Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Again, the discussion was how your view compares to TULIP.
If you want to lay out your understanding from the fall onward, please feel free. As you've done some of this in the past I and others have said it sounds like the T - Total Depravity - "T"ULIP.
If you think it's different, please explain.
Here's more detail from another site. Do you read anything you agree or disagree with?
Total Depravity (link)
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature, we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
If you want to lay out your understanding from the fall onward, please feel free. As you've done some of this in the past I and others have said it sounds like the T - Total Depravity - "T"ULIP.
If you think it's different, please explain.
Here's more detail from another site. Do you read anything you agree or disagree with?
Total Depravity (link)
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature, we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
I
I have no comments on TULIP. If you want to understand my position, I'm glad to show it to you. As is, you falsely characterize a position you do not understand and don't seem willing to understand. You seem to allow free thought for yourself, but others must fit into a paradigm. If you ever desire to actually discuss what the Bible teaches free of bias and preconception, let me know.
I have no comments on TULIP. If you want to understand my position, I'm glad to show it to you. As is, you falsely characterize a position you do not understand and don't seem willing to understand. You seem to allow free thought for yourself, but others must fit into a paradigm. If you ever desire to actually discuss what the Bible teaches free of bias and preconception, let me know.
You're butting in again.
When men make up metaphors they normally make them up to fit their interpretations of Scripture. The unbeliever as a corpse is dumb.
You may look around at unbelieving humanity as dust, but I see people who have retained some of the God designed and implemented faculties in God's likeness so on the plus side can reason and choose and love and help others and respond to God's Law working in consciences and respond to spiritual forces and Spiritual restraints, etc...
I disagree with the corpse metaphor you TULIPers coined based upon what I view as poor theology.
When men make up metaphors they normally make them up to fit their interpretations of Scripture. The unbeliever as a corpse is dumb.
You may look around at unbelieving humanity as dust, but I see people who have retained some of the God designed and implemented faculties in God's likeness so on the plus side can reason and choose and love and help others and respond to God's Law working in consciences and respond to spiritual forces and Spiritual restraints, etc...
I disagree with the corpse metaphor you TULIPers coined based upon what I view as poor theology.
Admittedly butting in. I think it's clear that @GWH does study Scripture and has for some time. I do and have as well. Though you don't seem to post and talk through much Scripture, it seems you also have been reading it for some time.
The issue with these traditions is that to deal with them we have to understand the arguments they're making. When we do, we also have a sense of when someone's conclusions are comparable to a system. Like you & "T" at minimum.
So, if your desired starting point is your own interpretation or if it's TULIP verses as a starting point to agree or disagree with, either works. When you begin laying out your interpretation from Scripture, in all likelihood we will encounter verses TULIP uses to substantiate their view.
This isn't that tough a process.
The issue with these traditions is that to deal with them we have to understand the arguments they're making. When we do, we also have a sense of when someone's conclusions are comparable to a system. Like you & "T" at minimum.
So, if your desired starting point is your own interpretation or if it's TULIP verses as a starting point to agree or disagree with, either works. When you begin laying out your interpretation from Scripture, in all likelihood we will encounter verses TULIP uses to substantiate their view.
This isn't that tough a process.
My beliefs have nothing to do with TULIP. You have characterized them as so, however. It's incumbent on you to then show my beliefs. As you don't know what I actually believe and why, you cannot do so. Yet you still use the pejorative TULIP, which I purposefully distance myself from for the reasons given. You are not actually interested in what the Bible teaches; only classifying people in groups. That way, rather than deal with what scripture teaches, you can divide people. This is very disingenuous in my opinion. If you want to know what Calvin taught, study Calvin. If you want to know what I believe, study the Bible.
-
1
- Show all
