Page 7 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 1288

Thread: Free Will

  1. #151
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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?

  2. #152
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    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?

  3. #153
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.

  4. #154
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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.

  5. #155
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    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?"

  6. #156
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

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

  7. #157
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

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

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

  8. #158
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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

  9. #159
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    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...

  10. #160
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    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.

  11. #161
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

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

  12. #162
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.

  13. #163
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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..

  14. #164
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    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

  15. #165
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Romans 1:20
    Can you show me in that verse where is says anything about the Father drawing all men to Christ?

  16. #166
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    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?

  17. #167
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    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

  18. #168
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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/prevenie...#ixzz31LU16mf2
    Last edited by Libby; 05-10-2014 at 01:19 PM.

  19. #169
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    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/prevenie...#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
    Last edited by James Banta; 05-10-2014 at 03:43 PM.

  20. #170
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    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?

  21. #171
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    . . .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.
    Last edited by Billyray; 05-10-2014 at 03:30 PM.

  22. #172
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    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...b=1439&index=9
    Last edited by Billyray; 05-10-2014 at 03:47 PM.

  23. #173
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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.

  24. #174
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    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".

  25. #175
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •