The Freedom of the Will

[The Biblicist]

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.

For example.......???? If I failed to answer any objection you have made I am unaware of it. Be more than happy to respond with Scripture and then deductive logic based upon that scripture. So just point out an example and we can continue where we left off. :jesus:

 

[Winman]

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.

LOL, the definition of responsible is "ABLE to respond". No one can be responsible unless they have ABILITY.

Of course, being the good Calvinist you are, you will now redefine the definition of the word responsible. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Ok, throw out the logical explanation which you admit is your explanation based on scripture. What scripture states clearly and explicitly that the unregenerated nature = fallen man - is enabled to choose righteousenss.

Gentlemen, I have to go take care of some personal business and may be away from the computer for a few hours. Don't let my silence during this time be intepreted as dodging any questions.

 

[InTheLight]

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

Present evidence? You did no such thing. You said:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
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.

That is a statement that you made with no references cited, no independent corroboration. When you build a case on a false premise, the thread deserves to be derailed. The Five Articles of Remonstrance, says,

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ,

 

[MB]

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.

A Catholic priest must have told you this, but with out God in it all you can do is come up with your own assumptions. Spiritual things must be understood by the spirit. That's what understanding it spiritually means.

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 exhortation

Never said I did operate in the Spirit all the time. You ever here of waitng on God.

(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.

No power! then why did Paul instruct us to buffet the body or flesh to train it up. Our power isn't from us but from God. I understand that that as long as I have faith all I have to do is ask and it will be done. I have asked and it was done. God gives me understanding.

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.

I have studied it very closely and you do not understand. To say Paul had no will is pure nonsense. He had the will to buffet the body and bring it under submission by the help of God. He had the will to train it up by the help of God. Just read the rest of romans instead of only a few scriptures. In the dependence of God we don't have to He will do it for us but we must be willing.
Jonah wasn't willing for a time but God corrected him on that didn't He.
MB

 

[DrJamesAch]

LOL, the definition of responsible is "ABLE to respond". No one can be responsible unless they have ABILITY.

Of course, being the good Calvinist you are, you will now redefine the definition of the word responsible. :laugh:

Or "you don't understand the word 'define'"

 

[DrJamesAch]

Present evidence? You did no such thing. You said:



That is a statement that you made with no references cited, no independent corroboration. When you build a case on a false premise, the thread deserves to be derailed. The Five Articles of Remonstrance, says,

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ,

I think that's the first time on this board I've seen anyone cite the Remonstrance. You would think with as many "Arminians" as are supposed to be on here, that would be quoted as much as the Westminster.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL, the definition of responsible is "ABLE to respond". No one can be responsible unless they have ABILITY.

Of course, being the good Calvinist you are, you will now redefine the definition of the word responsible. :laugh:

Yes, fallen man is responsible for losing their ability to be and to do good. Your arguement is with Christ (Mt. 19:17) and Paul (Rom. 3:10-12; 8:7-8) not with me. Yet without that ability they are accountable to obey the Law of God in EVERY POINT but are unable because they are responsible for losing that ability. Indeed, you are responsible to obey EVERY POINT of God's law as to fail in one point is to fail in ALL points. Tell me, do you have that ability to responsibly obey EVERY POINT without failing ONE POINT. If you cannot say yes, don't talk to me about responsibility equals ability.

 

[DrJamesAch]

If mans will was determined to be evil, then he could never act otherwise while in his depraved state, and therefore would be totally incapable much less totally unable to do any good at all. That fact is thoroughly refuted in the Bible. Acts 10:1-16, Matt 7:11, Rom 2:14-16, Eccl 7:29, Matt 5:45.

Furthermore, you can not claim that man has a determined will to sin, and also at the same time, a determined will that is changed at some future date when grace is imposed on the sinner. That is an outright contradiction. If the elect sins prior to his salvation, then you have to say that he sins because he was determined to sin. But if he was determined to sin, then his nature could never be otherwise, not even salvation could change that otherwise you can never say that his sin nature even prior to salvation was "determined".

Romans 8:7 is not about strictly about salvation. It is about pleasing God, and not being able to do so in the flesh. That is the entire context of Romans ch 7 in which Paul clearly shows that his WILL does not always determine his actions in the very verse that you cited in support of your assumption.

If you think that this passage is about salvation, then you would have to admit that salvation is by works and mortifying the deeds of the body according verse 13.

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

 

[The Biblicist]

A Catholic priest must have told you this, but with out God in it all you can do is come up with your own assumptions. Spiritual things must be understood by the spirit. That's what understanding it spiritually means.

Look, we have a huge impasse between us in regard to handling the word of God. I do not doubt the Holy Spirit gives understanding but he does not do it apart from responsible study of God's Word and God is not the author of confusion and therefore no interpretation of any text will contradict the immediate context in which it is found. If it does, then you are following the wrong spirit and have the wrong feeling as the objective Word of God is the final authority - Isa. 8:20 not your feelings.

Never said I did operate in the Spirit all the time. You ever here of waitng on God.

