Featured We don't WANT "Free-Will"

Okay (gulp,gulp:laugh. On 3 I can attest to wanting my will to be in line with Gods will. The Holy Spirit is the enabling factor that makes this possible. I can also attest to the fact that I dont want to be in line with Gods will and frequently act on this desire much to my eventual and inevitable shame and sorrow. The love that I feel for a Saviour who first and continues to love me is all that can make those failures into joy! We are blessed beyond measure!

 

Hold that while as sinners , we had free will, but bound by the sin nature, so some things could NOT will to do!

And once Christians, have fuller free will, as now we have both new natures/Holy Spirit to have us obey the Lord, but still not Absolute, as God ALONE has that, for he is the Creator, we are His creations!

 

Ok!

Would say that humans are permitted a limite free will by God, and only he has an absolute one...

 

You are absolutely correct, God is the author of creation, thus HE is the author of the sample space of finite options available to creatures.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I consider that men are free to choose only what they are capable of doing. I'm not free to fly, other than by artificial means, because it is not yet in my ability to do (perhaps in my resurrection body it will be).

Since scripture holds that man's heart is "only evil continually" (evil being defined as anything that falls short of God's glory, including what we may call "good" - Jesus said "no one is good but God alone"), we must first be freed to choose surrender to Christ over trusting - with God-given faith - in any other means of attaining salvation.

The Apostle Paul describes the state of unregenerate men as "bound," "enslaved," "held captive," "dead," etc. Such a captive cannot choose to be liberated. He must first be liberated and then is free to choose to follow a new Master. I love the irony of Paul's description that unless one is a slave to Christ, he or she is not free at all.

I submit that only Christians have free will. The unregenerate are held captive and incapable of choosing outside of their ability.

-Robin

 

First, the fact that the scriptures say that every imagination of the hearts of men was only evil continually does not mean they were unable to have good thoughts and imaginations.

If I were to say that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, does that mean they are unable to go to church? No, it simply states they have not. It does not address ability at all.

The same with Gen 6:5, the fact that the imaginations of men were only evil continually is not saying they could not think and imagine otherwise, you have assumed that.

When Paul describes us as slaves to sin, that does not mean we are compelled to sin. A slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. A slave is not a mindless robot.

What is meant is that we are held captive under the condemnation of death. Even if we do good, it does not take away the fact that we have sinned, and the penalty or wage of that sin is death. So, no matter how good you might be, you are held captive by sin. This is what is meant.

The only reason we can be saved is because when we trust Jesus we are baptized into his body. We died to sin with Jesus in his death, and we are raised together with him to righteousness. We are no longer held captive by sin, we have died to it. This is why it is also described like marriage, as long as a woman's husband lives, she is bound to him. This does not mean she cannot disobey him, yet she is bound to him by law. When he dies, she is free to marry again.

So being enslaved to sin does not mean our every thought and imagination is held captive and we are compelled to sin. But it does mean we are held captive in the condemnation of sin, which is death. We are like a man held on death row in prison, doomed to execution.

 

God says there is none that doeth good. Christ said there is none good but God. Are you saying it is possible that it can be otherwise than what God has said?

Are you also saying a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit?

 

Hmmm... In what way are Christians "capable of choosing outside of their ability"?

You seem to think that 'free will' is necessarily defined by 'being able to choose outside of one's ability'. I don't think this is a good definition of 'free will' for anyone, be they unregenerate or regenerate man, or even God. No wonder we have disagreement on this board.

 

Not only does it say that but I am afraid that is exactly what that means. Without being born again and having the Spirit in us there is nothing good we can do or think. Only the saved have the ability to do good.
I think your understanding is one of the problems in the church. The Pastors have not taught the people just how evil we are. There is nothing in us that is good apart from Christ. Even the good that we would do comes from evil intent so there is nothing good in us. Only that which is done for Christ will stand and is good as no lost person can do anything for Christ so they can do nothing good. Uless our motives are to glorify God even the best we do is a filthy rag, evil and no lost person can have a pure motive to glorify God.

 

I think the disagreement is because people want to take one part of the bible and not the whole. Both election and free will are taught. It is not necessary to get them to fit together in our understanding to believe in both. Faith overcomes the inability to explain.
We do it with the Trinity so it should not really be a problem with this issue either if one is willing to believe.

 

I like your questions. It seems to me then, that the logical explanation for your description of such a world wherein sentient beings make 'real' choices but those choices were actually 'determined' by God prior to creation... that this world would be best described wherein the 'alternitives' are actually only perceptions, they are not real, which is why they can't be chosen. God determined that this was the case prior to creation and we are foolish to think that this world is one in which God has created ontological possibilities for us to experience. This is a world in which we are convinced of the availability of our options. For humans, 'possibilities' are necessarily illusory. I can see how this is an internally coherent world and I find no fault with it whatsoever. I think your more consistent argument to free-willers is to argue as such and then ask them to disprove your argument. How could this be disproved? It can not and you would be king of the hill. Really, if all options are illusory, in this closed system it is reasonable that I be held accountable for my choices, I did, after all think that they were real options and actually made my choice.

If this does represent your view accurately then I see a major flaw. How is such a view to be consistent with the idea that God is genuine? How is one expected to hold the views above and still think creating this kind of world is praiseworthy and admirable? I would say that since God IS genuine then He would not create such a world. Why would He even be compelled to create such a world? It seems He could get the exact same results if the options as recognized from the human's perspective were actually real.

This is a good question. In addition to what I said above I can see your argument and reasoning. My counter would be that God's character is at stake. If He communicates to us that something is an option, then that is what it is and to say that it is not an option is to make God a liar and that He has deceived Himself.

I also like to make the distinction that the 'alternatives' that existed in the past are not to be considered as options now... they were options then but not now. That is to say, prior to the event and in the 'present' of the event, the 'alternatives' were ontologically real and their probability of actually obtaining were not a certainty.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

This kind of appeal to faith should be a first and last appeal and should not be appealed to in between. This seems like an argument of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!". When was the work of theology finally and exhaustively settled? Does it not continue even to this day? Of course I believe that God is God regardless of what happens or transpires or ends up being and to effectively say, "If my understanding of scripture is to be proven to be untrue then it will be the case that God is not God!" is egotistic, arrogant and foolish. I have actually been told this by a friend. I hope this is not your position.

"Both election and free will are taught."
What is your point? No one here disagrees with that... and the funny thing is is that they DO fit together.

"Faith overcomes the inability to explain."
Again, what is your point? What is it exactly are we are not able to explain? Really, this kind of arguement sounds like what a double-inspiration KJVo-ist would make. What evidence is so overwhelmingly against the Trinity that we would have to resort to such an arguement to 'faith'?

 

I don't know what he was talking about either. He also didn't show where my comments would only apply to Hyper-Calvinists either, so his whole post didn't make much sense.

 

How does a Calvinist answer this argument? If you were to pray for a lost person who ends up dying in unbelief (a non-elect reprobate in your system), aren't you praying against the will of God? Aren't you praying for God's glory to be lessoned when you pray for them?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I'll be waiting finally understand the things which have vexed me for so long! Surely they won't just appeal to 'faith'... Skan, I think this deserves it's own thread.
I wonder if they pray as Spurgeon, "Lord, call out your elect, and then elect some more."

 

Well we could begin by turning the question back to a synergist, how can a synergist pray that God would save anyone when the deciding factor as to weather one enters the kingdom or not is the person's own choice to believe?

Having got that out of my system, I will try to answer your question. When the Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray he taught us to pray that God's will would be done. Putting aside the fact that many monergists pray in far too loose terms (as many synergists do too) the prayer should be that 'the Lord would save that person if it be his will.'

It is no different to praying that God might send rain, when he wants to send the sun to glorify his name - does that prayer diminish God's glory, or does it simply get the answer 'no.'

It might be worth noting that the judgement of the reprobate brings glory to God too.

It might also be worth noting that the monergist should preach to and pray for all the people of the world as they opportunity for we do not know who is elect and who is reprobate