Freedom of the Will

[agedman]

The issue is not that we always do what we think at the moment is best, that is bunny trail to divert us away from the core, that we always think doing the will of God is not the best at the moment. This is the core fiction, the falsehood wrapped in an enigma.

Do not let Agedman use the old derailer argument to avoid collision with the truth.

Edwards presents a very serious work on Freedom of Will.

You have expressed that humankind has some innate volition in which they can actually choose righteousness, and have given for proof that Joshua told the folks to choose.

Perhaps you will find substance for you view in Edward's writing.

Or, perhaps his very precise writing style will tease your interest into modification of your thinking.

Or, perhaps you will engage his argument and, by direct quotes and posing your own thinking, justly refute Edwards.


Edwards extensively quotes John Locke and then precisely shows his own view.

Can you do the same by quoting Edwards and showing agreement and disagreement.

 

[Van]

Edwards presents nothing serious, but instead an unbiblical man-centered view.

Does humankind have some innate volition in which they can actually choose righteousness? What did Jesus teach in Matthew 23:13, that some men had the innate volition to seek God and be entering heaven.

Edwards BS is still BS even if it is expressed as bovine scatology.

I have refuted Edwards, because he was teaching the mistaken doctrine of total spiritual inability. I have addressed this numerous times. The Bible provides the parable of the four soils, where 3 of the four seek God and receive the gospel. The rich young ruler was seeking God. Paul tells us many Jews were seeking God via works.

The premise that the fall caused all men to never seek God at any time is unbiblical, mistaken, and wrong.

The claim of "moral inability" which refers to the lack of any inclination to seek God is pure fiction. The idea that God gives us commands that we are unable to strive to follow is false. Just because we sin, does not mean we are unable to strive not to sin. The Law is a tutor that leads us to Christ, but Edwards would tell us we have no ability to be lead to Christ, that we are at all times disinclined to cry out for mercy and seek the righteousness of God. Twaddle

 

[Yeshua1]

Edwards presents nothing serious, but instead an unbiblical man-centered view.

Does humankind have some innate volition in which they can actually choose righteousness? What did Jesus teach in Matthew 23:13, that some men had the innate volition to seek God and be entering heaven.

Edwards BS is still BS even if it is expressed as bovine scatology.

I have refuted Edwards, because he was teaching the mistaken doctrine of total spiritual inability. I have addressed this numerous times. The Bible provides the parable of the four soils, where 3 of the four seek God and receive the gospel. The rich young ruler was seeking God. Paul tells us many Jews were seeking God via works.

The premise that the fall caused all men to never seek God at any time is unbiblical, mistaken, and wrong.

The claim of "moral inability" which refers to the lack of any inclination to seek God is pure fiction. The idea that God gives us commands that we are unable to strive to follow is false. Just because we sin, does not mean we are unable to strive not to sin. The Law is a tutor that leads us to Christ, but Edwards would tell us we have no ability to be lead to Christ, that we are at all times disinclined to cry out for mercy and seek the righteousness of God. Twaddle

We are sinners, whose natural inclination, our bent, is to fight against God and His ways, and to walk in darkness, gratifying our fleshly desires!

Without God first choosing us to come to him, none would go that way!

 

[The Biblicist]

Edwards presents nothing serious, but instead an unbiblical man-centered view....Edwards BS is still BS even if it is expressed as bovine scatology.

Have you even read his work on the will? Seriously?

The Bible provides the parable of the four soils, where 3 of the four seek God and receive the gospel.

How many of the soils did Christ says were "good"??? Do you know the context for these parables? The context from Matthew 10 to the end of Matthew 13 is a context of rejection by the professed people of God - Israel. The issue is how to distinguish and discern between true and false professors as the entire context is dealing with professors who reject Christ and reject his message but at the same time profess to have received God and His Word and be the special people of God.

Finally, none of the four souls (hearts) represent a "good" heart but one and that it is the final one. All true christians fit this final one as he goes on to show how it applies to various Christians in all stages of growth (some thirty, some sixty, some..). The other three are three types of false professors. (1) Those who profess to receive the word but without understanding. (2) Those who profess to receive the word but without an depth or internal abiltiy to endure. (3) Those who profess to receive the word but without priority or any practical changes.

The rich young ruler was seeking God.

The rich young ruler was seeking God as an equal in regard to inherent goodness. That is precisely why Jesus ignored his question and asked another question - "why callest thou me good." However, you don't have a clue why he did this because your pursuite of God is no different than this young man.

