The Freedom of the Will

[The Biblicist]

You just don't seem to understand what human freewill is.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but whether you are correct or not is another question.

It is not limited to a sin nature actually there is no such thing in scripture.

You must interpet Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16 to something else then? You must deny "the law" of indwelling sin within a Christian then? You must deny the words "neither indeed CAN be" in Romans 8:7 concerning the unregenerated or those "in the flesh" without the Spirit then (Rom. 8:8-9). If that is the case then there can be no further discusion with you as it is impossible to reason with a person who takes such a position concerning the nature of the will within the fallen man.

I will admit that all men from Adam on down have or had a propensity towards sin.

The pre-fallen Adam had no such propensity as he was created "upright" and of Lucifer it is said that sin was "found in him." The propensity to sin only is derived from the "law of" indwelling sin in the fallen nature and from no other source.

Only we have control over our desires other wise sin is not sin with out the choice to commit it.

Not according to Paul's words in Romans 7:18 concerning his will. Not according to Paul's words in Romans 8:7.

What a statement God has no control !. The truth is there is nothing impossible with my God. Because He does not choose to sin does not mean He can't if He so desired.

What determines his desires? His will? OR his Holy Nature???? Does the will control the nature or does the nature control the will? Where does your "want to" originate within you? From abstract "will" or from "intent and thoughts of the heart? Where does Jesus say all sin originates in Matthew 15? From the will or from the heart? The will is the slave of the heart not vice versa and this is true in God as much as in man.

Then why not the opposite when we are saved? We have a new nature. We have been regenerated by the power of God. We are in effect in bondage to Christ but we can still sin. Maybe this bondage to sin you talk about doesn't have full control over us.

Have you read Philippians 2:12 or Romans 7:18? Both refer to the born again man of God and his power of will or choice. Read them.

Absolute nonsense. Men have been making choices for good since the beginning. It's your blindness to the truth that is your stumbling block.

According to Paul no man has chosen to do good in an unregnerated state in God's estimation or sight - Rom. 3:10-12

According to Christ no lost man chooses "good" indeed, no man is good but God in regard to intrinsic nature - Mt. 19:17 Take a look at the Greek term translated "good" (agathos) and you will see it means intrinsic or inherent good.

 

[The Biblicist]

And thanks for proving my point and why these discussion go the way the go.

If I had merely charged your arguments as being irrational, that is one thing. However, if I charged your arguments as being irrational AND provided reasons for that charge, that is quite another thing. You must first deal with my evidence for that charge and show why that is wrong. HOwever, instead of dealing with the evidence presented you jumped to charge me with being ungracious for making the charge and completely ignored the reasons given for that charge.

According to your logic no one could ever charge your position and explanations as being irrational regardless of the evidence as you are not interested in any evidence but only in protecting your ego. Swallow your ego and look at the evidence and provide reasons why my estimation is wrong.

 

[MB]

^^^Uhhhhhhh, MB, Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4, "God, who CAN NOT lie".....and lying is a sin.

God Does not lie because he has chosen not to. Not because a woman said He could not.

God can not sin and never has had that ability.

If so; Then it isn't true that all things are possible with God. But then if you think about it. God does not sin because he has no rules that govern Him. A supreme God follows His own will. He is no more under the Law that leads us to Him. Than we are once we are indwelt by Him.
MB

 

[InTheLight]

Those who oppose irresistable grace view the will as capable and independent from the mental and emotional fallen nature of man. They somehow imagine that the will is not in the same bondage of sin as the human heart (mind/emotions). They imagine that somehow the human will is freed from the mind and emotional bondage to sin and acts independent of both by prevenient grace and thus acts as an independent entity/agency from fallen human nature.

Here we go again...

See point #1 at link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2009038&postcount=4

 

[Revmitchell]

Swallow your ego and look at the evidence and provide reasons why my estimation is wrong.

And I have done that. Of course in typical cal form all that will be ignored. And the pride is yours. Logic is not an argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

God Does not lie because he has chosen not to. Not because a woman said He could not.

Convicted1 can answer for himself but it was not the woman who said that! It is the prophetic Word that said that. That being the case, do you think the Spirit lied or is it possible for God to lie? That is your choice!

If so; Then it isn't true that all things are possible with God. But then if you think about it. God does not sin because he has no rules that govern Him. A supreme God follows His own will. He is no more under the Law that leads us to Him. Than we are once we are indwelt by Him.
MB

The law is called "the righteousness of God" because it is a revelation of His own nature which is holy. The law's standard of righteousness is derived from God's own heart. Love is the principle that sums up all the Law and is the expression of God's own nature for God IS love and God IS holy and they are inseparable. Hence, the law is a revelation of the moral nature of God in principle. Therefore it is erroneous to say has no rules that govern Himself as the law of God is "of God" and reveals how His moral nature operates and gives meaning to the words choliness" and "righteousness." Apart from the revealed law "of God" those words are empty of meaning.

