Please Biblically Show Why The 5 Points Of Arminianism Are Correct?

That's not what he asked JF, he asked if a regenerated person has true free will and can choose NOT to believe in Christ.

Another logical fallacy of Calvinism, they say the unregenerate has free will, but that will is enslaved (a direct contradiction) by their sin nature and will always choose against God.

Then they say the regenerate have free will, but will irresistably (a direct contradiction) always choose for God.

Boy, if I heard doctrine like this I would be scratching my head and looking around to see if anyone else was as perplexed as me. But Calvinists swallow this hook, line, and sinker without blinking an eye.

 

I would say that the unregenerate do not have free will.

It's more free than the unregenerate. We can now choose to worship God.

Yeah, those stupid Calvinist. Surprised they even know how to log on to a computer.

 

You are changing your tune, you have said many times in the past the unregenerate have free will, but will always choose to follow their fallen nature and choose against God. You and I have personally debated this, I argued that an enslaved will cannot be a free will, you disagreed. This is a fact and you know it.

Using a computer means little, my kids were using the computer daily when they were four years old.

If you want to accept contradictions as truth, that is your right, but it doesn't make it right. I would walk out if a preacher tried to teach this nonsense.

 

Then you and I have a different definition of "free will." Please define "free will" so that I may more accurately understand what you mean when you use the term.

 

No, I've said they have a will and can choose anything that they want.

Maybe you misunderstood my argument. A person can choose anything they want. It's what they want(desires) that's corrupted so they will never want to choose to come to Christ.

True.

I don't accept contradictions as truth. I will however recognize that some things may seem contradictory, but I may not have all the facts. I don't think that is going on here. A person choose anything they want. They are free to do that. They(unregenerate) will however never want/desire to come to Christ. Therefore they will never choose until that desire is changed.

 

Oh, I know the clever way you word it, nobody is fooled by that except other Calvinists.

If the will is enslaved by the desires it is not free.

 

That's correct. Our will is not free. We are free to choose anything we want. Our wants/desires are corrupt. I'm not fooling nor attempting to fool anyone. Our wills are not free from the corruption of sin prior to regeneration.

 

You just said people are FREE to choose whatever they want two posts ago, that is not true, they must irresistably choose what they desire.

In your view the will is no more free than a dog on a short leash, and desires is the owner directing where the dog is allowed to go.

But I'm glad you are finally dropping the "free" argument and joined your brothers who are more consistent. You are not correct or scriptural, God himself said man has his own voluntary will in Lev 1:3, but at least you are finally consistent with Calvinism.

 

They are free to choose anything that want to. You need to keep reading my post. You don't understand what I'm writing.

I've never argued for "free" will as it doesn't exist nor taught in the Bible. What I've stated is that you are free to choose anything you want. The limitation is in the "want" part of the discussion. Exactly what I've been saying for years.

 

If saved persons can choose to follow God, are they free to choose not to follow God?

 

So the lost person is free to choose Christ they just dont want to? How is that even a choice with limited atonement in play? If Christ didn't die for that person how are they free to accept something that can never be given to them?

 

Reminds me of Henry Ford's quote when the model-T was first rolling off the assembly line:

"You can choose any color, so long as it's black."

 

Yes. They don't want to. It's not God not allowing them to choose Him.

Limited atonement teaches that the death of Christ is sufficient for all men but intended for the elect(believers). So the atonement is sufficient for them. Christ died for the believers. It was never intended for unbelievers.(those that die in unbelief)

 

Jbh's argument is illogical and circular. He attempts to distinguish between the desires and the will, but the desires are the controlling and choosing factor and thus the will. Therefore, if the desire is only evil, the will can only be evil, as the desire is only evil. There are not at least two possible options, and therefore no choice.

Does that sound like a circle? It should, because it is.

I liked the Henry Ford comment, perhaps he was a Calvinist. Jbh would have taken Ford's comment as serious and logical.

 

JBH,
You are describing what is called free moral agency....they are not looking to understand, but rather to trip you up with your wording. Of course there is no such thing as free will.
The scripture speaks of self will. The will is bound by the nature.

 

:thumbs:

:thumbs::applause::thumbs:
Of course you are correct again. Thanks for your patience.

 

There is nothing circular with my argument and it's not anywhere close to illogical. You always choose what you want in every single decision you have ever made.

 

God has set eternity in the hearts of all men. Everyone desires eternal life yet not all choose it. Why is that? And before you tell me their hearts are sinful that desire was placed there by God himself