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.
Non-cal view
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by agedman, Dec 31, 2013.
Page 1 of 4
-
-
I do not usually involve myself in these kinds of discussions, but isn't breathing called an involuntary action like our heartbeat?
I do not will myself to breathe, my body does that automatically. -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It is the "gaping holes" that this thread seeks to pertain. -
This thread is to show specific areas of disagreement view might be of that non-cal as presented. It is not a report card on who holds the view.
If you disagree with what is presented in the OP, then state exactly your view, and what specifically you disagree in the OP, and why your view is what is Biblical. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
Incredible!
He who at any thread dealing with the cal-arm controversy is piping in with all manner of posts.
I suggest that as a Non-cal you have opportunity to present your view in contrast to other non-cal views.
What makes your view unique to you in contrast to all other non-cals. -
I suppose you did not read the posts on the contra-causal-freewill threads?
The thinking followed the view(s) that a person can make a decision without and outside of the influences and in direct opposition to any impulses obliged by basic nature, basic desires, and basic motives. -
I will say this though, a person doesn 't always perform their greatest desire. If someone pulled a gun on me and asked me for my wallet, I would give it to him to preserve my life, but that is not my greatest desire. My greatest desire at that moment would be for a cop to happen by and arrest the thief, and that I could keep my wallet. -
Perhaps it should asked, do you hold to "freedom of the will?"
If you do, to what extent is that freedom expressed in salvation in comparison to other non-cal views? -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
Then you would agree with the statement of the op:
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.
... 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.
-
-
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
I am not good at posting links to a thread - I think this will work:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90572&highlight=contra+causal+free
Perhaps here is another in which the topic expressed variant opinions on the 'free will' issue:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77659&highlight=contra+causal+free
If you both go through the posts on the threads, you will see some posts that may be indicative of the OP statements. -
Webdog countered that his greatest desire would be that the robber be arrested and that he keep his wallet. I agree.
It is my will that I never sin again as long as I live, but I doubt that will happen.
Page 1 of 4