Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, May 10, 2013.
yes or no?
Our wills are not undamaged, as Adam's originally was, but our wills are still free, in that we still have the ability and right to choose.
Our wills prior to redemption are not free. See John 8.
In short with a yes or no answer?
I've witnessed many preachers assure a person they are saved because they 'chose' by free will long ago, and said persons say 'I know what I believe in my heart!' :sleep: whilst they live lives that deny they are born from above.
BUT some PREACHER told them if they say this prayer and mean it they're going to heaven and take them back to that time again and again.
Do we all have the SAME Free Will To choose As Adam Had? yes or no?
No; no tree of life here. But there could, of course, be a woman as a bad influence.
Sure, blame everything on a woman.
Could you explain what you mean by "living lives that deny that they are born from above".... that could very easily sound like a performance based system.
:thumbsup: Our wills are already pre-disposed towards corruption unlike Adam's, but as far as the capacity to make either right or wrong choices, they are still free.
Adam though had true free will, while we are sinners by nature, so we would bre restricted to wht we can actually choose to do!
Freedom to decide to do something, but limited to what the options actually are that we can choose to do!
Yeshua....let's take this line by line:
Our status as a "sinner by nature" (you are correct) does not effect whether or not libertarian "free-will" exists. We can choose in that nothing compels or requires or necessitates the choices we make. A persons will is "free" just in case he might have chosen to do otherwise. It isn't a question of what we are pre-disposed towards. You have an assumption about the classic compatibilist assertion that people choose only and always according to their "greatest desire" and moreover....that we cannot have wishes or preferences about what our desires might be. The compatibilist schema usually ignores the fact that we can desire/wish that our desires were other than what they are.....Just food for thought there.
Firstly, your definition is somewhat flawed in that the option either TO ACT or NOT TO ACT at all....is not represented...but also, all libertarianly free choices are limited. EVERY choice is "limited". I cannot "choose" to fly by flapping my arms. Freedom of will exists only in respect to the ability to choose between available options. The common (modern) Calvie schema pre-supposes that all "choices" are necessarily pre-destined by the condition in which the actuary (the human) finds themselves...ultimately, that means they are automatons.
I have NO problem with a Calvie who admits that humans are mere automatons......That's consistent.
I have a problem with any Calvie schema which pretends that a fallen being's "greatest desires" function as a sufficient guarantor of all of their actions and that simultaneously pretends that such a being is a legitimate "moral agent" in any ontologically real sense. That's preposterous and stupid. That person does NOT have "free will" they are merely an immediate cause. That's not a human being...it's a computer program:
And the ultimate but proximate cause would be God...who makes a habit of creating garbage.
Everyone has "Free Will"...who would even argue against this fact?
Why does there have to be a DIVIDE?...that is what is wrong with most things in life...EXTREMES!
God is a BALANCED GOD....His word is also balanced and we should live balanced.
God chose who was to be saved before the foundations of the world, by His good pleasure. God draws man unto Himself, through the work of the Holy Spirit. God sustains those He has chosen.
Man's part is to YIELD/SUBMIT to that call, repent or he can walk away. That is ALL man is required to do to get saved and remain saved nothing else.
When I say to "remain" saved I mean, that even our walk on this earth is sustained by God's work and FULFILLED by ours....we can make it better or worse by yielding or not yielding.
To say everything is ALL God's work is to deny ones own sin nature, the sin nature of others, Satan and His minions, and living in a fallen world. It actually takes away the very thing that is preached so often... ACCOUNTABILITY....if God does everything, then we are not accountable for our own actions cause God ordained them.
To say man's free will trumps God's sovereignty is to make God out to be a wimp and at our beckon call...He doesn't become a God to be feared (respected) and revered. Instead of God molding us to His image through His sovereign will, I try and fit God into my will.
See the danger of both beliefs being extreme and not balancing each other?
Our will is free in that God has by his sovereign plan, authority and power given us the ability to choose Him or reject Him.
Forgive me as I'm new here, but most of my Arminian friends would disagree with the statement that we have the right to choose. Most that I know would say that God graciously gave us prevenient grace in his mercy, not because he was obligated. That grace allows us the ability to choose something other than death.
Is that not the majority position?
There seems to be either calvinists or Non Cals that post here, as those against calvinism seem to hold to a free will responding by sinners unto invitation of jesus as way to go!
believe Rev Mitchill would be a classical arminianist, at least that is the opinion i have gathered, as his postings actually make sense and do use scriptures in a coherent fashion!
I am not Arminian.
I see that. How do you ground man's right to choose?
I believe freedom is an inherent quality of a loving God. I believe any higher being created by God is given this freedom, which includes the freedom to choose. It is a right bestowed by a loving God who could do no other since love and freedom go together. I believe scripture bears this out. My view is not unique. It has been held by large segments of the church, even if not by the Protestant Reformers.
That seems like a good logical ground, but how do you ground it Scripturally?