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.
What you didn't respond to was the question of why was Gods' aim that He's " not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE." II Peter 3:9, if it would be impossible. It had to be possible or that would be an empty statement and we know that God doesn't waste any words. Of course, God knew who would repent and who wouldn't, He's omniscient, so ALL had a chance to repent. God is no respecter of persons and doesn't want to lose anyone. So, IMHO, the elect are those who answered the call to repentance.
Now THAT'S funny. What version of the Bible says THAT? Please tell me, I need more laughs
)
Sadly, i posted this thread as a newbie Lanolin, then found out the Bible Discussion Forum ain't the best place on this site for spiritual discussion. There are genuine people on this forum but with some i seriously question what their real motives are, quite a few, or maybe just a hyperactive few, are outright trolls.
Basically, i do think we were created with absolute free will, i don't see how Adam and Eve could have made the choices they did, without it. I also think Adam and Eve were genuinely repentant afterwards and it's likely they're saved.
Thing is, we're fallen because of their choice, prone to all sorts of physical, mental and spiritual problems/constraints. We certainly can make and enact some choices but usually, we need the cooperation of others due to the impact our choice might have on them. Many people confuse/conflate choice with free will, choice is an element of free will but our freedom of action to enact choices is largely constrained by the needs and opposition of other people. Which is fair enough, currently i think scratch-each-others-backists is a better way to describe us, there are loads of sayings to back that up, like every dog has its day etc. The term fair play and similar back it up too, by recognising choice and will exists but we often can't have or do what we want, in our fallen state.
Hope that makes some sense, i seriously wish i hadn't created this thread
Ooh, your post is an perfect example of what i said about people often confusing choice and free will, in a new comment on this page.
Since when did you understand the bible ?Now THAT'S funny. What version of the Bible says THAT? Please tell me, I need more laughs
I certainly don't understand your bible, that states the Jesus didn't die for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.
GWH wrote: "So, what is the difference?"
John Piper gives the answer to that, which includes these words:
"Now to the specific question, What is hyper-Calvinism? I think probably the most common historic meaning for the term is that hyper-Calvinism refers to a distortion of historic Calvinism, and the distortion says it is inappropriate and unbiblical to invite people to Christ unless they give some evidence of being among the elect. That’s a distortion. That’s a falsehood.
The net effect of this viewpoint is to put a governor on the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel and wholehearted engagement in world missions. You can hear it in the voice of a preacher who, when William Carey wanted to go to India, said, “Sit down, young man. When God wants to reach the nations, he’ll do it without your help.” In other words, “Don’t you go out there and preach the gospel indiscriminately to those pagans. You might tempt somebody to embrace the gospel when they’re not elect.” That’s hyper-Calvinism."
If you want to read the whole article, it is at: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-is-hyper-calvinism
John Piper gives the answer to that, which includes these words:
"Now to the specific question, What is hyper-Calvinism? I think probably the most common historic meaning for the term is that hyper-Calvinism refers to a distortion of historic Calvinism, and the distortion says it is inappropriate and unbiblical to invite people to Christ unless they give some evidence of being among the elect. That’s a distortion. That’s a falsehood.
The net effect of this viewpoint is to put a governor on the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel and wholehearted engagement in world missions. You can hear it in the voice of a preacher who, when William Carey wanted to go to India, said, “Sit down, young man. When God wants to reach the nations, he’ll do it without your help.” In other words, “Don’t you go out there and preach the gospel indiscriminately to those pagans. You might tempt somebody to embrace the gospel when they’re not elect.” That’s hyper-Calvinism."
If you want to read the whole article, it is at: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-is-hyper-calvinism
I think this is another example of the need for both-and logic. Both what Piper said and what TULIP means are hyper and heretical.
So what do you think Calvinists believe that is different to what Piper and the Five Points of Calvinism, sometimes known as TULIP, say? And if you use the term "Hyper-Calvinist" to refer to somebody who believes the Five Points of Calvinism, whatterm do you use for people like the man who told William Carey: "“Sit down, young man. When God wants to reach the nations, he’ll do it without your help.” ?
You are getting carried away with this bogus pseudo-philosophical Augustinian unbiblical nonsense that much is clear.
Constant quoting clueless Calvinists is a symptom of the disease.
However, understanding the Hebrew and Greek terms and grammar is the cure.
BTW, predestined (root destination) is all about the FUTURE.
I came to believe as I do long before I had even heard of Calvin our Augustine, because I found such things in the bible. However, regardless of whether you think I am getting carried away, I am still wondering what you mean by "Calvinism", if you think that belief in the Five Points/TULIP equals Hyper-Calvinism.
Yes, hyper Calvinism is the logical conclusion of Calvinism which the Calvinists like to deny.
However, there are some who are okay with the implications and do not seek to evade the logical outcome and so they are the hyper-Calvinists
Nope. Wrong answer.
If you continue to trip over the ENGLISH word order and terms, you will never make any progress.
If you continue to endless ruminate on formulaic dogmatic nonsense such as TULIP you will never make any progress.
Not to mention that despite the ignorant (and sometimes rabid) protestations to the contrary, objective FREE WILL is literally everywhere in the Bible cover to cover.
God, Satan, Adam, Eve, Moses, Job, David, Haman, Pharaoh, Herod, Paul, Peter......
They all had the gift of free will and the right to express it.
Then comes the JUDGEMENT predicated upon all of those FREE WILL decisions.
Usually when you are called a Calvinist, it simply means the other person does not believe the Bible, e.g., verses like 1 Corinthians 2:14, they will say does not mean what you think when you simply believe what it plainly says, and there are quite a few instances where the anti-Calvinist will contradict and outright deny what the Bible says, rewriting the very words of Jesus Christ Himself as some do here, claiming Jesus did not mean all who sin are slaves to sin but only atheists. I suppose in that way they can excuse all their lies and slander as mere "oopsies" since surely they did not choose to sin, and therefore repeatedly bearing false witness to them is not a sin.
It has been over forty years since I read Calvin’s Institutes, but my memory is that he taught more than TULIP. The man who discouraged Carey sounds like he was a tulipist.