Does God have totally free will?

[Winman]

calvinists say that man is able to still do good works, can still choose to do good, can be religious etc

its just that their sin natures/depravity means that man is unable to come to Christ and get saved apart from the working grace of the Lord applied towards them that enable them to be able to even want to come to Christ in order to be saved!

Depravity NOT saying man cannot do good, be law abiding etc

refers to sense of unable/unwillingly to come to jesus for salvation in and by themselves!

Oh, I know what Calvinists teach, and it is a direct contradiction. They teach man is utterly enslaved to a sin nature. If so, a man would ALWAYS choose to do sin when he has a choice between good and evil. Of course, it is obvious to everyone that even unregenerate men often choose to do good.

If men were completely enslaved to sin, no man would return a wallet full of money when he found it, he would keep the money. He would never risk his life running into a burning building to save another when he could preserve his own life. He would never tell the truth when he could more easily (according to his nature) tell a lie.

You can't say a man is enslaved to a sin nature and then say he can choose to do good. That is a contradiction.

Everything Calvinists teach is a nonsensical contradiction. You have done so here.

What is amazing is that Calvinists never recognize that their theology is nothing but contradictions.

 

[Skandelon]

Then your nature is predetermined. You didn't seek it or choose it. You are corrupt and cannot but sin.

And there is where you beg the question, by making the unfounded leap that one being 'corrupted' equals being 'totally unable' to even respond to a powerful appeal sent by God for his enemies to be reconciled to Him.

As to our previous exchanges...they all end the same way. You question beg until I press you to deal with our actual points of contention which you then dismiss as being a 'peripheral matter.'

We both believe men are born enemies of God.
We both believe God must do some gracious work to initiate reconciliation.

Where we part ways is regarding irresistible nature of God's initial gracious work. You refuse to deal with that point and its obvious as to why...you know you'll lose that argument every time.

 

[Aaron]

And there is where you beg the question, by making the unfounded leap that one being 'corrupted' equals being 'totally unable' to even respond to a powerful appeal sent by God for his enemies to be reconciled to Him.

The leap is yours. I only went as far as your question—unless you're saying it is possible that, though corrupt, you can go a day without sinning. That all sin is within your power to resist.

As to our previous exchanges...they all end the same way. You question beg until I press you to deal with our actual points of contention which you then dismiss as being a 'peripheral matter.'

Is the logical fallacy really mine? Even the Calvinists on this board whom you respect would agree that you bring either dishonesty or irrationality to these exchanges.

I think it's dishonesty.

I've shown that your accusations of circular reasoning are false, as well as this 'peripheral' kink that keeps popping up.

We both believe men are born enemies of God.
We both believe God must do some gracious work to initiate reconciliation.

Don't put yourself anywhere near my thinking. The evidence is in. You assert the reason men do not choose Christ is because they are more corrupt than those who do, because they've made worse choices, because they were worse people to begin with.

 

[Jim1999]

The absolute sovereignty of God rules supreme. Under absolute sovereignty we have the permissive will of God where God allows relative freedom of man's will. God determines when and where to draw the line on this relative freedom. Hence, "Thus far and no further..."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Skandelon]

The leap is yours. I only went as far as your question—unless you're saying it is possible that, though corrupt, you can go a day without sinning. That all sin is within your power to resist.

If we are born enemies of God, which we both agree that we are, why ASSUME (as you do) that a message sent for the purpose of making an appeal for reconciliation is insufficient to accomplish just that purpose?

You seem to think it wasn't within the Prodigal son's ability to humble himself and return to the father from the pig stye of his life, yet clearly it was.

Is the logical fallacy really mine?

Most definitely, yes. Absolutely. Affirmative. No Question whatsoever.

Even the Calvinists on this board whom you respect would agree that you bring either dishonesty or irrationality to these exchanges.

Some people resort to such accusations when they can't simply engage in honest debate of ideas. It's called ad hominem and you have become a master at it.

I think it's dishonesty.

I rest my case.

I've shown that your accusations of circular reasoning are false, as well as this 'peripheral' kink that keeps popping up.

You have yet to address the issue of irresistibility. If you did, I may have missed it. Could you point it out?

Don't put yourself anywhere near my thinking. The evidence is in. You assert the reason men do not choose Christ is because they are more corrupt than those who do, because they've made worse choices, because they were worse people to begin with.

I have only asserted the text and you have yet to actually deal with it. The Jews had God's revelation for years and had GROWN CALLOUSED, thus they were unable to see, hear, understand and repent, but the Gentiles would listen. (Acts 28:28). You can't deal with that. Instead you'd rather attack me personally. I think any truly objective observer would see right through you and your methods Aaron.

 

[Aaron]

If we are born enemies of God, which we both agree that we are, why ASSUME (as you do) that a message sent for the purpose of making an appeal for reconciliation is insufficient to accomplish just that purpose?

That wasn't your question. See? That's what you do. Pose a question about apples, then retort with oranges.

Your question was whether or not a man's nature was predetermined or conditioned, and this in a thread about God's free will. (It's no surprise. God is morphed into an image like unto man in all your thinking.)

You seem to think it wasn't within the Prodigal son's ability to humble himself and return to the father from the pig stye of his life, yet clearly it was.

Yes, and clearly God is an unjust judge who answers our repeated prayers simply to get us off his back.

What is clear is the projection of your own bias into the text. I just go with what the Scriptures say, and the Scriptures don't say the Prodigal Son humbled himself. They say he "came to himself." In one moment he was not in possession of his faculties, and in the next he was. No one does that for himself. It is something that happens to him.

But what does this have to do with your question about apples?

I think any truly objective observer would see right through you and your methods Aaron.

Of course. My methods are transparent, above board and honest. Go thou and do likewise, Chuck.

 

[Aaron]

The absolute sovereignty of God rules supreme. Under absolute sovereignty we have the permissive will of God where God allows relative freedom of man's will.

Which is a will always at enmity with God.

God determines when and where to draw the line on this relative freedom. Hence, "Thus far and no further..."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Skandelon]

That wasn't your question. See? That's what you do. Pose a question about apples, then retort with oranges.

This only goes to prove you have yet to even grasp the views of your opponent. My original question about man's influence upon his own nature directly relates to the nature of God's appeal and man's response to it. It all has to do with how man is affected by his response to God's revelation. Once again you can't seem to see the bigger picture from inside your small, little deterministic bubble.

Your question was whether or not a man's nature was predetermined or conditioned, and this in a thread about God's free will. (It's no surprise. God is morphed into an image like unto man in all your thinking.)

Indeed, we were created in God's image, according to scripture (you know that thing you rarely discuss or address) and I agree with what Tozer wrote on that point:

“The yearning to know what cannot be known, to comprehend the incomprehensible, to touch and taste the unapproachable, arises from the image of God in the nature of man. Deep calleth unto deep, and though polluted and landlocked by the mighty disaster theologians call the Fall, the soul senses its origin and longs to return to its source.” - Tozer​

What is clear is the projection of your own bias into the text. I just go with what the Scriptures say, and the Scriptures don't say the Prodigal Son humbled himself. They say he "came to himself." In one moment he was not in possession of his faculties, and in the next he was. No one does that for himself. It is something that happens to him.

So, 'he came to himself' equals 'the Father inwardly and secretly changed his nature so as to irresistibly draw him to come back home.' And you say I'M THE ONE READING SOMETHING INTO THE TEXT!?! :laugh:

 

[JonC]

I don’t think that libertarian free will actually exists (apart from philosophical theory), so I’d say that God is not “bound” by anything, including His character. Character is what describes something, not something that influences. For example, God is immutable. He does not refrain from change because He is immutable, but rather is immutable because He does not change.

To shorten the question, you could simply ask “can God choose not to be God?” The answer, I believe, would be the same. That type of “freedom” is fictitious.

A fish in water is free, but is also bound by water. If I “free” the fish from the water by throwing it in a field, then my definition of “freedom” is skewed. Man is only free when he is bound in Christ.

 

[Aaron]

I agree with what Tozer wrote on that point:

“The yearning to know what cannot be known, to comprehend the incomprehensible, to touch and taste the unapproachable, arises from the image of God in the nature of man. Deep calleth unto deep, and though polluted and landlocked by the mighty disaster theologians call the Fall, the soul senses its origin and longs to return to its source.” - Tozer​

​

So, the human nature lusts for the Spirit? Everyone, snip Gal. 5:17 out of your Bibles.

So, 'he came to himself' equals 'the Father inwardly and secretly changed his nature so as to irresistibly draw him to come back home.' And you say I'M THE ONE READING SOMETHING INTO THE TEXT!?! :laugh:

You missed my jab at your approach to parables. Your approach is fundamentally flawed, but even so, you look in vain at this parable for support for your premises. Where is the father's appeal? Where is the "powerful, holy ghost-wrought message calling unto the deep longing of this boy's soul?" :laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scandal
I agree with what Tozer wrote on that point:


“The yearning to know what cannot be known, to comprehend the incomprehensible, to touch and taste the unapproachable, arises from the image of God in the nature of man. Deep calleth unto deep, and though polluted and landlocked by the mighty disaster theologians call the Fall, the soul senses its origin and longs to return to its source.” - Tozer

Absolutely: consider that thing we call the Bible
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise,

But Aaron then says:

So, the human nature lusts for the Spirit?

No, You used that word Skan did not, you used it......you set up that strawman, and then knock it down here.....

snip Gal. 5:17 out of your Bibles.

An ingenious move, no doubt. TOUCHE But a dishonest one and we see through it.

 

[Skandelon]

[/I]

[/INDENT]So, the human nature lusts for the Spirit? Everyone, snip Gal. 5:17 out of your Bibles.

HeirofSalvation already schooled you on this point so I'll just let this one go... :thumbs:

you look in vain at this parable for support for your premises. Where is the father's appeal? Where is the "powerful, holy ghost-wrought message calling unto the deep longing of this boy's soul?" :laugh:

Just one problem. The absence of the gospel being represented in this particular parable means the same for you as it does for me, since we both affirm God's means of the gospel appeal (unless you've gone full on hyper since the last time we talked???). It's your speculation that the phrase 'he came to himself' somehow implied a irresistible work of regeneration that is unfounded and assumed "in vain."

"Humble yourself and you will be exalted." -God

"God will irresistibly humble a preselected number of you and then exalt you." -Aaron

I pick God.

 

[jbh28]

I don’t think that libertarian free will actually exists (apart from philosophical theory), so I’d say that God is not “bound” by anything, including His character. Character is what describes something, not something that influences. For example, God is immutable. He does not refrain from change because He is immutable, but rather is immutable because He does not change.

To shorten the question, you could simply ask “can God choose not to be God?” The answer, I believe, would be the same. That type of “freedom” is fictitious.

A fish in water is free, but is also bound by water. If I “free” the fish from the water by throwing it in a field, then my definition of “freedom” is skewed. Man is only free when he is bound in Christ.

That's why I say God is not limited to anything outside of himself.

 

[Aaron]

Absolutely: consider that thing we call the Bible
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise,

And your point is . . .?

But Aaron then says:


No, You used that word Skan did not, you used it......you set up that strawman, and then knock it down here.....

You would do well to enrich your word power.

The strong desire of a man's soul according to you, Tozer and Scandal, is to be reunited with God. The strong desire of a man's soul, according to "that thing we call the Bible" (when approached with a reading comprehension level above that of a third grader) is against God.

 

[Aaron]

Just one problem. The absence of the gospel being represented in this particular parable means the same for you as it does for me, since we both affirm God's means of the gospel appeal (unless you've gone full on hyper since the last time we talked???). It's your speculation that the phrase 'he came to himself' somehow implied a irresistible work of regeneration that is unfounded and assumed "in vain."

I'm going to lay out this parable, and tell you what I said. The parable is about God's gracious reception of penitent sinners. That's it. There is nothing there about how one is brought to repentance. Nothing. One can glean less from this about soteriology than he can about God's character and attitude toward petitioners in the parable of the unjust judge.

But you won't let a lack of revelation stop you. No sir. You'll read into it an account that isn't there—no, that is even contradicted. All I did was point to the passive role of the prodigal as described in the parable.

"Humble yourself and you will be exalted." -God

Thou shalt not commit adultery—God. Does lust reside in your heart, Chuck? (Don't forget, there are 100%, red-blooded, American males reading this. We'll know if you're lying.)

Thou shalt not kill—God. Ever get angry, Chuck?

Be ye therefore perfect—Jesus. Got perfection?

The commandment does not presume the capacity to obey. Get it yet?

"God will irresistibly humble a preselected number of you and then exalt you."

Amen.

I pick God.

More accurately, the image you've created of Him.

 

[Skandelon]

All I did was point to the passive role of the prodigal as described in the parable.

Aaron, there is nothing more 'passive' than the surrender humble surrender of a broken man. And if you think the story of the prodigal son tells us nothing about soteriology then you'd be the first, as I don't think you could find a Christian scholar in the world who would make such a claim.

Thou shalt not commit adultery—God. Does lust reside in your heart, Chuck? (Don't forget, there are 100%, red-blooded, American males reading this. We'll know if you're lying.)

Thou shalt not kill—God. Ever get angry, Chuck?

Of course, and "when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." - Paul

The commandment does not presume the capacity to obey. Get it yet?

Why do you assume we don't have the capacity to obey? "With faith all things are possible." It is not our righteousness, it Christ's, which is applied through faith. So, indeed God did make it possible for us to fulfill his commands, you just make the false assumption that because we can't fulfill the demands the law on our own that we also can't surrender ourselves to the one who fulfilled the law our our behalf.

 

[Aaron]

Back to the question, is the nature of men predetermined? I've shown it is.

I've shown your appeal to Tozer to be humanistic claptrap.

You've been shown by my betters on this board that the arguments by which you are now attempting to escape are irrational and unbiblical. What can I add to their reasoning?

Toodles. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

What can I add to their reasoning?

Humor. Don't sell yourself short, you're good at making people laugh.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don’t think that libertarian free will actually exists (apart from philosophical theory), so I’d say that God is not “bound” by anything, including His character. Character is what describes something, not something that influences. For example, God is immutable. He does not refrain from change because He is immutable, but rather is immutable because He does not change.

To shorten the question, you could simply ask “can God choose not to be God?” The answer, I believe, would be the same. That type of “freedom” is fictitious.

A fish in water is free, but is also bound by water. If I “free” the fish from the water by throwing it in a field, then my definition of “freedom” is skewed. Man is only free when he is bound in Christ.

God can do ANYTHING consistent with His nature and will...

He is not bound by anything other than that...

He cannot Sin, nor do anything that would be contrary to Himself!

many here argue for man to have such a will, but sinners are bound/constrained by their very natures from doing certain things!