We don't WANT "Free-Will"

[Earth Wind and Fire]

More than that, if a Calvinist, who believes that God hasn't chosen to save some for His own Glory, and he is praying for a non-elect reprobate then ultimately he is praying for something that would lesson God's Glory. Thus, for the Calvinists, a prayer for someone who God hasn't chosen is virtually a prayer to lesson the Glory of God. Cals are praying against God's will if they pray for the wrong lost person.

Oh I see.... We are now moving from predestination to bashing Election. Note that when ole St. Paul was up there on Mars Hill, that when he preached election they all cheered. Then when he started on Resurrection they called him a nut & took off.....LOL .... consistent human nature.

Guess everything is relative.... now its Election that people have problems with. Freakin funny!

So in your book Skan, the "True" Calvy is the Hyper Calvinist?!?

 

[AresMan]

If it is determined, you only think you did it willfully and intentionally. You can do neither if you had no alternative. Really try and wrap thoughts around this. It is no paradox. Go to the light....lol.raying::love2:raying::love2:

No, if I did it willfully and intentionally (on purpose), I did so regardless if my choice was "determined" in some way in the grand scheme of eternity.

If my choice was not "determined" in eternity, then how did it happen? Did it come out of a vacuum? Upon what basis did I actually choose to do what I did?

Why is it necessary to affirm the necessity of the existence of something that can never actually happen (the alternatives that are not chosen) for someone to be accountable for what they do?

 

[webdog]

Oh I see.... We are now moving from predestination to bashing Election. Note that when ole St. Paul was up there on Mars Hill, that when he preached election they all cheered. Then when he started on Resurrection they called him a nut & took off.....LOL .... consistent human nature.

Guess everything is relative.... now its Election that people have problems with. Freakin funny!

So in your book Skan, the "True" Calvy is the Hyper Calvinist?!?

What are you talking about? Who bashed election?

 

[freeatlast]

Well, consider yourself outside the norm. When I was a free-willer, it was because I wanted libertarian free will to be true.

My open theist family and friends are so committed to libertarian free will that they get frustrated if I merely try to prove a prophecy of God involving actions of people was guaranteed to happen. In other words, if I simply try to argue for God's integrity with not being wrong, the first thing that comes to their mind is "Are you implying that [insert horrific violent act] was 'determined'"?!

I think you are talking about something different then the OP.

 

[freeatlast]

Nevertheless, no matter who you are or think you are, you are still responsible for your own sins. You do not get a pass simply because you believe in one theology, doctrine etc. We all must own up to sin nature & sins committed. You sin & you own it!

Exactly and we sin because we freely choose to sin thus free will.

 

[freeatlast]

Simply, yes. If all is determined, then you and I have no real alternatives. End of story.:BangHead:
Do you believe all is determined? If so, in what way are you free to choose other than what you do?
Answer that and we should let the thread get back on track, okay?

Wow! Not many admit that. Where is Oldregular to call this heretical? :laugh:

 

[Cypress]

No, if I did it willfully and intentionally (on purpose), I did so regardless if my choice was "determined" in some way in the grand scheme of eternity.

No, you did it willfully and intentionally because (not regardless) it was determined that you would do it.

If my choice was not "determined" in eternity, then how did it happen? Did it come out of a vacuum? Upon what basis did I actually choose to do what I did?

You chose based on the options available to you at the moment of your choosing. Why, I can not say. I am not privy to the events and musings and influences that have been part of your life. (I would like to be though, you seem to be a great guy.:thumbs

Why is it necessary to affirm the necessity of the existence of something that can never actually happen (the alternatives that are not chosen) for someone to be accountable for what they do?

This makes no sense to me, perhaps I miss your meaning. Anyway, speaking of choices that can never actually happen is non-sense. They can not be alternatives (choices) that were not chosen. True alternatives that are not chosen exist at the moment of choice, then are gone. In order to be accountable, you must have been able to choose otherwise at the moment of choice. Not for acting as you were determined to in the grand scheme of things.

 

[AresMan]

No, you did it willfully and intentionally because (not regardless) it was determined that you would do it.

You chose based on the options available to you at the moment of your choosing. Why, I can not say. I am not privy to the events and musings and influences that have been part of your life. (I would like to be though, you seem to be a great guy.:thumbs

This makes no sense to me, perhaps I miss your meaning. Anyway, speaking of choices that can never actually happen is non-sense. They can not be alternatives (choices) that were not chosen. True alternatives that are not chosen exist at the moment of choice, then are gone. In order to be accountable, you must have been able to choose otherwise at the moment of choice. Not for acting as you were determined to in the grand scheme of things.

So, then, the full spectrum of reality even from eternity is in a constant state of flux--creation and destruction. Reality can essential come out of a vacuum and exit into a vacuum. Is that correct?

 

[quantumfaith]

My best friend: (a non-Calvinist)...and I, have a saying that we like to confirm with one another...We sometimes like to re-iterate to one another that:
"Free-will is a _ _ _ _ _ "

Do Calvinists unerstand this? Do they understand that "Free-willers" take little or NO comfort whatsoever in the notion that we have "free-will"?....Our own sin is (Psychologically) "Ever before me"....We see ourselves, as so ridiculously to blame, personally, as beings capable of righteousness...Yet ever so sinful...

Calvinists seem to like to argue that the "Free-will" idea is somehow a form of comfort or an escape for us...It is no such thing (I assure you).
NOTHING would bring the "sheep" more comfort (in the Arminian fold)...Than to think that GOD is merely in his own time, and according to his Sovereign will, perfecting us "elected" to be more perfectly "conformed" according to his own "Sovereign will"... Do Calvinsts ACTUALLY BELIEVE that we LIKE the notion of "Free-Will"? Do Calvinists actually think that we would..in our "flesh" wish to believe in such a thing??? As a rule...we don't...It renders our own sense of guilt so personally and inescapably our own. We feel so keenly our own sense of responsibility, and our own sense of personal guilt. Our "flesh" wants nothing more than to blame our own sinfulness on something OTHER than our own choices...I make no argument about whether the Scriptures teach one point of view, or another....I merely think that if this issue is understood and resolved..than many a Calvinist will pause before adopting the view they posses. It is as painful for an Arminian to adopt our view as it is painful for a Calvinist to adopt theirs...They both hurt...Only a liar speaks other-wise.

I can understand the many Calvinist arguments which are posed to support their point of view...But NOTHING actually sickens me more than their false idea that non-Calvinists are so...because we "LIKE" or are drawn to...or "WISH" or "WANT" to have "free-will"....We don't. It makes us sick...and we wish it weren't the case, quite often actually. It lays upon us nothing more than a weight of guilt which is anything but comforting...We quite often HATE the fact that we have "free-will"...

Whatever the reason we believe in it...it isn't because we "like" it, or find it to be somehow more comforting.

Many Calvinist assumptions and their Apologetics might fall away if this mis-conception is cleared away...

I Believe in "free-will"...It would be of in-estimable comfort to me if I didnt't!!!

Do any Arms/free-willers know what I mean by this, who might attest to it?

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

Nevertheless, no matter who you are or think you are, you are still responsible for your own sins. You do not get a pass simply because you believe in one theology, doctrine etc. We all must own up to sin nature & sins committed. You sin & you own it!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

This thread got me to thinking. When we pray for the salvation of a sinner, what exactly are we asking God to do?

Aren't we asking God to send the Holy Spirit to open his spiritual eyes? To convict him of his sin?

Are we asking God to save that sinner if the sinner is willing? Or, are we really asking God to make him willing?

Or, are we asking God to save him even if he's not willing? I tell you, that is certainly my prayer for my lost loved ones.

I guess my point is that if you believe in free will, there's no point in praying for God to save sinners.

Tom I think you are correct if one holds to complete and absolute LFW. Most "free willers" I conjecture are not so. No one ( I think) denies that God can and does usurp mans freedom. However, I don't think that is the "norm". Scripture records countless lives of people that God selected to use in ordinary and extraordinary ways. Could these have rejected those roles?.....I honestly don't know, however I do know, if they could have, God certainly would accomplished His objectives with the life of someone else. In my mind, life and existence are intertwined in a "mysterious" way with the dual tension of God and His Sovereignty and the freedom he permits His creatures to possess, express and execute. To me, that makes Him even MORE AWESOME ,glorious and wonderful.

 

[Cypress]

So, then, the full spectrum of reality even from eternity is in a constant state of flux--creation and destruction. Reality can essential come out of a vacuum and exit into a vacuum. Is that correct?

The past is gone.....there will be a future.....there is a present.
We are not the same as we were an hour ago. Cells created, died,etc. You can never go back to the state of an hour ago, anymore than you could skip in a minute to the state you will be a day from now because that state has not obtained. Best I can do for now, brother.

 

[Winman]

This thread got me to thinking. When we pray for the salvation of a sinner, what exactly are we asking God to do?

Aren't we asking God to send the Holy Spirit to open his spiritual eyes? To convict him of his sin?

Are we asking God to save that sinner if the sinner is willing? Or, are we really asking God to make him willing?

Or, are we asking God to save him even if he's not willing? I tell you, that is certainly my prayer for my lost loved ones.

I guess my point is that if you believe in free will, there's no point in praying for God to save sinners.

Well, when I pray for someone, I pray that God will be patient and longsuffering with them, and not "give them over" to a reprobate mind as shown in Romans. I pray that God would bring about those situations that might influence them to be saved.

I believe in free will, but I do not understand this to be free of influence. It is impossible to be free of influence. But free will is that ability to make our own choice between two or more options.

Praying for someone's salvation is similar to when you go on visitation for someone who used to be a regular member, but has stopped coming to church. You go over and try to find out why they have not been coming. It might be the church upset them, but oftentimes it is because of some sin in that person's life. Whatever, you try to remind them why they need to be in church, that it is pleasing to God and his commandment, but also the benefits to them and their family. It can simply be that everyone in the church loves them and misses them and hopes they will come back. This can be very effective. So, this is influence and persuasion, but the person has to make their own decision.

There are so many various ways you can influence a person to do anything. You can lay the ol' guilt trip on them. Or you can use a positive argument, that their kids will grow up to love God and be better people if they attend church, etc...

So, this is what I pray, that God would not give up on this person and continue to draw and influence them to be saved. But the person has to make their own choice in the end.

Personally, I am glad I have free will and make my own choices, but I am often made miserable by the choices I have made. I can recall many stupid decisions I have made in life, but they were my decisions and I must take full responsibility for my choices.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, when I pray for someone, I pray that God will be patient and longsuffering with them, and not "give them over" to a reprobate mind as shown in Romans. I pray that God would bring about those situations that might influence them to be saved.

I believe in free will, but I do not understand this to be free of influence. It is impossible to be free of influence. But free will is that ability to make our own choice between two or more options.

Praying for someone's salvation is similar to when you go on visitation for someone who used to be a regular member, but has stopped coming to church. You go over and try to find out why they have not been coming. It might be the church upset them, but oftentimes it is because of some sin in that person's life. Whatever, you try to remind them why they need to be in church, that it is pleasing to God and his commandment, but also the benefits to them and their family. It can simply be that everyone in the church loves them and misses them and hopes they will come back. This can be very effective. So, this is influence and persuasion, but the person has to make their own decision.

There are so many various ways you can influence a person to do anything. You can lay the ol' guilt trip on them. Or you can use a positive argument, that their kids will grow up to love God and be better people if they attend church, etc...

So, this is what I pray, that God would not give up on this person and continue to draw and influence them to be saved. But the person has to make their own choice in the end.

Personally, I am glad I have free will and make my own choices, but I am often made miserable by the choices I have made. I can recall many stupid decisions I have made in life, but they were my decisions and I must take full responsibility for my choices.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
I pray (unfortunately not often enough) that God will use me to be a light and example, that my words might serve to be persuasive to others as the reality of God, that I may have some small part in nurturing a desire to know this God of creation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Tom I think you are correct if one holds to complete and absolute LFW. Most "free willers" I conjecture are not so. No one ( I think) denies that God can and does usurp mans freedom. However, I don't think that is the "norm". Scripture records countless lives of people that God selected to use in ordinary and extraordinary ways. Could these have rejected those roles?.....I honestly don't know, however I do know, if they could have, God certainly would accomplished His objectives with the life of someone else. In my mind, life and existence are intertwined in a "mysterious" way with the dual tension of God and His Sovereignty and the freedom he permits His creatures to possess, express and execute. To me, that makes Him even MORE AWESOME ,glorious and wonderful.

:wavey::thumbsup::thumbsup: I would also add that "Free-will" always has certain limits to begin with. Not only does God reserve the right (and sometimes uses it) to "interfere" with the free-will of his creatures...But nearly any concievable choice entails only a limited number of available options to begin with. It is not as though "Free-Will" entails the option to do "anything". Freedom of Will, is ALWAYS...subject to ONLY those particular options which God has Sovereignly chosen to permit his creatures to make. We are NEVER capable of making any given "choice" that He has not already elected to allow us to make. He remains Sovereign.

 

[freeatlast]

The past is gone.....there will be a future.....there is a present.
We are not the same as we were an hour ago. Cells created, died,etc. You can never go back to the state of an hour ago, anymore than you could skip in a minute to the state you will be a day from now because that state has not obtained. Best I can do for now, brother.