You ever hear "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

No power! then why did Paul instruct us to buffet the body or flesh to train it up. Our power isn't from us but from God.

My point exactly - You have no "will power" to serve God as any will empowered to serve God does not come from either your fallen nature or your regenerate nature but from the indwelling Person of the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

If mans will was determined to be evil, then he could never act otherwise while in his depraved state, and therefore would be totally incapable much less totally unable to do any good at all. That fact is thoroughly refuted in the Bible. Acts 10:1-16, Matt 7:11, Rom 2:14-16, Eccl 7:29, Matt 5:45.

Fallen man IS evil and CANNOT do good and that speaks directly of the will - Rom. 3:10-12; 8:7-8; Mt. 19:17. Fallen Man is DETERMINED to do evil and that is precisely what Romans 8:7 says as the "carnal mind" represents one Greek term that refers to the MIND SET or the WILL IN MOTION. "neither indeed CAN be" refers to ability.

Every scripture you cite above is jerked out of context. You confuse accountability to do good with ability to do good. You confuse "good" in the sight of men and "good" in the sight of God (Mt. 5:20, 46) which demands you do not sin as to break ONE POINT of God's law is to break EVERY POINT and "good" in God's judicial sight is breaking NO POINTS of the Law as anything less is a SINNER! Tell me are you RESPONSIBLE to keep God's Laws at least ONE POINT? Do you have the ability to keep EVERY POINT because that is what is demanded to keep ONE POINT. Hence, there is none good but one and that is God. Hence, the standard is "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is PERFECT" - that is the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees and all other religious men (Mt. 5:20, 46). There is NONE intrinsically good ("agathos" - Mt. 19:16-17). So don't confuse ability with responsibility to be and do "good" in God's sight with "good" in the sight of men.

Furthermore, you can not claim that man has a determined will to sin, and also at the same time, a determined will that is changed at some future date when grace is imposed on the sinner.

First your sentence is irrational as "same time" and "some future date" are not possible as one precedes the other or else it would not be at some "FUTURE" date.

Second, The determined will to sin does not change at all in the unregerate nature before or after new birth. The "law of" indwelling sin that resides in the flesh represents the "old" man or the unregnerate nature in the child of God and it is jsut as resistant to good and God has it has ever been and you have no will power in either nature, fallen or regenerate to overcome it. You must find the power not IN YOU but in the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 7:18) as without the Spirit of Christ "you can do NOTHING" and thus your will is powerless. That is why it is God that must work IN the child of God "TO WILL" - Philip. 2:13 or don't you realize that by your own experience or are you still in Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16?????

That is an outright contradiction. If the elect sins prior to his salvation, then you have to say that he sins because he was determined to sin. But if he was determined to sin, then his nature could never be otherwise, not even salvation could change that otherwise you can never say that his sin nature even prior to salvation was "determined"

Ah, you are now thinking in the right direction. The unregenerate nature before salvation could do nothing but sin and was determined to do nothing but sin and it is equally so AFTER salvation as the unregenerate nature has not changed one iota and must destroyed in death. God looks at the intent of the heart and the unregenerate heart is evil and it is from that kind of heart because the "old" heart "proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" that is why one first make the tree good before the fruit can be made good becuase the fruits are the product of the heart not vice versa as your doctrine teaches.

Romans 8:7 is not about strictly about salvation. It is about pleasing God, and not being able to do so in the flesh. That is the entire context of Romans ch 7 in which Paul clearly shows that his WILL does not always determine his actions in the very verse that you cited in support of your assumption.

You are right, it is about the old nature which the saved man still possesses and which the lost man has nothing but - LOOK AT VERSES 8-9 and you will see it refers to the unregenerate state as well. In verses 8-9 to be "in the flesh" means a lost condition without the indwelling Spirit of God.

If you think that this passage is about salvation, then you would have to admit that salvation is by works and mortifying the deeds of the body according verse 13.

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

No, it is a truth applicable to the unregenerate nature in the lost and in the saved both equally as salvation does not alter the unregenerated nature at all - it still is at enmity toward God and not subject but in active resistance all the time and always whether in the lost man or the saved man and the only answer is death. Only PHYSICAL death will destroy in the saved man but in the mean time he must mortify it - put it to death NOT BY HIS WILL POWER but by the power of the INDWELLING SPIRIT OF GOD by first admitting he has no will power to defeat it and then yeild to the power of the indwelling Spirit of God - that is walking in the Spirit.

 

[Herald]

Hebrews 6:18 states:

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.

The author of Hebrews makes a dogmatic statement: "it is impossible for God to lie".

Impossible does not mean lack of ability. God has the ability - the power, if you will - to do anything. Why is it impossible for God to lie? Because He has decreed it? No. The text does not say that. It is impossible for God to lie because it is contrary to His nature.

Scripture refers to God as thrice holy in Revelation 4:8:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

God the Father is set apart from His creation by the very fact that He is God. That is the reason the Son of God condescended to take on human flesh (Philippians 2:5-8).

