Evangelistic atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins,

[pinoybaptist]

Hi ya all,

Very interesting comments to my opening post. I tried to pack, what I thought was an obvious implication on my part, into my short little piece of babble, but it looks like I will have to expand it some with a little more explicit detail.​

Very early in our lives common everyday pipsqueaks, like myself, learn to recognize many understood things about everyday communications that occur between people. One of the very first things I learned was that human beings always assume that normal everyday people they communicate with have a free will. This is an understood assumption revealed by the style of our communication and does not need to be explicitly voiced each time we start a conversation with another person. In fact, it is rarely ever mentioned when humans communicate with each other, except when they are talking about subjects such as religion, philosophy, etc. When I started studying the Bible, I found that the style of communicating with human beings that God was using in the Bible is the style that also assumes/implies that human beings have free will. Therefore, God never explicitly states that man has or doe not have free will. That man has free will is clearly implied in the style of communication with human beings that God uses in the majority of the Bible. On a few occasions in the Bible, if one ignores the majority style, does some verses seem to imply that man does not have a free will. I have always found that those few instances can also be easily understood in terms of free will, the free will which is implied/understood in the style of communication with us in the majority of the Bible.


David C. Geminden

I have a few questions, David.

Is that "free will" with the assumption that the human being is capable of doing that which pleases God in every essence of the word "please" ?

 

[pinoybaptist]

The Bible says I have the mind of Christ, therefore I desire all men to be saved, too.

I desire the same thing, web. Only the "saved" I understand is gospel salvation, that is, a repentance toward God and a turning away from false religions and such.
I desire that all my countrymen, for example, the Filipinos, should forsake the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism and turn to the doctrines of Christ only.
And that is because I understand that when Christ went up on that cross to seal the redemption of His people, for eternal purposes, with His blood here in time, He actually finished the work of redemption and eternal salvation, which is why the Bible says He became the author of our eternal redemption.
Whether one calls this the "elect" or the "whosoever" does not matter, for our languages and understanding of our languages have no direct bearing on the results of His work.

This does not mean it will happen, and is a non sequitur.

Again, you are correct. We may desire "good" things and things that we feel in our hearts to be in line with God's will and thoughts, but it does not mean it will happen, because we do not have the power, as God has, to make it happen, as in the case of eternal salvation.

 

[canadyjd]

Again, your not listening but trying to tell me what I'm saying when in fact it isn't. Look again at what I stated and please stop trying to argue with a point I'm not making or at least not equating to the premise.

You used the word "escape" and made that the focus of your agrument. I responded to what you stated so I am bewildered by your response. If I have misunderstood you, please explain how?

Secondly, there is no scripture in what Paul writes that state sin 'controls' the believers will. That is absolute nonsense and a dilibertate denial of what Paul blatantly declares in verse 18 "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out"

I spoke of an "unbeliever" not a "believer" being controlled by sin. If you are also referring to an "unbeliever" then Verse 19 demonstrates the error of your statement. "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish." The word for "wish" is "thelo" in the Greek. It is the very same word used in John 3, "the wind blows where it wishes..." and means "from a motive of desire....from resolve, decision or design will...." (From Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testaement: Friberg, Friberg, Miller)

Paul is clearly saying that the unbeliever's will (desire) is controlled by sin.

As I stated previously; "A slave can choose to not do that which his master states but eventually that slave must and will comply with his masters desire. The slave can not live as he wishes but that does not mean he can not do things contrary to his masters wish"

You have moved your argument from "desiring to do good, but can't" to "sometimes the slave can do things contrary to the sin master's will.

If you can show me from the text in Romans where Paul says the slave can do something, just one little thing, other than what the sin master wants him to do, then you will go along way toward convincing me that I have misread Romans 7. Please don't say that "desiring" to do good is actually doing something against the sin master's will. I haven't made that argument.

Thus man with regard to being 'bound' is unable to free himself - and that is the inability Paul speaks of and not of an inability to will or desire but the inablity to live freely because he is bound and enslaved to another. And so you see this more clearly as Paul cries out who can save me from this body of sin (my master who wont let me go) - Answer: Only Jesus.

First, you are misquoting the passage. Paul cries out in verse 24 "....Who will set me free from the body of this death?" His point is that the sin master controls the unbeliever all of his life, and then turns him over to the death master, who then becomes his master.

I agree, however, with your comments here. The man is unable to free himself from the control sin has over his will. This is very clear from v.19 "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish."

The will of man is emphasized over and over again in scripture regarding the aspects of believe, repent, come unto me, choose you this day, eat, drink, come, et... (However it isn't stated as such such just like the words Trinity, Theology, et..)

The will of man as enslaved to sin is emphasized over and over again in scripture. You have yet to acknowledge the clear teaching of scripture on this subject.

The purpose and principle of the passage is to declare being born again isn't a work of man nor that man can bring about by his own power.

God didn't use the word "power", He used the word "will"...as in "not by the will of man". If you change the words, you miss the meaning.

If mans choice has no weight in the matter then it does not matter for man to believe or reject God. Thus he would be saved by grace alone. Yet God states savlation is BY grace THROUGH faith.

