praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Yes its synergistic
Both..... It certainly included synergism.
We choose. We chose. You choose. You chose. You will choose.
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Both..... It certainly included synergism.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Mwaahhh haa haa ... you stepped right into my trap!
- [Acts 2:37 NASB] Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what are we to do?"
- [Acts 16:14 NASB] A woman named Lydia was listening; she was a seller of purple fabrics from the city of Thyatira, and a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
- [Ezekiel 36:26-27 NASB] "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "And I will put My Spirit within you and bring it about that you walk in My statutes, and are careful and follow My ordinances.
- [Philippians 2:13 NASB] for it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for [His] good pleasure.
Yes. God increases OUR faith.
Mar 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
atpollard
Well-known member
It could be, or it could not be. That verse could honestly go either way (which is why Doctrines are not built on single verses taken out of the Paragraph containing them). Whosoever believes just means what it says ... the person who believes will not perish. So that kicks the ball down the field to "why does 'whosoever' believe?" ... their will or God's gift? John 3:16 is silent on that question, but John 3:19-20 tells us that "unsaved sinners" want nothing to do with Jesus and John 3:21 tells us that the works of the saints are "performed in God".
Context is a beautiful thing.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Amen.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Context is wonderful.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he hath sent.
There is no explanation from Calvinism for such context.
It is the very work of God for man to believe upon Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said these words to men that rejected HIM.
PeanutGallery
Member
You presume the king does not acknowledge God.
Prov 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Diserner
Well-known member
The language of EDD, exhaustive divine determinism by the decree of God, were it to exist, has no need of any language that involves indicating in any way potential multiple outcomes.
So the only recourse is to say that God is writing in a way that is not strictly meaning what he is saying.
I noticed the above quote:
Logically things DO sound like what they actually say, lol.
This sentence is an indication of cognitive dissonance: an internal subconscious awareness of incongruity of belief.
Underneath is the justification, "Scripture MEANS my presuppositions but sometimes SOUNDS differently."
So instead of Christ saying "While you have the light, come to the light," a sentence that expresses divine indeterminancy, Christ would rather say under EDD, "While you have the light God has decreed you to not come to the light," which is language that clearly removes any ambiguity about monergism.
This bringing of presuppositions to the text while claiming to be the only one directly reading the text, is not something you can force people to see; it is a spiritual thing.
So the only recourse is to say that God is writing in a way that is not strictly meaning what he is saying.
I noticed the above quote:
Logically things DO sound like what they actually say, lol.
This sentence is an indication of cognitive dissonance: an internal subconscious awareness of incongruity of belief.
Underneath is the justification, "Scripture MEANS my presuppositions but sometimes SOUNDS differently."
So instead of Christ saying "While you have the light, come to the light," a sentence that expresses divine indeterminancy, Christ would rather say under EDD, "While you have the light God has decreed you to not come to the light," which is language that clearly removes any ambiguity about monergism.
This bringing of presuppositions to the text while claiming to be the only one directly reading the text, is not something you can force people to see; it is a spiritual thing.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Really? It's right there in black and white (or red, depending on your Bible). Whose work is it? I'll tell you what it doesn't say: "This is your work or duty, that you believe on him who he hath sent."
I'll see your verse and raise you:
Who, then, can be saved? With man, this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.
atpollard
Well-known member
No, that sentence was a criticism of eisegesis. Reading into a verse what it "sounded like" it was saying rather than focusing on what the actual words really said.
Ahhhh, perhaps like the all in Job 38:7 ...
Berean Standard Bible
while the morning stars sang together and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or return in Ps 9:17
Berean Standard Bible
The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.
?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I've often lamented the 1+1 math that exists in Calvinism. When we become adults, we move past 1+1 math. That is what you're insisting must exists here. Can I ever ask you do anything but 1+1 math. Context is always more than 1+1. I responded comments about context. You remove the context from these comments.
No one is disputing that Salvation is of God. No one is. Your comments insist that any deviation from you claim requires that Salvation not be of God.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Yeah. The ole "all" only means "all" only when I want it to mean "all".
Like "All have sinned"....
Diserner
Well-known member
The strongest passage to show Libertarian Free Will, LFW, the idea that God has empowered and decreed agents to allow them a choice among limited options where they have the true power and ability to pick among those options, without God in any way forcing them or creating them in such a way as to remove their LFW, is the following passage:
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? (Isa. 5:3-4 NKJ)
Now there are many, many passages supporting LFW logically, but this one is particularly clear and forceful because God makes a real direct and forceful point about his own Self-limitation in allowing creation a degree of autonomous self-determination. God specifically says the words:
"What more could I have done in my vineyard?"
Now, put on your thinking cap here for a minute—God is all-powerful. If God wants something, God can get it, there is nothing, anywhere that can stop God from getting what he wants, if God so chose to force it. God is directly and pointedly saying that he has reached a limitation in what he, Almighty God, is actually able to do for his vineyard here; and that can only happen through two logical paths: the first which we reject, is God does not have all power. But the second is God has chosen an economy of Self-limitation to allow his creation actual true real authentic choice not based on any prior thing forcing it one way or the other.
Under all forms of monergism, God could ALWAYS have done more for his vineyard. For one, he could have unilaterally sovereignly decreed before the foundations of the earth in his ultimate sovereignty that his vineyard bear fruit, and nothing could stop it. That is ALWAYS something more God could have done under monergism.
The only logical scenario possible, where an all-powerful God could not do anything more, is if he allowed LFW.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? (Isa. 5:3-4 NKJ)
Now there are many, many passages supporting LFW logically, but this one is particularly clear and forceful because God makes a real direct and forceful point about his own Self-limitation in allowing creation a degree of autonomous self-determination. God specifically says the words:
"What more could I have done in my vineyard?"
Now, put on your thinking cap here for a minute—God is all-powerful. If God wants something, God can get it, there is nothing, anywhere that can stop God from getting what he wants, if God so chose to force it. God is directly and pointedly saying that he has reached a limitation in what he, Almighty God, is actually able to do for his vineyard here; and that can only happen through two logical paths: the first which we reject, is God does not have all power. But the second is God has chosen an economy of Self-limitation to allow his creation actual true real authentic choice not based on any prior thing forcing it one way or the other.
Under all forms of monergism, God could ALWAYS have done more for his vineyard. For one, he could have unilaterally sovereignly decreed before the foundations of the earth in his ultimate sovereignty that his vineyard bear fruit, and nothing could stop it. That is ALWAYS something more God could have done under monergism.
The only logical scenario possible, where an all-powerful God could not do anything more, is if he allowed LFW.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
The way you're singular applying John 3:19-20 excludes... YOU.
Diserner
Well-known member
So here are the reasons I believe in Free Will.
1. If determinism were true, the Bible could be written drastically differently to make clear that potential alternate decisions or choices are not real and viable. For what reason would it be written in a non-deterministic way at any point whatsoever? Although we could come up with some abstract reasons, it makes the most sense that we are suppose to feel like there are some choices we can make.
2. Although this seems obvious, many people seem to feel that if there are limitations to the free will, then it is somehow not “free” anymore. We can still believe in the sin nature and the inability to be perfect, yet believe a kind of choice that can be made even in the midst of that, a choice that accepts God’s grace. So there is absolutely no incompatibility with the doctrine of a sinful nature, since we receive outside empowerment.
3. Many feel that a choice is necessarily a meriting work, that is, if I make a decision that results in allowing God’s grace to work in me, this choice is necessarily at least partially earning the result of whatever the grace works: but that actually is an imposed and not a necessary conclusion. If I were to give someone a gift based on something they did, I would not necessarily insist that what they did earned my gift.
4. It seems many determinists will admit that God does not want us to sin, and sometimes try to disconnect the logical implications of God decreeing sin so that somehow God is not really the determining cause. It makes more sense that acting like choices are actual gives more incentive and motivation to make better choices, and even under determinism one would have to assume that belief in free will has been determined.
5. I have considered determinism seriously but never felt convinced of it, even though I feel completely open to the possibility. I have to believe due to my own prolonged sincere search, that the idea that I have no ability to make an actual (free) choice is a deception that makes more sense as explained by what the devil would want me to believe, since the devil wants me to make bad choices.
