Free Will

[Billyray]

Free will has been tossed around a lot recently on this board. The problem is that unless a person gives the definition of how he is using this word it can cause a lot of confusion.

One person may use the term "free will" to simply mean making willing choices that the person wants to make.

Another person may use the term "free will" to mean the ability to make any choice at any time independent of a person's nature and independent of God's will.

Perhaps posters could give us some definitions of how they are using this term and then we could proceed to discuss this issue.

[alanmolstad]

you had a nice dictionary you were quoting the other day.......quote it again now...

[Billyray]

you had a nice dictionary you were quoting the other day.......quote it again now...
Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

[Billyray]

What about sin nature. Do you think that this limits complete "free will"?

[alanmolstad]

What about sin nature. Do you think that this limits complete "free will"?

we hear many voices whispering im sure....but in the end we are always free to make up our own minds according to how we see things...

free will means that we are not under the control of others...things feelings or people

but free will does not mean "error free"

[alanmolstad]

god could not draw us to christ unless we had free will...

free will is what god seeks to attract

[alanmolstad]

Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
the link?...........

[alanmolstad]

please post the link were i can read this for myself

[Billyray]

the link?...........
Here is the link to Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com

If you want to use this definition then that is fine. But the point I am trying to make is that without known how you are using this word I have no idea what you mean when you say "free will". And the same would go for you if I use that term. For example I could say a Calvinist believes that a person who is not elect has the "free will" to choose Christ or reject HIM--but you would object in how I am using this term. Feel free to give me your own definition of how you are using this term if you like.

[Libby]

What about sin nature. Do you think that this limits complete "free will"?

I think it does, to some degree, but not quite to the extent that most Calvinists believe...."dead in sin"...unable to choose God, without His intervention.

I do think our nature interferes with keeping God's commandments, which is why we needed a Savior.

I don't consider God's "drawing" a Divine intervention, exactly. I see it as more of an enticement...but not one that we cannot reject, if we choose.

[Billyray]

I do think our nature interferes with keeping God's commandments, which is why we needed a Savior.

I certainly agree with you on this one Libby. In fact if a person had complete free will then he should be able to choose to obey all of the commandments and live a perfect life--just like Christ. But not a single person has the ability to do so. And this brings us back where we were discussing Arminian verse Calvinism and how I was trying to show that each side could make a claim that a person didn't have a real choice therefore it wasn't fair. (But for the record before a poster such as JohnT misunderstands my position--I believe that each one of us make choices are what we desire and we will be held responsible for those choices.

Alan was so hot on this topic on the other thread I expected a more vigorous response from him but thus far I haven't seen it yet. I am still waiting for him to settle on a definition so I can get a better grasp on what he really believes. Hopefully it will be forthcoming.

[Libby]

I think Alan was okay with your dictionary definition...but, I'll let him clear that up for himself.

I know Calvinists don't believe we have the kind of "free will" described in your dictionary definition.


And this brings us back where we were discussing Arminian verse Calvinism and how I was trying to show that each side could make a claim that a person didn't have a real choice therefore it wasn't fair.

Yeah, this one caught me a little off guard. It's probably wrong to say that God does not have expectations that we cannot meet. His expectation is perfection and we sure as heck cannot meet that. We actually do need God's "grace" every step of the way.

[Libby]

Link to the Merriam Webster definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

[Libby]

Reformed definition of "free will".

http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will

(excerpt from the link)

Probably the most common definition of free will is the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition,"^[1]^ and specifically that these "free will" choices are not ultimately predestined by God.

According to the Bible, however, the choices of man are not only ultimately determined by God, but morally determined by one's nature. Man is indeed a free moral agent and freely makes choices, but in his natural state he necessarily acts in accordance with his fallen nature. Man willingly makes choices that flow from the heart, and sin is also always attributed to the desires of the heart (James 1:13-15). When a person turns to Christ, he does so not because of his own "free will", but because God has supernaturally enabled and moved him to do so through regeneration. God never coerces man's will, rather God gives the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Billyray]

I know Calvinists don't believe we have the kind of "free will" described in your dictionary definition.

Do you think that Arminians should hold the free will position--as defined by the dictionary definition--since they don't have the ability to keep all of the commandments and they don't have the ability to come to Christ on their own?


Yeah, this one caught me a little off guard. It's probably wrong to say that God does not have expectations that we cannot meet. His expectation is perfection and we sure as heck cannot meet that. We actually do need God's "grace" every step of the way.[/QUOTE]

[Libby]

Do you think that Arminians should hold the free will position--as defined by the dictionary definition--since they don't have the ability to keep all of the commandments and they don't have the ability to come to Christ on their own?

What I have read of their position, on free will, they would not hold to the Webster definition. They would disagree with Calvinists that regeneration is necessary, in order to come to Christ, but they do believe God's grace is a necessity, to help overcome the sin nature.

[Billyray]

What I have read of their position, on free will, they would not hold to the Webster definition.

If that is the case then you can see why using the term "free will" means something different for different people and until we can agree on a definition--even just for this thread--we don't really have a good understanding of what each person means when they use the word "free will".



They would disagree with Calvinists that regeneration is necessary, in order to come to Christ, but they do believe God's grace is a necessity, to help overcome the sin nature.
So Arminians would agree that they do not have the ability to come to Christ on their own. Is that a fair ***essment?

[Libby]

Arminian definition of free will:


Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.... This grace [proevenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, ***ists, operates that we will, and co operates lest we will in vain.[10]

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology#Arminianism

[Libby]

If that is the case then you can see why using the term "free will" means something different for different people and until we can agree on a definition--even just for this thread--we don't really have a good understanding of what each person means when they use the word "free will".


Yes, I agree, definitions are important, otherwise, we are not understanding where the person we're talking with is coming from.


So Arminians would agree that they do not have the ability to come to Christ on their own. Is that a fair ***essment?

It's probably fair to say that, yes. But, they do believe we have much more "ability", than Calvinists believe.

An Arminian once described it to me as a "give and take" process. I think I described that to you, in another post.

[alanmolstad]

Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine interventionwhere is this link then to a nonreligious site?

[alanmolstad]

i would like a link to a nonreligious site.....something that jusy lays out the term without slanted judgements.....

[Billyray]

Arminian definition of free will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology#Arminianism
So even by Arminian definition a person is unable to come to Christ on their own. This sounds a lot like the Calvinist belief that man are unable to come to Christ on their own. And it sounds a lot like John 6.

[alanmolstad]

I certainly agree with you on this one Libby. In fact if a person had complete free will then he should be able to choose to obey all of the commandments and live a perfect life--just like Christ. But not a single person has the ability to do so. And this brings us back where we were discussing Arminian verse Calvinism and how I was trying to show that each side could make a claim that a person didn't have a real choice therefore it wasn't fair. (But for the record before a poster such as JohnT misunderstands my position--I believe that each one of us make choices are what we desire and we will be held responsible for those choices.

Alan was so hot on this topic on the other thread I expected a more vigorous response from him but thus far I haven't seen it yet. I am still waiting for him to settle on a definition so I can get a better grasp on what he really believes. Hopefully it will be forthcoming.
billy.........billy....its 2 in the morning where i live.....i will have all the answers for you.....LATER!


give me a chance to come home from work..

when i went to sleep a few hrs ago this topic was not up yet!!!!!!!!!

im on my phone here in bed ...the wife is not sleeping well........i better turn this off

[Billyray]

i would like a link to a nonreligious site.....something that jusy lays out the term without slanted judgements.....
http://www.merriam-webster.com

Alan perhaps we can get an agreement on how you are using this word so I can better understand what you really mean when you are using this term.

[alanmolstad]

its 2:30 here......im on my phone.......
im still in bed.......wife cant sleep and is keeping me awake......

billy why.........you know billy i have posted so much on this topic already that anyone has a doubt what free will means.....


free - means not a slave.....not bound to anyone or anything.....to be free

will - means you thinking mind

[alanmolstad]

billy....
if you have a question i will be glad to have a look at it.

if there was a post of mine you callninto question?... just show me it and i will have a look.

if there is a bible verse you want to talk about?... list it.



i will be happy to answer all your questions.....in about un.....17 hours ornso.....LOL

[Billyray]

free - means not a slave.....not bound to anyone or anything.....to be free

will - means you thinking mind
I believe that those who are not elect willingly choose to reject Christ and that they don't feel forced to do so. Would you say that this is "free will" by your definition?

[alanmolstad]

I believe that those who are not elect willingly choose to reject Christ and that they don't feel forced to do so. Would you say that this is "free will" by your definition?

feel?..............

if you decide to rob a bank you can be found guilty.

but if i strap a bomb to you and tell you to go rob the bank or i will **** you up you will not be found guilty.

the difference is free will.......

[alanmolstad]

so free will is not just the ability to do stuff like make a choice.

even my dog and cat can do that.


its about the freedom to choise and not being forced to decide one thing over the other.

free to decide.....free to make up your own mind....freedom to change your mind too.....freedom to repent.....nothing set in stone.....

[alanmolstad]

so free willnis not jusst the ability to make a choice......but that is part of it.


and free will is not just about feelings......but that is connected to it.


but its about being truly free of will.
to be truly free of force......to not be bound.....not just to feel free. but to truly be free.

[alanmolstad]

errors isnwording due to im on phone....

[alanmolstad]

feelings can lie to us.....

a slave can become convinced he is free by his feelings.

[alanmolstad]

free will gives us the ability to love

[alanmolstad]

ok, I'm on my computer now.....
Smart phones help us do many things...but not see text with old eyes, not type with old fingers....
so I did not really have a good idea what the flow of the conversation was.

I will now drop back and read whats been going on and respond where helpful.

[alanmolstad]

..."dead in sin"....

We use this term alot, but we seem to add to the meaning things that are not true.

Dead" in this case does not mean "dead-dead"
You are separated from where you should be, but you are not beyond hope or redemption.

Its like when they say "Faith without works is dead"...its not that your faith is dead...its not that you somehow lost your salvation.

But it does mean that you are separated from where you should be....

If you should be active and you are lazy, then your faith may be said to be "dead' but you are still saved.....

its just that your testimony is not where it should be....
The "light" that you are to be, is hidden under a basket.

[alanmolstad]

I don't consider God's "drawing" a Divine intervention, exactly. I see it as more of an enticement...but not one that we cannot reject, if we choose.

yes!

all men are drawn to Christ.
The very universe is said to show God's nature to us, so there is no one on the earth that has ever lived that can say "God never drew me"

as long as the sun is burning, the world is turning, the birds are cherping, and the sea is....um..seaing. the things that are made by the creator do preach to us about the creator.

I like to define the word "draw" in this situation as meaning, "To attract"

Like a boy who wants to "attract' the attention of a nice girl...

[alanmolstad]

Alan was so hot on this topic on the other thread I expected a more vigorous response from him but thus far I haven't seen it yet. I am still waiting for him to settle on a definition so I can get a better grasp on what he really believes. Hopefully it will be forthcoming.
......"Alan" has one or two other things going on here.....



But Im going over all the posts now....and I look forward to how you screw-up what Im saying ....

[alanmolstad]

If that is the case then you can see why using the term "free will" means something different for different people and until we can agree on a definition--even just for this thread--we don't really have a good understanding of what each person means when they use the word "free will".

?
I have written miles and miles of text on this forum addressing the meaning and correct use of the term "Free Will"
I doubt I can improve on what i have already made as clear as I can....time after time....

[alanmolstad]

so a lot of people that dont like the term "Free Will" have a way they use to get around it's use by saying that people just "feel" free.....

They admit that people sure feel they were not forced to do stuff...
But what they then leave off is that the people might have felt things that were not true at all.

