Free will is unimportant in the grand scheme of things

[Luke2427]

Luke, I am quite aware that Calvinism teaches that no man is bad as he can be, but that is a contradiction. If man was truly enslaved by his sin nature, he would be compelled to commit the most serious sin at all times. A man would not even realize he was doing this, because it would be his nature.

Man's evil is restrained by Providence. God does not allow him the option of being as evil as he can be.

You ought to know this stuff by now. You don't have to agree with the arguments, but you at least ought to KNOW them as long as you've been on here.

The fact that even unregenerate men often choose to do what is right (tell the truth, return the lost wallet, be faithful to his wife, etc...) shows that man can resist his natural impulses and choose to do what is right.

The Bible is clear that unregenerate man does NO GOOD- NONE.

If he does what, to ignorant people, APPEARS to be right he does it with godless motives which makes it sin.

Titus 1:15 reminds us that to the corrupt and unbelieving NOTHING is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.

You ought to know this by now.

Even when a man does what people like you think is good, his heart and motive is godless and corrupt so the deed is sin.

He never does anything good ever in his unregenerate state.

Now you'll respond to this the same way you always do. You'll talk about lost people loving their children , yada, yada, yada, yada,

And then I'll have to remind you that alligators do the same, so do wolves and spiders.

You still won't get it because you don't understand the nature of sin has to do more with the vertical than the horizontal and you'll keep regurgitating tired old arguments that we've destroyed time and time again...:sleep:

 

[freeatlast]

Freedom is not that important to God (at least freedom defined as the power of contrary choice). We will not have the power of contrary choice throughout all of eternity once we leave here.

If this "free will" thing even exists at all, it is clear that it is a very temporary, fleeting thing. For each human being, if he EVER has it, he only has it for a few years down here and then it is gone forever.

It is not that important. God himself does not have it (if you define it as the power of contrary choice) so it did not come from some part of his character.

God the Father did not have the power to NOT love the Son forever in eternity past- not for a millisecond. He does not have the power of such contrary choice now. He will never have it throughout the endless ages of eternity.

It is not that great of a thing then if it exists at all.

And the argument is that "free will" is necessary for "love to exist".

Really? So there never has been any REAL love in the Godhead?

The greatest love is displayed when it is so great that the power to do otherwise does not even exist.

I thought I did but I will do it more directly. You say that God does not have the power to NOT love the Son. Yet while the Son was on the cross the Father forsook the Son.
No disrespect but I think you and many others are trying to create a God that fits a doctrine that is so single file that it rejects things about God that scripture teaches about Him.
God allows man free will. God also works through sovereign election. God loved the Son, but God forsook the son.
I would suggest that you not try and separate the Godhead and see it as one loving another and impossible not to forsake or NOT love another in some moment in time..
God's election is scriptural, but so is man's free will. Only God can work good from the two which are contrary.

 

[Winman]

I have to get ready for church, I will answer your last post in a few hours.

 

[Luke2427]

I thought I did but I will do it more directly. You say that God does not have the power to NOT love the Son. Yet while the Son was on the cross the Father forsook the Son.

So let me understand you correctly. Are you saying that God the Father stopped loving his Son at Calvary??

Because there is no evidence of that in Scripture, you know?

No disrespect but I think you and many others are trying to create a God that fits a doctrine that is so single file that it rejects things about God that scripture teaches about Him.

And I equally do not wish disrespect but we think the same thing about you.

God allows man free will. God also works through sovereign election. God loved the Son, but God forsook the son.

It depends on what you mean by free will. If you mean what most "non-cals" mean, then no God does not allow it.

I would suggest that you not try and separate the Godhead and see it as one loving another and impossible not to forsake or NOT love another in some moment in time..
God's election is scriptural, but so is man's free will. Only God can work good from the two which are contrary.

[/QUOTE]

I don't see where this addresses anything being discussed here.

 

[Luke2427]

I have to get ready for church, I will answer your last post in a few hours.

Have a good service, Brother.

 

[Winman]

Have a good service, Brother.

Thanks Luke, same to you!

Actually, I have a few minutes here, so I want to address the scriptures when they say there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Luke, suppose I said to you that none of my in-laws goes to church, no, not one. Would you understand that to mean they are absolutely unable to attend church? NO, of course not. You would simply understand it to mean literally what I said, that none of my in-laws goes to church.

And this is your error concerning this verse. You are reading INABILITY into it, when it is not there. Oh, it is possible it could be implying inability, but it is not telling you that all men lack the ability to do good. It would be error to form doctrine from an argument of silence, but that is exactly what you and all Calvinists do with this verse.

Fact is, Jesus himself directly said sinners can do good.

Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Here Jesus said that sinners love those that love them, and they do good to those who do good to them. Now, it is absolutely true that Jesus is making the point that it is a greater love to love those that hate you, and to do good to those that use you, nevertheless, it is still good to love those that love you and to do good to those that do good to you.

What kind of person would you be if you hated those that love you, and did evil to those who do good to you?

So, it is truly good and no sin to love those that love you, and to do good to them that do good to you. This is no sin, this is true good.

Nevertheless, it is greater love to love those that hate you, and to do good to those that do evil to you.

Sinners can do good, Jesus said so.

 

[freeatlast]

So let me understand you correctly. Are you saying that God the Father stopped loving his Son at Calvary??

I stated what scripture stated. The Son was forsaken. The greek word is associated with not loving the thing or one being forsaken. I would ask you this. Did the Father forsake the Son?

It depends on what you mean by free will. If you mean what most "non-cals" mean, then no God does not allow it.

I don't know what others hold as free will. I hold it as the ability to choose unobstructed by force or coercion while at the same time that free will in no way obstruct God's sovereign election and His sovereign election in no way obstructs our free will.
Two opposing and conflicting truths that can only be dealt with by an all powerful, all knowing God.

[/QUOTE]
.[/QUOTE]

 

[preachinjesus]

As to the OP:

Freewill is supremely important to the entire understanding of God's provision (not providence here) for mankind. If for no other reason that the determinist cannot structure a reasonable theodicy to answer the Problem of Evil. As Plantinga has demonstrated, only a Free Will Defense is tenable.

The determinist position makes God a moral monster. One can reconcile a predestinarian position with free moral agency and present a biblically faithful soteriology without having to assume determinism.

 

[humblethinker]

The greatest love is displayed when it is so great that the power to do otherwise does not even exist.

How do you explain the seeming contradiction of God being love yet making the tree so available and enabling Adam to such a state that he could choose not to obey? Do you say Adam didn't have a choice? Closer to being consistent would be the statement, "The greatest love is displayed when it is so great that the power to do otherwise is not chosen."

 

[Yeshua1]

Freedom is not that important to God (at least freedom defined as the power of contrary choice). We will not have the power of contrary choice throughout all of eternity once we leave here.

If this "free will" thing even exists at all, it is clear that it is a very temporary, fleeting thing. For each human being, if he EVER has it, he only has it for a few years down here and then it is gone forever.

It is not that important. God himself does not have it (if you define it as the power of contrary choice) so it did not come from some part of his character.

God the Father did not have the power to NOT love the Son forever in eternity past- not for a millisecond. He does not have the power of such contrary choice now. He will never have it throughout the endless ages of eternity.

It is not that great of a thing then if it exists at all.

And the argument is that "free will" is necessary for "love to exist".

Really? So there never has been any REAL love in the Godhead?

The greatest love is displayed when it is so great that the power to do otherwise does not even exist.

Would sau that God ALONE has true free will, as it is His very nature to love, so he was freely chosing to do what was Natural to Him to do!