I never said man does not respond to the work of Holy Spirit with faith. In fact, I have already acknowledged the truth that salvation is appropriated by faith. That salvation is appropriated by faith is not inconsistent with "salvation is by grace alone".

Man is resposible and when they reject the truth God reveals to them scripture states "it is for this cause God gave them over" - their rejection and only after their rejection.

But you won't acknowledge what scripture teaches concerning this rejection. All of mankind has already rejected the truth God has revealed to them. That is why Paul says that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin (Romans 3:9: and "all" does mean "all" here) There is none righteous, not even one.....then is none that seeks for God....There is none who does good, there is not even one."

As I said, you aren't listening but keep repeating the same thing that NNE has made ANY claims about. "If by "free manner" you mean free from any outside influence"? ...We do not believe free-will means the absense of or "from any outside influence."....We do not make a decision in a vacuum.... You know just enough to twist it all up, though I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally but the fact remains you are.

You keep telling me I don't understand what you mean by "free-will", but you haven't really explained it to me very well.

Let me ask you a specific question. Can a man, without any influence of Holy Spirit (drawing, convicting, revealing, illuminating: whatever term you like), overcome the influence of sin and come to believe the truth about Jesus Christ found in the gospel?

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

You used the word "escape" and made that the focus of your agrument.

Wrong. I did use the word 'escape' , however YOU made it the focus of YOUR argument.
The escape aspect was not nor is it the focus though it was included as a necessary side issue.

I responded to what you stated so I am bewildered by your response.

No, I wrote and entire body of information and you took two sentences dealing with the word 'escape' and presumed it out of all I wrote was my argument. My argument, just to keep things moving, is that man is unable to do or live outside the influence of sin even though man can and does at times desire contrary to it. His will is subordinate to sin though being subordinate does not negate the desire to no longer be so. The 'escape' aspect comes into play at the last of the argument in both mine and Pauls thoughts.

I spoke of an "unbeliever" not a "believer" being controlled by sin. If you are also referring to an "unbeliever" then Verse 19 demonstrates the error of your statement.

I was speaking of an 'un'believer I left off (for some reason) the 'un' :tongue3:
However verse 19 actaully establishes my point of the sinner desiring against the sin nature and does not contradict it.

Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

If mans 'will' or mans desires are so bound to sin and it is so absolutely controlled by sin then he would not desire against his sin nature but rejoice in doing whatever it devised. I haven't disputed the fact that man must and will eventually comply with the commands of his sin nature but have in fact stated it twice in my last two posts. Yet it is a fact that sinners can and do refrain from doing (at times) 'certain sins' that their nature is in fact pushing for them to do. The vast majority of the time it isn't that they wont 'do' but that the sin done is reduced in its extent to the sin first purposed. However no where do we find in the scriptures nor do they postulate that a nonbeliever does/commits every sin their nature desires. We can also know this from our own experiences being in a lost state. Did you do everything your nature desired and concieved all the time every time? Answer: no you did not. You might have reduced the extent of the sin that was being contemplated or maybe modified the original desire, or possibly didn't even act on it. But I know you have not done EVERYTHING you natured has desired and concieved of.

So my argument which is and has been now for 3 or 4 postings is that Man does have or at least the capcity to 'desire' to do what is right but he does not have the ability to "do" it (physically act or live out). Why not? Because he is enslaved or bound to the corrupted flesh and is unable to free himself. The slave can not live as he wishes but that does not mean he can not desire contrary to his masters wishes.

"For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish." The word for "wish" is "thelo" in the Greek. It is the very same word used in John 3, "the wind blows where it wishes..." and means "from a motive of desire....from resolve, decision or design will...." (From Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testaement: Friberg, Friberg, Miller)

Again, you just proved my point! '..the good that I wish, I do not.." (desire).
His desire is contrary to his masters will. He is not so controlled that his will is the same as the Sin Natues but is in fact in conflict with it!

What is the point?
You state that man is so enslaved to sin that he desires nothing else but to sin.
I state in the very passage you brought up that Paul disputes your view entirely. Yes, Man is enslaved to sin that he must 'do' or obey it as a slave does for his master. Yet that enslavement is not and should not be taken to the extreme of posession and or dictatorship of all faculties, specifcally mans will in relation to his desires. Man can and does at times have the 'desire' to do what is or seems right but he does not have the ability to "do" it (physically act or live out). Remember also that the word "do" is used often times synonomously with or for 'works' through out the scriptures.

Paul is clearly saying that the unbeliever's will (desire) is controlled by sin.

No where in this has Paul stated nor has he alluded to such. You have to bring that aspect via presupposition into the text to even come to such a conclusion. Paul doesn't even make mention of the unbelievers 'will' being "controlled by sin". Their actions are the product of sins control but not specifically or better totally their 'will' and THAT is distinction. What they 'do' is manifested from sin in them, but they can desire contrary to their nature so that they wished to 'do' good. But instead their actions are always sinful and corrupt. It is about their inability to 'do' or live out, not their inability to desire contrary to their sin nature. Verse 18 and 19 shout this!

You have moved your argument from "desiring to do good, but can't" to "sometimes the slave can do things contrary to the sin master's will.

No my argument hasn't changed, the same thing was described in different ways. A slave can go against his masters will, just like an unbeliever can go against an inclination or desire to commit certain sins, though everything they do regardless is still made or done from a corrupted nature, thus always missing the mark and falling short in their works. However, the aspect of going against or not doing is not something done often but few and far between. My sin nature can desire to kill a person that slapped my 4 year old to the ground but does that necessitate I must do it? There is a fine line about what I am talking about and that is why I'm not making such an issue of it except to illistrate that an unbeliever can desire contrary to their nature even in the midst of their actions.

If you can show me from the text in Romans where Paul says the slave can do something, just one little thing, other than what the sin master wants him to do, then you will go along way toward convincing me that I have misread Romans 7.

Let me try to clarify my point because I am apparently not conveying what I am trying to say. I am stating man can frustrate the desires of his nature and not do everything it concieves and yet still act in a sinful manner in everything he does. Man can and does reduce the extent of sin which is first purposed of his nature to be done. They will still sin but not necessarily that which the nature first desires.Example: Josephs brothers desired to kill him and even planned it out, but one did not and proposed an alternitive. They modified what their sin nature desired but did not do that which was first desired. I can attest of this also in my own life as an unbeliever.
(IMO - I do think that man has to ability to not do "certain sins" that his nature desires but not that this is something man does consistantly nor commonly, however as I stated earlier as well everying that man does will de done in a sinful manner regardless of what he might not do.)

Please don't say that "desiring" to do good is actually doing something against the sin master's will. I haven't made that argument.

No, your argument is that they not only won't but can't desire contrary to their sin nature and that is the point of contention I'm am debating via Puals writting.

First, you are misquoting the passage.

First, please note I didn't not "quote" the passage but paraphrased it.

Paul cries out in verse 24 "....Who will set me free from the body of this death?" His point is that the sin master controls the unbeliever all of his life, and then turns him over to the death master, who then becomes his master.

Your version is adding alot
Sin = death, and Paul was saying the same thing but with more effect, "who will set me free from this body of death" or body of sin. Remember he makes the same type of statement here:

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: ...

Thus he is using them as synonomous and interchangable since they equate to the same end.

The will of man as enslaved to sin is emphasized over and over again in scripture. You have yet to acknowledge the clear teaching of scripture on this subject.

I acknowledge the clear teaching on the subject, I just deny the logical fallicies many add to the teaching which are extra biblical.

But you won't acknowledge what scripture teaches concerning this rejection. All of mankind has already rejected the truth God has revealed to them. That is why Paul says that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin (Romans 3:9: and "all" does mean "all" here) There is none righteous, not even one.....then is none that seeks for God....There is none who does good, there is not even one."

All men are under condemnation but all men are not yet condemned. That condemnation comes from their rejection. No all men have not rejected the truth. All men in Adam have sinned and thus under His condemnation but are not yet condemned or damned. That does not take place until they (in their life) reject the truths God reveals (2 Thes 2:10-12, Rom 1, and others).

Let me ask you a specific question. Can a man, without any influence of Holy Spirit (drawing, convicting, revealing, illuminating: whatever term you like), overcome the influence of sin and come to believe the truth about Jesus Christ found in the gospel?QUOTE]
No, and there isn't any non-cal in vast majority or the main who contends such. That is Pelegainism.

 

[canadyjd]

Allan

I don't think we are communicating very well. It seems we are just talking past each other. If I have misrepresented your argument, then I apologize. It was unintentional.

I don't believe I have ever said that sin so controls the unbeliever they will do every sin they desire to do...or that they will have no desire other than to sin. That is not Paul's point in Romans 7.

I don't think we are going to accomplish much with this conversation, so I am stepping off the ride.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

Allan

I don't think we are communicating very well. It seems we are just talking past each other. If I have misrepresented your argument, then I apologize. It was unintentional.

I don't believe I have ever said that sin so controls the unbeliever they will do every sin they desire to do...or that they will have no desire other than to sin. That is not Paul's point in Romans 7.

I don't think we are going to accomplish much with this conversation, so I am stepping off the ride.

peace to youraying:

You seem to be right, and I agree as well. I obviously didn't understand what you were contending concerning the extent of the sin natures control toward even that of their will/desire.

However, I would like to make one last clarification. I don't believe Rom 7 is talking about the unbeliever at all but is actually about the Christain and the battle between the two natures.

 

[davidgeminden]

That might be interesting, if there was any mention, anywhere in scripture, on ANY page, that said anything about free will.

In regards to the NT, we are called "doulos" more than anything else (that means "slave" {not "willing servant" but a purchased slave).

What part of "not according to human will (thelama> will, desire, choice)" and "works everything according to His own Will (desire, choice)" do people not understand?

People just can't stand it that God is in control, and they are not the Kings of their little universes...

Yes, God's ways are far above our ways and our understanding. Yes, God gives all men/women free will and believers eternal security and God is sovereign. Glorious, just, gracious, all wise, all powerful and all knowing is our God!


David C. Geminden
​