Didymus wrote:
Here's the problem with free will. As a philosophical term, it is applied to mean that humans have complete control over their thoughts and actions. If a person is presented with choice A or B, it is entirely up to the person to choose either A or B.
Let us also temper free will by possibilities: I can not choose to disobey gravity today by my free will. There are billions of things we can not choose for a myriad of reasons.
Didymus wrote:
...humans do not have free will but are bound by sin.
Sin binds like a slave-master in Biblical metaphor. Can it theoretically be disobeyed in one instance (not sin nature, but the man choosing to do an individual good deed) by the reprobate?
Didymus wrote:
Humans were created originally with free will,
This is an Arminian point of view, or at best, an infralapsarian point of view. Supralapsarian Calvinists (and many of my friends) believe that man did not have free will enough to avoid the fall, that the fall itself was predestined. And only an "Open Theist" would think for a moment that God didn't forsee the first sin! So, given that God knew man was going to sin, where does that put this consideration? I ask because I want to hear your answer, not out of disagreement... I get this kind of question and would like to know how it is answered.
Didymus wrote:
...when presented with the choices ... our nature will incline us toward sin rather than love.
You say, "incline," an interesting choice of words. An inclination connotates a trend, but by no means a fatalistic predetermination for all actions. Do you believe that the sin nature, in its level of binding the unsaved, is only "the devil on the other shoulder?"
Didymus wrote:
I used to be a Baptist. As a Baptist, I was always taught that the human-divine relationship always started with the sinner confessing his sins to God.
That's actually heresy in orthodox Baptist doctrine: Baptists are fundamentally Reformed in their theology. While there is a sect I've heard called "Free-Will Baptists" (one of my most Calvinist friend's father is a pastor at such a church), it's the exception rather than the rule. However, some of the more traditionalist (read: legalistic) Baptist individuals try to enforce action on the parishoner's part by threats of hell for disobedience.
Didymus wrote:
...the only conclusion is that this relationship must begin with God. If God does not act upon a person, then that person is unable to respond in faith to God.
Acknowledged: this is the T in T.U.L.I.P., "Total Depravity." That a sinner can not come to God on his own. Except by gracious intervention initiated by God, a feature of the U (Unconditional Grace).
Didymus wrote:
There was a controversy in the Calvinist church long ago that revolved around whether God did what is known as double-predestination, i.e., that He had already chosen who would be saved and who would be lost.
This part of the is the L in TULIP, "Limited Atonement." That the atonement is only effective for a portion of humaity, and that portion is predestined.
Didymus wrote:
In effect, this approach to predestination places the responsibility of those individuals' damnation on God.
More authority than responsibility. No one has an excuse for refusing God (Roman 1:20), and has no case in blaming God for committing him to reprobation (Isaiah 45:9).
Didymus wrote:
As a rule, Calvinists tend to believe that Christ died only for the elect (those He has chosen already to save). However, the Bible says that Christ died for the whole world, not just part of it.
Careful! Misuse of those concepts won my
Heresy of the Week for July 4 of this year.
Didymus wrote:
...humans are responsible for their sin, but God alone for their salvation. This is my own theory.
You and Paul the Epistle guy. But is God responsible for humans being responsible for their sin? I'm not just multiplying words, God's opponents (and some of his friends) accuse him of wrongdoing for even allowing humanity to sin!
Didymus wrote:
So if God chooses who is saved, and He died for the whole world, then why is it that some people are not saved? I don't know. It is one of those complex mysteries of the faith that seem to defy our logic.
Mystery in the modern definition (hidden or confusing issue), or mystery in the Ancient Greek denotation (truths revealed to adherents of a religion)? If it is unrevealed truth, then you're right that we won't know until the age to come. But if it is revealed truth, then we would be silly to simply allow it to go uninvestigated.