The devil wants us fighting about this...why?

"Man is free yet cannot please God"?

How about:

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3:10)

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34,35)

Are you saying that everything that man does displeases God? So, if a unsaved person were to, for example, pull a Christian from a car wreck, and thereby save his life. Is this displeasing to God? Before you were saved, was there not anything that you did, that pleased God? Christians, who are born-again by the Holy Spitit, displease God when they steal, lust, etc. Your argument doe not hold up to Scripture.

Before the people of Nineveh were saved, their actions, (3:5-9) no doubt pleased God.

Likewise, before Cornelius was saved, we read, "And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God" (10.4)And God acted by sending Peter, "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (11.14)

That is why, Biblically, the Calvinistic doctrine of "Total Depravity", is a grave error.

 

Everything you just quoted is very consistent with the doctrine of total depravity as the Calvinists see it.

The Bible teaches that man is completely corrupt. It doesn't mean that he he is as bad as everyone else, nor does it mean that he is as bad as he could be. It means that sin has affected everything that he does. The Bible says that even the plowing (a good thing) of the wicked is sin. Therefore, it is impossible for the unsaved to do anything righteous. They may do things that are morally or civically good. They are not pleasing to God in any redemptive sense.

Again, if you understand what Calvinists actually teach about total depravity, your whole post is easily answered. If you understood it, you would never have posted this as an attempt at a response.

 

Wrong. Free will means that you are FREE to choose EITHER good or evil and are ENABLED to choose EITHER.

Adam chose good - but then one day chose evil. HIS NATURE was SINLESS. Adam had FREE WILL.

Lucifer chose good but then later chose evil - his NATURE was SINLESS and good. Lucifer had FREE WILL.

Saul chose EVIL but then on the road to Damascus chose good - his NATURE was SINFUL!

"FREE WILL" means the ability to CHOOSE either good or evil -- "period".

In all of your "JOE" scenarios the issue has been the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God - and NOT the sinful nature of Joe. NOW you switch to "the sinful nature of joe".

It is a fine time to make the bait and switch argument.

 

So God can choose to do evil?

No, the issue has been the free will of Joe to do something God knows he won't. Go back and read. I think you may be the one trying the bait and switch here.

I addressed sinful nature a long time ago, and Icthus tried to bring it up.

 

err umm - "exactly".


So your "Joe has free will just like God" even though God forenkows the future -- HAS BECOME
"Joe has the free will to be totally ensalved to sin and have no other choice" just like God???

And "of course" the contradictory examples of Lucifer, Adam, Saul-Paul, etc "remain" to debunk your supposition so far.

SO GETTING BACK to our initial point that FOREKNOWLEDGE is not stopping God from being God or Saul Joe from choosing salvation and becoming PAUL - NOR is it stopping ALL humans with sinful natures from CHOOSING either good or evil (and we know SOME will choose salvation and some wont) -- the Arminian concept remains.

Or was the "foreknowledge" topic just a rabbit trail for you while waiting to get back to your "Saul has a sinful nature and so has the free will to never become Paul" argument for "free will"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you seem not to be following here.

Joe has "free will" just like God ... foreknowledge is about knowledge (strangely enouhg) not will. Foreknowledge has implications for how "will" acts, but it is a different issues.

Your statement, Joe has the free will to be totally ensalved to sin and have no other choice" just like God??? is inconceivable in this conversation. You konw that I said nothing of the type. Go back and look at what I said and do not misrepresent it. The free will are the same is that they are constrained only by nature ... God by his, and Joe by his. Your comment goes beyond the issue of free will to the issue of nature.

Lucifer, Adam are different in that they originally had no sin nature. Paul is completely in line with what I said. He lived according to his nature until God changed it on the road to Damacus. So there are not "debunk"s of my point.

You seem to be completely missing the poitn, though I am not sure how. Let's ask it again, and answer this question: If God knows that Joe will commit adultery, can Joe choose not to commit adultery? Yes or No.

Answer that with a Yes or No, and then let's move on. Don't keep distracting with your misleading and ill-informed comments.

The truth is that you know you are backed into a corner and don't want to answer the question. You know that God's knowledge is infallible and that if God knows Joe will commit adultery, he cannot choose to do anything else. If he did, God's knowledge would be wrong. That is one of hte many reasons why your view is defective. It just won't stand up to critical interaction.

 

In a way this makes a good illustration.

You affirm that God has free will. So can God lie? Theoretically such an act would be within the realm of "free will".

But God does not lie. Why? Because it is contrary to His nature. Conversely, the natural man does not believe and will not choose to have faith because it is contrary to his nature. Only by experiencing spiritual rebirth of the Spirit can a man receive a new nature that will choose to believe.

 

And so your "Joe" scenario fits in perfectly with the "God" scenario and the Adam-pre-post-fall scenario and the Saul-Paul scenario...

Because you ONLY mentioned FOREKNOWLEDGE as the element that would in any way "limit Joe" and hence "lmit God", "Limit Saul-Paul" -- LIMIT Adam.

But then after that bait - you "switch" to "sinful nature limits Joe" to only choosing sin, and then ignore the "Saul-Paul" and "Adam falls" and "Lucifer Falls" clear debunking of your idea.

My point is that IF you just stick with your initial "FOREKNOWLEDGE does not limit free will for God or Joe" scenario -- THEN we have the Arminian view.

Why "switch" now??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Correct - MIXING the "sinful nature MADE ME DO IT" idea of Calvinism INTO This discussion about foreknowledge not limiting free will for God or Joe -- doesn't work -- does it!

So pulling the bait and switch now would not be helpful.

Different topic from "foreknowledge" AND debunked in the clear examples of Lucifer, Adam and Saul-Paul.

Wrong. You said NATURE (not SIN NATURE) is what determines choice and so you point out that BOTH God and Joe have FREE WILL - free to follow their NATUREs.

The point remains.

Adam, Lucifer, God, Saul-Paul AND Joe all have natures.

Basically - your bait and switch is not working.

Lets go back to the "foreknowledge" topic again - because we were getting close to agreement on their FREE WILL not being affected by Foreknowledge (something an Arminian would love to argue for).

If "FREE WILL" is Saul living according to his SIN nature - then God "Changing it" was by YOUR definition - a violation/restriction of Free Will.

That is certainly not arminianism and that certainly had nothing to do with our "you have Free will even though God has foreknowledge" discussion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

YES -- as I said before. He has that option. He has FREE WILL.

If God knows Joe will commit sin on Tuesday CAN Joe choose to do that sin on Monday INSTEAD? Does HE have the choice to commit that sin ahead of time instead of on Tuesday? YES!

Will he make that choice? NO! Absolutely not!

----------------------------------
CAN God decide to come on TUESDAY even though He KNOWS His coming will be on Monday?

YES.

WILL he decide to come on Tuesday? NO!

Neither God NOR Joe are limited in their choices by God's Foreknowledge!

This is one of the reasons Calvinism is utterly destroyed. It won't stand up to critical review.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

You just don't get it Bob. Your responses are continual dodges of the real issue. It makes me laugh. But enough has been said. If you were sit down and actually think about this without the need to refute something, you would find yourself laughing at your posts. Think about it for a while.

 

This answer is from back in the days when we BOTH agree that BOTH God and Joe have free will -- and foreknowledge does not stop either one of them.

God can start the second coming on Tuesday OR on Monday (this is NOTHING to do with his NATURE) - he can choose EITHER day freely.

The fact that He KNOWS He will choose Tuesday DOES NOT limit his choice or stop His free will to select MONDAY!

The point was already made "repeatedly".

The fact that He KNOWS it does not limit His free will to select the day after or the day before.

you seem to get lost on this point "repeatedly".

God has free will. Period.

The second coming or TUESDAY or on MONDAY has NOTHING to do with "the nature of God".

It could not "be" any easier, any more obvious, any simpler.

The calvinist argument about "nature" has been debunked on this thread a couple of times already - I fail to see how it could be revived again.

In Christ,

Bob