Word games. Man could make a choice except for the fact he cant make a choice. If you really believe that, just agree with the term puppet.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
World 3:16
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Again,
My observation is Scripture (verses have already been provided) deal with men as having free will but in bondage to the flesh, darkness, sin or slaves to Christ, the Spirit, righteousness.
Your argument is not biblical but by definition philosophical. That does not make it a bad argument (I like Edward's argument of the will).
There is no need for you to engage in ad honinem or insults because I disagree with you.
Please check your emotions and slow down your meltdown. Deal with what I have posted (the passages and teaching I have provided) rather than insulting me simply because I have dared to disagree with your post.
Bless your heart JonC
Repeating these ideas does not make them so..
1]Check my emotions??/ they are just fine!
2]slow down my meltdown??? are you speaking of my laundry in the dryer?
.3] you disagree
bless your heart!
4] deal with what you posted??? I did, they do not mention free will. They do not teach it. I gave two or 3 links to reynolds...you might enjoy them.
Have a nice day JonC
Since Iconoclast has insulted me I am leaving it to the Administrators to deal with his foolishness.
I also feel sorry for him. Based on his posts he seems to be a bitter hateful man.
If this is the result of Calvinism in his life then people need to be very careful about entertaining the theology.
I did not say you had to agree with me. The issue is you never addressed anything I posted but went strait to ad hominem and insults in a classic meltdown before the entire baptist board.Bless your heart JonC
Repeating these ideas does not make them so..
1]Check my emotions??/ they are just fine!
2]slow down my meltdown??? are you speaking of my laundry in the dryer?
3] you disagree
Have a nice day JonC
All I am saying is those passages I rovided to you present men as having free will but slaves to either the flesh/ darkness/ sin or to Christ/ the Light, the Spirit/ righteousness.
That the discussion of free will is philosophical is a fact (it is philosophical by definition, as is a discussion of our "natures").
You are welcome to disagree. I do not mind that at all. But I do not know why you are adament to engage in ad hominem and insults. I did not treat you that way.
My experience is those who have such emotional breakdowns when their beliefs are challenged do not truly understand their own views.
You should not have a meltdown everytime I, or anyone else, disagrees with you and does not conceded that you are correct. People can disagree without devolving into childish tantrums.
JonC,
I
Where do you believe you saw such a meltdown, I do
not recall this at all??
Perhaps you have confused my post with someone else?
I
Where do you believe you saw such a meltdown, I do
not recall this at all??
Perhaps you have confused my post with someone else?
I believe your meltdown started when I disagreed with you. Since then you have continued to insult me and attack me personally rather than deal with my disagreement with you and the passages I provided.JonC,
I
Where do you believe you saw such a meltdown, I do
not recall this at all??
Perhaps you have confused my post with someone else?
You posted repeated ad hominem and insults simply because I dated to challenge your statement.
That you have had another meltdown (perhaps not as bad as some of your previous tantrums) is obvious to the Baptist Board. And it was unnecessary.
I simply disagreed with you and provided Scripture as to why. I did not insult or attack you. You broke down and attacked me personally on the public forum.
That said, I suppose someone could have hacked your account and posted all of those insults. Review your posts and let me know if that childishness was your words or someone using your account.
JonC,
Could you show this "meltdown"?
Could you show this???
Do you remember what Covenantor said?
CovenanterWell-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Feb 8, 2017
Messages:
2,106
Likes Received:
487
Faith:
Baptist
JonC - you are referring to Martin but without quoting anything Martin has said - only making statements about Martin without foundation in this thread. You need reporting to another moderator.
Jon, it's the sort of argument that goes along the lines -
"You belief THAT - you therefore believe what follows according to MY logic. Therefore you are a heretic."
We need to listen to what others SAY, not what WE HEAR, with our prejudiced hearing.
There was no meltdown JonC.....go have a coffee , perhaps decaf...it will be okay?
Not at all John;
Sorry you feel that way. It just has not happened as you are suggesting.
Once again, bye bye JonC...have a nice life.
.
Could you show this "meltdown"?
.
Could you show this???
Do you remember what Covenantor said?
CovenanterWell-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Feb 8, 2017
Messages:
2,106
Likes Received:
487
Faith:
Baptist
JonC - you are referring to Martin but without quoting anything Martin has said - only making statements about Martin without foundation in this thread. You need reporting to another moderator.
Jon, it's the sort of argument that goes along the lines -
"You belief THAT - you therefore believe what follows according to MY logic. Therefore you are a heretic."
We need to listen to what others SAY, not what WE HEAR, with our prejudiced hearing.
Not at all JonC....not sure where you are getting such an idea.
There was no meltdown JonC.....go have a coffee , perhaps decaf...it will be okay?
Not at all John;
Sorry you feel that way. It just has not happened as you are suggesting.
Once again, bye bye JonC...have a nice life.
Was the coming of the Son of Man foreordained before the man (singular) was created?
Was the Son of Man foreordained as the redeemer before the man (singular) was created?
After all is said and done, will not all, who have been born of the flesh, their end be, as in the image of the first Adam or in the image of the last Adam?
In other words either the first Adam was going to sin and bring about the need for redemption or there was not going to be a need for redemption.
IMHO it wasn't, if, the first Adam sinned. He was going to sin.
Also IMHO this would only be so, if there were mitigating circumstances, which I believe to be so.
That is, the sin of the devil, which I believe preceded the creation of the man. The sin of the devil would be taken cafe of through the creation of the man and the Son of Man coming in the image of the man.
Adam IMHO did the will of his creator. The clay was in the Potters hand. Question? Did someone need to be Judas.
I will read it s-l-o-w-l-y for, #4 I AM NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE.
No, I didn't miss that part. That was in reference to believers after they die and go to Heaven.
This phrase applies to believers that are still alive and on earth:
by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
Did you miss that? Read that slowly, so you can understand it.
You are trying to make a case that is once again a falsehood....bearing false witness. This is not working . Your slander and opinion of me is noted...Go away JonC.
That's cute. If I don't call you on the phone so I can get berated, I am not seeking the truth.
It's a moot point, for how can I call on him in whom I have not heard the number?
Don't bother giving me your number I will not call.
I had given it to you once before. Why would you think I would berate you?
I simply said if you want to hear and know the truth to call....You do not have to, but then do not say things without knowing the full story my friend...If you want my number I will send a pm....if you change your mind.
Free Agency by John Murray
by John Murray
In dealing with this topic it is helpful to begin with human action and to proceed from action to that which determines action. By this progression we may arrive at a more satisfactory analysis of what is involved in free agency or, as it has sometimes been denoted, natural liberty (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, IX, i). In the matter of terminology it is necessary at the outset to distinguish between ‘free agency’ and ‘free will’. No necessary objection can be made to the latter term. A term denotes the concept understood by it, and a proper connotation can be given to the term ‘free will’. But frequently this designation has been used to express that concept of the will whereby the ‘will’ of man is regarded as autonomous and undetermined, and capable of volition good or bad, apart from any previous conditioning by our moral and religious character.
1. The Reality of Human Action. The thought hereby expressed is that man is endowed with power to perform certain actions within the realm of his created and dependent existence. In other words, man’s agency is not illusory; within the all-embracive providence of God he is possessed of agency which is exercised in action.
2. The Responsibility of Human Action. Man’s acts are worthy of blame or approval. Moral law, law of obligation, applies to him. His acts are within the sphere of ought and ought not. This obtains because he is made in the image of God and his actions must be in conformity with the likeness that defines his identity. God’s likeness is the pattern in accord with which man’s action is to be performed. The law that prescribes action or forbids it is the transcript of God’s perfection, the perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of conduct consonant with it.
3. The Freedom of Human Action. The responsibility referred to above rests upon the fact that the action is the result of volition. Man wills or chooses to act. If he does not will to act, or if the act is contrary to his will, then the event occurring through his instrumentality is not in reality his action. He is the victim of some other power or agent over which he is not able to exercise control, and so he is not responsible for the event. We sometimes use the expression, ‘I did it against my will’. This is not correct. We may do things reluctantly, do things we detest. But if we do them, it is because we will to do them. We will to do the distasteful rather than not to do it. Something may be done against our will and, strictly speaking, we are not the agents. But when we do something, it is always because we willed the same.
We are responsible for our acts because they are the result of our volition, and volition is the choice thus to act.
4. The Determinant of Volition. It is a platitude to say that we will because we have the power to will. But the power of volition does not explain why we exercise this power in a certain way. Two men have the power to earn a livelihood. One does it by honourable labour, the other resorts to theft. What explains the difference? It is not the power of volition, for both are endowed with this quality. It is apparent that we must go beyond the power of volition and the mere exercise of this power in actual volition. This that lies back of the power and its exercise is the character. And because there is a radical difference of character volition is exercised in totally different ways. The character is the habitus of the person, the whole complex of desires, of motives, propensions, principles. This may conveniently be called the dispositional complex, and the complex comprises all that goes to make up the distinguishing moral and religious bent, aim, purpose, and propension. Scripture calls this the heart. ‘Out of the heart are the issues of life’ (Prov. 4:23). Our Lord expressed it in this manner, ‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of the good treasure sends forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure sends forth evil things’ (Matt. 12:34, 35). ‘For from within, out of the heart of man, procced evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries’ etc.
(Mark 7:21, 22). The Scripture throughout is replete with this emphasis upon the heart as the fountain of both good and evil. Volition then is determined by the inward disposition. Dr. Shedd calls the one, immanent volition, and the other, executive volition. But whatever terms are used, the upshot is that much more belongs to a man than his meta-physical constitution and the series of volitions registered, and this is the determinant of the moral and religious character of his actions and course of life.
5. The Self-determination of Volition and Action. If volition is determined by the dispositional complex, in what does freedom consist? We are not free because the will or power of volition is in a state of indifference or indeterminancy. It is not an autonomous power or agent that can register any series of volitions by virtue of its unconditioned prerogative. Volition is causally determined by what the person most characteristically is. The liberty or freedom consists in the fact that the series of volitions is determined by the self; in the sense relevant to our topic, volition is self-determined. Action is self-action, volition is self-volition, determined by what the person is, and not by any compulsion or coercion extraneous to the person. ‘God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.’1 James 1:13, 14 enunciates this description of the process of human action. ‘Every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed.’ This principle applies to all human situations in good and evil. It holds true in the fall and in regeneration. In the fall man’s disposition changed and this resulted in the overt act of transgression. In regeneration a new disposition is given and new volitions are the result. In no case is the volition contrary to the immanent exposition of heart and mind. Nothing can make a man will against the immanent disposition of heart and mind. Such a supposition would amount to a violation of the nature with which we are endowed.
This is not to deny the influences brought to bear upon man for good or for evil, influences of suasion to good or of temptation to evil. The consideration is simply that the person must come to acquiesce in that which the solicitation involves. The disposition of the person is affected, not by compulsion, but by adoption or acceptance.
Freedom is thus defined negatively and affirmatively, as the absence of compulsion and self-determination respectively. A man is responsible for his acts because they are due to his volitions. He is responsible for his volitions because they are self-propelled, exercised without compulsion and expressive of what he is in the innermost bent, bias, and disposition of heart and mind. Understood thus, freedom is rational spontaneity.
6. The Inclusiveness of Freedom. This freedom is not restricted to the sphere of volition and action. It applies to the heart, the dispositional complex. The heart of man is his own. Man is depraved, but this depravity is his and he is responsible for it. In the fall the disposition of man became unholy. Though great mystery surrounds this change, yet the unholy disposition was his, and for all its movements he was responsible for this reason. In regeneration God gives a new heart. But once given, it belongs to the person regenerated and, though efficaciously imparted, it is not a disposition compulsively imposed so that the new disposition does not violate that which is most characteristically his. In other words, whatever the immanent disposition is, it is his with consent, and not by compulsion contrary to his will.
7. The Power of Contrary Choice is not of the Essence of Free Agency. In dealing with this proposition it is necessary to distinguish between contrary choice and alternative choice. Contrary choice is the ability to choose between alternatives that are morally antithetical, between good and bad regarded not relatively but absolutely in terms of God’s judgment. Alternative choice, on the other hand, is the choice between alternatives that are ethically of the same character, alternatives that are both good or both bad. The proposition applies only to contrary choice. We may examine the proposition and define it both negatively and positively.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you to Iconoclast's thread about "John 3:16"!
My case is that Scripture describes men as having free will but slaves to the flesh or the spirit. Scripture deals with desire, not will, in this context.
That is not slander at all. Everyone can see that you responded with ad hominem and insults.
I have nothing to do with that. You had an emotional tantrum. That was all you.
the OP is ...world/ 3:16
Perhaps it should be "Iconoclast's Calvinistic philosophy 101".
(kidding.... Of course)
I lean toward the belief everything is predestined.
Edited - Actually, I more than lean towards that view. I absolutely believe everything is predestined.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Icon's faults notwithstanding, the same could be said of some of yours, ITL.
I have no idea how you get away with some of what you do, and still think that you are obeying the Lord in your conduct.
Some examples from this very thread:
This one is termed, "hypocrisy", and I believe that you object to this sort of treatment under # 5 in your signature.
Despite your complaints about people doing it to you, you seem to enjoy doing it to them when it suits you.
That brings me to a friendly suggestion...
When you're tempted to respond in kind, don't.
I also encourage you to remember this:
" And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." ( Luke 6:31 )
...And to remember that as God's children, we are not to do the things that the Lord will judge the lost for, because we enjoy His forgiveness and eternal favor.
This one is called, "ironic sarcasm".
It's generally used by people who disagree with someone else, but think they are better than the one they are disagreeing with.
I know it very well, having used it many times myself, to my shame.
I'd like to think that I'd never be tempted to do it again, but I cannot guarantee it.
I'll keep trying not to, despite being tempted on occasion.
This one is called "mocking", and again, I'd like to direct your attention to the Scriptures:
" Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." ( Matthew 7:12 ).
So, @InTheLight , do you find yourself objecting to poor treatment at the hands of those you disagree with?
Then keep in mind that you do it as well, and rest in the fact that God, in His patience, not only commands us as believers not to respond in kind, but that He is very patient with your faults and failures.
May God bless you sir, by reminding you of what He has done for you when He sent His Son to the cross.
Last edited:
- Status