Search results

From the Puritan Board Libertarian Freedom There are some people who believe in what is called Libertarian free will (hereafter called LFW), which means that a person is always able to choose or choose otherwise in a given situation. Being able to choose or choose otherwise, they argue, is the...

... And no man wants to be saved (unless God draws them - specifically).

That is not compatibilist free will.

You mean like Romans 3 and Ephesians 2? Where it states that NO PEOPLE CHOOSE GOD and ALL ARE CHILDREN OF WRATH, DEAD IN THEIR SINS, but GOD SAVES because GOD grants the FREE GIFT of FAITH, GRACE, SAVED all according to THE PLEASURE OF HIS WILL and NOT OF YOURSELF. You mean I should believe...

Do you believe the lie of the serpent that you can be like God freely knowing both good and evil all on your own ability?

I tried that. You never want to reply by addressing the verses that I quoted, but just post opinions explaining that I am wrong. Go back to my look as Genesis 1-4 where the people most capable of using their “free will” to do what God requires did not choose to do the right thing. They did...

Verse?

If you offer a pit bull a bowl of salad or a big juicy steak, his nature is such that he will always predictably and consistently choose the steak over the salad. In this case, the Pit bull cannot really be said to have [libertarian free will]. His choice was determined by his nature. It was not...

Birds are not omnipotent, but they can fly because flying is an innate ability not contrary to the nature of birds. Choosing God appears (from Ephesians 2 and Romans 3) to be an ability contrary to the innate nature of the “natural man” and is only enabled by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus...

Since you have complete free will to do ANYTHING, including things contrary to your innate nature ... why don’t you prove your position by exercising your free will to act contrary to your nature by flapping your arms to fly to heaven? As for me, I will stick with the Ephesians 2:1-10...

Stopping.

I asked you twice and here were your responses: First response ... Second response to the question ... Does it sound from your responses that you reached the conclusion that people do not want to die, or does it sound like you want to argue about Calvinism?

No, I asked you WHY?

I couldn't get you to see the basic truth that most people want to live and not die and I could not get you to even attempt to discuss "WHY" ... so what chance do I have in getting you to see the "final point" even if it was coming up next. [shrug]

What about THIS:

What about before you were a Christian (but were still sane). :)

I thought you wanted to discuss "When, where, or how was free will taken away?" but you have corrected my misunderstanding that that was never what you came to discuss.

Silly me, and here I thought you wanted to know: When, where, or how was free will taken away?

Prove it.

Thank you, somebody got the point of those first two questions ... "People want to LIVE and do not want to DIE." Every "sane" person would agree. I have no intention of blaming God for any mistakes. However, do you mind if I ask YOU the second part of the discission that "GodsGrace" had no...