 

[Van]

Have you even read his work on the will? Seriously?

I read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God!

How many of the soils did Christ says were "good"???

In Genesis 1:31 God said His creation was very good. The good soil refers not to the inherent goodness of the people in this classification but instead refers to an aspect of their makeup, i.e. they were receptive to God and trusting in God's promises.

Do you know the context for these parables?

How would any Calvinist know or apprehend context, because they deny scripture.

Does humankind have some innate volition in which they can actually choose righteousness? What did Jesus teach in Matthew 23:13, that some men had the innate volition to seek God and be entering heaven.

The claim of "moral inability" which refers to the lack of any inclination to seek God is pure fiction. The idea that God gives us commands that we are unable to strive to follow is false. Just because we sin, does not mean we are unable to strive not to sin. The Law is a tutor that leads us to Christ, but Edwards would tell us we have no ability to be lead to Christ, that we are at all times disinclined to cry out for mercy and seek the righteousness of God. Twaddle

Finally, none of the four souls (hearts) represent a "good" heart but one and that it is the final one.

No, the issue is receptivity, from none, soil one, to full, soil four. Just read it folks!!!

 

[saturneptune]

I read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God!
How would any Calvinist know or apprehend context, because they deny scripture.

Please move this to the new forum location. Once again, this is turned into a Calvinism debate instead of the original intent of the thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

I read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God!

That is not what he is referring to. He is referring to Edwards book on the will. I believe earlier he provided the website address to access it.

Read it before you crictize it.

 

[The Biblicist]

In Genesis 1:31 God said His creation was very good. The good soil refers not to the inherent goodness of the people in this classification but instead refers to an aspect of their makeup, i.e. they were receptive to God and trusting in God's promises.

Again, how many soils did Christ say were "good"??? Remember he defined the the ground to be the human heart. How many of these four did Christ say were "good"???? One does not ha

How would any Calvinist know or apprehend context, because they deny scripture.

I have preached verse by verse through the book of Matthew on more than one occassion. Most of my preaching and teaching is expository rather than topical. You infer that I neither know or apprehend the context, but have you ever taught verse by verse through this book? I would suggest you have not because if you did you would know what I said is the truth.

Your hatred of total inability skews all your thinking (2 Pet. 3:12-15) so that you are not even capable of objective consideration of the Biblical context.

 

[The Biblicist]

In Genesis 1:31 God said His creation was very good. The good soil refers not to the inherent goodness of the people in this classification but instead refers to an aspect of their makeup, i.e. they were receptive to God and trusting in God's promises.

Again, how many soils did Christ say were "good"??? Remember he defined the the ground to be the human heart. How many of these four did Christ say were "good"???? One does not need to jump to another book of the Bible to answer this very simple question as every gospel account gives the very same answer.

Mt. 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold....23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


The repetitive "some" proves the "good" heart is representative of all who are truly born again but vary in fruit production from one child of God to another.

How would any Calvinist know or apprehend context, because they deny scripture.

I have preached verse by verse through the book of Matthew on more than one occassion. Most of my preaching and teaching is expository rather than topical. You infer that I neither know or apprehend the context, but have you ever taught verse by verse through this book? I would suggest you have not because if you did you would know what I said is the truth.

Your hatred of total inability skews all your thinking (2 Pet. 3:12-15) so that you are not even to objectively consider Biblical context.

 

[Yeshua1]

I read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God!

In Genesis 1:31 God said His creation was very good. The good soil refers not to the inherent goodness of the people in this classification but instead refers to an aspect of their makeup, i.e. they were receptive to God and trusting in God's promises.

How would any Calvinist know or apprehend context, because they deny scripture.

Does humankind have some innate volition in which they can actually choose righteousness? What did Jesus teach in Matthew 23:13, that some men had the innate volition to seek God and be entering heaven.

The claim of "moral inability" which refers to the lack of any inclination to seek God is pure fiction. The idea that God gives us commands that we are unable to strive to follow is false. Just because we sin, does not mean we are unable to strive not to sin. The Law is a tutor that leads us to Christ, but Edwards would tell us we have no ability to be lead to Christ, that we are at all times disinclined to cry out for mercy and seek the righteousness of God. Twaddle

No, the issue is receptivity, from none, soil one, to full, soil four. Just read it folks!!!

ONLY the fourth group were really saved...

the Ruch young ruler did NOT come to jesus to get saved,m but to have jesus pat him on the back , for being sucha "great guy!"

jesus said ONLY God is to be considered good!