But I have to object to this whole line of arguement.
If you are thinking that people just "feel" free, and just "feel" they have Free Will, but really they dont, then you are not talking about real Free Will at all.

You are describing a lie....or a self-lie.....or a delusion.....or a self-delusion.

NONE of these things can be true!


if we were designed by God to just "feel" free,...to just "feel' that we had Free Will, then our God is a big fat lie.....and evil.
For he designed us with built-in delusions , and that would point the finger of sin into his corner.
God would be guilty of creating a person who has a built-in design flaw that is the cause of all people believeing a lie, just to make god look good.

i would not worship a god like that.



So this means that I totally reject the idea that we just "feel" free....

I totally reject the idea that human free will is just a delusion.


Human Free Will is REAL!

God gave man the ability to make free decisions...real decisions....Not fake real-looking decisions...But real TRUE decisions that are free from being forced.

[alanmolstad]

sure...now that im up...now that Im posting answers to questions, now that I can have a real conversation with people...now no one else is even on-line?


I have to go to work in an hour...
So Billy, dont ***ume that because i dont post for the next 17 hours that im not interested in responding.
Im just busy.....




Now if you have a bunch of questions for me to answer, then post them.
i will be happy to have a look at them whehn I get home from work.

If you have any bible verses that you think prove man dont have free will, then post them and I will go over them and show you how they do prove we have free will.

If you want me to go over the John 6 stuff again?...let me know...

or the sections in Romans you listed before?...let me know.

Although I might have a house full of visiting guests this weekend, I will do my best to answer any and all questions you got.

[alanmolstad]

Like I have talked about before, I attended a Bible School when i was a lot younger.
And dealing with the question of man's Free Will was a large block of time that I was there in School.
I was in a cl*** of some very militant Calvinists, and so i have heard every argument several times over......and over...LOL

In the end I had to stand in front of the cl*** and give my thoughts on the topic.
The conclusion I came to, I would learn years and years later was about the same position that Dr Walter Martin taught.
That conclusion is that "man has Free Will, and god is Sovereign"

man has real Free Will..... Not fake free will.....not real-looking free will......not real-feeling free will......

but Real Free Will....

[alanmolstad]

So Billy, is there any question about how I define Free Will?

In the past I have gotten a Calvinist to say to me that "Man has free Will" but then the person went on to re-define the term and gut it of its meanings.

The Calvinist twisted the definition to mean "the ability to make a choice"....of perceptions of freedom, of "agency"......of this,... of that...of lots of things , but not what the dictionary was saying to him about the term.


So in other words - he had stripped the term of the whole concept of being "free"....
The lack of any form of Free, open and "independent" thought in decision making made their agreement that man had Free Will a moot point.

No one is truly free if they are only under a delusion of being free.
No one is truly making a "choice" if they are being forced to make only one decision over the other.

So it does not matter is a person "willingly" decided to make a choice, if the reality of the situation was that they did not have real Free Will >

This is because the fact that a person can "willingly" do many things if they suffer under a delusion and do not have real Free Will.

So when we talk about man having "Free Will" we should make sure we are not just talking about perceptions.
We should always maintain the term to be addressing the very REAL "Free Will"

Not the fake, not the feeling, not the delusion!

Only the REAL Free Will is Free Will.

[Billyray]

So Billy, is there any question about how I define Free Will?

Yea. I still am not clear on how you are defining "free will". Can you give me a one line succinct definition for me?



Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention



Do you agree with the above dictionary definition? If not could you modify it so I have an idea of how you are using this word.

[Billyray]

In the past I have gotten a Calvinist to say to me that "Man has free Will" but then the person went on to re-define the term and gut it of its meanings.

But that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing. In fact that is why I started this thread to get a clear definition from you (and others) so that I know what you mean when you are using this term. If you are in agreement with the dictionary definition then we could proceed with our discussion

[James Banta]

But that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing. In fact that is why I started this thread to get a clear definition from you (and others) so that I know what you mean when you are using this term. If you are in agreement with the dictionary definition then we could proceed with our discussion

It is strange Billy, Alan teaches that all men are God's and yet the Bible tells us that all that the Father has He gives to Jesus and Jesus never casts them out. So what can we do here.. The Bible can support Calvinism or Arminianism, We should be able to set these small issues aside and be One in Christ.. One in Christ to defend the faith agaist all who would prevert it, namely mormonism.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I've never seen Alan say that "all men belong to God".

He has said (as I have) that God "draws all men". Some will respond, some will not.

[Billyray]

I've never seen Alan say that "all men belong to God".

He has said (as I have) that God "draws all men". Some will respond, some will not.
I think you mentioned this in the other thread but do you believe that the Father "draws all men" to Christ when you say that God "draws all men"?

[Libby]

I think you mentioned this in the other thread but do you believe that the Father "draws all men" to Christ when you say that God "draws all men"?

Yes, to Christ.

[Billyray]

Yes, to Christ.

Since I would like to keep this thread about "free will" since this is a hot item topic with Alan and I still haven't got a concise definition from him, I will start a new thread about God drawing some verse all men to Christ because this is a very interesting topic.

[Libby]

Okay.

Billy...it's "versus".

[alanmolstad]

It is strange Billy, Alan teaches that all men are God's.....


Can you back that up?

[alanmolstad]

I've never seen Alan say that "all men belong to God".

He has said (as I have) that God "draws all men". Some will respond, some will not.

Libby......at this point, I am simply amused at how both Billy and James will pull stuff out of thin air and claim we said this....when it's all in their imaginations...

or perhaps is the result of enjoying some type of newly legal recreational activity in Colorado?

[alanmolstad]

I have posted volumes on how I define and use the term "Free Will"......
I would refer you to any of my posts on this topic as anything I might add to what i have already said is only going to be repeating ...

Do you have another thing you wanted me to post on?

[Billyray]

Libby......at this point, I am simply amused at how both Billy and James will pull stuff out of thin air and claim we said this....when it's all in their imaginations...

or perhaps is the result of enjoying some type of newly legal recreational activity in Colorado?
Alan I haven't put anything into thin air as you claim--I am patiently waiting for you to give me a concise definition of the word "free will". It would help out our discussion immensely if you could respond to my simple request.

[Christian]

we hear many voices whispering im sure....but in the end we are always free to make up our own minds according to how we see things...

free will means that we are not under the control of others...things feelings or people

but free will does not mean "error free"

What do you think THIS p***age means?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

And how do you understand THIS one?

John 6:65
65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV

In the light of those two p***ages, do you STILL want to claim 'we are always free to make up our own minds according to how we see things...?'

GOD CHOSE US, we did not choose Him

According to the BIBLE GOD chose us a LONG TIME before we were even born!
Eph 1:3-6
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the secular claim that we all have 'free will' to choose to do whatever we want.

[alanmolstad]

I have already given you the definition I use.....
I have provided Text that support the way I use the term.
I have provided you with an understanding of the many Text that some Calvinists try to use to prove man is without Free Will.....and I have offered to answer any questions about things I have said...

Do you have any other questions about the Bible's concept of Free Will, or about anything I have posted?

[alanmolstad]

What do you think THIS p***age means?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

]

it points to the verse - Romans 1:20

Is the universe still spinning?
Is the earth still here?

If so, then you are hearing the call.......for the Universe never stops declaring the nature of God to you.

[alanmolstad]

[B]And how do you understand THIS one?

John 6:65
65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV

[B

Walter Martin talked about this in that one recording I posted the link to called "Martin Under Fire
the idea is that we come to the joys of salvation via our own decision....and when we enter into it we see a sign above the door in God's hand, "You did not choose me, I chose you"

[alanmolstad]

[B][COLOR=#008000]In the light of those two p***ages, do you STILL want to claim 'we are always free to make up our own minds according to how we see things...?'

]

yes,,,,
God is not so weak that he has to first rob the person of their own Free Will just to carry out his will in their life!

That would be a silly type of god to trust...a god who gets nervous at the gifts he has given.....LOL
"Oh no, I gave them all Free Will and now they are stronger than I am!...What shall I ever do?"

[alanmolstad]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the secular claim that we all have 'free will' to choose to do whatever we want.
[/COLOR][/B]

Well I will be around....
Let me know if you want some answers....

[Billyray]

I have already given you the definition I use.....
I have provided Text that support the way I use the term.
I have provided you with an understanding of the many Text that some Calvinists try to use to prove man is without Free Will.....and I have offered to answer any questions about things I have said...

Do you have any other questions about the Bible's concept of Free Will, or about anything I have posted?
Sure. Perhaps I missed the post where you provided your definition of free will. Could you post a concise definition (as you are defining it) for me. It would be helpful if you post your definition without all of the extra superfluous information. Thanks.

[alanmolstad]

Sure. Perhaps I missed the post where you provided your definition of free will. Could you post a concise definition (as you are defining it) for me. It would be helpful if you post your definition without all of the extra superfluous information. Thanks.
see post #56

[Billyray]

Sure. Perhaps I missed the post where you provided your definition of free will. Could you post a concise definition (as you are defining it) for me. It would be helpful if you post your definition without all of the extra superfluous information. Thanks.

see post #56
OK I will look at post #56.

POST #56

I have already given you the definition I use.....
I have provided Text that support the way I use the term.
I have provided you with an understanding of the many Text that some Calvinists try to use to prove man is without Free Will.....and I have offered to answer any questions about things I have said...

Do you have any other questions about the Bible's concept of Free Will, or about anything I have posted?
Above is post #56. Can you point out when in this post you have defined "free will"?

Alan how can we discuss "free will" when you won't even give me a concise definition of how you are using this word. If you want we can simply use the dictionary definition. But let me know either way how you would like to define it so we can actually get on with the discussion.

[Billyray]

What do you think THIS p***age means?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

And how do you understand THIS one?

John 6:65
65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV

In the light of those two p***ages, do you STILL want to claim 'we are always free to make up our own minds according to how we see things...?'

GOD CHOSE US, we did not choose Him

According to the BIBLE GOD chose us a LONG TIME before we were even born!
Eph 1:3-6
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the secular claim that we all have 'free will' to choose to do whatever we want.

Those are all very good verses. I can only hope that Alan or any of the other "free will" posters will address them.

[Billyray]

What do you think THIS p***age means?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV



it points to the verse - Romans 1:20

Is the universe still spinning?
Is the earth still here?

If so, then you are hearing the call.......for the Universe never stops declaring the nature of God to you.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Alan I didn't quite follow your explanation. Could you explain this for me?

[Libby]

Christian - GOD CHOSE US, we did not choose Him

According to the BIBLE GOD chose us a LONG TIME before we were even born!

That's correct.

Can you tell me, on what basis God chose those whom he will save? How did he decide?

[Billyray]

That's correct.

Can you tell me, on what basis God chose those whom he will save? How did he decide?
But from an Arminian point of view isn't it more accurate to say that you choose yourself?

[Billyray]

Can you tell me, on what basis God chose those whom he will save? How did he decide?
We are never told why God choose one person and did not choose another. We know from Romans 9 that it was not based on anything that we have done. But we do have some insight of who He did not choose.

1 Corinthians 1
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.

[Libby]

We are never told why God choose one person and did not choose another. We know from Romans 9 that it was not based on anything that we have done. But we do have some insight of who He did not choose.

Romans 9 is not about salvation. It is about choosing leadership among the Israelites.


1 Corinthians 1
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.

God doesn't choose us for these reasons, at least. I believe God does want a receptive heart...and a humbling of our spirits. We really cannot come to him without that.

[Billyray]

Romans 9 is not about salvation. It is about choosing leadership among the Israelites.

Libby I know that you believe that salvation is not even hinted at in Romans 9 but humor me and let's take a look at this chapter and see if we can find any mention of it. Fair enough?

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race,

Do you think that cut off from Christ has anything to do with salvation?

[Libby]

But from an Arminian point of view isn't it more accurate to say that you choose yourself?

No. I think it's going to be more accurate to say that it is a give and take process, between God and his people...starting with God's grace..and drawing us.

[Libby]

Libby I know that you believe that salvation is not even hinted at in Romans 9 but humor me and let's take a look at this chapter and see if we can find any mention of it. Fair enough?

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race,

Do you think that cut off from Christ has anything to do with salvation?

Yes, that part does. Paul is lamenting that many of his own people are unbelievers...those who had been given so very much, and yet do not believe...and Paul wishes himself cursed, that they might be believing and saved.

[Billyray]

Yes, that part does. Paul is lamenting that many of his own people are unbelievers...those who had been given so very much, and yet do not believe...and Paul wishes himself cursed, that they might be believing and saved.
Correct. So despite the fact that you said Romans 9 had nothing to do with salvation here we see right out of the gate Paul mentions salvation, not only his salvation but his desire for the salvation of his fellow Jews.

BK Commentary
". . .Paul affirmed his deep anguish of heart over the rejection of the gospel by the vast majority of Jews. His desire for their salvation was so strong that he was at the point of wishing (imperf. tense, I could wish) that he were cursed and cut off from Christ for his kinsmen, the Israelites. . ."

[Libby]

Correct. So despite the fact that you said Romans 9 had nothing to do with salvation here we see right out of the gate Paul mentions salvation, not only his salvation but his desire for the salvation of his fellow Jews.

BK Commentary
". . .Paul affirmed his deep anguish of heart over the rejection of the gospel by the vast majority of Jews. His desire for their salvation was so strong that he was at the point of wishing (imperf. tense, I could wish) that he were cursed and cut off from Christ for his kinsmen, the Israelites. . ."

I shouldn't have made my remark so general. I was speaking, specifically, about the Esau/Jacob part.

Are you ***uming that, just because the first part speaks of salvation, that the whole chapter is about salvation?

[Billyray]

I shouldn't have made my remark so general. I was speaking, specifically, about the Esau/Jacob part.

Are you ***uming that, just because the first part speaks of salvation, that the whole chapter is about salvation?
So far we have seen Paul talk about salvation in the opening section of this chapter which is Romans 9:1-5. How about anywhere else in this chapter? Let's see. Here is the very next verse.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Any hint of salvation in this verse?

[Billyray]

So far we have seen Paul talk about salvation in the opening section of this chapter which is Romans 9:1-5. How about anywhere else in this chapter? Let's see. Here is the very next verse.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Any hint of salvation in this verse?
Sure. Verse 6 certainly hints at salvation. If you go back to Romans 2:28-29 we see what Paul meant when he said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"

Romans 2:28-29
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God

[Billyray]

Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring


Now let's look at the next few verses namely 6,7,8. Any hint of salvation here? Sure. In fact thus far the entire chapter up to this point has been about salvation. Next Paul is going to discuss the Sovereignty of God and will give us several examples. But it is important that we know that all up until this point Paul is speaking about salvation.

[Billyray]

Romans 9:9-13
9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated

First off let me reiterate that the entire chapter up to this point is speaking about salvation so when someone claims that Romans 9 and specifically this section has nothing to do with salvation that is not the case. Thus far we see that although the Jews where chosen as a race that didn't mean that all were saved rather only the children of promise were counted as offspring. Next Paul discusses God's sovereign choice.

Before we talk about this section of scripture and given the fact that salvation has been talked about all the way up to this point-- do you have any opinions about whether or not Jacob was saved? How about Esau?

[Libby]

I was just rereading the whole of Romans, Chapter 9.

No, I have no opinion about whether or not Esau and Jacob were saved.

I'm sure you do, though.

[Libby]

Billy, doesn't God (through Paul) give the reason why some are saved and some are not, in the very last verses of Romans 9?

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

[Billyray]

I was just rereading the whole of Romans, Chapter 9.

No, I have no opinion about whether or not Esau and Jacob were saved.

I'm sure you do, though.
I think that if you look at Romans 9 as a whole Paul is combining two things and showing how they work together. He start out and talks on and on about salvation and that some are saved and others are not--then goes on to show that the Jews were called out among all of the nations but just because you are Jewish i.e physical descent doesn't mean you are saves and then differentiates between the physical as compared to the spiritual Jewish descendant. He then ties this in with election and specifically states that election has nothing to do with anything that we have done as he gives us an example of the Jews. Note even if you just looked at this from the Arminian viewpoint and said that this is simply about leadership this brings up the problem that from this point of view he looks into the future to see what that person has done--but Paul specifically says that this was not based on anything that either of the twins had done--so this doesn't fit this point of view. Paul goes on to show other examples of how God sovereignly choose different people for different roles. And probably the most important section--at least from my perspective--is the fact that Paul then brings up the likely reaction when it comes to God's sovereign choice when he says a person may say "how can we resist HIS will". Paul knew that some people would see this as unfair. If this wasn't an issue then Paul would never have raised this concern--in fact it would have made no sense to do so.


But probably the best clue is found in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11--you can read the whole chapter but I provided a section below.



Hebrews 11
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 20 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. 21 By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
.

[Billyray]

Billy, doesn't God (through Paul) give the reason why some are saved and some are not, in the very last verses of Romans 9?

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]
Salvation is based on faith in Christ and not by our works so what Paul says is absolutely true. I think that the point Paul making is a conclusion of the entire chapter which is that the gospel is moving towards the Gentiles and that this is God's sovereign choice. This is hinted at in one of the verses you quoted when Paul says "That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it. . ."

[Libby]

But, my point is...he is giving behavior (works based theology) vs faith (in Christ) as REASONS for being saved or not being saved. Things that people are doing or not doing.

He doesn't say it's God alone.

[Billyray]

But, my point is...he is giving behavior (works based theology) vs faith (in Christ) as REASONS for being saved or not being saved. Things that people are doing or not doing.

He doesn't say it's God alone.
Sure salvation is by faith--a person is not saved until he places his faith in Christ. But where does this faith ultimately come from? God. Unregenerate individuals do not have the desire to come to Christ. However when God changes their disposition this opens up their eyes and they choose to place their faith in Christ. In both cases the individuals are choosing what they want. Predestination/election-->regeneration (born again)-->faith/repentance (salvation)-->sanctification-->death/resurrection-->eternal life with God. Arminians change the order around a bit but even they believe that man can't come to God and placed their faith in Christ without God's input to do so. So in both cases God intervenes prior to one coming to faith.

If you move on to Romans 11 Paul is still talking about salvation for the Jews. Read the following section and you can clearly see God's hand in salvation--"The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened". If you believe that God is drawing every single person equally then you must ask yourself why does this section of scripture conflict so strongly against your belief? This is hardly a model for drawing every single person to Christ.


Romans 11
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day

[alanmolstad]

sure.....i got to bed after watching the forum for hours with no new posts...

i go to sleep and two hours later find 65 new posts?

[alanmolstad]

why wouldboth guys not be saved?

[alanmolstad]

so yes....it is as I always have said...(and James seems to also agree with me on this point too)

Man has free will and God is sovereign.

free will means what it says>
free- not a slave
will - the thinking mind...mental resolution , self-determination

[alanmolstad]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Alan I didn't quite follow your explanation. Could you explain this for me?
just look at the last par of the verse......there is your answer!


"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse"

excuse?....excuse from what?









this is why when someone asks me - "Were all men called by God?" I ask them in return - "Was the universe still around? Was the earth still spinning? Was the creation still switched on?
If so, then there is no excise for not hearing the calling of God as he drew you to himself"



This is why there is no need to wait on something.
There is no need to think, "God must yet do something"
There is no justification for our delay.

Today is the day of salvation!.......not later....not after god has to do one more thing....not right after one more step....NO!

Right now its the correct moment...nothing needs to happen first!....this is the correct time!

[alanmolstad]

That's correct.

Can you tell me, on what basis God chose those whom he will save? How did he decide?
no one can

[alanmolstad]

But from an Arminian point of view isn't it more accurate to say that you choose yourself?

ask an Arminian.....
i dontknow any however

[alanmolstad]

It is strange Billy, Alan teaches that all men are God's .....

You are just making stuff up......


what I have said,,,,said from the "Beginning" mind you, is that God draws all men to himself.
We know this for a fact because Christ says he draws all men and Christ could not say that unless he saw the father drawing all men.
So it is the Father here who is actually doing the drawing here, though the Son.

thus billy's idea that the son can draw all men but that don't mean it was the father's idea is a bunch of BS.

Drawing men to himself is why God sent His son into the world....

(So i think Billy's ideas about how the Trinity is in disunion is simply outside the christian faith)


So God calls men to himself, and they who come to Christ are never turned away.
this is like when a church bell rings in my town on Sunday morning.
We all hear the same bell ringing.
you cant help but hear it's sound.
The bell means that the church is calling all men to come and worship.
The church draws all men to itself.

But although all men hear the calling, not all respond.
Not everyone wants to be respond to being drawn.

All are drawn, but not all respond.
All hear, but not all listen.

No one comes without being first drawn.
All are drawn but not all come.

yet, all they who do respond and come, are welcome.
All who come are accepted, None is turned away.




any questions now James?

[Libby]

Billy - Arminians change the order around a bit but even they believe that man can't come to God and placed their faith in Christ without God's input to do so. So in both cases God intervenes prior to one coming to faith.

Arminians change the order of salvation, because it's very important that man's will and freedom to choose is not corrupted. Putting God's regeneration at the top of the list, eliminates man's responsibility to respond to God's calling...and that cannot be.

[James Banta]

Arminians change the order of salvation, because it's very important that man's will and freedom to choose is not corrupted. Putting God's regeneration at the top of the list, eliminates man's responsibility to respond to God's calling...and that cannot be.

Only those that are the Father's are given to Jesus:

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Would the Father hold back any of those that are His from coming to Jesus? NO! so it is only those that are not the Father's that will be ****ed.. Did He know who those would be before the world was created? YES! yet to reveal Him Love Mercy and Justness He created all, even the rebellious.. But those that are His, those He gives to Jesus to redeem.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Arminians change the order of salvation, because it's very important that man's will and freedom to choose is not corrupted. Putting God's regeneration at the top of the list, eliminates man's responsibility to respond to God's calling...and that cannot be.
Man is still responsible for his choices so I am not sure how you say that this is eliminated. Second you also believe that man is unable to come to Christ on his own.

[Libby]

Man is still responsible for his choices so I am not sure how you say that this is eliminated. Second you also believe that man is unable to come to Christ on his own.

Billy, is man held responsible for whether or not he turns to Christ? If he is held responsible, how could it be ALL God's work? I'm not saying God is not involved. He IS, big time! He draws us, he gives us reasons to believe, he extends his grace by even giving us the opportunity to turn to him and have faith in Christ. He is involved, but our "will" has to be involved, as well, or we cannot be held responsible for turning away.

[James Banta]

Billy, is man held responsible for whether or not he turns to Christ? If he is held responsible, how could it be ALL God's work? I'm not saying God is not involved. He IS, big time! He draws us, he gives us reasons to believe, he extends his grace by even giving us the opportunity to turn to him and have faith in Christ. He is involved, but our "will" has to be involved, as well, or we cannot be held responsible for turning away.

