if Calvinism is true. There is no good news to lost men who can never have hope even through the gospel preaching of Christ crucified as the substitute sacrifice of God for sinful men if God has decided in advance that he will not save them in spite of his sacrifice for them.

Thankfully for the lost man, Calvinism is not true. It is offensive to the Christian who loves God and knows of his saving grace to all men and his provision for their salvation and his invitation to come to him and be saved.

The last message in the scriptures, Re 22:17 says "whosoever WILL, let him take of the water of life freely."

Free salvation and free will because that is what God promised.

Deny it if your religion requires it but I am saying those who do are unbelievers and deniers of the Christian faith.

 

[Reynolds]

It comes down to the definition of "free will".

1. If one speaks of the ability to make any choice at all, as distinct from being a robot, then everyone has "free will"
2. If one speaks of "libertine" free will (the ability to choose any action, good or evil, with no sinful nature or outside forces predisposing one to one choice or another), then there is no such thing. Even psychology and sociology acknowledge that "nature" and "nurture" play a role in our predisposition to one choice over another and we are guided by circumstances and experiences to make no decision free from outside influences.

So his "fellow Calvinists" are acknowledging "free will" in the first sense, and I suspect that Iconoclast is arguing against "libertine free will" in the second sense. It is a semantic distinction.

This is one example of how Calvinists using terms differently make them appear illogical. Iconoclast uses free will differently than the vast majority of Calvinists. No free will = robot. Even asking the man condemned to execution if he prefers hanging or firing squad is giving a free choice among limited options. That is what man has, a free choice among limited options. Though his decision is driven by other factors, it's ultimately his.

 

[atpollard]

There are more conditions than one for being saved from our sins and yet Calvinists teaches the theory that salvation is unconditional. How about that for pure denial of truth?

You should read beyond the title "Unconditional Election" and find out what the "Doctrines of Grace" (TULIP) actually CLAIM before making such erroneous statements about what they claim.

Got Questions: "Unconditional election - is it biblical?"

Answer: Unconditional election is a phrase that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the predestination—or the election—of people for salvation. It represents the second letter of the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate the five points of Calvinism, also known as the Doctrines of Grace. Other terms for the same doctrine include “unmerited favor,” “sovereign election” or “adopted by God.” All these terms are good names for this doctrine because each reveals some aspect of the doctrine of election. However, more important than the term we use to describe the doctrine is how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about election and predestination.

The debate over unconditional election is not whether or not God elects or predestines people to salvation but upon what basis He elects them. Is that election based upon foreknowledge that those individuals will have faith in Christ, or is it based upon God’s sovereign choice to save them? As the word “unconditional” implies, this view believes that God’s election of people to salvation is done “with no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.” God elects people to salvation by His own sovereign choice and not because of some future action they will perform or condition they will meet. Those who come to Christ become His children by His will, not by theirs. “They were not God’s children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children” (John 1:13 CEV).

God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13; Romans 9:16; Romans 10:20; 1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Timothy 1:9). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Romans 9:10-24; Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8).

 

[Craig Hooker]

If they have a "choice" whom to serve by definition they are able decide "by their own power", who


Then there is no choice for them to make.

So are you saying choice implies ability?

 

[atpollard]

This is one example of how Calvinists using terms differently make them appear illogical. Iconoclast uses free will differently than the vast majority of Calvinists. No free will = robot. Even asking the man condemned to execution if he prefers hanging or firing squad is giving a free choice among limited options. That is what man has, a free choice among limited options. Though his decision is driven by other factors, it's ultimately his.

I agree, but it isn't just Calvinists.

In a discussion on Salvation, both sides will often use the terms interchangeably. It is often deliberate and deliberately dishonest.

One example would be to claim that I can choose to wear a red tie or a blue tie, so I can choose to be good or evil. Those are not equivalent. One is "free will" and the other is "libertine free will". To make the difference clear, can you choose to live a sinless life and save yourself? If you have the "libertine free will" to choose "good" then it should be possible, but scripture is clear that it is not possible.

On the other side, I have seen the argument "If you have free will, then choose to flap your arms and fly to heaven" since you do not have "libertine free will" to do the impossible, you must not have any "free will" at all.