SEE, not calvinism saying this, but the bible itself!

 

[Van]

Folks, on and on they go, shuck and jive after shuck and jive. One Calvinist after another. None addressed the rebuttal of "moral inability" which is a mistaken claim by Edwards. Matthew 23:13 demonstrates unregenerates have some moral ability to seek God. Folks they were entering heaven until blocked by false teachers.

But instead we get shuck and jives:
1) You need to read the whole 150 pages to address the mistaken doctrine of moral inability. Twaddle

2) The utterly false claim with absolutely no support in scripture that the fourth soil had been regenerated is repeated ad nauseum. Not how it reads.

3) Biblicists posts demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend the context of the parable of the soils. Presenting mistaken views to others, as in his posts, does not demonstrate, comprehension.

4) I refer to multiple verses that demonstrate some limited ability to seek God and trust in Christ, and Biblicists claims I am driven by hate rather than scripture. He questions my qualifications but evades my scriptures. Total Spiritual Inability, moral inability according to Edwards has been shown to be mistaken doctrine time and time again.

5. Scripture tells us why the rich young ruler came to Jesus, and a Calvinist once again denies that scripture means what it says when it says " what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Calvinism rewrites this to read, please pat me on the back. LOL

 

[agedman]

Van,

First, this thread is NOT on Calvinistic thinking.

Rather, this thread is upon the work Jonathan Edwards did when writing Freedom of the Will.

That you acknowledge that you have not read the work, yet form opinions to share about it, shows that you obviously know nothing about what you post.

Twice now I have asked that you quote DIRECTLY from Edwards' work and show SPECIFICALLY were he is in error and uses circular reasoning.

That you cannot, is not a reason to discredit Edwards.

Edwards is recognized by nearly every true theologian of both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic thinking of both past and present as being a premier scholar and writer. He was not some backwoods hick, but a person who stood against error to his own hurt, a missionary/preacher, man of extremely high personal convictions and self discipline, and one who died in attempting to encourage those (both believers and non-believers).


You mentioned that you read Sinner's in the Hands of an Angry God and disapprove. Yet, it was THIS very sermon, delivered without the emotionalism that is so characteristic of the modern era preaching, that is credited with starting the "Great Awakening."

Read what he wrote - I put links to both Freedom of the Will and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God so that those reading the thread can quickly go to the writings and comprehend, for their own self, the truth.

Certainly, it is not easy reading. Edwards didn't write in the style of some dime store novel, but did an in depth study on the "will."

When you have read the work, perhaps then you will be able to comment with the wisdom and understanding of knowing what you are discussing.

Until then, it is YOU who are dancing with great pretense.

 

[Van]

Calvinists like to claim others are unqualified. This sort of argumentation is devoid of logic, as it presents a logical fallacy.

I addressed "moral inability" as the key fallacy of Edwards. Not one Calvinist has offered any sort of quote or rebuttal. As usual, they do not seem to have even read the work, whereas I have read portions of it.

Why do Calvinists evade my arguments, I provided "moral inability" in quotes. Next, did I say Edwards engages in "circular reasoning?" Nope, so Agedman simply puts words in my mouth then expects me to respond.

Next, did I say I disapproved of "Sinners in the Hand...?" Nope, so more falsehood.

I showed that "moral inability" is a fiction because it contradicts scripture, Matthew 23:13.

Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the Will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary.

In Matthew 23:13 the men were entering heaven, thus they were not wanting in inclination, they were inclined to seek God. There was no strength of contrary inclination that had caused them not to seek God. And there was no lacking in motivation to seek God. Thus three out of three falsehoods.

And finally, the absurd claim is made this thread is not about Calvinism. Twaddle, Edwards was a Calvinist and he is presenting a bloated argument in favor of total spiritual inability.

 

[agedman]

Calvinists like to claim others are unqualified. This sort of argumentation is devoid of logic, as it presents a logical fallacy.

I addressed "moral inability" as the key fallacy of Edwards. Not one Calvinist has offered any sort of quote or rebuttal. As usual, they do not seem to have even read the work, whereas I have read portions of it.

Poor reasoning on your part.

You "read portions" and expect to make a complete argument.

Your own words put you in the very light in which you desire to accuse others.

Why do Calvinists evade my arguments, I provided "moral inability" in quotes. Next, did I say Edwards engages in "circular reasoning?" Nope, so Agedman simply puts words in my mouth then expects me to respond.