Calvinism DOESN'T TEACH that we have no will.. It teaches that God is sovereign. He is in total control while is totally aware of us and all we will ever do, and when we will do it.. Do you disagree with that? So God know if and when you would make a confession of Sin and ask Jesus to be your Lord. HE knew whether you would do that or NOT from the very beginning, as He set about in His creative process to create the world and all that is in it.. What is so wrong to say that He knows if we will accept Him. That He predestines us to either eternal life or eternal death in the Lake of Fire because of that knowledge? After all it's still your free will, and it's His sovereignty.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Billy, is man held responsible for whether or not he turns to Christ? If he is held responsible, how could it be ALL God's work? I'm not saying God is not involved. He IS, big time! He draws us, he gives us reasons to believe, he extends his grace by even giving us the opportunity to turn to him and have faith in Christ. He is involved, but our "will" has to be involved, as well, or we cannot be held responsible for turning away.
Man is responsible for the choices that he makes. God gives each of us commandments and if we break those commandments we are guilty. Man is also responsible for choosing to follow Christ or to reject Him. When you say "will" I ***ume that you mean "choices", every person makes "choices" and chooses what he wants.

[alanmolstad]

After all it's still your free will, and it's His sovereignty.. IHS jim



How come when I say that all the Calvinists gets so upset?

[Billyray]

Sure. Perhaps I missed the post where you provided your definition of free will. Could you post a concise definition (as you are defining it) for me. It would be helpful if you post your definition without all of the extra superfluous information. Thanks.

see post #56
OK I will look at post #56.

POST #56

I have already given you the definition I use.....
I have provided Text that support the way I use the term.
I have provided you with an understanding of the many Text that some Calvinists try to use to prove man is without Free Will.....and I have offered to answer any questions about things I have said...

Do you have any other questions about the Bible's concept of Free Will, or about anything I have posted?
Above is post #56. Can you point out when in this post you have defined "free will"?

Alan how can we discuss "free will" when you won't even give me a concise definition of how you are using this word. If you want we can simply use the dictionary definition. But let me know either way how you would like to define it so we can actually get on with the discussion.

[Billyray]

How come when I say that all the Calvinists gets so upset?
I certainly haven't gotten upset. But I am still waiting for your definition of "free will".

[alanmolstad]

I did post the meaning for you yesterday....its the definition I am most familiar with...and in my own words too...

[alanmolstad]

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3383-Free-Will&p=156603#post156603

post #87

[alanmolstad]

so Free Will is not just the ability to make a choice ...its not just picking things to do that we want to do,,,it's not just doing things our heart tells us we want to do....

Rather Free Will is the genuine freedom to decide for ourselves the path we shall walk.
The real and actual freedom of thought....the actual freedom of choice.
No force being applied to you to force your choice, no control by someone else over your choice so that you must conform to someone else's destiny for you.

So in the real world...Free Will means that when you face a choice between turning to the left or turning to the right, you could have picked either way...

[Billyray]

so yes....it is as I always have said...(and James seems to also agree with me on this point too)

Man has free will and God is sovereign.

free will means what it says>
free- not a slave
will - the thinking mind...mental resolution , self-determination
So this is your definition. Fair enough. So you are not going with the dictionary definition but rather using the term "free will" to mean voluntary choices. If this is how you are defining this word then I will use the same definition. Since this is the definition that we are going to use then man has free will because man does make voluntary choices.

[Billyray]

Using Alan's definition of free will which means making voluntary choices the unregenerate man according to Calvinism has free will.

[Libby]

Can man voluntarily, of his own "free choice", choose God, in your opinion?

I would think the answer for a Calvinist should be "no".

[alanmolstad]

So this is your definition. Fair enough. So you are not going with the dictionary definition but rather using the term "free will" to mean voluntary choices. If this is how you are defining this word then I will use the same definition. Since this is the definition that we are going to use then man has free will because man does make voluntary choices.

The free part is what is key....

Not just feeling free...not just acting free...but truly free.

unless you are free to express your will, you are no better than a robot....or a delusional fool....
There is no merit in thinking you are free, but your not actually.
There is no merit in making decisions based on your own ideas if it turns out you were just programed and following a script.

[alanmolstad]

Can man voluntarily, of his own "free choice", choose God, in your opinion?

I would think the answer for a Calvinist should be "no".


The answer is "yes"....

That's the whole point of outreach..That we can present the Gospel to people and that they have within them right now the ability to respond.


So we are not talking just about a form of "voluntary" decision making....we are talking about being truly and undeniably free.
that no plan is controlling your actions.
That nothing is predetermined and forcing you to choose things...

Free Will means you are no one's slave....

[Billyray]

Can man voluntarily, of his own "free choice", choose God, in your opinion?

I would think the answer for a Calvinist should be "no".
Using Alan's definition of free will--which means voluntary choice--a man certainly has the choice or free will to accept or reject Christ.

[alanmolstad]

Using Alan's definition of free will--which means voluntary choice--a man certainly has the choice or free will to accept or reject Christ.

if I ever used the term "voluntary choice" let me know....but I doubt it...
I doubt it because it's clearly inaccurate as far as describing what i have said about Free Will...


it's odd too, for I have posted tons and tons of words on what free Will means....and yet you had to pull your own meaning out of thin air ?

[alanmolstad]

Libby....you are so right about these guys.....They make things up.....:confused:

[Libby]

Using Alan's definition of free will--which means voluntary choice--a man certainly has the choice or free will to accept or reject Christ.

What is your definition of free will, Billy?

[Libby]

Libby....you are so right about these guys.....They make things up.....:confused:

I don't think Billy is making anything up, but he is using your definition in a way that I am not really understanding.

[alanmolstad]

so Free Will is not just the ability to make a Voluntary choice ...its not just picking things to do that we want to do,,,it's not just doing things our heart tells us we want to do....

Rather Free Will is the genuine freedom to decide for ourselves the path we shall walk.
The real and actual freedom of thought....the actual freedom of choice.
No force being applied to you to force your choice, no control by someone else over your choice so that you must conform to someone else's destiny for you.

So in the real world...Free Will means that when you face a choice between turning to the left or turning to the right, you could have picked either way...

[alanmolstad]

I don't think Billy is making anything up, but he is using your definition in a way that I am not really understanding.You tell me where I said the term "voluntary" and you might have a point....but as that term is not correctly talking about how the term Free Will is defined, I doubt anyone can find me using the word at all.....ever.....

It would be like saying the Cross was made of candy.....it would be inaccurate

[Libby]

Yeah, I think it's possible (although, I don't know HOW) that Billy is misunderstanding your use of the term "free will".

Free will means free of our own volition without interference of any kind.

I don't even believe we have "that" kind of free will. I think God does try to influence us, in that he draws us and gives us reasons to believe (even if it's just His creation-nature). He entices us (as you have said), so that, hopefully, we wil be influenced in the positive to turn to Him.

Calvinists take that a step too far and claim that we are "unwilling" (not unable, but unwilling) to choose God, until or unless God makes a drastic change in our nature (regeneration).

So, I think Billy is coming from the idea that we are "able"...we are just not "willing"?

But, I will be happy for him to speak for himself. I really don't like it when people try to speak for me, unless they are directly quoting me.

[alanmolstad]

Free will means free of our own volition without interference of any kind......I like that!

[alanmolstad]

I like tha Libby...that is much in agreement with my own views.

Its not just about being able to make a choice that you want, its about not being interfered with...

its the "Free" in Free Will that is the most key thing to understand.

[Billyray]

What is your definition of free will, Billy?
As with all other words that I use which is what they actually mean. For some reason people on this board want to make up their own definitions.

[Billyray]

Free will means free of our own volition without interference of any kind.

OK. Let's try your definition out. Those who are unregenerate freely choose to disobey the commandments and reject Christ thus they have free will.

[Billyray]

Free will means free of our own volition without interference of any kind......I like that!
OK. Those who can come to Christ do not have free will because it requires that God draws them to Him first.

[Libby]

As with all other words that I use which is what they actually mean. For some reason people on this board want to make up their own definitions.

So, the dictionary definition?

[Billyray]

So, the dictionary definition?
Sure and I gave Alan the Merriam dictionary definition on the first page of this thread. Here it is again.

Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Out of curiosity when you talk do to someone in conversion do you speak words and use a different definition than found in dictionaries for those words?

[Libby]

OK. Let's try your definition out. Those who are unregenerate freely choose to disobey the commandments and reject Christ thus they have free will.

Yeah, I see where you are going with this, again.

Like I said, in my previous post, I can't go that far, as to say we have completely, unfettered free will. We are subject to our sin nature, very often...and we need the grace of God and his drawing us, to even become interested.

But, I still believe our will is involved. He draws, we respond. He draws a little more, we respond. If we continue to respond positively, he will continue to draw us to Him. If we reject His drawing....we will move further away, until we don't even notice it anymore.

[Libby]

Sure and I gave Alan the Merriam dictionary definition on the first page of this thread. Here it is again.


Out of curiosity when you talk do to someone in conversion do you speak words and use a different definition than found in dictionaries for those words?

No, I don't.

[Billyray]

Yeah, I see where you are going with this, again.

Like I said, in my previous post, I can't go that far, as to say we have completely, unfettered free will. We are subject to our sin nature, very often...and we need the grace of God and his drawing us, to even become interested.

But, I still believe our will is involved. He draws, we respond. He draws a little more, we respond. If we continue to respond positively, he will continue to draw us to Him. If we reject His drawing....we will move further away, until we don't even notice it anymore.
The bottom line is that we don't have free will as defined by the dictionary.

[Billyray]

Like I said, in my previous post, I can't go that far, as to say we have completely, unfettered free will. We are subject to our sin nature, very often...and we need the grace of God and his drawing us, to even become interested.

But, I still believe our will is involved. He draws, we respond. He draws a little more, we respond. If we continue to respond positively, he will continue to draw us to Him. If we reject His drawing....we will move further away, until we don't even notice it anymore.
I think it is human nature to believe that we get what we work for. If we work hard then we deserve a greater reward. If we don't work hard then we shouldn't be rewarded. I see this carrying over to religious beliefs because it has a sense of fairness to humans. The problem is that the Bible doesn't teach this--in fact the Bible goes out of its way to show the opposite. Libby I think at some point you have to just trust what the Bible says even though in some cases it goes against your human ***essment. This is easy to do in theory but putting this into practice is a little bit more difficult.

[Libby]

The bottom line is that we don't have free will as defined by the dictionary.

Have to agree with that.

But, we do have enough freedom of choice to determine whether or not we will turn to God, when He draws us.

[Billyray]

Have to agree with that.

But, we do have enough freedom of choice to determine whether or not we will turn to God, when He draws us.
I believe that we all have choices so I guess I have to agree with you on this point.

[Libby]

I think it is human nature to believe that we get what we work for. If we work hard then we deserve a greater reward. If we don't work hard then we shouldn't be rewarded. I see this carrying over to religious beliefs because it has a sense of fairness to humans. The problem is that the Bible doesn't teach this--in fact the Bible goes out of its way to show the opposite. Libby I think at some point you have to just trust what the Bible says even though in some cases it goes against your human ***essment. This is easy to do in theory but putting this into practice is a little bit more difficult.

I know that the Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. I accept that. It is just very difficult to accept that God would need to byp*** even our will to accept or reject Him. I have not been able to reconcile that in any reasonable way. I thought for along time that it was a matter of faith, but I think it is more than that...

[Libby]

I believe that we all have choices so I guess I have to agree with you on this point.

Yeah, choices....but, not a choice to come to God without some heavy duty ***istance...right?

[Billyray]

Yeah, choices....but, not a choice to come to God without some heavy duty ***istance...right?
But you believe that a person can't come to Christ on his own either without heavy duty ***istance.

