Is the will of fallen man free?

Yes, it is something the bible says does not exist in the unsaved man. The bible says the unsaved man is in bondage to the law of sin and death.

The difference between you and me is that I believe what the bible says and you deny what the bible says. </font>[/QUOTE]Cassidy, before we can take this any further, I want to hear from you, what is "Free Will"?

 

You presume that I have not had it all along! It is your presumption and your election theology with which I take exception!

The truth is that God the Son's atonement for sin covers all the sin of the world, not just the sins of some nebulous "elect" that cannot help them selves because they are predestined to come to Christ!

You see, a major part of the promise made by the Christ is that Whosoever believeth in him (come to him, saved through faith) shall have everlasting life. The only way that is possible is to have all sin atoned! Yes, even the sin of those who do not come to the Christ are atoned, but the elect failed to tell them so and they remain ignorant of the truth that sets them free else they too might be saved through faith! (tongue in cheek)

Why would anyone "come to the Christ" if it were not for the promise of "everlasting life? Without the promise in which we base our faith, there is no reason to "come to the Christ". Doing so would be like putting your faith in Henry Ford (the auto tycoon). No one puts their faith in Christ because he is a man, they put their faith in Christ because of the promises he made to all as a man, and because the evidence of who and what He is, is to me, overwhelming every opposing thought or view.

That is clearly what many of the Jews thought too? Why should we have faith in that Nazarine, after all, he's just a man? They did not recognize the Son of God, or see His atonement for sin, and could not imagine everlasting life, therefore they did not receive the promise, and place their faith in the one who can and does fulfill the promise. Thus they are lost!

All who do hear the promise, learn of atonement, and accept the truth of who and what Jesus is, as Peter declared it, do indeed receive everlasting life!

 

I have quoted the scriptures twice, once in the original post and again in a response.

"Free will" is when "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:2. </font>[/QUOTE]This is NOT what "Free Will" means in any dictionary, or theological term book. Yet again you Calvinists have to twist the meanings of words to support your unbiblical nonsense.

 

Hmm. who was Christ referring to? The children of Jerusalem. Who was not willing? The fathers of the children. #1 misquoted scripture passage of all time by arminians.

So you agree with the T in TULIP. How does that support your argument?!

Are you arguing that God doesn't find us unworthy too? Isn't the core of the gospel accepting your unworthiness? These men accepted that unworthiness but were unwilling to accept the remedy. Unwillingness proves total inability, not arminianism.

i.e. any mind that is not your own...

Not at all. I simply reject your flawed interpretation of these verses.

 

Whetstone, it is very clear to me, that Calvinism has blinded your mind to the truth, as you argue with your mind and not according to what Scripture teaches.

Scripture is very clear when it states that no person is "unworthy of eternal life", it does NOT say that anyone is "worthy" in themselves to be saved, but, that because God so loves the world, that He considers all souls worthy of His grace and salvation. This is what Paul means. The Jews, by rejecting the Gospel (showing their free will), considered themselves to be not worthy of God's saving grace. This is not the way God sees it.

How do I support the "T" in TULIP? Calvinsim says that man "cannot repent", the Bible says that man "choses not to repent". Here is the difference, the first makes man not able to by something that God has done; whereas the second makes man unwilling to, because of his free will.

When you disagree with this, you do so against the teachings of Scripture, and not just what I say.

 

You make a good point, Cassidy, but you again take a scripture out of its context, make it stand alone, and viola, it's intended meaning gets changed. Roman's 8:2 is not a stand alone proof text, it is part of the thoughts expressed in Romans 8:1-13, in which Paul is addressing to believers, the life of the spirit. He is giving believers some measure of perspective regarding their spiritual freedom in a society of laws and consequences that Roman society was. In otherwords he is setting them up to give them the punch line that No law exists whereby one who produces the fruit of the spirit can be punished by the law of the land for what is in their spirit.

He is not defining Free will in Man, his discussion is limited to the specific freedom of spirit that is not bound by "laws and consequences", not the free will of the natural man to make whatever choices he will from all the available options.

 

Well said Icthus!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by icthus:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Can you people read what Jesus says? "BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING" If their wills were in bondage, this verse is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is wrong on so many levels.

Jerusalem is the CITY and symbolic of the Jewish LEADERs.

The Children are the PEOPLE and God IS concerned to SAVE THEM!!

But God is being put off by the leaders who "WOULD NOT" and God is DIRECTLY showing how the RESULT is a result of the WILL opposed to God - GOD who is "WANTING TO SAVE" as the text says!!

A More Arminian statement could not be imagined!!

And yet - there it is already printed in scripture for all to read.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why is that? Obviously, your statement is a total non sequitur. The fact that they weren't willing means they weren't willing. They didn't will to do anything else. Why make it harder than that?

 

"How I WANTED" --- "BUT YOU were UNWILLING"???

A pure Armian exchange.

Calvinism says "HOw I did not care a bit and left you in your rebellious state. I am sovereign I saved all that I WANTED to save".


The contrast could NOT BE more obvious.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Here we see the joy of God sending some to hell and others to save and BOTH groups perfectly performing His will – a monstrous idea that would get you “locked up” if you treated a family member this way (according to the Calvinist quote below)

I press the point of “Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion” with John after seeing the post above – and he responds.

 

You are a fallen man aren't you?

What did your will cost you?

How do you know? Were you there before the fallen condition existed? Did you experience pre-fallen will?

How do you know what the cost is?

How do you know what was lost?

All I know about it is that God has Gone to extraordinary measures to win me back! I believe in Him and I am therefore assured of restoration.

 

Perhaps the following Scripture might enlighten those who believe the will of fallen man is free but I doubt it. That is one of the most insidious effects of the doctrine that the will of fallen man is free, it causes them to believe it.

2 Corinthians 4:1-4
1. Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2. But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

Man is free but not at liberty.

 

I am not aware of any Calvinist who would say that God didn't care a bit. The exchange you cite above isn't arminian. It is Calvinistic. God does not save people who are unwilling. And those who are not saved are not saved because they are unwilling to be saved. That is pure Calvinism because it is what is taught in the Bible.

 

I guess if you gloss over the details "enough" then Arminian statements can be turned to "Calvinism" -- I just don't do that.

As for Calvinism saying -- "HOw I did not care a bit and left you in your rebellious state. I am sovereign I saved all that I WANTED to save".

I press the point of “Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion” with John after seeing the post above – and he responds.

</font>[/QUOTE]As for Pastor Larry saying the SAME thing --

As for Charles Hadden Spurgeon saying the SAME thing

As for JohnP saying the SAME thing

God “shows mercy to SOME but not others” according to Pastor Larry.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

</font>[/QUOTE]