Calvinist's believe everyone has free will

I say that whatever is consistent with scripture should be acceptable.:tongue3:

I disagree. A person is influenced by outside forces. Whether that rises to the level of "compulsion" is irrevelent. Your will is not "free" from outside influence.

The Apostle Paul disagrees with you. His whole argument in Romans 7 is concerned with the influence of sin in a person's life.... How sin (personafied) controls the person's actions causing them to do the very things they do not want to do.

Agreed.

You are missing the obvious, imho. It is sin that has corrupted (and continues to corrupt) the nature of man.

peace to youraying:

 

I would say when compared to what Jesus taught is that the typical usage of what it means to be a Christian is a mile off of what Jesus taught when it came to paying the cost of following Him.

 

You seem to have a nice grasp on the topic, from what I can tell. I appreciate your posts. I've read the Edwards' work you reference, and have studied the subject myself. I found Luther's Bondage of the Will to be helpful. Have you read it yet? http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Bondage-of-the-Will-p-16202.html

The only problem I have with agreeing to calling the will "free", is that 99% of society will probably take it in a way different than you mean. The term "free" to them implies an ability to choose to go left or right from a neutral, indifferent position. And, this indifference is what is not granted by non-freewillers. Non-freewillers seem to say the will is "bound" or constrained to choose according to the nature of the person. Even God's will, they often say, is "bound" to choose according to his nature. "Free" implies not being attached. Non-freewillers say that it is "bound" or subject, and not neutral or indifferent. Luther compares the will to a beast, that is ridden and directed by it's rider.

Thanks again for your posts. I'm glad to have found others who like digging into Edwards and other older writers, and who enjoy thinking on such topics. I hope to read more of your thoughts on this, and other subjects.

Blessings and fellowship!

 

The wrong questions are being asked. People are asking if man has free will, that is, the ability to choose between various options. The answer to that question is yes. The other option is that man is a robot doing only what he is programmed to do. Nobody would argue this. Everybody makes choices throughout the day on a variety of issues from what to eat or drink all the way up to moral choices. The question of whether or not man can choose between various options is, thus, the wrong question.

The right question is this: what will man do with his free will? What will he choose? My ability to choose doesn't mean I will give equal credence to all options in front of me. In fact, experience proves that we aren't clean slates. Place in front of me a ribeye steak cooked the way I desire and a plate full of chicken livers and I will choose the steak every time. Why? Because I like ribeye steaks and despise livers. I have a preference for one thing and a strong preference against something else. While I have the ability to make a choice, my choice will be influenced by various factors.

The bible is clear that man has a rotten nature, one that is emnity with God, cannot please God, and indeed hates God. The natural man does not like God or His law, doesn't wish to please God and cannot, and will not receive the things of the Spirit of God and cannot. This is not because natural man is unable to make a choice and rather acts as a robot. Rather, it is because the natural man has a strong preference for sin and a strong preference against Jesus Christ. The inward man, the creation of Jesus Christ within us, is what delights in the law of God. It is this incredible creative work of Christ at regeneration that gives man the necessary love of God and His law, and gives man the great desire to serve and please God, that brings about a case where man prefers Jesus Christ over sin and sinful living.

 

I disagree. I believe calvinists deny both 1 and 2 in your scenario, hence the corpse theology (dead men can't do anything) or Henry Ford theology ("you can choose any color Model T as long as it's black).

Choose or choice by definition (there's that pesky sticking to properly defined terms thing) requires more than one option or it's not a choice.

If you go solely on a 21st century understanding of slavery as it has occurred in the last century, you would be right. The OT and NT era slavery was the equivalent of bankruptcy today...you most certainly had a choice to become a slave back then.

 

Charles, welcome to the Baptist Board, and I hope you enjoy your time here. Just a small matter to alert you about. Please note that this is a Baptist-only forum. Your profile makes no mention of such affiliation.

Please feel free to post in those fora that are open to all denominations.

 

Sorry, Tom. I wasn't aware of the requirement to mention a Baptist affiliation in my profile. I signed up with this board a little over two years ago, and was mainly an occasional reader of the posts. I just recently decided to contribute a little myself.

I just added a part to my bio that speaks of my membership with Grace Reformed Baptist Church in my hometown. Before that, I was a member of a differnet Baptist church for 17 years. The Works of Gill, Spurgeon and Fuller fill several shelves on my library.

 

Thanks, that clears up the problem.