Philosophical discussion about free will

[johnp.]

It's interesting when others tell you what you believe when they haven't a clue.

We know now, you believe some are controlled and some are not. Those who are not saved have free will while the Christian has none. Cool.

God does direct our steps because we are His.

Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Good but since you belong to God why do you sin since you say He controls you?

Not everybody belongs to God.

I'll take it you mean not everyone is saved though everyone belongs to God because Jesus bought us.

Your suggestion that God directs every man's steps in life makes God a sinner.

What is sin? If sin is a breaking of God's law how can God be a sinner? You are not suggesting He is under law are you? Is God bound by a law we are not bound by?
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Everyone sins so did God make us sin as well?

God is the first cause of course He makes us sin. Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...
Ex 4:21 ...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
2SA 16:11 David then said to Abishai and all his officials, "My son, who is of my own flesh, is trying to take my life. How much more, then, this Benjamite! Leave him alone; let him curse, for the LORD has told him to.
1KI 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Want some more?

God isn't a liar either we are responsible or He is responsible.

He holds us responsible. If you look at Pharaoh you will see that it was God that hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would disobey God's command to let the people go.
David was well aware of the fact that God gets people to do things they will be held to account for why don't you?

If we do what we do because God directs us to do what we do then God is responsible.

God says we are. Why do we know God is just in choosing one man over another? Because He said so.
RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

There you go, God controls reprobates as well.

If God didn't create them then God wouldn't have known. God isn't a fortune teller

God isn't a fortune teller? haha! Brilliant man. God is not omniscient you mean? Yes or no please. I cannot handle things that are not. Do you mean to say that God is not involved in the creation of people. Your first sentence seems to suggest this.
I have no idea why you speak of people God never created.

If man goes to hell only then can God know it.

You are saying God is not omniscient?

All true but men are not part of the redemption of the world. We aren't God's only begotten Son. I believe it to be heretical to compare men to God.

You have done so already. You say that it would be unjust for God to condemn a man after He made them do His will. This is your judgment, man's idea of right and wrong meant for man not God. God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

So by this your are saying that Hitler was directed by God to murder 6 million Jews and Christians. I believe that is called blaspheme.

Yes.

Yet we still must willingly listen to the word in order for all this to happen and then we must voluntarily put on the righteousness of Christ before we are saved. We can only have grace by entering in to it through faith.[/quote

God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Are all things possible with God or not?

No.

Why am I suppose to ask why does He still blame?

Paul says that Esau was hated and Jacob was loved and they are the pattern for all men. This occured before they had done a thing to show us that it is God who has mercy and who hardens. He then tells us that the only reason He raised Pharaoh up was to put him down in public making a Name for Himself. Many thousands could have died in Egypt. That is why Paul expects you to ask, "Why?"

Why blame Pharaoh for not giving up the Jews? Don't talk back.
Why did God create Esau only to send him to Hell? Don't talk back.
See? If you don't get the question Paul expects you to get then you have not understood Paul's argument. His argument is one of a Despotic God who sends people to Hell, I won't say for no reason, but for the reason given, RO 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--

There is nothing valid about the theories of man.

Calvinism isn't a theory it is a systematic theology. It is a study of God as He has revealed Himself in scripture.

It's true that not all of what you claim lines up with scripture. Some things are right but most of it is not scriptural.

That I might be wrong in places and have gaps in my knowledge but that in itself doesn't make me wrong. You have shown me only your opinion and that conflicts with scripture. I mean you don't even accept a straight forward statement PR 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.

If this were true you wouldn't believe that God's foreknowledge is the cause of what we do.

God's foreknowledge has to do with people not the things they do.

If you're not deceived then why does your theory of what God's foreknowledge is like, isn't found in scripture.

As far as I know I have not explained my view on God's foreknowledge but I can say it is orthodox. Which is more than yours is.

I agree with this. No one seeks God, no one is righteous. isn't it wonderful that this still doesn't keep us from believing in the gospel and accepting Christ as our Savior.

No one seeks God but we can still seek God is your reply? You do not agree with it.

I didn't seek God He saught me. I am not saved by my righteousness but by His.

A Damascus road experience like Paul's was it?

john.

 

[webdog]

Are not all children born in condemnation?

Sin nature? Yes. Condemnation? No.

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

I know context isn't your strong point, but what sin has a newborn committed? I don't buy the popular "I'm not a sinner because I sin, I sin because I'm a sinner" phrase. A sinner is one who commits sin.

PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Please supply one instance where ANY infant spoke anything from the womb, let alone "lies".

Your justice should be God's justice. If you want to knock why don't you complain that we are all destroyed by Adam's sin?

...because I have nothing to complain about. God told me it is appointed for me ONCE to die. That's fine.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I know context isn't your strong point, but what sin has a newborn committed? I don't buy the popular "I'm not a sinner because I sin, I sin because I'm a sinner" phrase. A sinner is one who commits sin.

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

 

[dwmoeller1]

It's a very simple phrase...figure it out.

You said "I believe the physical killing of these infants was an even greater love than we could possibly know..."

IOW, killing the infiants was an act/decision of love. How have I misinterpreted your statement?

 

[webdog]

You said "I believe the physical killing of these infants was an even greater love than we could possibly know..."

IOW, killing the infiants was an act/decision of love. How have I misinterpreted your statement?

Well, since you seem to be thinking along the line of johnp that there are infants in hell, I guess you don't see it as an act of love. I believe every aborted child, every infant and young child and those born with mental handicaps are in Heaven. Allowing children of pagans to grow up and continue in their fathers' footsteps would most likely lead to the second death. I believe since their lives were taken away at such a young age, God preserved them from ever dying the second death. That's where I see He greater love.

 

[webdog]

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

What faith does an infant have?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, since you seem to be thinking along the line of johnp that there are infants in hell, I guess you don't see it as an act of love. I believe every aborted child, every infant and young child and those born with mental handicaps are in Heaven. Allowing children of pagans to grow up and continue in their fathers' footsteps would most likely lead to the second death. I believe since their lives were taken away at such a young age, God preserved them from ever dying the second death. That's where I see He greater love.

Like I said. "Wow! Killing as an act of love."

 

[dwmoeller1]

What faith does an infant have?

Whatever is *not* of faith is sin. If this is true and one says that an infant has no faith, then one must conclude that all they do is 'not of faith' and therefore is sin.

 

[webdog]

Whatever is *not* of faith is sin. If this is true and one says that an infant has no faith, then one must conclude that all they do is 'not of faith' and therefore is sin.

Trees don't have faith...are they sinning?

That text is speaking of ACTION.

 

[webdog]

Like I said. "Wow! Killing as an act of love."

Amen :thumbs:

 

[johnp.]

Hello webdog.

Sin nature? Yes. Condemnation? No.

Well blown me down webdog! Do you mean Paul was wrong? RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...

I know context isn't your strong point, but what sin has a newborn committed?

I don't need to prove babies are sinners as babies die. I know manners is not yours.

I know context isn't your strong point, but what sin has a newborn committed?

RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...

I know context isn't your strong point, but what sin has a newborn committed?

PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

I don't buy the popular "I'm not a sinner because I sin, I sin because I'm a sinner" phrase. A sinner is one who commits sin.

Then you will never get it right will you. Sins are the symptoms of our sickness not the sickness itself.

Please supply one instance where ANY infant spoke anything from the womb, let alone "lies".

Me? I wouldn't dream of it since you don't take God's word for it. If that don't count for nothing nothing I say will.

john.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Trees don't have faith...are they sinning?

That text is speaking of ACTION.

Trees don't do anything. Children do.

So how about a dog, you might say. A dog does things and they don't have faith...are they sinning?

I respond: Are you arguing that an infant is no more than an animal in the things they do? If so, then on what basis would you argue that infants who die go to heaven when animals don't.

You can't have it both ways. Either a child has faith and acts in/not in faith or else they don't. If they don't then they are no more than animals and the arguments for them going to heaven become moot since animals go to neither heaven or hell. If they are, in fact, more than animals and thus have faith, then they exercise it in action or they don't and whatever is not of faith is sin.

 

[johnp.]

Well, since you seem to be thinking along the line of johnp that there are infants in hell...

You go too far webdog. I have never said reprobates children are in Hell. Please correct your error.

What faith does an infant have?

Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

What, that faith you mean?

Trees don't have faith...are they sinning?

You know all about trees and babies webdog?

ISA 55:12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

john.

 

[J.D.]

Amen :thumbs:

Killing is an act of love?

This is an example of how irrational freewill theology is.

The freewill view of infants is one of the things that drove me toward Calvinism.

I had heard funeral sermons where the preacher said that an infant died because God, in His "high tower", could see the future of the child and spared the child of some terrible thing awaiting. I said to myself "then why was the baby born to begin with?" At another funeral, the preacher said that God loved the baby so much that He wanted it there with Him. I thought to myself that if there's a purpose in the death of an infant, it must have to do with those left behind, not the baby itself.

When I started presenting these questions to my freewill pastor, the only answer I got was "we really can't know about these things." I wasn't bold enought to say it, but I thought "well why are you preaching as if you do know what you're talking about".

I was taught that infants and small children don't need to be saved because they are "safe" until the age of accountability. I was simultaneously being taught that sin is in the child as soon as they are conceived. It wasn't long after that, when I had diligently searched my bible, that I rejected the notion of an age of accountability. It just wasn't there. I could find sin, but I couldn't find safety.

So after that, I started telling my students and brethren, very casually, that I did not believe in the "safety" of infants or an age of accountability. I said "only God knows what happens to the souls of infants". I didn't realize it, but I was already turning to Calvinism even before I ever heard of it. Of course I realize that even some Calvinists believe that all infants that die as infants are elect, and therefore, are saved. But I think an honest look at the issue will bring to the inescapable conclusion that God has left this knowledge hidden from us until the resurrection.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I had heard funeral sermons where the preacher said that an infant died because God, in His "high tower", could see the future of the child and spared the child of some terrible thing awaiting. I said to myself "then why was the baby born to begin with?"

Exactly! God will go ahead and create a person whom He KNOWS will go to hell (not probably will go to hell, but is absolutely sure will go to hell), yet then they argue that He will kill babies to prevent the same?!

And if He kills some babies as an act of love, what about all the babies He doesn't kill to prevent them going to hell - does He not love them as well?

Of course I realize that even some Calvinists believe that all infants that die as infants are elect, and therefore, are saved. But I think an honest look at the issue will bring to the inescapable conclusion that God has left this knowledge hidden from us until the resurrection.

Yep. Personally, I would like to believe the former, but in the end one must simply say that Scripture doesn't tell us. The only answer one can have is that we KNOW that whatever God does will be just.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Killing is an act of love?

This is an example of how irrational freewill theology is.

The freewill view of infants is one of the things that drove me toward Calvinism.

Interesting