Does Man Have Free Will?

[weepingforloman]

Don't you see that if Calvin is correct there are no good people? However, this is an important issue. God does not restrain us all the time for several reasons. He does not desire a universe of automatons-- He sometimes allows us to carry out our will because to do otherwise would essentially negate the most God-like thing about humanity-- the ability to choose and act on choice. Furthermore, He allows it to strengthen us-- faith and morals are like muscles, they must be used in order to remain strong. And He allows sin in order to both convict (pangs of conscience sometimes are more effective than a thousand blessings) and to judge (living with the consequences of sin is like a pre-Judgment judgment). And, please remember, I don't have all (if any) of the answers.

Grace and Peace.

[Redzeppelin]

Ah, now we reach the fundamental break. Calvinism for me, and I think you would feel comfortable describing yourself as Wesleyan or Arminian? I believe that man's will is always (in the present life, of course) disposed toward evil, and cannot overcome it. I believe that only God's active restraint prevents totality of sin. However, I do not argue that we freely choose to do evil, only that God at times chooses to restrain us. Calvin says we sin "of necessity, but not under compulsion." We will sin, this is inevitable. But God does not compel us to do so.

You're right: Calvinist I'm not. Paul made it clear that we freely choose who we serve. His words become nonsense if free will doesn't exist.

[weepingforloman]

No, they don't. I will present the Reader's Digest version of the Calvinist will:

1. Originally free.

2. Made slave to sin after the Fall.

3. Freed by faith-- but the trappings of flesh cause the believer to sin.

Hence-- God frees our will and we freely choose to believe. I'm just glad to see we're both thinking about this kind of thing.

Grace and Peace, Red.

[kilted exile]

The calvinist attitude is one of the more difficult concepts to reconcile with a benevolent god, I guess the more apt term to have used is innocent rather than good. Dont worry though I'm not looking for answers, existence of gods or otherwise doesnt interest me - belief systems do, I am interested in the abrahamic religions in probably the same way the religions of Ancient Greece, Rome & Egypt interest you. Only difference is I have living followers of these religions to pose questions to.

[weepingforloman]

I wish you'd reconsider your stance, and I don't think the concept of a benevolent God is hard to reconcile with Calvinism... but I won't get into that.

Personally, I think Norse and Irish mythology are so much more interesting than Greco-Roman, don't you?

[kilted exile]

Nah, my childhood was filled with the tales of Greek & roman gods. It fascinates me more than the stories of Odin, Thor & Valhalla

[weepingforloman]

Oh, I dunno, the Norse mythology has that sorrowful pang to it... You ultimately know that the gods themselves are doomed, and that man must begin again in an empty world. Very tragic, very timeline oriented (the Greco-Roman gods seem to live in a vacuum). And I love the concept of the World-Tree... I guess I am biased, I have German (they came from Scandinavia originally) heritage, I take German in school, and I am very attached to the whole Arthurian tradition, including the Saxons, and they had the Norse gods too.

Well, this is off topic any way. Sorry for the tangent.

[Redzeppelin]

No, they don't. I will present the Reader's Digest version of the Calvinist will:

1. Originally free.

2. Made slave to sin after the Fall.

3. Freed by faith-- but the trappings of flesh cause the believer to sin.

Hence-- God frees our will and we freely choose to believe. I'm just glad to see we're both thinking about this kind of thing.

Grace and Peace, Red.

My words about the conflict between Paul and Calvinism are due to Divine Election. We must be able to choose God freely - that is the whole point of the original "test" in the garden of Eden: would humanity freely choose to serve God? The only way to answer that honestly is to have the legitmate choice to rebel. Divine Election seems to override that human responsibility.

[Turk]

Yes he does. If you say no he doesn't that means he does too.

[weepingforloman]

My words about the conflict between Paul and Calvinism are due to Divine Election. We must be able to choose God freely - that is the whole point of the original "test" in the garden of Eden: would humanity freely choose to serve God? The only way to answer that honestly is to have the legitmate choice to rebel. Divine Election seems to override that human responsibility.

No, it does not override it, it merely points out its consequences: because of the Fall, we need God to help us merely to return to Him.

[JGL57]

No, it does not override it, it merely points out its consequences: because of the Fall, we need God to help us merely to return to Him.

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

[Redzeppelin]

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

Because it's true? Because believing so provides the most convincing answer to why humans are the way they are and the solution to the problem of human sin and our complete inability to really change our lives for the better? Why not believe so? Who says this is "mythic"? You? What is your authority for making such a claim? Because you don't have any "proof"?

[Gorilla King]

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

I hope it won't be terribly out of place for me to say so but I couldn't but help get a good laugh out of your statement. Not out of spite or malice or anything like that, I was just thinking, "of course it seems unwarranted to you! If it seemed otherwise you'd already be a Christian."

On a more serious note though, to discuss the totality of why one might rationally believe in God would be an enormous undertaking. Thomas Aquinas wrote the 3,000 page Summa Theoogica and still wasn't able to say everything he had to say. However, to bring the matter to a point, it all comes down to Jesus. I have studied various other aspects as well of course, but based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person, the gospels recorded real events, and Jesus was who He said He was. I have yet to encounter an argument which stands up against what I've learned. If anyone has one I'd be very interested to hear it so I could research it further if I haven't already. And if I have and relating what I've learned wouldn't take too much time I'd be happy to share that as well and recommend more in depth reading on the subject if I know of any.

[tulysg1982]

we are like fictional characters of a book.our perfection depends on our creators.when a writer write a book his own intellect foreshadows his characters.The writer is concern about the major movement of his character, he never write about how many times his characters drink tea, or sit before computer.When the creator is giving a life to a person his concern leds to what he has planned to do with his characters,how to finish his book.Similarly if we are like that, i think we have our free will in our minor deal in life.But we cannot change our fate whats our creator is planning for us.

[JGL57]

I hope it won't be terribly out of place for me to say so but I couldn't but help get a good laugh out of your statement. Not out of spite or malice or anything like that, I was just thinking, "of course it seems unwarranted to you! If it seemed otherwise you'd already be a Christian."

On a more serious note though, to discuss the totality of why one might rationally believe in God would be an enormous undertaking. Thomas Aquinas wrote the 3,000 page Summa Theoogica and still wasn't able to say everything he had to say. However, to bring the matter to a point, it all comes down to Jesus. I have studied various other aspects as well of course, but based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person, the gospels recorded real events, and Jesus was who He said He was. I have yet to encounter an argument which stands up against what I've learned. If anyone has one I'd be very interested to hear it so I could research it further if I haven't already. And if I have and relating what I've learned wouldn't take too much time I'd be happy to share that as well and recommend more in depth reading on the subject if I know of any.

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference).