Evidence for Free Will?

[August]

That's the stupidest crap I have ever heard, The same God of Love, "LOVING" his creation enough to die for them, I would think, wouldn't turn around and say "you just didn't make the cut, I knew you were gonna turn your back on me there, I gave you 6,700 different options to choose me, but I made sure you didn't, now you get to burn... FOREVER, P.S. I LOVE YOU" Does that make ANY SENSE?

. It makes sense if one believes in the unbiblical predestination claims that some calvinists make.

How ironic, given the Bible passage in your signature.

[RickD]

That's the stupidest crap I have ever heard, The same God of Love, "LOVING" his creation enough to die for them, I would think, wouldn't turn around and say "you just didn't make the cut, I knew you were gonna turn your back on me there, I gave you 6,700 different options to choose me, but I made sure you didn't, now you get to burn... FOREVER, P.S. I LOVE YOU" Does that make ANY SENSE?

. It makes sense if one believes in the unbiblical predestination claims that some calvinists make.

How ironic, given the Bible passage in your signature.

I'm not sure I understand your point august. I have to believe in calvinism's idea of predestination, because I think God is working in believer's lives?

[August]

That's the stupidest crap I have ever heard, The same God of Love, "LOVING" his creation enough to die for them, I would think, wouldn't turn around and say "you just didn't make the cut, I knew you were gonna turn your back on me there, I gave you 6,700 different options to choose me, but I made sure you didn't, now you get to burn... FOREVER, P.S. I LOVE YOU" Does that make ANY SENSE?

. It makes sense if one believes in the unbiblical predestination claims that some calvinists make.

How ironic, given the Bible passage in your signature.

I'm not sure I understand your point august. I have to believe in calvinism's idea of predestination, because I think God is working in believer's lives?

But it doesn't say that God is working in believers lives, it says that He began the good work in you. Was it your choice or God's choice to begin it?

[Canuckster1127]

That passage by itself doesn't indicate at all whether the act of beginning was independent or subsequent to an invitation. You have to assume elements of the beginning that are not clear in the original language.

[RickD]

That's the stupidest crap I have ever heard, The same God of Love, "LOVING" his creation enough to die for them, I would think, wouldn't turn around and say "you just didn't make the cut, I knew you were gonna turn your back on me there, I gave you 6,700 different options to choose me, but I made sure you didn't, now you get to burn... FOREVER, P.S. I LOVE YOU" Does that make ANY SENSE?

. It makes sense if one believes in the unbiblical predestination claims that some calvinists make.

How ironic, given the Bible passage in your signature.

I'm not sure I understand your point august. I have to believe in calvinism's idea of predestination, because I think God is working in believer's lives?

But it doesn't say that God is working in believers lives, it says that He began the good work in you. Was it your choice or God's choice to begin it?

It does say He is the one doing the work. He began the good work, and will perfect it. God began the good work through the power of the Holy Spirit. And, through the power of the indwelt Holy Spirit, God will perfect what He began. We have no power in and of ourselves as believers. The power to transform is completely God's. I'm not seeing anything in the verse about whose choice it was. Just that the power is God's.

[Byblos]

It does say He is the one doing the work. He began the good work, and will perfect it. God began the good work through the power of the Holy Spirit. And, through the power of the indwelt Holy Spirit, God will perfect what He began. We have no power in and of ourselves as believers. The power to transform is completely God's. I'm not seeing anything in the verse about whose choice it was. Just that the power is God's.

Lol Rick if it weren't for the last 2 sentences I would've for sure pegged you as a Calvinist. Here's another question for you, if God begins the work and not us then what role does our choice play in the equation?

[RickD]

It does say He is the one doing the work. He began the good work, and will perfect it. God began the good work through the power of the Holy Spirit. And, through the power of the indwelt Holy Spirit, God will perfect what He began. We have no power in and of ourselves as believers. The power to transform is completely God's. I'm not seeing anything in the verse about whose choice it was. Just that the power is God's.

Lol Rick if it weren't for the last 2 sentences I would've for sure pegged you as a Calvinist. Here's another question for you, if God begins the work and not us then what role does our choice play in the equation?

To be honest with you Byblos, I have no idea. I really haven't thought about it. Other than saying that God makes the invitation, and we have to accept it.

[August]

That passage by itself doesn't indicate at all whether the act of beginning was independent or subsequent to an invitation. You have to assume elements of the beginning that are not clear in the original language.

Something that begins has a cause, so no assumptions are made other than that. The topic of the thread is evidence for free will, is it not?

[Byblos]

It does say He is the one doing the work. He began the good work, and will perfect it. God began the good work through the power of the Holy Spirit. And, through the power of the indwelt Holy Spirit, God will perfect what He began. We have no power in and of ourselves as believers. The power to transform is completely God's. I'm not seeing anything in the verse about whose choice it was. Just that the power is God's.

Lol Rick if it weren't for the last 2 sentences I would've for sure pegged you as a Calvinist. Here's another question for you, if God begins the work and not us then what role does our choice play in the equation?

To be honest with you Byblos, I have no idea. I really haven't thought about it. Other than saying that God makes the invitation, and we have to accept it.

I understand, I'm of the same camp. That's why I'd caution against labeling certain positions unbiblical.

[Canuckster1127]

That passage by itself doesn't indicate at all whether the act of beginning was independent or subsequent to an invitation. You have to assume elements of the beginning that are not clear in the original language.

Something that begins has a cause, so no assumptions are made other than that. The topic of the thread is evidence for free will, is it not?

Look at the entire passage.

aPaul and bTimothy, cbond-servants of dChrist Jesus,

To eall the 1fsaints in Christ Jesus who are in gPhilippi, 2including the hoverseers and ideacons:

2 aGrace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 aI thank my God in all my remembrance of you,

4 always offering prayer with joy in amy every prayer for you all,

5 in view of your 1aparticipation in the bgospel cfrom the first day until now.
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until athe day of Christ Jesus.

The "you" here is plural and it's addressed to the good work He is doing in them all collectively, as a body. It has nothing to do with attempting to make a statement of mechanical soteriology on an individual level.

Prooftexting this outside of that context doesn't stand scrutiny in my opinion.

[RickD]

It does say He is the one doing the work. He began the good work, and will perfect it. God began the good work through the power of the Holy Spirit. And, through the power of the indwelt Holy Spirit, God will perfect what He began. We have no power in and of ourselves as believers. The power to transform is completely God's. I'm not seeing anything in the verse about whose choice it was. Just that the power is God's.

Lol Rick if it weren't for the last 2 sentences I would've for sure pegged you as a Calvinist. Here's another question for you, if God begins the work and not us then what role does our choice play in the equation?

To be honest with you Byblos, I have no idea. I really haven't thought about it. Other than saying that God makes the invitation, and we have to accept it.

I understand, I'm of the same camp. That's why I'd caution against labeling certain positions unbiblical.

Byblos, I have no problem calling something unbiblical, if I believe it is unbiblical. It's just my opinion. I believe calvinist predestination is unbiblical, just as I believe the jesus of Mormonism is unbiblical. I don't think a calvinist's salvation is questioned if he believes in predestination, however. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Calvinist's Jesus isn't biblical.

I can understand why you would caution against labeling certain positions unbiblical because of the verbal bashing you have received regarding Catholicism. Maybe that makes you more sensitive to a position than I am. I know since being here at GodandScience, I've become more open to differing views that aren't the "essentials", and don't regard someone's salvation.

[Echoside]

They overcome addictions and temptations because they have free will. But they cannot overcome the sinful nature, not can they choose Christ without being born of the Spirit.

They aren't powerless in dealing with individual sins (which is why they are responsible for them), But they are powerless to obtain salvation without the new birth. Free will is no remedy for the sinful nature. It is the cause.

Could you clarify what you are saying here? If we aren't powerless to deal with individual sins, then that means when we do good as opposed to evil in those circumstances we are rebelling against our sinful natures.

2 things then

1. if we are responsible and are not powerless in dealing with individual sins, then does it not follow that individually one could conquer each of those sins? If not, then it would seem we are in fact powerless, therefore not responsible.

2. if we are able to , at times rebel against our sinful natures and do good, then what is stopping us from making the ultimate rebellion, in asking for God's grace through Christ?

[RickD]

Bart, could you explain what you mean here in layman's terms, so I can understand?

The "you" here is plural and it's addressed to the good work He is doing in them all collectively, as a body. It has nothing to do with attempting to make a statement of mechanical soteriology on an individual level.

Thanks

[Byblos]

Byblos, I have no problem calling something unbiblical, if I believe it is unbiblical. It's just my opinion. I believe calvinist predestination is unbiblical, just as I believe the jesus of Mormonism is unbiblical. I don't think a calvinist's salvation is questioned if he believes in predestination, however. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Calvinist's Jesus isn't biblical.

I can understand why you would caution against labeling certain positions unbiblical because of the verbal bashing you have received regarding Catholicism. Maybe that makes you more sensitive to a position than I am. I know since being here at GodandScience, I've become more open to differing views that aren't the "essentials", and don't regard someone's salvation.

Maybe but that's not so much why I said that. Only from a desire to recognize that other Christians who have opposing views base their views on scripture as well and unless you all hold like I do to an interpretive authority then it does no good to label any position unbiblical (without at least prefacing it with the proverbial IMO).

[RickD]

Byblos, I have no problem calling something unbiblical, if I believe it is unbiblical. It's just my opinion. I believe calvinist predestination is unbiblical, just as I believe the jesus of Mormonism is unbiblical. I don't think a calvinist's salvation is questioned if he believes in predestination, however. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Calvinist's Jesus isn't biblical.

I can understand why you would caution against labeling certain positions unbiblical because of the verbal bashing you have received regarding Catholicism. Maybe that makes you more sensitive to a position than I am. I know since being here at GodandScience, I've become more open to differing views that aren't the "essentials", and don't regard someone's salvation.

Maybe but that's not so much why I said that. Only from a desire to recognize that other Christians who have opposing views base their views on scripture as well and unless you all hold like I do to an interpretive authority then it does no good to label any position unbiblical (without at least prefacing it with the proverbial IMO).

OK, fine. I'll try to use IMO more in the future. I just assumed that IMO was a given, since I was the one making the statement.