Remember, I am talking about the eternal PRINICPLE that undergirds all of God's revealed commandments not their particular form or application. Do you know the difference? The principle is "love" and love is doing what is right toward self and others. The Father loves the Son and that love is made manifest by his attitude and actions toward the Son and vice versa and the very same principle is applied to men and their relationship with each other and toward God. The law defines sin and righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I have done that. Of course in typical cal form all that will be ignored. And the pride is yours. Logic is not an argument.

We are simply going around and around. Let's agree to disagree and go on. If you have some biblical based objections that deductive logic can be based upon then have at it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here we go again...

See point #1 at link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2009038&postcount=4

When evidence is provided to demonstrate the reasonability for the charge that is another story. I did provide evidence - deal with the evidence rather than attempt to derail the thread by this nonsense. Your response and reaction is the norm from those who cannot deal with evidence. You want to make it a personal issue, an emotional charged issue. Please, get back to the OP

 

[The Biblicist]

I hate the name "Calvinist" but unfortunately that is the theological tag that many place on me. My position on the will is that it is not an agency independent of the divine or human nature. It is merely the servant of the intellectual and emotional aspect of human nature. The freedom of the will consists in the fact that no external coercion determines choice but it is the expression of internal coersion of mind or feelings.

Furthermore, God does not have an absolute free will as God cannot choose to sin, to lie, to create another everlasting God as these things are contrary to His own nature and/or illogical. God's will is the expression of His nature and can never express anything contrary to His own nature.

The same is true of fallen man. The will is in bondage to the fallen sinful nature not due to any external coercion but due to internal coersion of the law of indwelling sin (Rom. 7:18; 8:7; etc.).

God according to His nature freely chooses whatever HE WANTS but His "wants" are determined by his righteous nature.

Man according to his nature freely chooses whatever HE WANTS but his "wants" are determined by his sinful nature.

Neither has a will that can act independent of their own nature at any time as that would be the creation of a differnt entity distinct from their own being as their nature defines their being.

Therefore, fallen man freely chooses to always resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) because that is the dictates of his fallen nature. That is why a person "must be born again" as the fallen nature NEVER will choose to love or obey God's will (Rom. 8:7) without being given a NEW HEART (new man, new want to, new thinking and emotions and thus a new will) - Ezek. 36:26-27

Back on track! There is no biblical basis to presume that the unregenerated state is placed in some kind of neutralized state and the will is somehow released from its bondage to sin so that it can choose Christ.

Indeed, that ability is given by God to all who are taught by the Father and "every one" so taught does in fact come to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

 

[agedman]

God Does not lie because he has chosen not to. Not because a woman said He could not.

Try looking at Hebrews 6:

17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

​

If so; Then it isn't true that all things are possible with God. But then if you think about it. God does not sin because he has no rules that govern Him. A supreme God follows His own will. He is no more under the Law that leads us to Him. Than we are once we are indwelt by Him.
MB

That is the point MB.

God does follow His will - not a corrupt will, but one that is subject to HIS nature.

He is incapable of evil or any evil intent.

God's nature commands God's will and it is always in every way that which is righteous and holy.

Man's fallen nature demands man's fallen will and it is always and in every way that which is unrighteous and unholy.

Just as it is impossible for God to violate His nature and will to do that which is evil, it is impossible for heathen humankind to violate the fallen nature which drives their fallen will.

 

[agedman]

Back on track! There is no biblical basis to presume that the unregenerated state is placed in some kind of neutralized state and the will is somehow released from its bondage to sin so that it can choose Christ.

Indeed, that ability is given by God to all who are taught by the Father and "every one" so taught does in fact come to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

Would it be correct to assume that by this statement you refute the teaching of "prevenient or preceding grace" that many teach as an interim grace that allows freedom of acceptance or rejection of salvation?

 

[MB]

You certainly have a right to your opinion but whether you are correct or not is another question.

A question of my own freewill? Present it.

You must interpet Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16 to something else then?

I do not interpret scripture. I pray and ask God for the wisdom to understand it. To interpret it means I'd have to explain it to my self. To understand it is to know what God meant. When I read something in scripture I do not understand I ask the Lord for understanding and guidance. I depend on God for everything because I realize that men are only pleasing them selves when they do anything apart from God. Interpretation of scripture is just that , it's apart from God.

You must deny "the law" of indwelling sin within a Christian then?

Sin dwells with in my flesh but not with in my spirit. I agree with the Law spiritually just as Paul did. My flesh has not been regenerated as of yet. It dwells in your flesh as well.

You must deny the words "neither indeed CAN be" in Romans 8:7 concerning the unregenerated or those "in the flesh" without the Spirit then (Rom. 8:8-9).

Your trying to discern my faith based on Calvinism. The flesh can't understand the things of the spirit. But the spirit can and the spirit has never been disabled in any way that's just a bunch of Calvinism nonsense I call the doctrines of men.

If that is the case then there can be no further discusion with you as it is impossible to reason with a person who takes such a position concerning the nature of the will within the fallen man.

Of course not because you feel that you are right with you own ideas and interpretation,when you really don't have a clue.

The pre-fallen Adam had no such propensity as he was created "upright" and of Lucifer it is said that sin was "found in him." The propensity to sin only is derived from the "law of" indwelling sin in the fallen nature and from no other source.

If this were true we would all be living in paradise. Adam could not have sinned with out the likely hood to do so. Did God say;
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The underlined is Adams propensity to sin because God prophesied it.

Not according to Paul's words in Romans 7:18 concerning his will. Not according to Paul's words in Romans 8:7.

In verse 7:18 Paul is specifically speaking about the flesh. In verse 8:7 Paul is still speaking about the flesh. When Paul speaks about the dead spirit of man it is only a metaphor. The spirit of man quickens the flesh of man. If it were literally dead then so would be the man.

What determines his desires? His will? OR his Holy Nature???? Does the will control the nature or does the nature control the will? Where does your "want to" originate within you? From abstract "will" or from "intent and thoughts of the heart? Where does Jesus say all sin originates in Matthew 15? From the will or from the heart? The will is the slave of the heart not vice versa and this is true in God as much as in man.

The will can be influenced by God no matter how sinful. Are you telling me that God cannot influence man in spite of His sinfulness? Did you ever read about Pharaoh. How God harden Pharaoh's heart. If God can influence Pharaoh then He can influence any man.

Have you read Philippians 2:12 or Romans 7:18? Both refer to the born again man of God and his power of will or choice. Read them.

I read the Bible ever day and of course I've read them but what I haven't read there is your interpretation. It belongs to you not God

According to Paul no man has chosen to do good in an unregnerated state in God's estimation or sight - Rom. 3:10-12.

This passage is the rantings of a fool in the Psalms. Paul used it to show that man is sinfull. Not reprobate and unable to respond. This is what Calvinist claim but it just isn't there.

According to Christ no lost man chooses "good" indeed, no man is good but God in regard to intrinsic nature - Mt. 19:17 Take a look at the Greek term translated "good" (agathos) and you will see it means intrinsic or inherent good.

That is not what that verse says. Christ is telling the man there is no one good. Maybe you should go back and read this again. You are so busy interpreting it you lost the entire verse's meaning.
MB

 

[Winman]

Back on track! There is no biblical basis to presume that the unregenerated state is placed in some kind of neutralized state and the will is somehow released from its bondage to sin so that it can choose Christ.

Indeed, that ability is given by God to all who are taught by the Father and "every one" so taught does in fact come to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

There is indeed scripture that says an unregenerate man has the ability to obey God if he chooses.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

We know from 1 Jhn 3:12 that Cain was "of that wicked one" and lost, yet God himself said "IF" Cain were to do well he would be accepted.

This statement would be impossible if your doctrine is true. If Cain was not elect (and he wasn't), then it would be both impossible for him to do well, and he could not be accepted with God.

No, God clearly implied that Cain had the ability to do well, and God said if he did well he would be accepted which also refutes Unconditional Election.

There are no "ifs" in Calvinism, if you are not elect you cannot possibly do well and you cannot possibly be accepted, and if you are elect you must do well.

You can't go 4 chapters into the Bible before you see that unregenerate man has the ability to obey God if he chooses.

Actually, you can't go 3 chapters, Adam and Eve were lost when they sinned, yet they both obeyed God and came to him when he called.

Total Inability is false doctrine EASILY refuted by MUCH scripture.

 

[MB]

Convicted1 can answer for himself but it was not the woman who said that! It is the prophetic Word that said that. That being the case, do you think the Spirit lied or is it possible for God to lie? That is your choice!






The law is called "the righteousness of God" because it is a revelation of His own nature which is holy. The law's standard of righteousness is derived from God's own heart. Love is the principle that sums up all the Law and is the expression of God's own nature for God IS love and God IS holy and they are inseparable. Hence, the law is a revelation of the moral nature of God in principle. Therefore it is erroneous to say has no rules that govern Himself as the law of God is "of God" and reveals how His moral nature operates and gives meaning to the words choliness" and "righteousness." Apart from the revealed law "of God" those words are empty of meaning.

Remember, I am talking about the eternal PRINICPLE that undergirds all of God's revealed commandments not their particular form or application. Do you know the difference? The principle is "love" and love is doing what is right toward self and others. The Father loves the Son and that love is made manifest by his attitude and actions toward the Son and vice versa and the very same principle is applied to men and their relationship with each other and toward God. The law defines sin and righteousness.

You have a lot to say and none of it means a thing with out scripture to back it up and you haven't done that. What you have done is interpret it because you do not depend on God to give you understanding.
MB
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not interpret scripture. I pray and ask God for the wisdom to understand it. To interpret it means I'd have to explain it to my self. To understand it is to know what God meant. When I read something in scripture I do not understand I ask the Lord for understanding and guidance. I depend on God for everything because I realize that men are only pleasing them selves when they do anything apart from God. Interpretation of scripture is just that , it's apart from God.

So the command to "study to shew yourself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" is no command to you. The exhortation to compare "spiritual things with spiritual" is no command to you? So you believe that the Bible is nothing more than proof texts unrelated to each other and that context means nothing to you. No wonder you cannot understand the scriptures because you go on mere feelings and feelings not tested by scripture lead only to error - Isa. 8:20.

Sin dwells with in my flesh but not with in my spirit. I agree with the Law spiritually just as Paul did. My flesh has not been regenerated as of yet. It dwells in your flesh as well.

Corrrect! But you do not operate in the Spirt at all times or at least Paul didn't and the Galatians did not as they needed this exhoration (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:16-25). Again, read Romans 7:18 and you will see that the regenerated man has no "will" power over indwelling sin. The power comes from the indwelling Spirit of God not from your regenerated nature. Paul had a regenerated nature in Romans 7:18 but no will power in either his regenerate or unregenated natures. Go study this and then come back and we can take up the rest of your arguments as they all rest on this misunderstanding of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is indeed scripture that says an unregenerate man has the ability to obey God if he chooses.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

We know from 1 Jhn 3:12 that Cain was "of that wicked one" and lost, yet God himself said "IF" Cain were to do well he would be accepted.

This statement would be impossible if your doctrine is true. If Cain was not elect (and he wasn't), then it would be both impossible for him to do well, and he could not be accepted with God.

No, God clearly implied that Cain had the ability to do well, and God said if he did well he would be accepted which also refutes Unconditional Election.

There are no "ifs" in Calvinism, if you are not elect you cannot possibly do well and you cannot possibly be accepted, and if you are elect you must do well.

You can't go 4 chapters into the Bible before you see that unregenerate man has the ability to obey God if he chooses.

Actually, you can't go 3 chapters, Adam and Eve were lost when they sinned, yet they both obeyed God and came to him when he called.

Total Inability is false doctrine EASILY refuted by MUCH scripture.

You are confusing responsibility with ability. Fallen man is responsible for his sin but that does not mean he has ability to overcome it. Romans 7:18 and Gal. 5:16 clearly deny that even the regenerated man has such ability inherent in either his fallen or renewed nature. No reason for Philippians 2:13 if your position were true. Cain was a fallen man faced with his responsibility.

 

[Revmitchell]

We are simply going around and around. Let's agree to disagree and go on. If you have some biblical based objections that deductive logic can be based upon then have at it.

No I don't what I have is scripture. And I have presented it. You failed to refute it with scripture. You made this about your logic. I made my points with scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have a lot to say and none of it means a thing with out scripture to back it up and you haven't done that. What you have done is interpret it because you do not depend on God to give you understanding.
MB
MB

Romans 3:21-22; Mt. 7:12; Rom. 12:7-9; there are tons of scripture that teach every statement I made. I made the mistake of assuming you were aware of these basic truths. Sorry! From this point forward I will provide scripture to support every statement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Would it be correct to assume that by this statement you refute the teaching of "prevenient or preceding grace" that many teach as an interim grace that allows freedom of acceptance or rejection of salvation?

The prevenient grace argument simply has no biblical basis. It is an argument of deductive logic based upon presumptive assumptions that have no Biblical basis. The argument goes like this, If God commands all people to repent and believe then God must logically supply the ability for them to do so or else God is unjust. Hence, they blame sin and its consequences of inabiltity on God.

 

[Revmitchell]

The argument goes like this, If God commands all people to repent and believe then God must logically supply the ability for them to do so or else God is unjust. Hence, they blame sin and its consequences of inabiltity on God.

No not "hence" because we do not draw the same conclusion as you. So there is no "hence". We do not believe what you posted based on logic, we believe it because that is what scripture says.

Stick to scripture, throw out your logic and you will do much better.