It is mainly for these above reasons that I see and feel no conviction to adopt any kind of deterministic belief, and see it more as a trick of the enemy to make me put less importance in my decisions. The one counter argument that I could feel has some credence is, “Well, if you start to believe things are up to you, you won’t really be able to rest in grace.” Which argument seems a bit odd logically because I couldn’t have a choice about what I believed if determinism were true, I would either be set to believe or not believe it by God’s decree, and arguments would not be the actual causal factor in changing my mind. But I can understand the persuasiveness of that line of reasoning. I would say that, the knowledge that God will always help me make good choices could equally make me unafraid of not being able to rest in his grace, and since that promised help is a sufficient reason to rest in grace, anything more feels like presumption to me, the presumption of assuming that I will always make a choice that lines up with God’s decree is just too great a risk to take.
1. If determinism were true, the Bible could be written drastically differently to make clear that potential alternate decisions or choices are not real and viable. For what reason would it be written in a non-deterministic way at any point whatsoever? Although we could come up with some abstract reasons, it makes the most sense that we are suppose to feel like there are some choices we can make.
2. Although this seems obvious, many people seem to feel that if there are limitations to the free will, then it is somehow not “free” anymore. We can still believe in the sin nature and the inability to be perfect, yet believe a kind of choice that can be made even in the midst of that, a choice that accepts God’s grace. So there is absolutely no incompatibility with the doctrine of a sinful nature, since we receive outside empowerment.
3. Many feel that a choice is necessarily a meriting work, that is, if I make a decision that results in allowing God’s grace to work in me, this choice is necessarily at least partially earning the result of whatever the grace works: but that actually is an imposed and not a necessary conclusion. If I were to give someone a gift based on something they did, I would not necessarily insist that what they did earned my gift.
4. It seems many determinists will admit that God does not want us to sin, and sometimes try to disconnect the logical implications of God decreeing sin so that somehow God is not really the determining cause. It makes more sense that acting like choices are actual gives more incentive and motivation to make better choices, and even under determinism one would have to assume that belief in free will has been determined.
5. I have considered determinism seriously but never felt convinced of it, even though I feel completely open to the possibility. I have to believe due to my own prolonged sincere search, that the idea that I have no ability to make an actual (free) choice is a deception that makes more sense as explained by what the devil would want me to believe, since the devil wants me to make bad choices.
It is mainly for these above reasons that I see and feel no conviction to adopt any kind of deterministic belief, and see it more as a trick of the enemy to make me put less importance in my decisions. The one counter argument that I could feel has some credence is, “Well, if you start to believe things are up to you, you won’t really be able to rest in grace.” Which argument seems a bit odd logically because I couldn’t have a choice about what I believed if determinism were true, I would either be set to believe or not believe it by God’s decree, and arguments would not be the actual causal factor in changing my mind. But I can understand the persuasiveness of that line of reasoning. I would say that, the knowledge that God will always help me make good choices could equally make me unafraid of not being able to rest in his grace, and since that promised help is a sufficient reason to rest in grace, anything more feels like presumption to me, the presumption of assuming that I will always make a choice that lines up with God’s decree is just too great a risk to take.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
God determined the boundaries of our habitant and the limits of our own abilities. That is limited determination. God also Divinely intervenes for us. We pray and God answers or not. At the very least, we can take pleasure in the fact that He has heard us.
I will add that one reason I believe in free will is because man is always trying to take it away.......
God is giving it and man is trying to take it away. Sounds like depravity at its "finest" to me........
Ray
Member
cognitive dissonance: Yeah that's what I was going to say, along with a little Divine intermediency. Most definitely a spiritual thing. I like it
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
So many logical fallacies I don't know where to start.
It's not a choice between free will and determinism. As I have said multiple times, we all have free will.
The issue isn't between free will and determinism. The issue is whether or not you are able, of your own free will, decide to choose salvation.
Reformed theology does not refute free will, only libertarian free will. Unsaved, our will is bound to enmity against God, so we freely choose according to that inclination. When we are born from above, we have the Spirit that opens our eyes and ears, such that our inclination is no longer a slave to sin. We may sin, we may even sin a lot. But we have a new life, changed by the grace of God.