Wow, Man you need to stay away from all that coffee. I think it has made you hyperventilate :laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Wow, Man you need to stay away from all that coffee. I think it has made you hyperventilate :laugh:

I know that statement of Cypress's sounds rather strange...but his point was rather more well taken than it might appear at first look. He is appealing to something of a thought experiment to justify his point of view. It's a Philosophical line of argument which Philosophers often make to differentiate between certain categories of reality and possibility. It was meant to be a response to Aresman's post...Aresman will understand what he was trying to convey....It's not the coffee! :smilewinkgrin: Although it does indeed look like a coffee problem at first glance. It was not as much non-sense as it sounds...:wavey:
It appears that Cypress is familiar with some certain Historical lines of Philosophical argumentation, which may, or may no longer be considered commonly accepted....but they are real. Humble-Thinker referenced one which Jonathan Edwards appealed to, about how the Universe is itself in a constant state of ex-nihilo creation...It's weird, and I don't buy it...but Cypress might be suggesting something along those lines. I don't mean to speak for him...It is for him to clarify (of course)...:thumbsup:

 

[freeatlast]

I know that statement of Cypress's sounds rather strange...but his point was rather more well taken than it might appear at first look. He is appealing to something of a thought experiment to justify his point of view. It's a Philosophical line of argument which Philosophers often make to differentiate between certain categories of reality and possibility. It was meant to be a response to Aresman's post...Aresman will understand what he was trying to convey....It's not the coffee! :smilewinkgrin: Although it does indeed look like a coffee problem at first glance. It was not as much non-sense as it sounds...:wavey:
It appears that Cypress is familiar with some certain Historical lines of Philosophical argumentation, which may, or may no longer be considered commonly accepted....but they are real. Humble-Thinker referenced one which Jonathan Edwards appealed to, about how the Universe is itself in a constant state of ex-nihilo creation...It's weird, and I don't buy it...but Cypress might be suggesting something along those lines. I don't mean to speak for him...It is for him to clarify (of course)...:thumbsup:

Thank you, interesting.

 

[Cypress]

I know that statement of Cypress's sounds rather strange...but his point was rather more well taken than it might appear at first look. He is appealing to something of a thought experiment to justify his point of view. It's a Philosophical line of argument which Philosophers often make to differentiate between certain categories of reality and possibility. It was meant to be a response to Aresman's post...Aresman will understand what he was trying to convey....It's not the coffee! :smilewinkgrin: Although it does indeed look like a coffee problem at first glance. It was not as much non-sense as it sounds...:wavey:
It appears that Cypress is familiar with some certain Historical lines of Philosophical argumentation, which may, or may no longer be considered commonly accepted....but they are real. Humble-Thinker referenced one which Jonathan Edwards appealed to, about how the Universe is itself in a constant state of ex-nihilo creation...It's weird, and I don't buy it...but Cypress might be suggesting something along those lines. I don't mean to speak for him...It is for him to clarify (of course)...

Hos,
Thanks and well said, and pretty good clarification.:thumbsup: I wrongly assumed somehow that it didnt need it. Hope I am not leading thread to far astray.
Presentism would best describe it. Here a quote from Alan Rhoda "As the presentist sees it, the passage of time involves a real coming-to-be and a real passing-away as the present state-of-affairs evolves in accordance with its inherent propensities. A prior state causes its successeor by becoming—morphing into, if you will—its successor."
This is what I was trying to convey. Sorry FAL, will go decaf for awhile.:love2:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos,
Thanks and well said, and pretty good clarification.:thumbsup: I wrongly assumed somehow that it didnt need it. Hope I am not leading thread to far astray.
Presentism would best describe it. Here a quote from Alan Rhoda "As the presentist sees it, the passage of time involves a real coming-to-be and a real passing-away as the present state-of-affairs evolves in accordance with its inherent propensities. A prior state causes its successeor by becoming—morphing into, if you will—its successor."
This is what I was trying to convey. Sorry FAL, will go decaf for awhile.:love2:

1.) Don't go decaf...You would become boring, and boring is not your gift.
2.) I only know of the ideas you were conveying as being, well, kind of not largely or commonly accepted anymore...Maybe there are more modern proponents of this idea than I thought. I am no authority on this line of reasoning....but my personal understanding is that it is not commonly accepted anymore. Maybe you can enlighten us?
3.)Yeah...it's slightly off-topic...but the OP is little more than one man's personal observation and experience expressed with a sweeping generalization...Although I would like for more people to at least respond to the idea in my OP....I have little problem with their subsequently waxing long and philosopical or whatever after-wards...feel FREE!!! (Just give a basic response to OP first :smilewinkgrin