convicted1
Guest
I HAVE TO agree with this wonderful post. If you don't agree with someone's beliefs, by all means, say so. But let's not drag them through the mud in the process. You can express yourself minus ad nauseum.
-
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!
Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God
- Thread starter DrJamesAch
- Start date
- Status
I HAVE TO agree with this wonderful post. If you don't agree with someone's beliefs, by all means, say so. But let's not drag them through the mud in the process. You can express yourself minus ad nauseum.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Yes...I thought to mention that in a separate thread wherein that passage was brutally savaged.....but, I thought it too much to go into at the time.
You are absolutely correct, though.:thumbs:
convicted1
Guest
That's your problem right there, Brother.....
:wavey: :flower: ::love2:BTW, "cut-n-paste" is fun.......LOL
"But of him are YE in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
" (v. 30) that is the subject of their calling not that all the members were called to the ministry!!
Again, empty and false assertions with no substance. Your champion is losing and so the insults and insinuations begin as normal from James and his compades as that is your final refuge.
DrJamesAch
New Member
You can stop any time now trying to expound on any English or Greek grammatical structure that DOES NOT fit your argument. That might work on some of your weaker friends who don't know any better, but not here.
τῇ γὰρ χάριτί (<grace) ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως(<faith) καὶ τοῦτο(<that) οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον
The demonstrative "touto" (that) in NEUTER. GRACE is feminine, and FAITH is feminine. The neuter demonstrative thus refers to an entire event which has no gender: for by grace are you save through faith. Thus "it is the gift" can only refer to being saved. It is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE for pistis to be the doron here.
It gets a little old you trying to yank verses out of context by appealing to some non existent rule of grammar in either Greek or English.
I frankly don't care what you illustration was, it was my post, I don't have to fit your context, you have to disprove mine, that's how a premise, axiom, facts and conclusion then rebuttal and surrebuttals works.
The OP is about free will as defined by libertarian and compatibilism. Perhaps you should study more on what both of those are first before trying to address this because you are arguing for positions that are not only all over the place, but issues that are wholly non sequitur to the issues.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Really?... that's your honest assessment? o.k. man :wavey: He is DECIDEDLY not "losing" to you. And he isn't "My champion"....neither am I his...You didn't respond to MY initial rejoinder to you....you ignored it in order to savage James.
I wish you would respond to it:
I link here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2014256&postcount=6
Do I respect the bulk of his postings?....yes.
Do I agree with them all in toto?...no
I have a few differences with some things he's said even on this thread....but, they would detract from the general point of the O.P. to mention...
Does he agree with EVERYTHING I would say?....uh, uh. I'm pretty sure that he'd take issue with some minor points I've suggested as well.
We aren't like you and Icon.
Icon believes that ANYTHING ever said by a Calvinist to an Arminian is gospel-truth (no matter how deranged)...and he would cheer-lead you regardless.
Try saying that Satan is God....He just might slip up and thumbs-up you...only because you're debating a non-Calvinist. I promise you, though....that's not the relationship that my "champion" and I share....
"My champion" (and I've disagreed with or exhorted him before) believes that I do in fact posses a mind quite my own, and wouldn't presume to think that I follow HIM blindly.
He's quite confident, I assure you that I derive my own opinions from my own study of Scripture.
Your conclusion here is EXACTLY what my own analysis stated quite clearly. However, below you drop "through faith" an contradict your own analysis that is "refers to the entire event which has no gender" - the entire event which you state is "by grace are you save(d) THROUGH FAITH."
No, it is not grammatically impossible as you have already stated that both the periphrastic construct and the gender of faith are neither neuter and therefore "IT" which is neuter refers to the WHOLE ignoring the gender of both!
Furthmore, your different conclusions here are IRRATIONAL. The perfect tense demands a completed action in the PAST that CONTINUES presently but as a completed action. Thus no alterations between the point of completion and the present. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved "THROUGH" something and be saved WITHOUT it! But that is what you are trying to force grammatically upon the phrase "by grace are ye saved" by denying "through faith" is included in the neuter "it."
Second, I have already proven that faith "IS OF GRACE" (Rom. 4:16) and therefore cannot be separated from any salvation "by grace" as it is inclusive "OF GRACE" in salvation.
Third, it is no more grammatically impossible to include "through faith" because of gender then to make it exclusive to "by grace are ye saved" as gender does not match that either! So you are making an abitrary decision not based on grammar or reason.
When your argument is completely and thoroughly defeated other than repentance the only other alternative is a seared conscience clearly manifested by the words "I don't care." You whole theory is shot down by this and you know it and your only response is the evidence of a seared conscience.
If your theory had any validation it would be the reality in any PERFECT WORLD God makes and yet we find it utterly excluded in the ONLY sinless world God will create.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
I just un-controllably laughed out loud and sounded rather absurd in so doing....:laugh:That's your problem right there, Brother.....
BTW, "cut-n-paste" is fun.......LOL
Your sense of humour (and irony) is impeccable....:thumbs:
You're a treasure my friend....I sounded like a freight-train I laughed so hard at this!!!
God Bless you ma-brutha:1_grouphug:
DrJamesAch
New Member
Wow you are some piece of work. In John 6 you argue that the early verses come first, then in Jeremiah 31 and 1 Corinthians you argue that the last verses define the context. Why not start in Revelation? You pick and choose a proof text and then build your own context around it.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
[YOUR CALLING is compared to the METHODS in which were used and expected of GREEKS who seek wisdom and JEWS who sought SIGNS.]
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
[What "foolish things"? PREACHING]
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
If this is about a CALLING TO SALVATION then you are saying that SALVATION is FOOLISH because that is the context of chapter one after verse 17. It is about a "FOOLISH" METHOD USED TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL that the Greeks and Jews alike thought was odd because neither one of them accepted the conveyance of truth based upon this type of delivery.
When Paul ends the chapter, it says NOTHING about "effectual calling" there is no CALL in verse 30 and the 'calling' in previous verses is directly linked to the context of preaching, not salvation. In verse 30 Paul is not explaining HOW one is saved but THAT they are saved, and what Christ IS to us, not the MEANS by which He CALLS.
DrJamesAch
New Member
First, I apologize for not responding but my reason is that I never saw it until this very moment and only due to your most recent post.
Quite the contrary, I went on to respond to every argument he gave just not all in one post by me. Continue to follow the responses.
Indeed, it was difficult to know where to start as there were so many complete and absolute perversions of my position.
Be reasonable, if I took the tenets of Universalism which is the extreme of Arminianism and used those tenets to represent his position would you not object and claim that perverts his true position?
The problem with his first line is that it is full of presuppositions that are later more fully expressed in absolute perversions of my position. That is what made it difficult to know where to begin. Should I begin by pointing out the errors of his later expanded explanations or with his summary statment. I went on to deal with both.
This explanation and perhaps your own view is based upon the denial that the Christian is without will power (Rom. 7:18) to overrule the law of indwelling sin and that is why the only option he has is to yeild to the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13) to be victorious over the indwelling law of sin.
If this is the case, then in reality the new inward man never chooses evil and always choose to do good because it is created in righteousness and true holiness. It lacks only the will POWER to perform what it would do. Hence, it is God that worketh in the saved man "TO WILL" and "TO DO" as it is what is created by God - new inward man - and the indwelling power of the Spirit that produces both the will and the action to accomplish the good pleasure of God.
This corresponds to my position which denies external coersion by God or man upon the will of the believer or the will of the unbeleiver. The coersion comes from within man's own nature whether lost or saved neither of which can overpower the indwelling law of sin. Hence, the lost man has no other alternative to the ONE nature he has - the fallen nature. However, the saved man is the only man that has the option of the new nature and power of the indwelling Spirit or he would be always in Romans 7:18.
So, his presuppositions of a computer programmed BY GOD is false and it perverts my position just as the tenets of universalism applied to your positon would be false and misleading.