So conflating physical free will to make choices compatible with our fallen nature with a spiritual free will capable of making choices CONTRARY to our fallen nature is a distinction that needs to be made somehow to have any real discussion on what scripture says is and is not possible.

Can a Bad tree really grow Good fruit? "Calvinists" say no. Some anti-calvinists are saying yes. You know what Jesus said and that is why some "Calvinists" are willing to appear "illogical".

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree, but it isn't just Calvinists.

In a discussion on Salvation, both sides will often use the terms interchangeably. It is often deliberate and deliberately dishonest.

One example would be to claim that I can choose to wear a red tie or a blue tie, so I can choose to be good or evil. Those are not equivalent. One is "free will" and the other is "libertine free will". To make the difference clear, can you choose to live a sinless life and save yourself? If you have the "libertine free will" to choose "good" then it should be possible, but scripture is clear that it is not possible.

On the other side, I have seen the argument "If you have free will, then choose to flap your arms and fly to heaven" since you do not have "libertine free will" to do the impossible, you must not have any "free will" at all.

So conflating physical free will to make choices compatible with our fallen nature with a spiritual free will capable of making choices CONTRARY to our fallen nature is a distinction that needs to be made somehow to have any real discussion on what scripture says is and is not possible.

Can a Bad tree really grow Good fruit? "Calvinists" say no. Some anti-calvinists are saying yes. You know what Jesus said and that is why some "Calvinists" are willing to appear "illogical".

this is all rather nonsensical, when the Bible clearly says, "CHOOSE this day who you will serve" (Joshua 24:15), where the CHOICE is clearly in following the Lord of the Bible, or the "gods" of this world, which must have "salvation" in mind. Why would this be asked if there is no "ability" to make the CHOICE to either follow, or reject the Lord and Hid Ways? Surely theology is placing obstacles in the way of sinners, such as the Bible does not, when they say Jesus did not die for or desire their salvation.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reynolds,

This is one example of how Calvinists using terms differently make them appear illogical

.
Not necessarily. People use terms differently for many reasons, even if they are non-Calvinists. People use "terms" based on what they have learned so far, and what they can comfortably defend.
I have never met Pollard, but he had no trouble understanding what was offered in this discussion, nor offering his understanding.

[QUOTE]Iconoclast uses free will differently than the vast majority of Calvinists[/QUOTE].
This is not so, I have moved freely among many Calvinists and local churches. I have not had anyone say what I offer is outside of the mainstream.
I posted two links , one from Spurgeon, one from Chantry, and could show many more. Luther, Bondage of the will,etc.

What I offered on romans 6 will not be refuted by anyone on here.They can object but not show it incorrect.

No free will = robot.

As we know...free will is not mentioned in scripture at all. At best people list verses on choosing this or that, which does not address the issue of the will.

Even asking the man condemned to execution if he prefers hanging or firing squad is giving a free choice among limited options. That is what man has, a free choice among limited options. Though his decision is driven by other factors, it's ultimately his.

you illustrate it right here...man can choose, that is not the question. The question is not can man choose. The question is what is the condition of mans will since the fall? it is bound and not free.

 

[Iconoclast]

this is all rather nonsensical, when the Bible clearly says, "CHOOSE this day who you will serve" (Joshua 24:15), where the CHOICE is clearly in following the Lord of the Bible, or the "gods" of this world, which must have "salvation" in mind. Why would this be asked if there is no "ability" to make the CHOICE to either follow, or reject the Lord and Hid Ways? Surely theology is placing obstacles in the way of sinners, such as the Bible does not, when they say Jesus did not die for or desire their salvation.

We are not speaking of choice. We all choose. The issue is the condition of man's will. Scripture is clear men are bound by sin.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Scripture is clear men are bound by sin.

to the extent that they cannot, even with the convicting of the Holy Spirit, turn to the Lord? No, this is theology but certainly not Bible Teaching

 

[atpollard]

this is all rather nonsensical, when the Bible clearly says, "CHOOSE this day who you will serve" (Joshua 24:15), where the CHOICE is clearly in following the Lord of the Bible, or the "gods" of this world, which must have "salvation" in mind.

You should read beyond one verse when creating Doctrine. However, let us set that aside and allow me to ask another question ...

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." - [John 3:19-21 NASB]​

... Did GOD get the Judgement wrong?