In another thread, I posted the following. Perhaps the Non-cal folks would like to "pick it apart" and show what they would agree and disagree. I do not expect this thread to endorse a difference from the Calvinistic as OPPOSED to the Non-cal. Rather, I expect this thread to explore the Non-cal thinking and differentiating between various opinions as to the non-cal view. Here is what I posted as it relates to THIS thread: Non-Cal views go along these lines: Non-cals, do not generally consider the will as constricted and obligatory to the forces of nature (desire, motives, impulses, needs (both physical and psychological, ...) and can make some kind of decision in which the forces of nature do not oblige. To use an illustration: The non-cal view would consider that one can hold their breath for they have that free will. Yet, anyone knows that if you hold your breath long enough you will pass out and start to breath normally - the nature of the body conforms the decision to hold the breath to the needs of the body. The non-cal points to the decision as "free will" yet seems to discard that all such decisions will in fact conform to the nature. That no decisions of consequence can be made that do not conform to the demands of the nature. Therefore, the non-cals must make some human constructs such as "prevenient grace" and "progressive sanctification" in order for some scheme of salvation to be developed. However, even in such schemes, the emphasis always returns to God being the initiator, and that the will of humankind must by some miraculous work of God be "awakened" to the need of Christ; and during that ethereal suspended state between earthly and heavenly, the person has some "freedom of the will" to make a decision for or against salvation.