Posted on 06/29/2013 2:31:49 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
“Whether or not it is demonstrable is not the point. It is whether you would accept it or not if it were demonstrated to you.”
As I said, I won’t say I won’t engage with you. Whether I accept anything or not will depend on if you can demonstrate it, don’t you think? Which is so unlikely that I think the act impossible. Don’t be concerned with whether or not I can accept something, be more concerned that what you want me to accept can even be logically defended.
Assume it can be. It’s a very simple thought experiment.
If it could be and was, would you accept it? Could you choose one way or the other?
Perhaps revising the question more in line with your preferences will make it easier.
If your having free will choice were logically defended, would you accept it?
“Assume it can be. It’s a very simple thought experiment.”
For me it’s not even a thought experiment, because I started off with your opinion, and then came to this truth later on through not just rational understanding, but miraculous revelation. It’s an experiment I’ve gone through in real life, received the “demonstration,” and made the choice some time ago. I find it too difficult, even when asked merely to “assume” it for the sake of a hypothetical, to repeat the experiment again.
>>”made the choice some time ago”
What choice did you make and what was the basis or criteria on which you made this choice?
“What choice did you make and what was the basis or criteria on which you made this choice?”
The basis was, and is, purely the scripture.
Why did you choose scripture as your basis?
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I take that “as because scripture says so.”
But why did you choose scripture as your basis and criteria?
“I take that “as because scripture says so.”
You should take it as exactly what it says, scripture being “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” because it is “inspired” by the Holy Ghost. Seems a pretty good basis for doctrine then for the Christian.
How did you come to decide that Timothy in the example and other writings were truly scripture and truly “inspired” by the Holy Ghost?
“How did you come to decide that Timothy in the example and other writings were truly scripture and truly “inspired” by the Holy Ghost?”
Not its historical validity, its coherence of teachings from one book to the next, its sublime principles and high philosophy beyond that of any man-made philosophy, though it has all of these; ultimately the sole deciding factor was the quickening and revelation of the Holy Spirit upon my own soul.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
So your direct personal experience which you decided to trust.
Not that it matters, can we assume that if it were historical invalid and incoherent you likely would not have gotten to this point?
“Not that it matters, can we assume that if it were historical invalid and incoherent you likely would not have gotten to this point?”
I’m not sure what this has to do with your original complaint. However, could the Word of God ever be historically invalid and incoherent? If it was incoherent, it couldn’t possibly be the Word of God, and there would never have been a Holy Spirit for to make me a believer. It seems a blasphemous thing to even consider when we know it isn’t true. But I know that even as the scripture is historically valid and coherent, full of proofs historical and rational to believe, that there are those who would never believe in it, despite how worthy it is to believe, and there are those who will, because:
1Co_12:3 ... no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
This seems a very reasonable thought process and conclusion. Thanks.
Can you say basically what was your thought process in coming to conclude that scripture says you do not have free will?
“Can you say basically what was your thought process in coming to conclude that scripture says you do not have free will?”
My thought process is, that since scripture is by inspiration of God, and therefore infallible in teaching, that it cannot contradict itself. If the scripture teaches that one is predestinated to salvation, beyond any reasonable doubt, we cannot ignore it or attempt to negate it. We must understand and believe it, not supposing that scripture can negate itself, or lead itself to confusion, along with the whole of scripture, putting aside all of our emotional objections to the matter. Too many people approach these doctrines with their assumptions, or have been taught incorrectly by pastors trying too hard to conform themselves to the itching ears of their more carnal members.
That seems a logical conclusion as a result of an organized and logical thought process guided by your criteria/basis.
Would you say that your conclusion concerning free will guides or determines your actions? Likely not all of your actions but some actions in whole or in part?
“Would you say that your conclusion concerning free will guides or determines your actions?”
Which actions? My “conclusion” was indeed a conclusion, not something I began with and therefore read into the scripture. If you mean “moral actions,” perhaps, then the doctrine of grace impressed upon me with greater urgency then before the need to ‘shrew my faith by my works,’ as this is the purpose of salvation to begin with. Not as a condition to salvation, but as the purpose of your life and eternity given to you by God. It impressed upon me the fact that nothing I have is my own, but is rather given to me so that I may produce fruit, and that my fruit should abide eternally.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Yes that’s what I meant. It influences, guides or determines action, in whole or part. In this case it seems quite a bit on a deep level:
“…impressed upon me with greater urgency then before the need to ‘shrew my faith by my works,’ … etc. “
I appreciate your patience in this. I think it helps a great deal to have a specific example to refer to when trying to discuss what may be only an abstract term without it.
The purpose of my questions here was to clarify what we are talking about so that differences in terminology are minimized.
I believe what I’ve just read from you is a person explaining how they skillfully used their free will to come to the conclusion that they have no free will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.