gao_lu — 2017-09-05T22:26:16-04:00 — #1
Would you describe your view as...
- Hard Imcompatibilsim
- Other (Please Describe)
This chart might help:
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-09-06T01:02:50-04:00 — #2
My problem is that I have no clue what is meant with either "Libertarianism", "Compatibilism", "Hard Incompatibilism" or "Revisionism" in this matter .... thus I actually have no choice, am not free, to comment intelligently at all
gao_lu — 2017-09-06T04:40:27-04:00 — #3
I should have created short definitions but assumed the Yes/No dichotomy would serve the same end. I am not one much for pigeon holes, but hope this serves to articulate postions better.
Google search brought this up. It isn't sweet and simple, but is the source of the table above.
dave_l — 2017-09-06T05:37:51-04:00 — #4
I think the biggest problem with free will as it pertains to salvation is that it makes salvation available only for the self righteous. If God provides salvation to all who meet certain conditions, then people end up saving themselves because of some goodness in them.
gao_lu — 2017-09-06T05:54:30-04:00 — #5
You must not be thinking about it differently than I am. I can't make any connection at all between the two. I sure don't get your assertion from the Bible.
Obviously, there is something wrong with your statement isn't there? People aren't saving themselves at all if God saves them.
You hang on that term "self righteous" as if there is a perpetrator behind every bush. I have never met an Evangelical Protestant who thought any such thing (but I bet there are some are out there!)
dave_l — 2017-09-06T06:26:53-04:00 — #6
If God offers salvation based on meeting conditions, people end up saving themselves.
If God does not save them unless they comply, they end up saving themselves.
Anyone who meets the supposed conditions for salvation is better than those who just as easily could but don't.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-06T06:28:00-04:00 — #7
I am a libertarian. I think our free will is part of the imago dei as we share in God's creative acts. I think it is useful to separate free will in salvation from free will generally. Particularly, I want to affirm that when Christians make a decision, they generally could have genuinely made a different one. This is proven by 1 Corinthians 10:13, which indicates that Christians have real freedom not to sin, combined with the fact that Christians DO sin. The future is known exhaustively by God, but He also has genuine middle knowledge of other genuine possibilities.
I do not think free will is the holiest factor in the universe; God may legitimately undermine our ability to sin for our protection.
dave_l — 2017-09-06T06:35:58-04:00 — #8
This only proves that non Christians do not have a free will.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-06T07:58:30-04:00 — #9
I don't think it addresses non-believers at all. Free will is, retrospectively, the fact that a person could have chosen B, when in fact they chose A. Believers have free will not to sin, because God has given them the ability to resist every temptation. Whether or not unbelievers could resist any particular temptation is not addressed in this next, nor in any that come to mind. Can you explain your reasoning?
dave_l — 2017-09-06T08:04:36-04:00 — #10
It doesn't, but it shows that only Christians have free will. Elsewhere Paul says people are by nature the children of wrath.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-06T08:09:57-04:00 — #11
It shows that Christians have free will. I still do not see how the text says that only Christians have free will. I would agree that only Christians always have free will not to sin, but just as Christians sometimes have free will to sin and sometimes do not, it is at least conceptually possible that non-Christians may sometimes have the freedom not to sin. (I am trying to argue the bare minimum necessary to make my point, although I believe considerably more)
dave_l — 2017-09-06T08:14:57-04:00 — #12
Apart from the new birth, people can only sin in everything they think, say or do. Their motive is off. Paul says whatever is not of (biblical) faith is sin.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-09-06T10:55:27-04:00 — #13
So the unbelieving husband and wife commit sin when thinking about love for each other, caring for one another, having sexual relation with each other, teaching their children to be honest rather than lie, etc etc ??? According to you, as long as they are unbelievers and not born again, they CAN ONLY SIN in everything they think, say or do .....
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-06T11:12:07-04:00 — #14
This particular theory goes back to Augustine, but interestingly, it requires the nuance of the word "faith" to change mid-chapter. Hebrews 11:6 is more relevant.
fred — 2017-09-06T13:14:12-04:00 — #15
Offers a challenge to the free will proponents.
We cannot do an empirical test to see if man's free will can overpower his adamic nature in regards to salvific belief. We can test man's free will vs. his adamic nature in another way.
Use the following commands as your test criteria:
· 2 Corinthians 10:5 and take every thought captive to obey Christ
· John 13:34 that you love one another: just as I have loved you,
Now, for one week see if your free will overcomes your adamic nature; show that your free will enables you to keep these two acts of obedience. If you can honestly succeed then you have empirical evidence to support your claim. Just one week to make it easy for you. Just indicate you will take up the challenge and get back to us in one week.
I wish you luck. I took the test and failed (I was not obedient, my free will was not strong enough ).
dave_l — 2017-09-06T13:35:51-04:00 — #16
Their motive is always self serving. They always get something in return.
dave_l — 2017-09-06T13:37:36-04:00 — #17
Without faith that comes from God, it is impossible to please him. Because human faith is not Biblical faith, which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-09-06T14:25:46-04:00 — #18
And what are you trying to say? You do not have the ability to chose what you want to do? Or you are too weak to follow through on your choice, which you were free to make ? It is important to note that "making the choice" and "carrying out what one chooses" are two separate things.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-09-06T14:31:18-04:00 — #19
have been down this road many times already ... biblically, "faith"="believing" which is an action of the mind and heart of a person, available to man independent whether they are Christian or not.
Regarding "fruit of the spirit", "faith" is NOT a fruit of the spirit, "FAITHFULNESS" is a fruit of the spirit (problem is one in some English translations, which inaccurately translate "faith" rather than "faithfulness" due to the preconceived theology of the translators)
Since you again mention "fruit of the Holy Spirit", I would like to ask again that you clarify for us what you mean with this expression, in particular with "the Holy Spirit"? In light of the context of Gal 5, what is the fruit of the spirit? why do you speak of "the Holy Spirit" when the text has "fruit of the spirit" ??
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-06T14:37:43-04:00 — #20
I don't think any orthodox advocates of free will would accept your premise, Fred. We are not advocating Pelagianism, but rather that there is genuine to choice to rely on the Spirit.
Here is my viewpoint of free will (generally present, but sometimes limited):
Believers can always choose not to sin. Believers can sometimes choose to sin (If I want to rob a bank, but in His sovereignty, God keeps me from making it, I did not have freedom to sin).
Unbelievers can sometimes choose to sin. Unbelievers can sometimes choose not to sin.
next page →