Double Predestination

[MennoSota]

LOL
Do I there all that effort for.

What effort? Are we saved by works?
No. We are saved by grace.

 

[Josiah]

.


See post # 99....


I think the fundamental problem with uber-Calvinism's conjecture is ...


1. The concept of Election is always presented in Scripture as GOSPEL and always directed to CHRISTIANS. The application is to comfort and assure, to convey the steadfastness of God's unconditional love, mercy and grace. It conveys to us that God isn't going to abandon us or let go of our hand based on our lack of deserving - indeed, His love for us existed LONG before we were even born, and so isn't based on what we've done, decided, achieved.... it's not a matter of LAW but of GOSPEL. What these uber followers of Calvin did was entirely strip the teaching of it's context and application, and make it a philosophical issue, one of Greek Determinism, to address the issue of who's in and who's out. And then twisted Gospel into Law.... a teaching to stress God's love into a teaching to stress God's hate, God's desire to see most people fry, that Jesus died for only a small percentage of people (and you better hope you are in that group - but there's no way to know). They twisted the whole thing inside out and upside down... they stripped it of its comfort and turned it into a terror.... they took something meant to stress God's unconditional love and made it about how God wants most to fry in hell, how Jesus came for only a few, Jesus died for the sins of a few (and God knows if that includes you).


2. As ULTIMATELY is admitted by these traditional, uber-Calvinists..... this entire new invention, this whole speculation, this human conjecture - it's all simply "human logic," "what seems to make sense." There is an admission (although it usually takes a very, very long time before they'll admit it) is not normed by anything in Scripture (or Tradition), it just "made sense" to John Calvin. In other words, there's admission that Sola Scriptura has been abandoned. Odd because Protestantism was BORN out of protest of what Calvin did.... a protest of the medieval RCC inventing stuff and imposing its own sense of what seemed to make sense, what to it at the time seemed to jibe with philosophy, logic, and the prescience concepts of reality; speculations, conjectures (exactly what they admit DOUBLE Predestination is); they admit to the very thing Protestantism protested; they admit to doing the very thing they rebuked Catholicism for doing. And when Catholicism did it, the speculations-turned-dogmas usually didn't contradict Scripture (simply by no means normed by it) - things like the Perpetual Virginity and Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. But this "Jesus died for only a few ..... Jesus came for only a few people..... God desires most people to fry eternally in hell.... this (ultimately) admitted "speculation" actually contradicts a LOT of Scriptures which they then have to spin 180 degrees so that what God MEANT is the exact opposite of what He actually stated in Scripture. Seems to me, Calvinism did not only the exact thing it protested as wrong - but perhaps worse than the RCC did.


3. Equally ironic, Calvinism - which speaks of the "Sovereignty of God" more than any other (to the exclusion of the love of God) - actually seems to powerfully deny it. When the "logic" of a man.... when the admitted "speculations" of a man..... when what makes sense to a fallen, sinful, limited, largely ignorant man.... is placed ABOVE what God has said and not said in Scripture, then self has made self the Sovereign, God needing to bow before the brain of self. If we actually accept the Soverignty of God, then we bow humbly before Him.... we admit He likely knows more than we do.... we admit He probably is smarter than we are.... and so if what God has chosen to tell us doesn't exactly "make sense" - well, God trumps me and any problem has to be with me and I cannot unthrown God and assert my sovereignty over God by "speculating" based upon my superior brain and information and then "resolve" my problem by telling God the truth. It has been admitted in this thread that Calvinism goes well BEYOND what God has said in order to "remove the mystery" (ie, resolve the "problem" that God didn't answer our questions and God seems illogical and not-too-smart). I see that as a profound lack of humility before God as well as an admission of a desertion of Sola Scriptura and a return to the rubric of Rome. God calls on us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." Not "Correctors of God." Not "Speculators to Make God Make Sense - even if it contradicts what God stated." If these uber-Calvinists REALLY believed in the soverignty of God, they'd be willing to humbly bow before Him..... affirm that He is right (even if our puny, sinful, fallen, limited, ignorant brains can't wrap themselves around it)..... and be good stewards of the MYSTERY.


Again, see post 99 above.....


Good discussion....


- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

What effort? Are we saved by works?
No. We are saved by grace.

All the effort to explain it.

 

[MennoSota]

.


See post # 99....


I think the fundamental problem with uber-Calvinism's conjecture is ...