God's holiness makes sin an impossibility. If God is holy, it is impossible for Him to become unholy.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not;

 

[The Biblicist]

Hebrews 6:18 states:



The author of Hebrews makes a dogmatic statement: "it is impossible for God to lie".

Impossible does not mean lack of ability. God has the ability - the power, if you will - to do anything. Why is it impossible for God to lie? Because He has decreed it? No. The text does not say that. It is impossible for God to lie because it is contrary to His nature.

Scripture refers to God as thrice holy in Revelation 4:8:



God the Father is set apart from His creation by the very fact that He is God. That is the reason the Son of God condescended to take on human flesh (Philippians 2:5-8).

God's holiness makes sin an impossibility. If God is holy, it is impossible for Him to become unholy.

Amen!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Hebrews 6:18 states:



The author of Hebrews makes a dogmatic statement: "it is impossible for God to lie".

Impossible does not mean lack of ability. God has the ability - the power, if you will - to do anything. Why is it impossible for God to lie? Because He has decreed it? No. The text does not say that. It is impossible for God to lie because it is contrary to His nature.

Scripture refers to God as thrice holy in Revelation 4:8:



God the Father is set apart from His creation by the very fact that He is God. That is the reason the Son of God condescended to take on human flesh (Philippians 2:5-8).

God's holiness makes sin an impossibility. If God is holy, it is impossible for Him to become unholy.

This is a failure to see why God can not lie. It is impossible because it is not IN His nature. God can not what is not in His nature to do. Therefore he can not choose to do something that is not an available option.

For the sinner, the sinner does have a fallen nature. No Non Calvinist disputes that. But we have options that God doesn't have where it comes to lying. If man did not have libertarian will between the options and merely does so because it was determined to do so, then that means mans nature did not originate from sin, but from an eternally existent concept of sin that would logically have to mean God. Only the libertarian view of sin and the fall of Adam can explain the origin of sin without ascribing the nature and cause of sin to God.

 

[RLBosley]

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

I agree with this. However I am still not a Calvinist and don't believe that this necessitates "irresistible grace."

 

[The Biblicist]

This is a failure to see why God can not lie. It is impossible because it is not IN His nature.

Precisely and that is why he cannot do it because it is contrary to WHAT HE IS by nature even though he has the power of choice. Likewise the fallen nature of man - he cannot choose contrary to WHAT HE IS by nature.

God can not what is not in His nature to do. Therefore he can not choose to do something that is not an available option.

Precisely and neither can man due to his fallen nature as his nature is at war with God and not subject to His will - the law and "neither indeed can be". Just carry it though consistently from what you conclude about God's nature to man's nature. God's nature is intrinsically holy while man's nature is without instrinsic goodness and is unholy (Mt. 19:17).

For the sinner, the sinner does have a fallen nature.

Carry it through consistently! Does God only "have" an unfallen nature in addition to some other nature???? No! Man does not "have" an unfallen nature in addition to some other kind of nature but that is what HE IS by nature just as holiness is what GOD IS by nature. Man IS unholy by nature - the fallen nature - THE ONLY NATURE HE POSSESES as that is what HE IS by nature.

No Non Calvinist disputes that. But we have options that God doesn't have where it comes to lying.

Paul denies that fallen man has such options:

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


You say there are some, and Paul says there are none. Who shall we believe? Paul is not talking about saved people but the lost condition of man - read on.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with this. However I am still not a Calvinist and don't believe that this necessitates "irresistible grace."

Well brother, I am not in the buisness or have the ability to change anyone to believe anything. Just read the debate and comment where you will.

 

[saturneptune]

This is a failure to see why God can not lie. It is impossible because it is not IN His nature. God can not what is not in His nature to do. Therefore he can not choose to do something that is not an available option.

For the sinner, the sinner does have a fallen nature. No Non Calvinist disputes that. But we have options that God doesn't have where it comes to lying. If man did not have libertarian will between the options and merely does so because it was determined to do so, then that means mans nature did not originate from sin, but from an eternally existent concept of sin that would logically have to mean God. Only the libertarian view of sin and the fall of Adam can explain the origin of sin without ascribing the nature and cause of sin to God.

Man's free will without God is bounded by unrighteousness. God's options, as you put it, are within the realm of Holiness and attributes He Himself sets. What do you think Romans 3:10 means? Your simpleton theory that man has a divine spark without the intervention of God sounds just like you. Everything is infected by sin, earth, man, nature, etc.

Say, I did have a question about your icon. Are you in some type of weekend boy scouts that has paintball wars?

 

[convicted1]

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




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

Titus 1:2 states this:

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Apostle Paul was under the Spirit's inspiration, so I'll take Paul's word for it. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

It doesn't state God can sin and just chooses not to, but that God can not lie. How much plainer can it get than that?

 

[saturneptune]

It doesn't state God can sin and just chooses not to, but that God can not lie. How much plainer can it get than that?

But that is only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and inside the WV borders.