[Billyray]

I know that the Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. I accept that. It is just very difficult to accept that God would need to byp*** even our will to accept or reject Him. I have not been able to reconcile that in any reasonable way. I thought for along time that it was a matter of faith, but I think it is more than that...
Both the unregenerate and the regenerate have a will and they exercise that will by the choices that they make.

[Libby]

But you believe that a person can't come to Christ on his own either without heavy duty ***istance.

No, not "heavy duty" ***istance. Calvinists believe that man can't choose God in his natural state and needs a complete overhaul.

[Libby]

Both the unregenerate and the regenerate have a will and they exercise that will by the choices that they make.

You mean by their coinciding desires. That natural man is unwilling to choose God, because he simply doesn't have a desire to do so.

But, once God starts drawing him...? Some start to have a change of heart. It doesn't always happen instantly, but little by little...

[Billyray]

You mean by their coinciding desires. That natural man is unwilling to choose God, because he simply doesn't have a desire to do so.

But, once God starts drawing him...? Some start to have a change of heart. It doesn't always happen instantly, but little by little...

Unregenerate man

Ephesians 2
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Those who are unregenerate choose to gratify the cravings of the flesh. Note that this is talking about those who are elect who have not been regenerated at this point. They are choosing to do what they desire to do i.e. they are following their own will.


Regenerate Man

Ephesians 2
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.


Here are the same guys after regeneration. They make choices but in this case their choices will be different because they are different i.e. they have been regenerated.

[Libby]

Ephesians...

That's the book that dragged me into Calvinism.

I wonder how Arminians interpret those verses?

I need to study more, Billy. You've shown me that, if nothing else. :)

[alanmolstad]

The bottom line is that we don't have free will as defined by the dictionary.
wrong!...

Once again you are Wrong!

We do have free will....

[alanmolstad]

Free will allows us to love......it allows us to return love.

Free will is what the outreach of the church is based around.

Free Will is why all are called...all are drawn to the Son....

Free will is why we are able to hear, listen, and put into action the plan of salvation.

[Billyray]

wrong!...

Once again you are Wrong!

We do have free will....
We do have free will as you have defined free will but remember that you have redefined the word to simply mean choice. But we don't have free will as defined by the dictionary.

[James Banta]

How come when I say that all the Calvinists gets so upset?

Maybe because you seem to over state the free will of man and understand the sovereignty of God.. God is sovereign even over our free will.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

We do have free will as you have defined free will but remember that you have redefined the word to simply mean choice. But we don't have free will as defined by the dictionary.
Wrong....I have never defined it as just choice....

Do you even bother anymore reading posts?
Or do you just start putting stuff out of thin air right away?

[alanmolstad]

God is sovereign even over our free will.. IHS jimagain....I say the same thing and the Calvinists have a cow...

[James Banta]

again....I say the same thing and the Calvinists have a cow...

Alan you have been saying that God has nothing to do with our free will.. I say that He created it, He controls it.. That is how free it is.. It is as free and His sovereignty allows.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

ask an Arminian.....
i dontknow any however


Alan you have been saying that God has nothing to do with our free will.. I say that He created it, He controls it.. That is how free it is.. It is as free and His sovereignty allows.. IHS jim

WRONG!

you and billy both pull things of thin air (or some place well hidden) and paint both Libby and I with false colors......claimig we believe things that in truth you only nvented..

We are going to start calling you the " BROTHERS FALFE-WITNESS"

[Libby]

From the dictionary definition, the second part of Webster's definition is the part that Billy is saying we do not really have (and I have to agree, we do not)..


2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

That's the sticky part, right there. Our "free will" is, often, affected by a prior cause (sin) and does get, at least, "some" ***istance, when God starts drawing us.

So, we cannot really say we have "free will" in the second version of Webster's definition.

We do have the ability to make choices...and I think we maintain the ability to choose God, when he draws us. And, I believe we can choose him even before regeneration, through His grace and attracting quality.

[James Banta]

From the dictionary definition, the second part of Webster's definition is the part that Billy is saying we do not really have (and I have to agree, we do not)..



That's the sticky part, right there. Our "free will" is, often, affected by a prior cause (sin) and does get, at least, "some" ***istance, when God starts drawing us.

So, we cannot really say we have "free will" in the second version of Webster's definition.

We do have the ability to make choices...and I think we maintain the ability to choose God, when he draws us. And, I believe we can choose him even before regeneration, through His grace and attracting quality.

I disagree with these definitions.. We have free will but that will is always subject to the sovereignty of God.. He didn't create us for us, He created us for Him.. He is in charge and nothing happens in this world that isn't at least in His permissive will.. Nothing happens in this world that He wasn't aware of as he laid the foundations of the world.. IHS jim

[Christian]

yes,,,,
God is not so weak that he has to first rob the person of their own Free Will just to carry out his will in their life!

That would be a silly type of god to trust...a god who gets nervous at the gifts he has given.....LOL
"Oh no, I gave them all Free Will and now they are stronger than I am!...What shall I ever do?"


That says ANY MAN has a 'free will' to choose God or not to choose him of one's own volition. I'll bet you cannot find ONE.

However I CAN show you scripture that says you are either a slave to sin, or to righteousness.

That CHRISTIANS were bought with a price and are no longer owned by satan.

So SHOW ME THE P***AGE that teaches the manmade theory that you have 'free will. . .'

You don't even have the 'free will' to disobey your spouse whenever you would like! :rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Free-Will/

[Billyray]

From the dictionary definition, the second part of Webster's definition is the part that Billy is saying we do not really have (and I have to agree, we do not)..



That's the sticky part, right there. Our "free will" is, often, affected by a prior cause (sin) and does get, at least, "some" ***istance, when God starts drawing us.

So, we cannot really say we have "free will" in the second version of Webster's definition.

We do have the ability to make choices...and I think we maintain the ability to choose God, when he draws us. And, I believe we can choose him even before regeneration, through His grace and attracting quality.
I agree with the majority of your post--I think that the only area we differ is on the timing of regeneration. The main reason that I started this thread was to try and get people thinking about how they are defining the term "free will" because a lot of people define this word differently (and most of the time different that the dictionary definition). Unless we understand how each person is defining this word we really can't come to an understanding of each others true position. BTW this happens a lot when discussing issues with lds because they use the same words as Christians but often times define them in a slightly different way.

[alanmolstad]

I agree with the majority of your post--I think that the only area we differ is on the timing of regeneration. The main reason that I started this thread was to try and get people thinking about how they are defining the term "free will" because a lot of people define this word differently (and most of the time different that the dictionary definition). Unless we understand how each person is defining this word we really can't come to an understanding of each others true position. BTW this happens a lot when discussing issues with lds because they use the same words as Christians but often times define them in a slightly different way.
You asked me for my own definition...you never once asked me to google the term and give you a exact copy of what is found on-line...

What is wrong with you?

[Billyray]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Free-Will/
Let's go to the first verse given on your link and see what it says.


Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

In verse 8 what is "this" referring to?

[Billyray]

You asked me for my own definition...you never once asked me to google the term and give you a exact copy of what is found on-line...

What is wrong with you?
I asked you for your own definition multiple times and it took you a while to give it to me. I am fine with your own definition because I wanted to know how YOU were using this word which would then allow us to dissucss this issue in more depth. When I talk to you from this point forward about "free will" do you want to use your own definition or the dictionary definition--it doesn't make any difference to me but I have to know what you mean when you are using this term.

[Libby]

I agree with the majority of your post--I think that the only area we differ is on the timing of regeneration. The main reason that I started this thread was to try and get people thinking about how they are defining the term "free will" because a lot of people define this word differently (and most of the time different that the dictionary definition). Unless we understand how each person is defining this word we really can't come to an understanding of each others true position. BTW this happens a lot when discussing issues with lds because they use the same words as Christians but often times define them in a slightly different way.

Yes, I agree. Defining terms is always a good idea...whether discussing among Christians or LDS.

Thank you for this thread, Billy. It was very helpful to me...helped me sort out some of my own beliefs. I do want to study up more on the Arminian side of things. I haven't been very effective in presenting that side of things. Not even sure how I feel about it, until I look into it more.

I have to say, the Calvinist line of thinking comes more naturally, to me, because I have studied it more and know all of the "proofs" for it. I think, that causes me to, sometimes, miss legitimate points, made by the other side.

Thanks, again...good thread.

[Billyray]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Free-Will/
Here is the second verse given in your link

John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

This is certainly true that if a man doesn't believe in Christ and know that He is God then he will die in his sins. Let's look down a few verses to see what else Christ said to these guys.


Joh 8
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did,
40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.
41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Alan if anything this section of scripture teaches against "free will".

Why didn't these guys hear the words of God?"

[alanmolstad]

the word "if" is what stands out....

[alanmolstad]

free will give people all kinds of reasons for doing all kinds of things....

That is part of it's charm.....LOL

[alanmolstad]

I asked you for your own definition multiple times and it took you a while to give it to me.i just copy/pasted what I have written many times before....and I have not really added anything...except I must admit I like libby's addition and so thats also something I think is fitting

[Libby]

Billy - Why didn't these guys hear the words of God?"

Scripture says, "The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

But, it seems that the reasons they are not hearing God, at a particular time, could be many. They are not of God...yes....but, does that, necessarily, mean they "never" will be? Perhaps, for "some", it was not their time...they were not ready?

In Bible study, last night, we were studying Acts 14, about the Gentiles and circumcision. James (brother of Jesus) was mentioned in that chapter as being one of the Christians involved in making a decision about circumcision in the church. For some reason (can't remember how it came up) my teacher mentioned that James was not likely a believer, at the time of the crucifixion, because Christ handed over support of his mother to John, rather than his brother James. She said, many followers were not true believers until after the Resurrection. So, these verses you brought up made me think of that...

[Billyray]

Scripture says, "The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

But, it seems that the reasons they are not hearing God, at a particular time, could be many. They are not of God...yes....but, does that, necessarily, mean they "never" will be? Perhaps, for "some", it was not their time...they were not ready?

You are correct. A person who is elect is not born regenerated and thus until that time comes they are unregenerate sinners who follow after their own sinful ways and they are unable to even hear the words of God. This is best illustrated in Ephesians 2

Ephesians 2
1 And you were dead in the tresp***es and sins
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
3 among whom we all once lived in the p***ions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

[alanmolstad]

as long as they still have their free will, there is the fully opportunity to come to the Lord...

[Billyray]

as long as they still have their free will, there is the fully opportunity to come to the Lord...
They will always have a choice but unless a person is drawn by the Father to Christ--that person is unable to come to Him.

[Libby]

You are correct. A person who is elect is not born regenerated and thus until that time comes they are unregenerate sinners who follow after their own sinful ways and they are unable to even hear the words of God. This is best illustrated in Ephesians 2

Ephesians 2
1 And you were dead in the tresp***es and sins
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
3 among whom we all once lived in the p***ions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Yes, agreed.

That bring us back to the question of whom God draws (all or some?)...and how that gets decided/worked out....which is for the other thread, I guess..

[alanmolstad]

Yes, agreed.

That bring us back to the question of whom God draws (all or some?)...and how that gets decided/worked out....which is for the other thread, I guess..Romans 1:20

[Billyray]

Romans 1:20
Can you show me in that verse where is says anything about the Father drawing all men to Christ?

[Billyray]

Most posters are familiar with the Calvinist position and the criticisms that are given with respect to free will. But let's look at it from the Arminian point of view. From the Arminian point of view a person is either elect or un-elect before they are even born and there is nothing to change that fact. Also every event in your life is absolutely fixed and cannot change. Arminians will reply that this is because of God's foreknowledge. Since you haven't lived your life yet do you have the free will to choose anything different in the future or are you following a preprogrammed script? What force is causing you to follow an exact script to the letter every moment of the day? Do you consider this free will?

[Billyray]

Below is a little snippet from Wayne Grudem that touches on what I wrote in post #166




Wayne Grudem notes that,

"If we ***ume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are their destinies determined? If they are determined by God himself, then we no longer have election based ultimately on foreknowledge of faith, but rather on God's sovereign will. But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them? Certainly no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people's destinies. Therefore the only possible alternative is to say they are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation" (Systematic Theology, p. 679).
http://www.theopedia.com/Foreknowledge_of_God

[Libby]

Most posters are familiar with the Calvinist position and the criticisms that are given with respect to free will. But let's look at it from the Arminian point of view. From the Arminian point of view a person is either elect or un-elect before they are even born and there is nothing to change that fact. Also every event in your life is absolutely fixed and cannot change. Arminians will reply that this is because of God's foreknowledge. Since you haven't lived your life yet do you have the free will to choose anything different in the future or are you following a preprogrammed script? What force is causing you to follow an exact script to the letter every moment of the day? Do you consider this free will?

I think it can be considered "free will" as long as it is God seeing our future...and not God "determining" our future. That is the difference I keep seeing between Calvinism and Arminianism.

I'm doing some reading, myself, on the Arminian view. In regards to salvation and God's "***istance" in that area, I have been reading about prevenient grace. I've read about it, before, some time ago, but I needed a refresher.

This is what I've read, just recently.

“Prevenient grace” is a phrase used to describe the grace given by God that precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. The term “prevenient” comes from the Latin and means ”to come before.” By definition, every theological system which affirms the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion has a type of prevenient grace. The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace, as is common grace.

However, when the phrase “prevenient grace” is used in theological discussions, it is used in a specific way. In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called “resistible grace” or “pre-regenerating grace.” Since denying the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion is clearly against biblical teaching, the non-Calvinist theological systems have to affirm a doctrine of grace that precedes a person’s exercising of saving faith. Since non-Calvinists do not believe the saving grace of God always results in the sinner coming to Christ, Christians down through the ages have referred to a type of grace they call prevenient. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html#ixzz31LU16mf2

[James Banta]

I think it can be considered "free will" as long as it is God seeing our future...and not God "determining" our future. That is the difference I keep seeing between Calvinism and Arminianism.

I'm doing some reading, myself, on the Arminian view. In regards to salvation and God's "***istance" in that area, I have been reading about prevenient grace. I've read about it, before, some time ago, but I needed a refresher.

This is what I've read, just recently.

“Prevenient grace” is a phrase used to describe the grace given by God that precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. The term “prevenient” comes from the Latin and means ”to come before.” By definition, every theological system which affirms the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion has a type of prevenient grace. The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace, as is common grace.

However, when the phrase “prevenient grace” is used in theological discussions, it is used in a specific way. In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called “resistible grace” or “pre-regenerating grace.” Since denying the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion is clearly against biblical teaching, the non-Calvinist theological systems have to affirm a doctrine of grace that precedes a person’s exercising of saving faith. Since non-Calvinists do not believe the saving grace of God always results in the sinner coming to Christ, Christians down through the ages have referred to a type of grace they call prevenient. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html#ixzz31LU16mf2

What do the LDS call it? Or do you believe as I do that grace and mormonism are mutually exclusive? Do the LDS need God's grace to bring them to their LDS Jesus or do they rely on their missionaries? Even in their man invented Paradise Prison where LDS missionaries still are teaching and preaching the LDS version of the gospel.. Unlike the "Christians down through the ages" you speak of, it would seem that the LDS take their message and ask people to gain an emotional confirmation of it.. No grace needed to gain that kind of a "Testimony". There is no truth connected to it.. Only the promises of a 19th century, rather poor, author.. A man that had no knowledge beyond the myth and legends of first European settlers in America who made up stories about the Lost 12 Tribes of Israel being the Fathers of the mound builders.

Remember according to his mother, Joseph would spin tales of these people long before he had access to the Gold plates.. According to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, he was a creative storyteller as well:
During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally
give us some of the most amusing recitalsthat could be imagined.
He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their
dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode;
their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of
warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them. (Lucy Mack Smith,Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations(Liverpool, England: S.W. Richards, 1853), p. 85)..

IHS jim

[Billyray]

I think it can be considered "free will" as long as it is God seeing our future...and not God "determining" our future. That is the difference I keep seeing between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Are you free to choose anything different in the future than what is already determined for you to do?

[Billyray]

. . .Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/prevenie...#ixzz31LU16mf2
I found this statement interesting--"releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ". God intervenes and changes their nature which then allows them the ability to come to Christ. This allow implies that this doesn't happen until some point later in a person's life i.e. not at birth.

When I thought about this from the Arminian point of view--if election is defined as God seeing a person come to faith on his own and then electing that person, this can't really happen because God has to intervene in that person's life first in order for this to take place.

[Billyray]

Since this is the lds board I think that it is important to also include that some lds thinkers believe that God's absolute knowledge of the future and free will are incompatible. Below is a review article where the author discusses this issue.



Reviewed by Blake T. Ostler

". . .The Incompatibility of Free Will and Foreknowledge

The authors unsuccessfully attempt to defend their view against the argument that if God infallibly foreknows the future, then humans cannot be free. They present a supposed argument purporting to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will and then they easily and decisively defeat it (pp. 12-13).12 Now, I am quite satisfied that the authors have shown that the argument that they present is simply (and obviously) invalid. The argument as presented commits the obvious modal fallacy that "if x will definitely occur, then x will occur necessarily."13 However, no one to my knowledge has ever presented the flawed argument which they allege represents the argument given by "some Mormon thinkers." What is worse, they appear to attribute this badly flawed argument to me (pp. 12-13)! But I have never presented such an argument and I do not relish having such a ridiculous argument attributed to me. The argument they present thus represents a straw man.14

The modern argument showing that free will is not compatible with foreknowledge is based on the fixity of the past or, in other words, the principle that no person can have power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed what God has in fact always believed. Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7-Eleven at a certain time t. My refraining from robbing the 7-Eleven at time t certainly entails that God has not always believed that I will rob at t. Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free.15. . .




Footnotes #15

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (***umption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (***umption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (***umption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).

6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).

8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (***umption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

http://publications.maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=9

[Libby]

I found this statement interesting--"releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ". God intervenes and changes their nature which then allows them the ability to come to Christ. This allow implies that this doesn't happen until some point later in a person's life i.e. not at birth.

When I thought about this from the Arminian point of view--if election is defined as God seeing a person come to faith on his own and then electing that person, this can't really happen because God has to intervene in that person's life first in order for this to take place.

That's a part of the problem with inserting God into time and space. By seeing God outside of time and space, it doesn't really matter "when" something happens...He sees it ALL, all at once.

[Libby]

It's not really a matter of God's "belief"..IMO. It's a matter of knowledge and "seeing" what we will do, even before we do it. If we were going to change our minds about something, God would, of course, know that, as well.

I don't see the incapability with God knowing and our own "free will".

[Libby]

God doesn't have "beliefs", does He? He has true knowledge.

[Libby]

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

Questions

In Sunday School today somebody said that Jesus Christ knew from the pre-existence who would return to Heavenly Father's presence. Some cl*** members disagreed with that opinion and we couldn't reach a final answer, and we were unable to find a scripture to confirm that comment. The person said that "Jesus knows everything, from the beginning to the end, and therefore he knows who will be returning to God's presence." Could you help me with this issue?

This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware. Leaders and members may have expressed a variety of opinions or positions. Like all material in FairMormon Answers, it reflects the best efforts of FairMormon volunteers, not an official Church position.

Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer.

A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

In the lack of a revealed answer to the question, both positions appear to be acceptable alternatives for faithful, believing Latter-day Saints.

There is a detailed ****ysis, following this....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Foreknowledge

[James Banta]

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

Questions

In Sunday School today somebody said that Jesus Christ knew from the pre-existence who would return to Heavenly Father's presence. Some cl*** members disagreed with that opinion and we couldn't reach a final answer, and we were unable to find a scripture to confirm that comment. The person said that "Jesus knows everything, from the beginning to the end, and therefore he knows who will be returning to God's presence." Could you help me with this issue?

This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware. Leaders and members may have expressed a variety of opinions or positions. Like all material in FairMormon Answers, it reflects the best efforts of FairMormon volunteers, not an official Church position.

Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer.

A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

In the lack of a revealed answer to the question, both positions appear to be acceptable alternatives for faithful, believing Latter-day Saints.

There is a detailed ****ysis, following this....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Foreknowledge

Because there is no official doctrine that teaches that God knows the beginning from the end we can't say that the LDS church teaches that He does can we? That would be LYING. You wouldn't want to lie now would you? IHS jim

[Billyray]

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

I would say that most lds believe that God is all knowing. But when you push them a little bit they believe that this is based on knowing a person so well that God can predict what will happen, in a similar way that you can predict things that you kids will do. But this is not ah absolute knowledge of the future but rather a highly educated guess. That is why some lds believe that God is not all knowing in the literal sense as noted in my prior post (the argument reposted below)




Footnotes #15

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (***umption: Omnitemporality of Truth).
2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (***umption: Infallible Foreknowledge).
3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (***umption: Fixed Past).
5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).
6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).
7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).
8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (***umption libertarian free will).
9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

http://publications.maxwellins***ute...b=1439&index=9ess

[Billyray]

It's not really a matter of God's "belief"..IMO. It's a matter of knowledge and "seeing" what we will do, even before we do it. If we were going to change our minds about something, God would, of course, know that, as well.

I don't see the incapability with God knowing and our own "free will".
This knowledge of knowing every single thing that you would do every single day would have been known to God before he create the heavens and the earth and any human being and you will replay each and every event just as planned.

[Libby]

I would say that most lds believe that God is all knowing. But when you push them a little bit they believe that this is based on knowing a person so well that God can predict what will happen, in a similar way that you can predict things that you kids will do. But this is not ah absolute knowledge of the future but rather a highly educated guess. That is why some lds believe that God is not all knowing in the literal sense as noted in my prior post (the argument reposted below)

You could be right, Billy. I really don't know. But, it seems there is no "official doctrine" on this, so the belief is rather fluid. Would be nice to have some LDS input.

[Libby]

This knowledge of knowing every single thing that you would do every single day would have been known to God before he create the heavens and the earth and any human being and you will replay each and every event just as planned.

Yes, that's true. But, unless God made all of the decisions about what our everyday life would be like, I still don't see a conflict between His knowing and our doing.

[Billyray]

That's a part of the problem with inserting God into time and space. By seeing God outside of time and space, it doesn't really matter "when" something happens...He sees it ALL, all at once.
Do you believe that God saw that the universe would come into existence or that God knew that the universe would come into existence because he brought it forth according to His own will?

[Billyray]

Yes, that's true. But, unless God made all of the decisions about what our everyday life would be like, I still don't see a conflict between His knowing and our doing.

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

[Libby]

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

Yes....but, again, for God, I don't think it's "ahead of time". He doesn't dwell in time and space, as we do.

[Libby]

Do you believe that God saw that the universe would come into existence or that God knew that the universe would come into existence because he brought it forth according to His own will?

His will. His Creation.

I think I see what you're getting at. God's hand is in everything, in a way...and he does have a plan for his people. He had a plan for Jesus. He had a plan for his prophets.

[Billyray]

Since this is the lds forum I will include another objection that lds bring up with respect to free will and absolute foreknowledge.



Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer. A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Foreknowledge

[Billyray]

His will. His Creation.

I think I see what you're getting at. God's hand is in everything, in a way...and he does have a plan for his people. He had a plan for Jesus. He had a plan for his prophets.
Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/is-the-glory-of-god-at-stake-in-gods-foreknowledge-of-human-choices

[Billyray]

Romans 9

15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I have comp***ion.”
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “[B]For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

For example in Romans 9 God's role for the Pharaoh was to raise him up so he would carry out the role that he did in order to Glorify God's name and show His power. The Pharaoh made choices (and will be held responsible for those choices) but we also see that God further hardened his heart so that ultimately he would fulfill God's plan.

[Libby]

Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/is-the-glory-of-god-at-stake-in-gods-foreknowledge-of-human-choices

Yes...thanks for posting that.

When I talk about "free will", all I'm really saying is that, in order for us bear responsibility for our "unbelief", we have to have some kind of "real" choice to make....a choice that is made possible, by the grace of God.

[Libby]

Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/is-the-glory-of-god-at-stake-in-gods-foreknowledge-of-human-choices

But the even bigger difference, which I just reiterated in my last post is our responsibility and God's justness. I have read several Arminian articles, recently, and many of them comment on this and how Calvinism's "determinism" does harm to God's integrity.

[Billyray]

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

Yes....but, again, for God, I don't think it's "ahead of time". He doesn't dwell in time and space, as we do.
God certainly knew but the prophets couldn't have known to write down prophecy. My point with this example is that if God simply looked into the future and saw what a person did then they couldn't have written down prophecy without intervention from God. So from an Arminian point of view--God was actively involved with humanity and future events--guiding them--before He even created a single person. This goes against the idea of simply peering into the future to see what a person will do.

[Billyray]

But the even bigger difference, which I just reiterated in my last post is our responsibility and God's justness.
But can't you make the same argument against the Arminian position as well? I see issues from a human perspective on both sides. Let's take a look at possible criticisms that some may raise with the Arminian position. For example in the post where I quoted the lds scholar about free will vs foreknowledge--he said if a person's future is locked in before that person is even born that person cannot have free will because he does not have the choice to change anything. And let me add that if that person can't change anything who is responsible?

[Libby]

God certainly knew but the prophets couldn't have known to write down prophecy. My point with this example is that if God simply looked into the future and saw what a person did then they couldn't have written down prophecy without intervention from God. So from an Arminian point of view--God was actively involved with humanity and future events--guiding them--before He even created a single person. This goes against the idea of simply peering into the future to see what a person will do.

Strictly speaking, I believe that God interacts with all of us on a daily basis. Some take notice, others do not.

God would certainly have to interact with his prophets or they would have nothing to prophesy.

But, I think God does both...he interacts, but he also allows us our will, in all things.

I think God chose/chooses people he knows will be open to him (as prophets, etc, I mean). Calvinists probably believe that the prophets were left with no choice.

But, then, I think about Paul on the road to Damascus and it didn't appear (in the story) that he really had a choice. So, I donno...

[Libby]

But can't you make the same argument against the Arminian position as well? I see issues from a human perspective on both sides. Let's take a look at possible criticisms that some may raise with the Arminian position. For example in the post where I quoted the lds scholar about free will vs foreknowledge--he said if a person's future is locked in before that person is even born that person cannot have free will because he does not have the choice to change anything. And let me add that if that person can't change anything who is responsible?

I just don't get the problem here. If God only knows what we will do with our "free will", then he is not locking anything in, by knowing.....he just already knows what we will do. Any possible changes are already "known". We are still doing whatever it is we would have done, whether He knew about it or not.

[Billyray]

I just don't get the problem here. If God only knows what we will do with our "free will", then he is not locking anything in, by knowing.....he just already knows what we will do. Any possible changes are already "known". We are still doing whatever it is we would have done, whether He knew about it or not.
My point was that some would say that what you call free will is not really free will.


The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (***umption: Omnitemporality of Truth).
2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (***umption: Infallible Foreknowledge).
3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (***umption: Fixed Past).
5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).
6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).
7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).
8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (***umption libertarian free will).
9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

http://publications.maxwellins***ute...b=1439&index=9

[Libby]

My point was that some would say that what you call free will is not really free will.

Yes, I agree. I even admitted, awhile back, that what I was calling "free will" does not really fit the dictionary definition.

[Billyray]

Yes, I agree. I even admitted, awhile back, that what I was calling "free will" does not really fit the dictionary definition.
Do you believe that God foresaw your life as you choose everything on your own or do you believe that God intervenes and guides not only your future but the future of all history to conform to His will?

[Libby]

Do you believe that God foresaw your life as you choose everything on your own or do you believe that God intervenes and guides not only your future but the future of all history to conform to His will?

I know that God does intervene in our lives and does guide us and, controls certain events (like the cruxificion and the Israelites leaving Egypt). I don't think He micro-manages everything, though. Do you?

[Billyray]

I know that God does intervene in our lives and does guide us and, controls certain events (like the cruxificion and the Israelites leaving Egypt). I don't think He micro-manages everything, though. Do you?

It sounds like we are in agreement for the most part if you believe that God intervenes and controls certain events. But I am sure you know that your position wouldn't line up with the idea that God simply saw what you did ahead of time. My position is probably best described in the following verse from Proverbs.

Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.

[Billyray]

Acts 9
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.


When you look at Paul (formerly Saul) do you think that these verses are characteristic of God seeing Paul coming to Christ on his own?

[Libby]

It sounds like we are in agreement for the most part if you believe that God intervenes and controls certain events. But I am sure you know that your position wouldn't line up with the idea that God simply saw what you did ahead of time.

Yes, in retrospect, I think it is more like what I described the Arminian view to be, which is more "interactive" with God, rather than independent free will.


My position is probably best described in the following verse from Proverbs.

Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.

Yes, I remember that verse. I like it.

[Billyray]

Acts 9
1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him.
4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

Romans 9
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Romans 11
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”


In the above sections of scripture you see God taking an active role in the course of people's lives. He just doesn't sit around and see (foresee) what people will do like you hear from the Arminian point of view. With this in mind look again at the objection that Paul raises in Romans 9. If the Arminian point of view is correct the objection below wouldn't make any sense, on the other hand from the Calvinist point of view the objection does make sense in fact people on this board have made the exact objection.

Romans 9
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

[Libby]

I agree those p***ages are difficult to explain from an "interactive" perspective, but I still don't think we can know, for certain, that Saul/Paul did not still have the freedom to turn away, if he had sincerely wanted to. That was a dramatic story of conviction that left Saul with absolutely no doubt about who Jesus was....so, in that sense, he had no choice, when confronted with direct knowledge and truth. Most of us don't get that kind of direct knowledge. Jesus chose Saul/Paul for a particular mission...and Jesus knew he would fulfill that mission, just as he knew Judas would fulfill the mission he was called to.

Think I will look at some commentary from an Arminian perspect, on these p***ages.

[Libby]

John Wesley

"I appeal to every impartial mind...whether the mercy of God would not be far less gloriously displayed, in saving a few by his irresistible power, and leaving all the rest without help, without hope, to perish everlastingly, than in offering salvation to every creature, actually saving all that consent thereto, and doing for the rest all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be saved, which would be to destroy the very nature that he had given them." -Predestination Calmly Considered

[Billyray]

I agree those p***ages are difficult to explain from an "interactive" perspective, but I still don't think we can know, for certain, that Saul/Paul did not still have the freedom to turn away, if he had sincerely wanted to. That was a dramatic story of conviction that left Saul with absolutely no doubt about who Jesus was....so, in that sense, he had no choice, when confronted with direct knowledge and truth. Most of us don't get that kind of direct knowledge. Jesus chose Saul/Paul for a particular mission...and Jesus knew he would fulfill that mission, just as he knew Judas would fulfill the mission he was called to.

Think I will look at some commentary from an Arminian perspect, on these p***ages.
I agree that Christ chose Paul as evident by the p***age of His conversion in Acts 9--prior to this point Saul had no interest in joining Christianity in fact he was on a mission to persecute the Christians. Now compare this Romans 11 (reproduced below) this certainly isn't indicative of the Father drawing these people to Christ--in fact if the Father was drawing them to Christ why give them "a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear".

Romans 11
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”

[Billyray]

I agree those p***ages are difficult to explain from an "interactive" perspective, but I still don't think we can know, for certain, that Saul/Paul did not still have the freedom to turn away, if he had sincerely wanted to. . .
I think a lot of people view the Calvinist position as people being forced to make a choice one way or the other--and that is the sense that I am getting from your statement above. Paul chooses to accept Christ after his experience in Acts 9--the same is true for the other elect after they are regenerated. Those who are not elect choose to reject Christ.

[Libby]

Billy, would you mind watching this seven minute video (mostly on Ephesians 2:8)? I would really like to hear your opinion on this. The teacher is Dr. Norman Geisler. Are you familiar with him? I am not, but have really enjoyed what I've listened to, so far!

This was originally posted by Alan on another forum.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFs64zcTCYc#t=290

[Libby]

I think a lot of people view the Calvinist position as people being forced to make a choice one way or the other--and that is the sense that I am getting from your statement above. Paul chooses to accept Christ after his experience in Acts 9--the same is true for the other elect after they are regenerated. Those who are not elect choose to reject Christ.

Yes, but the point of contention is that God chooses a few for salvation, for no known reason, and then must regenerate them, before they can even respond.

The video I posted poses a very good argument as to why regeneration cannot come before faith. And, Dr. Geisler uses Ephesians 2:8 to prove his point.

[Libby]

If you would like to watch the whole series, you can do that here:

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3379-Why-I-Am-Not-A-5-Point-Calvinist-quot&p=155446&viewfull=1#post155446

I'm listening, right now.

[Libby]

This is the whole series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9n_NUoslp0&list=PLDFD2E37589EA81B9

[alanmolstad]

thanks Libby!

he really helps a person understand

[alanmolstad]

Saul/Paul never lost his free will......he always had free will....

the same is true for Pharaoh and even Judas....they (like the rest of us) always have Free Will....

But God is not so limited that he cant move in our lives without first stripping away our Free Will...

[Billyray]

Billy, would you mind watching this seven minute video (mostly on Ephesians 2:8)? I would really like to hear your opinion on this. The teacher is Dr. Norman Geisler. Are you familiar with him? I am not, but have really enjoyed what I've listened to, so far!

I know Norm Geisler in fact he has a pretty good book that I read several years ago ***led "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist". I will take a look at his video later today and get back with you.

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

What is "this"?

[alanmolstad]

you get faith, and following that you get saved......not the other way around

[Billyray]

Yes, but the point of contention is that God chooses a few for salvation, for no known reason, and then must regenerate them, before they can even respond.

And from your point of view nobody can respond until God changes them in some way. Prior to that they are unable to do so. BTW we both agree that people do not have the free will to come to God until God changes them and allows them to do so. Second who are those who come to God? The elect which are elect from before the foundation of the world. Again you and I would agree that this is true. Where we differ is the basis for their election. Third we would also agree that a person cannot become elect if they are not elect after they are born. If you think about your position we agree more than we disagree.

[Billyray]

you get faith, and following that you get saved......not the other way around
That is correct Alan. faith/repentance-->salvation. Hey we finally agree on something.

[alanmolstad]

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

What is "this"?

note the point in the video at 2:50




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFs64zcTCYc

[alanmolstad]

God doesn't have "beliefs", does He? He has true knowledge.

I thought the same thing....I read that list Billy posted and thought to myself...."Who wrote this junk?"