1. The concept of Election is always presented in Scripture as GOSPEL and always directed to CHRISTIANS. The application is to comfort and assure, to convey the steadfastness of God's unconditional love, mercy and grace. It conveys to us that God isn't going to abandon us or let go of our hand based on our lack of deserving - indeed, His love for us existed LONG before we were even born, and so isn't based on what we've done, decided, achieved.... it's not a matter of LAW but of GOSPEL. What these uber followers of Calvin did was entirely strip the teaching of it's context and application, and make it a philosophical issue, one of Greek Determinism, to address the issue of who's in and who's out. And then twisted Gospel into Law.... a teaching to stress God's love into a teaching to stress God's hate, God's desire to see most people fry, that Jesus died for only a small percentage of people (and you better hope you are in that group - but there's no way to know). They twisted the whole thing inside out and upside down... they stripped it of its comfort and turned it into a terror.... they took something meant to stress God's unconditional love and made it about how God wants most to fry in hell, how Jesus came for only a few, Jesus died for the sins of a few (and God knows if that includes you).


2. As ULTIMATELY is admitted by these traditional, uber-Calvinists..... this entire new invention, this whole speculation, this human conjecture - it's all simply "human logic," "what seems to make sense." There is an admission (although it usually takes a very, very long time before they'll admit it) is not normed by anything in Scripture (or Tradition), it just "made sense" to John Calvin. In other words, there's admission that Sola Scriptura has been abandoned. Odd because Protestantism was BORN out of protest of what Calvin did.... a protest of the medieval RCC inventing stuff and imposing its own sense of what seemed to make sense, what to it at the time seemed to jibe with philosophy, logic, and the prescience concepts of reality; speculations, conjectures (exactly what they admit DOUBLE Predestination is); they admit to the very thing Protestantism protested; they admit to doing the very thing they rebuked Catholicism for doing. And when Catholicism did it, the speculations-turned-dogmas usually didn't contradict Scripture (simply by no means normed by it) - things like the Perpetual Virginity and Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. But this "Jesus died for only a few ..... Jesus came for only a few people..... God desires most people to fry eternally in hell.... this (ultimately) admitted "speculation" actually contradicts a LOT of Scriptures which they then have to spin 180 degrees so that what God MEANT is the exact opposite of what He actually stated in Scripture. Seems to me, Calvinism did not only the exact thing it protested as wrong - but perhaps worse than the RCC did.


3. Equally ironic, Calvinism - which speaks of the "Sovereignty of God" more than any other (to the exclusion of the love of God) - actually seems to powerfully deny it. When the "logic" of a man.... when the admitted "speculations" of a man..... when what makes sense to a fallen, sinful, limited, largely ignorant man.... is placed ABOVE what God has said and not said in Scripture, then self has made self the Sovereign, God needing to bow before the brain of self. If we actually accept the Soverignty of God, then we bow humbly before Him.... we admit He likely knows more than we do.... we admit He probably is smarter than we are.... and so if what God has chosen to tell us doesn't exactly "make sense" - well, God trumps me and any problem has to be with me and I cannot unthrown God and assert my sovereignty over God by "speculating" based upon my superior brain and information and then "resolve" my problem by telling God the truth. It has been admitted in this thread that Calvinism goes well BEYOND what God has said in order to "remove the mystery" (ie, resolve the "problem" that God didn't answer our questions and God seems illogical and not-too-smart). I see that as a profound lack of humility before God as well as an admission of a desertion of Sola Scriptura and a return to the rubric of Rome. God calls on us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." Not "Correctors of God." Not "Speculators to Make God Make Sense - even if it contradicts what God stated." If these uber-Calvinists REALLY believed in the soverignty of God, they'd be willing to humbly bow before Him..... affirm that He is right (even if our puny, sinful, fallen, limited, ignorant brains can't wrap themselves around it)..... and be good stewards of the MYSTERY.


Again, see post 99 above.....


Good discussion....


- Josiah




.

The fundamental problem is your struggle to comprehend scripture above your denomination.
When you trust scripture you trust predestination as God reveals it. It's not mysterious at all. You just can't think outside of denominationalism.

 

[Lamb]

The fundamental problem is your struggle to comprehend scripture above your denomination.
When you trust scripture you trust predestination as God reveals it. It's not mysterious at all. You just can't think outside of denominationalism.

Ahem. You haven't been paying attention. Josiah has no problem agreeing with you that God predestines us to salvation.

Could you maybe now address the topic?

 

[MennoSota]

Ahem. You haven't been paying attention. Josiah has no problem agreeing with you that God predestines us to salvation.