Therefore, his opening statment and use of "determinism" is completely false in regard to our position as "universalism" would be completely false if applied to characterize his Arminian position.
Again, his presentation of my position is false and therefore his logic based upon that presentation which he summarizes as "determination" is false and misleading. I believe no such thing. Moreover, his position finds no place in God's eternal new world to come. There is no option "B" as "death" will be no more. That could not be stated absolutely if option "B" is available in the new creation could it? Not according to his definition of free will. However, according to my definition of free will it is perfectly consistent because the will is controlled by its nature and there will be no fallen nature in the new creation.
Don't you see that your THEORY of free will must fit eternity and not just a moment in time? My THEORY of free will fits both perfectly and consistently as nature determines choices not some kind of abstrace independent existence of the will from either the Divine or human nature. It is the MORAL nature that controls the will and ONLY the moral nature that controls the will and that is why God CANNOT LIE not due to lack of power but lack of MORAL sources to draw from in his nature.
However, it is his defintion of "determinism" that is the misnomer as it does not TRUELY represent my position at all no more than definition of "universalism" represents his position at all. His form of Arminianism cannot be represented accurately by that term no more than my position can be represented accurately by how he defines the term "determinism" throughout his post.
Yes, but then goes right on to definit it with the illustration of computer software that completely distorts my position even under that designation.
If that is true, then it would be equally valid if I defined his arminian position as "universalism"!!! The same drastic differences between his armininism and that form of arminism exists between his defintion of "determiminism" soft or otherwise and my position.
If I were to repost all over again, after this discussion, I would have to begin by providing an analysis of his own illustrative and explanative use of "determinism" as opposed to what I really believe is the true Biblical position. If not, then his wrong foundation is left in place and it is insultive to me as I am the one being misrpresented throughout his post.
Quite the contrary, I went on to respond to every argument he gave just not all in one post by me. Continue to follow the responses.
Indeed, it was difficult to know where to start as there were so many complete and absolute perversions of my position.
Be reasonable, if I took the tenets of Universalism which is the extreme of Arminianism and used those tenets to represent his position would you not object and claim that perverts his true position?
The problem with his first line is that it is full of presuppositions that are later more fully expressed in absolute perversions of my position. That is what made it difficult to know where to begin. Should I begin by pointing out the errors of his later expanded explanations or with his summary statment. I went on to deal with both.
This explanation and perhaps your own view is based upon the denial that the Christian is without will power (Rom. 7:18) to overrule the law of indwelling sin and that is why the only option he has is to yeild to the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13) to be victorious over the indwelling law of sin.
If this is the case, then in reality the new inward man never chooses evil and always choose to do good because it is created in righteousness and true holiness. It lacks only the will POWER to perform what it would do. Hence, it is God that worketh in the saved man "TO WILL" and "TO DO" as it is what is created by God - new inward man - and the indwelling power of the Spirit that produces both the will and the action to accomplish the good pleasure of God.
This corresponds to my position which denies external coersion by God or man upon the will of the believer or the will of the unbeleiver. The coersion comes from within man's own nature whether lost or saved neither of which can overpower the indwelling law of sin. Hence, the lost man has no other alternative to the ONE nature he has - the fallen nature. However, the saved man is the only man that has the option of the new nature and power of the indwelling Spirit or he would be always in Romans 7:18.
So, his presuppositions of a computer programmed BY GOD is false and it perverts my position just as the tenets of universalism applied to your positon would be false and misleading.
Therefore, his opening statment and use of "determinism" is completely false in regard to our position as "universalism" would be completely false if applied to characterize his Arminian position.
Again, his presentation of my position is false and therefore his logic based upon that presentation which he summarizes as "determination" is false and misleading. I believe no such thing. Moreover, his position finds no place in God's eternal new world to come. There is no option "B" as "death" will be no more. That could not be stated absolutely if option "B" is available in the new creation could it? Not according to his definition of free will. However, according to my definition of free will it is perfectly consistent because the will is controlled by its nature and there will be no fallen nature in the new creation.
Don't you see that your THEORY of free will must fit eternity and not just a moment in time? My THEORY of free will fits both perfectly and consistently as nature determines choices not some kind of abstrace independent existence of the will from either the Divine or human nature. It is the MORAL nature that controls the will and ONLY the moral nature that controls the will and that is why God CANNOT LIE not due to lack of power but lack of MORAL sources to draw from in his nature.
However, it is his defintion of "determinism" that is the misnomer as it does not TRUELY represent my position at all no more than definition of "universalism" represents his position at all. His form of Arminianism cannot be represented accurately by that term no more than my position can be represented accurately by how he defines the term "determinism" throughout his post.
Yes, but then goes right on to definit it with the illustration of computer software that completely distorts my position even under that designation.
If that is true, then it would be equally valid if I defined his arminian position as "universalism"!!! The same drastic differences between his armininism and that form of arminism exists between his defintion of "determiminism" soft or otherwise and my position.
If I were to repost all over again, after this discussion, I would have to begin by providing an analysis of his own illustrative and explanative use of "determinism" as opposed to what I really believe is the true Biblical position. If not, then his wrong foundation is left in place and it is insultive to me as I am the one being misrpresented throughout his post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright! Some of the readers suggest that I should reapproach this post and take each statement as it is given. For the sake of removing all reproach concerning my approach to the OP of james, I will do just that.
Up to this point, there is no a single word in connection with this scripture that I disagree with James about. Not a word. If he thinks so, it is because he fails to understand my view of free will. My view of free will denies any external coersion on the will to choose A or B.
However, my view of free will DENIES that the will is abstractly independent of the MORAL nature that defines that being. My view of FREE WILL is that it is the INTERNAL coersion of the MORAL nature of that being which absolutely determines A or B. The only words used for and translated "will" in the New Testament are words that express the will under the dominate controll of the mind (boulomai) or under the dominate control of the emotions (thelema).
For example, it is God's MORAL nature that causes him to make determinations between MORAL options. He CANNOT lie ONLY because his MORAL NATURE controls His will and is the internal coercive force behind all of his moral thinking and feelings.
The distinction between God and unfallen man is that God's MORAL nature is IMMUTABLE just as redeemed man's MORAL nature will be IMMUTABLE after glorification.
However, prefallen man's MORAL nature was not created IMMUTABLE but MUTABLE. He was INNOCENT of sin but not immutable in regard to sin. He was created "upright" without sin but in a neutral condition that could either continue innocent of sin or choose to sin. This is why Satan appealed to the mind and emotions of Eve as they were morally mutable to the appeal of sin.
However, that is not the condition of man's MORAL nature after the fall. His MORAL nature has moved from a neutral condition to the "bondage of sin" and his nature is at "enmity with God, and is not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."
So, like God's moral nature NOW, man's moral nature has become IMMUTABLE so that his will is under the INTERNAL coersion of "the law of sin."
That is why there is no salvation, no redemption for that fallen moral nature but only death and eradication by glorification - "This body OF DEATH".
Up to this point, there is no a single word in connection with this scripture that I disagree with James about. Not a word. If he thinks so, it is because he fails to understand my view of free will. My view of free will denies any external coersion on the will to choose A or B.
However, my view of free will DENIES that the will is abstractly independent of the MORAL nature that defines that being. My view of FREE WILL is that it is the INTERNAL coersion of the MORAL nature of that being which absolutely determines A or B. The only words used for and translated "will" in the New Testament are words that express the will under the dominate controll of the mind (boulomai) or under the dominate control of the emotions (thelema).
For example, it is God's MORAL nature that causes him to make determinations between MORAL options. He CANNOT lie ONLY because his MORAL NATURE controls His will and is the internal coercive force behind all of his moral thinking and feelings.
The distinction between God and unfallen man is that God's MORAL nature is IMMUTABLE just as redeemed man's MORAL nature will be IMMUTABLE after glorification.
However, prefallen man's MORAL nature was not created IMMUTABLE but MUTABLE. He was INNOCENT of sin but not immutable in regard to sin. He was created "upright" without sin but in a neutral condition that could either continue innocent of sin or choose to sin. This is why Satan appealed to the mind and emotions of Eve as they were morally mutable to the appeal of sin.
However, that is not the condition of man's MORAL nature after the fall. His MORAL nature has moved from a neutral condition to the "bondage of sin" and his nature is at "enmity with God, and is not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."
So, like God's moral nature NOW, man's moral nature has become IMMUTABLE so that his will is under the INTERNAL coersion of "the law of sin."
That is why there is no salvation, no redemption for that fallen moral nature but only death and eradication by glorification - "This body OF DEATH".
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Thank you Biblicist for your excellent reply....I don't have the time, at the moment to rejoinder you completely (since it's time for me to play a meaningless and mindless video-game with my beloved wife, and that's critical) :wavey:
but, I will say this in support of SOME of your assertions:
James uses the word "force" wrongly sometimes in relation to the compatibilist position....
I would agree with him that the compatibilist position which you espouse is wrong, of course, in that it amounts to a "de-facto" form of "force"....but that is Not the teaching per se....
It is incumbent upon a reasoned Arminian to differentiate between those two options when discussing the Calvinist position.
I don't like the way he says "force". But, I would agree with him that the logical conclusion amounts to as much.
I hope to be able to respond more thoroughly later...but, as it stands....my wife wants me to spend useless hours in mindless entertainment with her...and, well, nothing is more Scriptural..or, at least, beneficial to me
I hope to take this discussion up later...
God bless you. :wavey:
but, I will say this in support of SOME of your assertions:
James uses the word "force" wrongly sometimes in relation to the compatibilist position....
I would agree with him that the compatibilist position which you espouse is wrong, of course, in that it amounts to a "de-facto" form of "force"....but that is Not the teaching per se....
It is incumbent upon a reasoned Arminian to differentiate between those two options when discussing the Calvinist position.
I don't like the way he says "force". But, I would agree with him that the logical conclusion amounts to as much.
I hope to be able to respond more thoroughly later...but, as it stands....my wife wants me to spend useless hours in mindless entertainment with her...and, well, nothing is more Scriptural..or, at least, beneficial to me
I hope to take this discussion up later...
God bless you. :wavey:
Please do, as I can see you are a man that knows what is really important to maintain good relationships. I often stop typing to play my video game right next to my computer.
but, I will say this in support of SOME of your assertions:
James uses the word "force" wrongly sometimes in relation to the compatibilist position....
I would agree with him that the compatibilist position which you espouse is wrong, of course, in that it amounts to a "de-facto" form of "force"....but that is Not the teaching per se....
It is incumbent upon a reasoned Arminian to differentiate between those two options when discussing the Calvinist position.
I don't like the way he says "force". But, I would agree with him that the logical conclusion amounts to as much.
I hope to be able to respond more thoroughly later...but, as it stands....my wife wants me to spend useless hours in mindless entertainment with her...and, well, nothing is more Scriptural..or, at least, beneficial to me
I hope to take this discussion up later...
God bless you. :wavey:
Please carefully evaluate my response concerning moral nature and its absolutely internal coercive role in the determining process.
So what?
So what if God is having a chess match with himself?
You see, this is not an argument. It is just stating some outcome of the facts that you think will make people be put off by those facts.
It is like saying, "Jack could not have killed the man because if he killed him he would be a murderer."
So what, he would be a murderer? How does the fact that he would be a murderer change the FACTS that indicate that he killed the man?
So what if God plays chess with himself. I do that sometimes too. What does that have to do with the facts in Scripture and nature that clearly indicate that he is exhaustively sovereign.
So what?
Another total by-pass of logic to shock value strategy that non-cals use is this, "That makes man nothing more than a puppet," mess.
So? So what if man is nothing more than a puppet. I never have had that high of regard for man anyway. Being Almighty, all-knowing, everywhere present God's puppet would be quite an honor! This great God has made me and directs my every step!?! Wonderful!!
And the fact of the matter is that the Bible teaches that He actually has a great deal MORE control over us than if we were his puppets.
The Bible says repeatedly that we are CLAY and he is the POTTER. The potter has MORE control over the clay than a puppet-master has over a puppet.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two factors that determine our choices. I dealt with the INTERNAL factor of nature in the previous post. Now I will deal with the EXTERNAL factors in regard to free choice.
I have often illustrated the Eternal purpose of God like unto a very complex maze game. There is only one entrance point and one exist point but in between there are all kinds of paths and choices to make that either lead you back into the main path or a dead end where you must turn around and seek another way out.
Therefore, the beginning and the end provides no options for choice but in between there are all kinds of alternative options.
Each circumstance in our life has a limited set of options and God determines the available options and regardless of which option we freely choose they are designed in God's predestinated maze to lead to dead ends where you have to turn around and seek another path that leads ultimately to God's final purpose. Now consider these next verses in relationship to what I just said:
"For we know that God works ALL THINGS for the good to those who love God and are called ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE" - Rom. 8:28
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. - Isa. 46:9-11
All available options in every circumstance are limited to fit within God's overall plan and yet we freely choose the options available but never choose any option that will over rule God's eternal purpose because:
Psa. 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.
Our freedom of choice to available alternatives is not limited but the options are limited by God.
CONCLUSION: So determinism defined this way is perfectly consistent with my position. It is perfectly consistent with human responsibility for the fall and entrance of sin into the world with all of its attending consequences without blaming God for its origin or consequences. The fallen nature of man is such a consequence of responsible action by man in the fall. The fallen moral nature is in bondage to the "law of sin" and the will is the free expression of that "law" of sin within. Externally, every circumstance provides only so many options and every option made available utlimately accomplishes God's ultimate purpose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are a few principles:
The nature of the heathen free will obliges the will to only desire what is heathen.
The nature of the unrighteous free will obliges the will to only desire what is unrighteous.
The nature of the unregenerate free will obliges the will to only desire what is unregenerate.
The nature of the new creature created in Christ Jesus free will obliges the will to only desire that which is holy.
This thread, which attempts to proclaim that the unrighteous, unregenerate, heathen, and unholy, may by free will only attain holiness is against the very nature of humankind and of God.
It is as if those who cannot by thought add one inch to their stature, or add to the number of the hair on their heads - but would consider they have such thoughts as to attain righteousness without the direct and purposed work of God.
Christ is the AUTHOR and FINISHER, and needs NO HELP from any fallen human volition. What Christ authors He doesn't wait on any fallen to finish or "accept." Even the death on the Cross was HIS doing. "NO man takes my life..."
The nature of the heathen free will obliges the will to only desire what is heathen.
The nature of the unrighteous free will obliges the will to only desire what is unrighteous.
The nature of the unregenerate free will obliges the will to only desire what is unregenerate.
The nature of the new creature created in Christ Jesus free will obliges the will to only desire that which is holy.
This thread, which attempts to proclaim that the unrighteous, unregenerate, heathen, and unholy, may by free will only attain holiness is against the very nature of humankind and of God.
It is as if those who cannot by thought add one inch to their stature, or add to the number of the hair on their heads - but would consider they have such thoughts as to attain righteousness without the direct and purposed work of God.
Christ is the AUTHOR and FINISHER, and needs NO HELP from any fallen human volition. What Christ authors He doesn't wait on any fallen to finish or "accept." Even the death on the Cross was HIS doing. "NO man takes my life..."
why is this not in the cal/arm section?
It is Ironic that you would post this passage after saying what you did about freewill. You see Calvinist abound here who believe the natural man cannot know the gospel message although this passage is saying the unrighteous have had there chance to know God. Something people like you deny You posted what proves Calvinism is a lie. Sort of like shooting your self in the foot I'd say.
MB
- Status