Next, did I say I disapproved of "Sinners in the Hand...?" Nope, so more falsehood.

You agreed with IJ, and therefore I placed those accusations - rightfully - at your feet.

You included "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in a post in which you were responding to you being critical of Edwards writing. In that post you were not complimentary. Therefore, the post I made is valid.

I showed that "moral inability" is a fiction because it contradicts scripture, Matthew 23:13.

In Matthew 23:13 the men were entering heaven, thus they were not wanting in inclination, they were inclined to seek God. There was no strength of contrary inclination that had caused them not to seek God. And there was no lacking in motivation to seek God. Thus three out of three falsehoods.

And finally, the absurd claim is made this thread is not about Calvinism. Twaddle, Edwards was a Calvinist and he is presenting a bloated argument in favor of total spiritual inability.

You have a great desire to refute Edwards, you don't even quote him.

You have a great desire to refute Edwards, you assign what you THINK is his argument and have no proof.

Van, READ the work.

Post EXACTLY what Edwards states and where you are in disagreement.

At Least Edwards did that by quoting John Locke and then showing how he would agree and disagree.

Rather than merely spouting your view, show some scholarly work on a par with what is considered a scholarly work by most - whether they agree or not with Edwards.

Btw, lest the readers of the BB think that Van has a valid argument using Matthew 23 (this is a section in which Christ is condemning the religious heathen), he has been refuted on this very passage of Scripture, yet his bias obliges him not to recant.

I only state that so none think he has a valid argument.

This is NOT the tread for that discussion.

 

[Van]

Agedman falsehoods:

1) I disapproved of the Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
Completely false and he has not recanted.

2) Agedman wrote: You have a great desire to refute Edwards, you don't even quote him. This after I quoted Edwards. Here is the quote, which apparently Agedman is so unfamiliar with Edwards Freedom of the Will he did not recognize it.

Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the Will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary.

So yet another falsehood. Agedman is simply engaging in shuck and jive, posting one falsehood after another, finding fault where none exists. Typical Calvinist behavior.

3) Matthew 23:13 has never been shown not to say what says. Calvinists simply says Jesus did not mean what He said, the men were not really entering heaven, they were not really blocked by false teachers, and on and on. Calvinists do not actually believe scripture but nullify it and make it to no effect by the traditions of men. So a third falsehood.

4) I quote Edwards and Matthew to show the falsehood of Edward's "moral inability" and Agedman says I have no proof. Folks, I could say 2 + 2 = 4 and Agedman would say I have no proof. Denial, after denial, devoid of any substance.

5) Final falsehood from Agedman: "You agreed with IJ, and therefore I placed those accusations - rightfully - at your feet." No quote will be forthcoming. Post 36 was written by Winman. So the avalance of falsehoods continues with no regard for truth. Behold the fruit of Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

Van, I dare you to go one entire week without using the words shuck and jive(or variations therof) on the BB. Go on. I dare ya'. I double-dog dare ya'.

 

[Van]

Hi Rippon, a more interesting dare would be for you to challenge all the Calvinists posting on this board to not post obvious falsehoods. Finding fault with how I say things, rather than addressing the substance is simply pouring more shuck and jive syrup on the steaming pile of falsehoods deposited by Calvinism's acolytes.

Why did you fail to address the blatant falsehoods enumerated above? What did Jesus say? Get the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from another's eye?

 

[Luke2427]

Folks, on and on they go, shuck and jive after shuck and jive. One Calvinist after another. None addressed the rebuttal of "moral inability" which is a mistaken claim by Edwards. Matthew 23:13 demonstrates unregenerates have some moral ability to seek God. Folks they were entering heaven until blocked by false teachers.

HOW does Matthew 23:13 demonstrate that?

This is going to be interesting.:laugh:

2) The utterly false claim with absolutely no support in scripture that the fourth soil had been regenerated is repeated ad nauseum. Not how it reads.

Yes it is.

But maybe if you call it "twaddle" again- you win!!

:laugh:


:laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Van, I dare you to go one entire week without using the words shuck and jive(or variations therof) on the BB. Go on. I dare ya'. I double-dog dare ya'.

Or the word "twaddle".:laugh:

Take those words away from him and he has no vocabulary or debate power at all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Or the word "twaddle".:laugh:

Take those words away from him and he has no vocabulary or debate power at all.

He will just substitute to 'horse feathers ' :smilewinkgrin: