# Redefining Choice



## Miller (Feb 9, 2007)

What's ya'lls response when someone says that the Calvinist redefines choice?


----------



## caddy (Feb 9, 2007)

I would say only that it gives the correct definition to begin with.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 9, 2007)

I would say that we don't redefine it, we define it. In this post-modern age (which is really contemporary romanticism) somebody has to define words for words have lost their meanings. 

My answer is always: Yes, I believe in free choice in that everyone has the ability to freely choose that which he desires the most. Choice is free, our wills are not. Our will must serve our nature.

The other side is usually thinking that free will means free choice and knowing that we are choosing agents see a discrepancy with our logic. Logically there can be no such thing as a free will, a will that can choose against that which it desires most. But I will usually concede a free will and then speak about how our nature is not and our will must serve our nature.

I usually relate the story of my dogs. I may throw a steak out the back door to the right. My dogs will always go to the right as well. They will never go to the left. Are they free? Yes. Am I forcing them to the right? No. They may go anywhere, but their nature will always compel them to follow the steak. Our depraved nature sees sin as a steak. We are free to choose sin. When we are converted, then we are free not to choose sin for now we have two natures. An old sinful garment that is worthless and a new garment that we must put on.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 9, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I usually relate the story of my dogs. I may throw a steak out the back door to the right. My dogs will always go to the right as well. They will never go to the left. Are they free? Yes. Am I forcing them to the right? No. They may go anywhere, but their nature will always compel them to follow the steak. Our depraved nature sees sin as a steak. We are free to choose sin. When we are converted, then we are free not to choose sin for now we have two natures. An old sinful garment that is worthless and a new garment that we must put on.



awesome!   A great analogy that makes me hungry. Does this mean you're forcing me to be hungry against my will?


----------



## Herald (Feb 9, 2007)

> When we are converted, then we are free not to choose sin for now we have two natures.



Do we truly have two natures? I have always believed that we have one nature. The flesh (referring to the mind) has been trained by sin and is tainted by sin. That is the reason we fight such a war against the old nature. 

Thoughts?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 9, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Do we truly have two natures? I have always believed that we have one nature. The flesh (referring to the mind) has been trained by sin and is tainted by sin. That is the reason we fight such a war against the old nature.
> 
> Thoughts?



Thank you Bill, you've caught me using words lazily. You're right, I'm using the word nature and that could have some dreadful theological implications. I need to take some time and revise my thinking here. I'm speaking of the Romans Seven man when I say two natures but I should be saying two laws perhaps. I'll have to work on this. Thanks for catching that brother. I would have problems with the two-nature model.


----------



## Herald (Feb 9, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Thank you Bill, you've caught me using words lazily. You're right, I'm using the word nature and that could have some dreadful theological implications. I need to take some time and revise my thinking here. I'm speaking of the Romans Seven man when I say two natures but I should be saying two laws perhaps. I'll have to work on this. Thanks for catching that brother. I would have problems with the two-nature model.



Brother Bob, I've got your six. Just make sure you cover mine when the old Arminian in me bubbles to the surface!


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 10, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> But it seems to me that I should question this constraint placed upon freedom. Afterall, say that an ingenious criminal wanted the president dead. He finds some anti-American whacko that wants to do the job. So they plan to carry out the hit. The crimianl mastermind, though, worry that the whacko might have a failure of nerve inplants a device into the whacko's brain such that if the whacko fails to do the job, the mastermind will push the button causing the whacko to carry through with the hit. Now, the whacko ends up assassinating the president, and it turnsout that he did not have a failure of nerve and so did not need the mastermind to push the button. In this case, did the whacko do the hit freely? Was he morally responsible? Even though he "couldn't have done otherwise?"


There's another thought experiment to put in the memory bank.


----------

