Steve, is it our WILL that is limited by a million factors? Or is it our ACTIONS?
We can will even to flap our arms and fly. But we cannot accomplish what we want to do because of natural limiting factors. I suggest that these limiting factors limit our actions, but not our wills.
No, the idea of salvation is different from all of the Calvinist and Arminian positions. First of all, you have to understand that salvation in the scripture, has different meanings.
See this:
[http://www.pantelism.com/redemption/redemption.html
AFAIK itâs described as a city, there are nations outside of it, & it comes down from heaven towards earth, so i assume it doesnât take up the whole new earth, if it even lands on earth. If people not written in the book of life can never enter it (Rv.21:27) & only those who receive eonian life enter, then many will never enter the city. Robin Parry seems to assume that means theyâll never be saved, but is that necessarily the case? Why couldnât those in the lake of fire be saved without ever entering the city? Why couldnât they be saved in the lake of fire, or on the earth outside the city, or in the heavenly spheres? Furthermore, where is it written that the city lasts forever?
1 Like
I was giving general synopsis of their thinking.
I looked at that article, and to a certain extent I agree, that salvation can have different meanings depending on whom and what it is referencing. However where does Pauls meaning of salvation for all come in? Namely vivification (immortality) , justification, and deliverance from corruption?
Its our will being limited. And ive used scripture and shown external factors that severely limit our will.
And Im not trying to pester you but I really want to know how someone who believes in free will would reconcile verses that state the exact opposite;
"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is FORMED say to the ONE WHO FORMED IT, âWhy did you MAKE ME like this?ââDoes not the POTTER have the right to MAKE from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?âŚâ The potter makes vessels of honor or dishonor.
âfor to vanity was the creation MADE SUBJECT â NOT OF ITS OWN WILL, but BECAUSE of HIM who DID SUBJECT it â in hope,â Did we have a choice to be subjected to vanity by default?
âfor GOD did SHUT UP together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.â Did we have a choice to be shut up in disbelief by default?
ââHE hath BLINDED their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they might not see with the eyes, and understand with the heart, and turn back, and I might heal them;ââ Did they have a choice to be blinded or hardened?
âFor it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâand this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the gift of Godânot by works, so that no one can boast.â Did we have a choice to have faith? or was it given?
Theres a few others but those should be a sufficient start.
Paul was talking about the creation there, right?
I think the teaching is that we were already sinners by act and in will.
It was a gift that was offered, right? We chose to accept or not?
Iâm not trying to be persnickety either, but the subject allows for various explanations and is more subtle than these verses seem to show.
I dont think its subtle at all.
When it says God subjects humanity then I take it as it is at face value. Wether it be blinding them, hardening their hearts, subjecting them to vanity, making them either a vessel of honor or dishonor,Choosing whom to give faith to, etc.
And as for us choosing faith, well then you are contributing to your salvation. How much of the 100% saved by God would you knock off and attribute to yourself.
Personally, and I dont mean to offend here, but free will to me is in a sense worshiping creation as their own gods. That isnt to say that they dont love God, but they arent seeing God as truly God. And not giving God the credit of being subjector and taking His disclosure of âworking ALL things in the counsel of His willâ at face value. Is He working all things in accord with His will? or only some?
Can clay do anything apart from a potters hand?
That is outright false. Iâm sorry, but Iâve heard that too often, and the reasoning is not sound.
As for the rest of your free will thing, perhaps it is clear to you and not to all the thinkers down history.
I just take the scripture for what it says when it states it.
None of those verses leave it up to our choice unless you add words to it to fit the idea of free will.
I wasnt asked if adam should partake of the fruit, the pharisees werent asked if they wanted to be blinded, creation wasnt asked if it wanted to be subjected to vanity, etc.
If I chose to have faith then essentially I am saving myself and Christ was only a POTENTIAL savior and me knowing it is what actually saves me. Which in my opinion is pretty close to gnosticism (I.e. knowledge saves).
I dont believe to be saved, I am saved and thus belief was given to me by proxy.
It even states God has allotted each a measure of faith.
No-one doubts or argues against limitations impinging oneâs will â itâs you who seems to think that any given limitation thereby rules out the reality OF freewill â it doesnât, rather such confirms it. Limitations are simply demonstrations of a stronger force up against which a freewill CAN resist / oppose / operate etc.
1 Like
calling a limited will a free will is an oxymoron.
ONLY to your limited thinking.
Perhaps you are predestined never to see this⌠I can accept that. 
Thats not a refutation to what I said but okâŚ
[quote=âAllThingsReconciled, post:93, topic:4008â]
calling a limited will free will is an oxymoron.
[/quote
False or ambiguous at least. There is no clarity on the concept, so both sides are punching thin air.
Do you not read history of Christian thought? It saves a lot of this thrashing around.
Or maybe having a curse such as limited âfreeâ will has blinded you to the statements made in scripture.
I do a lot of reading. But I think Ive made my point that calling our will free is hardly a accurate statement when even the advocates here of free will has admitted âits limitedâ
As for reading though, I posted a source which explains more eloquently than I how ludicrous the idea of a âfreeâ will is. https://www.godfire.net/eby/freeagent.htm
Whether you agree or not I suggest at least reading it before imploring me to read more.
1. We are morally responsible for at least some of our actions and omissions.
2. Moral responsibility entails libertarian freedom of the will.
Therefore
3. We are libertarianly free.
Thatâs my take.
I will implore you no more. In a sense, the whole question is not all that meaningful for me. I did coin a phrase here a few years ago when this was being thrashed out for the 40th time, give or take - I called it âFree Will Enoughâ, and I was inordinately pleased with myself for it. I do think we have all the freedom God wants us to have, when it comes to freedom of the will.
Thatâs enough for me, and for everyone imo.
This will NEVER be settled; thatâs the wisdom of learning from history.
Did you chose to be born through adam and thus carry the condemnation he bestowed upon all of creation? Do you choose where youre born? Did you choose your parents or How they treated you (both of which can severely impact your psyche and outcome of your future)? Can you choose to live a perfectly sinless life? Can you choose not to die? Can you choose not to be resurrected from the grave? Can you choose not to be judged at all? Can you choose whether to be hungry? Can you choose your genetic predisposition to certain diseases? Did you choose to be born in a fallen world? Etc Etc Etc?
If not then why call it free and of what importance can it be in the things that ACTUALLY matter in the bigger picture?
I cant save myself or truly be righteous but I can choose either cheerios or cinnamon toast crunch. What does this limited âfreeâ will really do for me then when it comes to spiritual matters? And if nothing then why is it even a topic in such matters?
â1. We are morally responsible for at least some of our actions and omissions.
2. Moral responsibility entails libertarian freedom of the will.â
Non-sequitor and Paul answers why God can subject creation to His will, make a vessel of honor or dishonor, giving us no free will in the matter, and still have us be judged for the wills in which we are subjected to by Him (the answer is because Hes God) in the very verse I posted;
"One of you will say to me: âThen why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?â But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? âShall what is FORMED say to the ONE WHO FORMED IT, âWhy did you MAKE ME like this?ââ Hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?â
As far as you âchoosingâ to have faithâŚ
I think that source both covers that we CANT âchooseâ God or faith on our own âfreeâ will AND that our will is severely limited and our natural state,unless God GIVES faith, is to be apart from God in our minds, works, and relationship with Him. Surely all of those plain verses cant mean exactly the opposite, free will to do right or save ourselves, from which they state so emphatically against.
Notice how it uses scripture only. Not a theologian, or some commentary from the publisher, but scripture alone to prove its points.
And THAT is what makes Gods UNCONDITIONAL grace, salvation of all, and GIVING anyone faith such a miraculous gift to mankind. We can not in ANY way save ourselves. Not by actions or willing. But by Him who is showing mercy. Romans 9:16
We cannot act righteously or come to God without Him divinely intervening and pulling us out of our default and set state of being fallen.