[alanmolstad]

Are you free to choose anything different in the future than what is already determined for you to do?You are always free to chouse what you want...God never takes away this Free Will that you have Libby...Never!

[alanmolstad]

And from your point of view nobody can respond until God changes them in some way. .this is wrong.....The Bible disagrees with you 100% on this...

check out 1:50 of the video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BmPN6En_-0

[alanmolstad]

so being "dead' in our sins never for one moment means we are "unable" to respond....

Rather it means we are "unwilling" to respond.


and this fits closely with the words of Christ who wept because the people of the city "would not"come to him....not that they "could not"....

"Would not" = unwilling = dead in your sins.

[Christian]

alan posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianWhat do you think THIS p***age means?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV


it points to the verse - Romans 1:20

Is the universe still spinning?
Is the earth still here?

Rom 1:20-23
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
NKJV

Yep, there those who 'know' God and their hearts are darkened. NOTHING IN THE TEXT says they are 'free willed' to 'choose God' WITHOUT HIM FIRST DRAWING THEM to Himself.

If so, then you are hearing the call.......for the Universe never stops declaring the nature of God to you.

I received Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord over 40 years ago. . .I don't have to depend upon nature alone. . .I have HIS WORD and HIS HOLY SPIRIT LIVING WITHIN ME. . .MUCH BETTER!

So where is your scripture that says anyone has the 'free will' to choose God on his own?

So far you have found none.

[Christian]

confused alan posted:
yes,,,,
God is not so weak that he has to first rob the person of their own Free Will just to carry out his will in their life!

Why would you consider the TRUTH that God never gave anyone the 'free will' to choose Him or not, a 'weakness' in God?

GOD tells us:
Eph 1:3-6
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV



That would be a silly type of god to trust...a god who gets nervous at the gifts he has given.....LOL.

I know. . .you think that the Word of God is 'silly.' I also know YOU are pathetically confused if you think we CHRISTIANS believe God 'gets nervous at the gifts He has given. . ."

"Oh no, I gave them all Free Will and now they are stronger than I am!...What shall I ever do?"

SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE that God ever gave anyone 'free will' at all, and I will show you where God said we are either a SLAVE TO SIN or a SLAVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS, and that we were BOUGHT from sin BY JESUS ON THE CROSS who PAID FOR US.

Sorry alan, but you are confused.

[Christian]

Here is the second verse given in your link

John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

This is certainly true that if a man doesn't believe in Christ and know that He is God then he will die in his sins. Let's look down a few verses to see what else Christ said to these guys.

Alan if anything this section of scripture teaches against "free will".

Why didn't these guys hear the words of God?"

1 Cor 2:13-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

[Libby]

So where is your scripture that says anyone has the 'free will' to choose God on his own?

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest".

God gently draws us to Him, but then we must have the "faith" to accept His calling.

I hope you will watch the videos, as well, Christian. Dr. Geisler puts it so simply and absolutely according to scripture.

[Libby]

And from your point of view nobody can respond until God changes them in some way. Prior to that they are unable to do so. BTW we both agree that people do not have the free will to come to God until God changes them and allows them to do so.

I don't think "changes" is the proper word. If you notice, even in Ephesians 2:8, "faith" comes first, then regeneration. God draws us by his grace, through "faith" (our faith, our acceptance of his gift) and THEN, we will be saved (regenerated).

[Libby]

I know Norm Geisler in fact he has a pretty good book that I read several years ago ***led "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist". I will take a look at his video later today and get back with you.

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

What is "this"?

"This" is salvation, which is absolutely by His grace and His doing, but we must "accept" that gift by putting our faith in Him.

[alanmolstad]

where?....here is where...

If you asked me to flap my arms and fly I would fail.
its not that I refused to try, for I would be able to try to flap my arms hard enough to fly....but no matter how hard I try I will fail.
What is the reason?

The reason is that I cant.....

On the other hand if you asked me to wash the car and I don't it is because I refused to go wash the car.
It's not that I cant wash a car, for I can wash a car easy.

But if you ask me to wash the car and the car never gets washed you can therefore know that while I was "able"to wash the car, I simply refused to go wash it.


In the same way- Jesus wept over the people of the city that failed to come to Him.
he wept because the people "would not" come to Him........

"Would not" has a different meaning than "could not"

Had Jesus said that the people "could not" come to him it would have meant that the people had no Free Will, and that from the beginning of time the people were doomed to be unable of choosing to come to God .


Thus the moment Jesus said "would not" it meant that the future was not set, that the people had the free will they needed to turn and come to Christ right now, and that their failure was only do to the people refusing to come rather than being "unable" to come.

So this is how we know that men have the free will needed to turn and come to Christ right now without needing anything to happen before they do.

[Libby]

Here is a handy chart that shows the basic differences between the Calvinist view of salvation and the Arminian view. Specific to this thread would be the first item (Human Ability).

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

Arminian Position


Free Will or Human Ability

Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s ***istance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Calvinist Position


Total Inability or Total Depravity

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not — indeed he cannot — choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s ***istance to bring a sinner to Christ — it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation— it is God’s gift to the
sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

[alanmolstad]

1 Cor 2:13-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV



check out 3:30 of the video for your answers...





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BmPN6En_-0

[alanmolstad]

confused alan posted:
.....

Well thats fine,,,,,now Im going to ask you a question too...

What is the difference between "would not" and "could not"?

[Libby]

This #3 video was especially interesting, Alan. I loved the way he went through Genesis (the Garden Story) and explains why we are still in the image of God (just slightly distorted/defaced due to sin).

[alanmolstad]

This #3 video was especially interesting, Alan. I loved the way he went through Genesis (the Garden Story) and explains why we are still in the image of God (just slightly distorted/defaced due to sin).

I plan to listen to all of them back-to-back as I cut the gr*** in the lawn....
It helps p*** the time, and is a fun way to learn while there is nothing else I could be going anyway while I drive the mower around.

[Libby]

I plan to listen to all of them back-to-back as I cut the gr*** in the lawn....
It helps p*** the time, and is a fun way to learn while there is nothing else I could be going anyway while I drive the mower around.

I listened to all nine of them last night. I couldn't stop! :) Good stuff. Thank you so much for posting them. I've bookmarked a bunch of information and list of books from Norman Geisler and Dave Hunt. I'm going to be very busy taking all of this in, in the next few weeks.

[Apologette]

Arminianism: Your name is penciled in the Book of Life!

[alanmolstad]

Geisler I like and I can support stuff he writes...I think I remember Walter Martin used to suggest reading some of his books.

As for Hunt?.....well.....Hunt has a few things that Walter called into question...I cant remember the issue he had with Hunt, but I do remember that Hunt and Walter used to talk about some issues where they were not on the same page.

[Libby]

Geisler I like and I can support stuff he writes...I think I remember Walter Martin used to suggest reading some of his books.

As for Hunt?.....well.....Hunt has a few things that Walter called into question...I cant remember the issue he had with Hunt, but I do remember that Hunt and Walter used to talk about some issues where they were not on the same page.

Dave Hunt does believe in the "P" (perserverance of the Saints) in TULIP, so perhaps that is their point of disagreement? I don't know, yet. I'm sure I'll find out!

[alanmolstad]

Dave Hunt does believe in the "P" (perserverance of the Saints) in TULIP, so perhaps that is their point of disagreement? I don't know, yet. I'm sure I'll find out!

well........I dont think it was even about Calvinism...

its hard for me to remember, but I think it was about some other ministries that Hunt felt had crossed the line and become a CULT.....

[alanmolstad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hunt_%28Christian_apologist%29


Calvinism

Hunt addressed Calvinism in a book called What Love is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, published in 2002 and revised in 2004 and 2006.

He sought to refute many alleged misconceptions of Calvinism without taking an Arminian stance.

He outlined a theological middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, where, according to Hunt, one can believe in eternal security but reject Calvinistic teaching.

Also published in 2004 was Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, co-written in a point-counterpoint debate format by Hunt and Calvinist apologist James White.

[Libby]

Thanks, Alan. I saw that book, last night, when I was looking around. Looks pretty interesting. I'm going through some more YouTubes, right now, just to familiarize myself with him and some others.

[Billyray]

Billy, would you mind watching this seven minute video (mostly on Ephesians 2:8)? I would really like to hear your opinion on this. The teacher is Dr. Norman Geisler. Are you familiar with him? I am not, but have really enjoyed what I've listened to, so far!

This was originally posted by Alan on another forum.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFs64zcTCYc#t=290
He doesn't understand the Calvinist position. At minute mark 2:08 he says "faith follows salvation". That is false. And that is not what Calvinists believe. Libby I surprised that you didn't pick that one up yourself. Salvation comes when a persons repents and places his faith in Christ.

[Billyray]

I don't think "changes" is the proper word. If you notice, even in Ephesians 2:8, "faith" comes first, then regeneration.

Where in Ephesians 2:8 does it say that faith comes first, then regeneration?



God draws us by his grace, through "faith" (our faith, our acceptance of his gift) and THEN, we will be saved (regenerated).

When one repents and places his faith in Christ then he is saved. But a person doesn't have the ability to come to Christ until after he is drawn. And we know that all those who are drawn are raised.

[Billyray]

I know Norm Geisler in fact he has a pretty good book that I read several years ago ***led "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist". I will take a look at his video later today and get back with you.

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

What is "this"?

"This" is salvation, which is absolutely by His grace and His doing, but we must "accept" that gift by putting our faith in Him.
What about "grace" and "faith" aren't they part of the "this"?

[alanmolstad]

He doesn't understand the Calvinist position. At minute mark 2:08 he says "faith follows salvation". That is false. And that is not what Calvinists believe. ...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
". In other words, faith is a fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. God saves sinners so that they will believe, not because they believe out of their own resources."



Thus...

There is support for what the video is teaching us about Calvinism's teachings...and Im glad to see you also reject the same false teachings that I reject found within Calvinism

[Billyray]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
". In other words, faith is a fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. God saves sinners so that they will believe, not because they believe out of their own resources."



Thus...

There is support for what the video is teaching us about Calvinism's teachings...and Im glad to see you also reject the same false teachings that I reject found within Calvinism
Not sure what point your are trying to make Alan.

[Libby]

He doesn't understand the Calvinist position. At minute mark 2:08 he says "faith follows salvation". That is false. And that is not what Calvinists believe. Libby I surprised that you didn't pick that one up yourself. Salvation comes when a persons repents and places his faith in Christ.

How can you have faith before regeneration, if you believe one is "dead in sin" before regeneration?

[Libby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
". In other words, faith is a fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. God saves sinners so that they will believe, not because they believe out of their own resources."



Thus...

There is support for what the video is teaching us about Calvinism's teachings...and Im glad to see you also reject the same false teachings that I reject found within Calvinism

Yes, this is my understanding, as well.

[Libby]

Where in Ephesians 2:8 does it say that faith comes first, then regeneration?

Ephesians 2:8 says that it is by grace that you are saved...thru faith.. God's grace (his drawing) and then your faith (acceptance/receiving Him, repentance) THEN salvation (regeneration).



When one repents and places his faith in Christ then he is saved. But a person doesn't have the ability to come to Christ until after he is drawn. And we know that all those who are drawn are raised.

No, all of those who have faith, when they are drawn, will be raised up.

[Libby]

Not sure what point your are trying to make Alan.

Hope you get a chance to listen to the whole set, by Geisler. He really explains things very clearly.

[alanmolstad]

Not sure what point your are trying to make Alan.really?

Well thats too bad, cuz you would have gotten a better idea of Calvinism's real teachings if you caught my point....







But on the bright side, Im glad you agree with me in that faith comes before.....not after...not 2nd to salvation's regeneration