B
Blackpowderduelist
Guest
It's not a complex question at all. It's simply human imaginings and speculation. It's an attempt to reconcile theological nonsense with worldly science nonsense.
A complex question about free will and Calvinism
- Thread starter LostSoul
- 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.
Don't forget the PresbyteriansI enjoyed your post. The only one thing I noticed is you say that some people basically debate against Calvinism without knowing what it is. I agree. (and vice versa) But I would have to point out to you that the reformed view of Faith is not a 'Systematic Theology'. Are Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran systematic theologies? Like reformed they do have systematic theology books.
That said, no, our churches are not separate systematic theologies, in and of themselves. "Calvinism" ~is~ a systematic theology however, and it's also what our OP author mentioned in the title to this thread 
I agree. Just like our creeds, systematic theologies summarize (in a fashion) what the Bible says about certain aspects of the faith, and they put it all together for us, their way. That's why there is always a possible down-side to these "theologies", because most systematic theologies are also built upon a certain extra-Bibilcal POV/presuppositional focus (and this "focus" can actually end up doing harm to what the Scriptures truly teach sometimes).
This is why I thought it best to look to the Bible alone in this case, or if not, I suggested that our OP author should describe his understanding of "Calvinism" and "Free Will" so that we can all enter into the discussion on the page he is on.
God bless you!
~Duet
What this means is that all of creation -- the natural world -- reveals the power and glory of God. One does not need any scientific knowledge for this. When human beings behold the marvels of nature, they are led to conclude there there is a glorious Creator who made all things.
but isn't the implication that, if the things that are made ((creation)) clearly show the invisible things of Him, that knowledge of those things can teach us knowledge about His eternal power & godhead?
such that there are links between physics - when physics is rightly known - and theology?
Don't forget the Presbyterians
I agree. Just like our creeds, systematic theologies summarize (in a fashion) what the Bible says about certain aspects of the faith, and they put it all together for us, their way. That's why there is always a possible down-side to these "theologies", because most systematic theologies are also built upon a certain extra-Bibilcal POV/presuppositional focus (and this "focus" can actually end up doing harm to what the Scriptures truly teach sometimes).
This is why I thought it best to look to the Bible alone in this case, or if not, I suggested that our OP author should describe his understanding of "Calvinism" and "Free Will" so that we can all enter into the discussion on the page he is on.
God bless you!
~Duet
Hi Deuteronomy,
I have to be honest I do not understand your first paragraph. On one hand you say our churches are not systematic theologies in and of themselves, then you switch this around and say Calvinism ''is''. That would be like me saying ''our Churches are not separate systematic theologies...but Arminianism ''is'' (basically every one who's not reformed (soteriological speaking))
It's OK I get the gist of what your saying
Oh...Your right I forgot the Presbyterians....
How could I do that, 
that's what I go to.. In the land of Presbyterians & Bagpipes 
(I used to be a happy bappie).The Bible says those who sin are slaves to sin. Are slaves free?
God makes it possible for us to choose Him.
Our own natural will is hostile to Him.
You're rather confused on this...
The will is (always) free, but not necessarily one's actions (in the life of the sinner)! Rom 8v3,4, 7v15, Gal 5v17
Not quite.
Determinism was, basically, Einstein's rejection of the probabilistic nature of quantum theory proposed by others.
The reason that quantum theory is not deterministic is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
However Heinseberg does not say that a particle does not have a definite position and momentum, just that the more accurately you measure one variable the less accurately you can know the other. This is due to measurements effecting the motion of the particle.
I'm simply asking that if we could know the precise position and momentum of a particle at the time of the big bang (or shortly after), any future event could be calculated, does this undermine free will and support Calvinism?
Yes it is circular.
I've asked whether knowledge of every particle's position and momentum at the point of the big bang would undermine free will and you've simply asserted that love is a result of free will and therefore what I ask cannot be true.
If you want to assert that love is a result of free will, then prove it - scientifically, since this thread is essentially a scientific examination of Calvinism.
I love the KJV. “Being saved” is more accurate because salvation is conditional - on condition that we continually trust Jesus as our Savior from sin and our Lord to Whose authority we freely submit.
Since God often speaks of things which assuredly will come to pass as though they are now, it’s perfectly fine to say, “I am saved” though in reality we have not yet reached Revelation 22:11 KJV and are still able to switch teams.
Even if the universe was deterministic, doesn’t the fact that God constantly implores us to “choose” righteousness whenever we are tempted to sin automatically establish “free will choice” as an integral part of humanity, and perhaps some are misinterpreting passages such as God “hating” Esau in order to support Calvinism?
It sounds like you haven't decided if you believe in God or not? Faith is believing without having to see it.
One's actions arise from their will. Just thinking you might want to do something is not the will in action.
Let’s test it out, shall we. I will tell my hand to touch my head... Hey look, it worked! I guess God was right- I have both decision and self-control.
It's far more complex than that.Let’s test it out, shall we. I will tell my hand to touch my head... Hey look, it worked! I guess God was right- I have both decision and self-control.
Your decision to touch your head with your hand was the result of electrical and chemical reactions in your brain: the movement of particles.
If the position and momentum of every particle was known at the time of the big bang, then the motion of the neurotransmitters in your brain could have been determined long ago.
We do not have the adoption yet . The redemption of the body. Its our bodies which are not redeemed yet . Spiritually we are already resurrected which for those that think this is reversible by our doing is laughable really .
but it's Bell's theorem we have to deal with, because his work is what showed that no deterministic model of the universe is possible without information being transmitted faster than light.
actually i think a universe in which there is no absolute local causality may be a stronger case as a reflection of predestination than a kind of Newtonian-clockwork one in which the future of an object can be completely calculated by knowing everything about that object's environment - because Bell's theorem & experiments demonstrating it show that *if* there is absolute determinism, it requires information from 'outside' that object's 'universe' -- there are influences that are outside of ((what we normally think of as)) the bounds of space and time.
still, seeing that salvation is described in the Bible as being by faith, not by works -- a non-physical property rather than a physical property -- i'd have to say that even if we were to develop or uncover physical models of the universe that allow superluminal information transfer, and understand the creation as absolutely deterministic, i don't think i could rule out free agency altogether because i don't believe the soul to be a physical thing emerging from physical processes. what superdeterminism of the physical universe would be telling us is that the nature of the flesh contains within it certain inescapable fate -- without comment on the things of the Spirit. such that, if indeed the fate of any particular man is predestined, it isn't by the universe that it is so -- but by One who is outside of space & time.
If you’re in a helicopter high above a long, winding tunnel wide enough for only one vehicle to pass through and you see a speeding Mack truck enter one side and a speeding Volkswagen Beetle enter the other...does your foreknowledge that the one is going to crush the other like a bug mean that it was pre-determined...or is foreknowledge not necessarily the cause of the effect?
This has nothing to do with my question, so I'm respectfully not going to address it.
Nothin personal, just that I'm trying to keep the thread relevant rather than allow it to go off on several unrelated tangents