Could you maybe now address the topic?

Sure I have.
Josiah has coined the term "uber-Calvinist" as a means of dismissing a biblical teaching that goes against his Lutheranism.
He has provided no biblical argument but instead argues from no substance at all.
He does not like double-predestination, which is a term never used in scripture and I never use the term. Yet, he insists I argue for it, though the reality is that I simply point out the scriptures.
So, either Josiah is playing a game of semantics or he dislikes what God teaches in his word.
I suspect it is merely semantics and Josiah dislikes the reality that God is truly Sovereign over every aspect of creation. Rather than admit such a lofty view of God's Sovereignty, Josiah makes up pet names to dismiss anyone who holds a lofty view of God's absolute Sovereignty over all creation.
So...yeah, I have been paying close attention. Most likely much closer attention than you have.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah has coined the term "uber-Calvinist" as a means of dismissing a biblical teaching

atpollad uses the term "hyper-Calvinist." Maybe you like that better. "Uber" means the same thing. True is, most Calvinists known to me don't teach what has been presented by you (or even atpollard); indeed, I have had two Reformed pastors (one with a doctorate from Dallas) tell me that Calvinism has almost entirely abandoned this teaching. Atpollard desires us to focus not on the Reformed Confessions or Calvin but on Sproul, a "modern" and "only recently died" Reformed theologian whom he suggests presents the new Reformed take on this. In any case, I do not want to cast ALL Reformed persons as holding to what you've posted (or even what the Institutes state), thus it would be unfair and inaccurate to cast your view as the view of "Reformed" Christians, it is the view of SOME (probably a tiny minority but not 100%) Reformed. If you don't like "hyper" or "uber" then simply read "some radicals" or "some extreme."


No, I've not only NOT dismissed even one word of one verse you've quoted, I've expressly and repeatedly told you that I AGREE with it. Friend, Lutherans were teaching Election before Calvinists did..... I'm disagreeing with all the things that contradict Scripture.... all the verses that you show do NOT exist ("God hates most people..... God desires most people to fry eternally in hell..... Jesus died for only a few people..... God does not love the world but only a small percentage who are the elect.... etc., etc., etc. - the verses you insist exist but we both know actually the opposite exists. I'm disagreeing with your phantom verses that directly contradict the verses that actually exist and that you've quoted and I've agreed with.

He has provided no biblical argument but instead argues from no substance at all.

I've used THE EXACT SAME Scriptures you have. I've just not deleted any of the words and replaced them with the opposite. And I've not done what apollard admitted Calvinism does here - go "beyond" Scripture with "speculation" that "removes the mystery."

He does not like double-predestination, which is a term never used in scripture and I never use the term.

Read the title of this thread. I didn't give it that title. It was you that stated, "God chooses some for pardon and some for punishment." Friend, that IS the definition of double predestination; sorry if you don't like that but that's the reality. You can label a rose a carnation but it's still a rose. What you are promoting everywhere at CH lately IS double predestination, you may call it Ford Mustang but it's still universally known as double predestination. Like it or not.

God's absolute Sovereignty over all creation

But evidently not Calvinism. See post 102, point # 3.



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

atpollad uses the term "hyper-Calvinist." Maybe you like that better. "Uber" means the same thing. True is, most Calvinists known to me don't teach what has been presented by you (or even atpollard); indeed, I have had two Reformed pastors (one with a doctorate from Dallas) tell me that Calvinism has almost entirely abandoned this teaching. Atpollard desires us to focus not on the Reformed Confessions or Calvin but on Sproul, a "modern" and "only recently died" Reformed theologian whom he suggests presents the new Reformed take on this. In any case, I do not want to cast ALL Reformed persons as holding to what you've posted (or even what the Institutes state), thus it would be unfair and inaccurate to cast your view as the view of "Reformed" Christians, it is the view of SOME (probably a tiny minority but not 100%) Reformed. If you don't like "hyper" or "uber" then simply read "some radicals" or "some extreme."


No, I've not only NOT dismissed even one word of one verse you've quoted, I've expressly and repeatedly told you that I AGREE with it. Friend, Lutherans were teaching Election before Calvinists did..... I'm disagreeing with all the things that contradict Scripture.... all the verses that you show do NOT exist ("God hates most people..... God desires most people to fry eternally in hell..... Jesus died for only a few people..... God does not love the world but only a small percentage who are the elect.... etc., etc., etc. - the verses you insist exist but we both know actually the opposite exists. I'm disagreeing with your phantom verses that directly contradict the verses that actually exist and that you've quoted and I've agreed with.







