No. You cant choose your beliefs, you can only choose a path more or less likely to result in a particular belief.

Isn't that turtles all the way down?

I would have thought you'd agree with me (except for the bit about actually having beliefs).

Dont you think that one chooses how to look at the world, what to think about, who to listen to, who to ignore, etcetera.... Then in response to a probe one checks whether one has the belief or doesnt?

I think his turtles are dualistic, though, so you have to specify a half-shell.

Not at all. I studied Calvinism extensively, years ago, which is why I ultimately rejected it as insane, when considered in the context of the whole of scripture.

But, our argument is taking away from the real meaning of my original post. That is, that Romans 9 pretty much tells us that man has no freewill, while the rest of the Bible tells us that we do.

In reality, Calvinism is a rather small and insignificant sect of overall Christiandom. I'm quite shocked that some actually still adhere to it. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals long ago rejected the idea of unconditional election, and "once saved, always saved".

The fact is, most mainstream Christians believe in freewill -- as they should.

You may have spent a lot of time on it, but you don't show any sign of ever having learned very much.

You have yet to demonstrate this; all I've seen so far from you is a collection of verses saying something completely unrelated to determinism or libertarian free will.

First, almost all Baptists have always believed in some form of perseverance of the saints, and Baptists are, of course, a major component of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. Second, Calvinism is becoming much more common recently, especially in Baptist circles, because of the ministries of men like John MacArthur, John Piper, and Al Mohler.

I'd like to know what you mean by "freewill". What is your definition of the term? What are the characteristics of freewill?

John 1:11-12 (New International Version)
11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Please reconcile this verse with Romans 9 (and make sure you understand the Greek word for "receive(d)" here)

An individual is able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Each individual is solely responsible for his or her actions and decisions.

They don't need to be reconciled.

Able in what way?

Responsible in which sense and on what ground?

Yes, they do. Do you understand the meaning of the Greek word for "received" in this verse, or not?


What is it about "able" and "responsible" that you don't understand?

They aren't about the same thing, therefore no contradiction is possible.

What you mean by them. You're using undefined terms, which is always a bad sign. Explain what you mean by able. Explain what you mean by responsibility and why it persists over time.

Both passages are about salvation. Romans 9 says it's bestowed on the elect (based on God's will, regardless of the elect's will); the other says the saved must believe (an action on the part of the believer) and received (again, an action on the part of the receiver).

This is what I mean by "freewill":

Able: having inherent physical or mental ability or capacity; having freedom from restriction or obligation or from conditions preventing an action

Responsible: answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management; able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior; able to choose for oneself between right and wrong.