I've used THE EXACT SAME Scriptures you have. I've just not deleted any of the words and replaced them with the opposite. And I've not done what apollard admitted Calvinism does here - go "beyond" Scripture with "speculation" that "removes the mystery."




Read the title of this thread. I didn't give it that title. It was you that stated, "God chooses some for pardon and some for punishment." Friend, that IS the definition of double predestination; sorry if you don't like that but that's the reality. You can label a rose a carnation but it's still a rose. What you are promoting everywhere at CH lately IS double predestination, you may call it Ford Mustang but it's still universally known as double predestination. Like it or not.




But evidently not Calvinism. See post 102, point # 3.



- Josiah

Yes reformed ppl from Holland I talk to on a reformed forum believe predestination, but not that.

 

[atpollard]

So true! I keep wondering why the real topic isn't being addressed and this tangent has gone on for pages!

The first few posts completely covered the Topic ...
The issue is that NOBODY here teaches Double Predestination "is about God electing most people to eternally fry in hell in accord with His heart's desire and because God does not love them and Christ did not die for them."

That just leaves other things to talk about, since Luterans do not believe me or the Westminster Confession of Faith or R.C. Sproul when we tell you that Reformed Theology does not teach what y'all claim it does.
Reread the first few posts and see if I am not right.

 

[Imalive]

The first few posts completely covered the Topic ...
The issue is that NOBODY here teaches Double Predestination "is about God electing most people to eternally fry in hell in accord with His heart's desire and because God does not love them and Christ did not die for them."

That just leaves other things to talk about, since Luterans do not believe me or the Westminster Confession of Faith or R.C. Sproul when we tell you that Reformed Theology does not teach what y'all claim it does.
Reread the first few posts and see if I am not right.

I just read that they also teach free will, at least the reformed churches in Holland. But when you get saved it gets really free. Thats what Paul says too. They can accept or reject Him though by their will.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], I suspect you know liberal Presbyterians and perhaps a liberal Christian Reformed person who are biblically suspect while following some denominational perspective.
When will we talk scripture? So far you avoid the Bible like it is a plague.

 

[Imalive]

-

 

[MennoSota]

atpollad uses the term "hyper-Calvinist." Maybe you like that better. "Uber" means the same thing. True is, most Calvinists known to me don't teach what has been presented by you (or even atpollard); indeed, I have had two Reformed pastors (one with a doctorate from Dallas) tell me that Calvinism has almost entirely abandoned this teaching. Atpollard desires us to focus not on the Reformed Confessions or Calvin but on Sproul, a "modern" and "only recently died" Reformed theologian whom he suggests presents the new Reformed take on this. In any case, I do not want to cast ALL Reformed persons as holding to what you've posted (or even what the Institutes state), thus it would be unfair and inaccurate to cast your view as the view of "Reformed" Christians, it is the view of SOME (probably a tiny minority but not 100%) Reformed. If you don't like "hyper" or "uber" then simply read "some radicals" or "some extreme."


No, I've not only NOT dismissed even one word of one verse you've quoted, I've expressly and repeatedly told you that I AGREE with it. Friend, Lutherans were teaching Election before Calvinists did..... I'm disagreeing with all the things that contradict Scripture.... all the verses that you show do NOT exist ("God hates most people..... God desires most people to fry eternally in hell..... Jesus died for only a few people..... God does not love the world but only a small percentage who are the elect.... etc., etc., etc. - the verses you insist exist but we both know actually the opposite exists. I'm disagreeing with your phantom verses that directly contradict the verses that actually exist and that you've quoted and I've agreed with.







I've used THE EXACT SAME Scriptures you have. I've just not deleted any of the words and replaced them with the opposite. And I've not done what apollard admitted Calvinism does here - go "beyond" Scripture with "speculation" that "removes the mystery."




Read the title of this thread. I didn't give it that title. It was you that stated, "God chooses some for pardon and some for punishment." Friend, that IS the definition of double predestination; sorry if you don't like that but that's the reality. You can label a rose a carnation but it's still a rose. What you are promoting everywhere at CH lately IS double predestination, you may call it Ford Mustang but it's still universally known as double predestination. Like it or not.




But evidently not Calvinism. See post 102, point # 3.



- Josiah

Does God love or hate sin, Josiah? What does the Bible say?
Psalm 11:5 - The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Psalm 5:5 - The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.
Romans 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodly Ness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

 

[atpollard]

Josiah has no problem agreeing with you that God predestines us to salvation.

Is there any salvation apart from predestination?
(Can someone not-predestined be saved, or did God 'foreknow' and 'predestine' (Romans 8:29-30) all whom he would ultimately 'glorify'?)

If the answer is 'no' ... if God foreknew and predestined all that he would glorify ... then those NOT predestined will not be glorified.
That is all Calvinism says. Those that God does not save will not be saved.

Does scripture disagree?
Do Lutherans disagree?
That is Double Predestination ... God CHOOSES to save some and those not chosen are left to their sin and Justice ... just like this:

Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
John 6:43-44 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
John 10:26-27 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;"

... all of these are the words of Jesus to the lost. Calvin didn't write them.

 

[Josiah]

When will we talk scripture? So far you avoid the Bible like it is a plague.

Odd because I'm AGREED fully and passionately with EVERY word in every Scripture you've quoted - so if I'm ignoring Scripture, so are you. What I'm avoiding "like a plague" are all the verses that don't exist and you cannot quote such as "God chooses some for hell" "God hates most people" "God desires most people to fry in hell" "Christ died for only a few people" "Christ is the atonement for only a few sins."

Friend, there has already been the admission in this thread that the hyper or uber or traditional Calvinist view is "speculation" that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery." It's already been admitted this is "a logical construction." Thus, the admission that Scripture teaches no such thing, it's the speculation of a man and the denominations that spring from him, which you echo - while ignoring the reality that Scripture teaches no such thing.... what you are preaching is (as has been admitted) speculation that goes BEYOND Scripture in order to remove the mystery that Scripture presents. It seems you simply view yourself smarter than Scripture, the Corrector of Scripture, the One designated to go beyond Scripture in order to make God make sense since perhaps you are smarter than God and can explain all this to God.


See posts 99, 102, 107



- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

The churches official teaching from all these churches teach that. I dont post Bible texts anymore hear. You dont read em anyway. Useless.
And if I give a Scripture in my own words w out looking it up you should just know which one i mean or you dont read em enough lol. if i say sower that should be enough. i give Bible texts all the time here.
Now if youd really consider my points and were interested sure ill do some effort but this is just like the tongues thread. i can post zillions and you dismiss em.

I have read your posts. You often take verses out of context, which I point out, but you don't seem to care. That's just abusing God's word to push your presupposition.

 

[MennoSota]

Odd because I'm AGREED fully and passionately with EVERY word in every Scripture you've quoted - so if I'm ignoring Scripture, so are you. What I'm avoiding "like a plague" are all the verses that don't exist and you cannot quote such as "God chooses some for hell" "God hates most people" "God desires most people to fry in hell" "Christ died for only a few people" "Christ is the atonement for only a few sins."

Friend, there has already been the admission in this thread that the hyper or uber or traditional Calvinist view is "speculation" that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery." It's already been admitted this is "a logical construction." Thus, the admission that Scripture teaches no such thing, it's the speculation of a man and the denominations that spring from him, which you echo - while ignoring the reality that Scripture teaches no such thing.... what you are preaching is (as has been admitted) speculation that goes BEYOND Scripture in order to remove the mystery that Scripture presents. It seems you simply view yourself smarter than Scripture, the Corrector of Scripture, the One designated to go beyond Scripture in order to make God make sense since perhaps you are smarter than God and can explain all this to God.

See @pollard's post above. You contradict yourself and seem confused.

 

[atpollard]

I just read that they also teach free will, at least the reformed churches in Holland. But when you get saved it gets really free. Thats what Paul says too. They can accept or reject Him though by their will.

Free will is a really 'interesting' phrase. The problem tends to be that everyone has their own personal idea and definition of what that means.

Let's have some fun.
Some people say "free will" means that I can do whatever I want with absolutely no limitations. At one extreme, they believe that babies are born 100% pure and a person could live a sinless life if they chose to. The traditional counter to this is the joking response "Then flap your arms and fly to heaven!" If you can do absolutely anything, then even gravity should not be able to stop you. The point of the joke is that 'free will' is not totally free. We are limited by some things beyond our control, like gravity. Thus all decisions, like flapping our arms and flying to heaven, are not possible.

So some Calvinists (and the WCF) deny 'free will'. This is usually jumped on by opponents to claim that we think that God turns people into robots. This is just the other extreme from believing that you can flap your arms and fly to heaven ... 'free will' does not mean that ANYTHING is possible, and denying 'free will' does not mean we are mindless machines.

So let's explore the middle ground.

Calvinism is built on the cornerstone of 'Total Depravity'. Anyone who denies this doctrine is NOT a Calvinist. It does not mean that all people are 100% evil with no goodness in them at all. It is often described as "Total Inability". Everyone is probably familiar with addiction as a concept. Most people know at least one person who struggles with Alcoholism or Narcotics or even Cigarette addiction. An alcoholic craves a drink whether they are drunk or not. It is a biological desire for the object of their craving. 'Total Depravity' means that because of Adam, all people are born sin-aholics. We are addicted to and crave sin, that is the Depravity. It is Total because it touches every part of our being. Our thoughts are impacted by our craving for sin. Our senses are impacted by our craving for sin. Our emotions are impacted by our craving for sin.

So the bottom line is that we are, like the Bible says, DEAD in our sins and unable to save ourselves. So we have the 'freedom' to choose whatever we want, but our wants are a slave to sin. The end result is that without a 'miracle' from God, we will freely choose to disobey God and follow sin. Like any other addict, we can't stop ourselves without outside help.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

So in the sense we are not robots, I agree that people have 'free will' but that free will is restricted, not by God, but by our fallen nature. We are free to choose whatever action we desire, but we only desire to sin.
That is why it is necessary for God to do the whole ... Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

So Reformed Churches should not be teaching that people are free to choose God. The Bible teaches the opposite, that God chooses dead people to bring to life.

 

[Imalive]

Free will is a really 'interesting' phrase. The problem tends to be that everyone has their own personal idea and definition of what that means.

Let's have some fun.
Some people say "free will" means that I can do whatever I want with absolutely no limitations. At one extreme, they believe that babies are born 100% pure and a person could live a sinless life if they chose to. The tradition counter to this is the joking response "Then flap your arms and fly to heaven!" If you can do absolutely anything, then even gravity should not be able to stop you. The point of the joke is that 'free will' is not totally free. We are limited by some things beyond our control, like gravity. Thus all decisions, like flapping our arms and flying to heaven, are not possible.

So some Calvinists (and the WCF) deny 'free will'. This is usually jumped on by opponents to to claim that we think that God turns people into robots. This is just the other extreme from believing that you can flap your arms and fly to heaven ... 'free will' does not mean that ANYTHING is possible, and denying 'free will' does not mean we are mindless machines.

So let's explore the middle ground.

Calvinism is built on the cornerstone of 'Total Depravity'. Anyone who denies this doctrine is NOT a Calvinist. It does not mean that all people are 100% evil with no goodness in them at all. It is often described as "Total Inability". Everyone is probably familiar with addiction as a concept. Most people know at least one person who struggles with Alcoholism or Narcotics or even Cigarette addiction. An alcoholic craves a drink whether they are drunk or not. It is a biological desire for the object of their craving. 'Total Depravity' means that because of Adam, all people are born sin-aholics. We are addicted to and crave sin, that is the Depravity. It is Total because it touches every part of our being. Our thoughts are impacted by our craving for sin. Our senses are impacted by our craving for sin. Our emotions are impacted by our craving for sin.

So the bottom line is that we are, like the Bible says, DEAD in our sins and unable to save ourselves. So we have the 'freedom' to choose whatever we want, but our wants are a slave to sin. The end result is that without a 'miracle' from God, we will freely choose to disobey God and follow sin. Like any other addict, we can't stop ourselves without outside help.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

So in the sense we are not robots, I agree that people have 'free will' but that free will is restricted, not by God, but by our fallen nature. We are free to choose whatever action we desire, but we only desire to sin.
That is why it is necessary for God to do the whole ... Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

So Reformed Churches should not be teaching that people are free to choose God. The Bible teaches the opposite, that God chooses dead people to bring to life.

That's the same. If noone could say yes or no noone could get saved.
I believe when the Word comes and ppl prayed for em then they can say yes or no. Romans 8 is really free will, but in Romans 7 w no free will he could cry out to God and come in Romans 8. God starts it though. I chose you Jesus said, but they did say yes.

It's 2 sides of the same coin.
Who could not come to Him because it was not given to them?
The ones who just followed Him for food and themselves.
John 666, just like w the falling away. They believe for a while.
Once they had to give their life they chose no.
If then those say: why did You make me like that? That's nonsense. God doesn't make them like that. They did. Sin did.

 

[Imalive]

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm