The Freedom of the Will

[psalms109:31]

When our will does not add up to His will according to His word. It is time to deny our will and take on His will. Fasting teaches how to fight our will. It was a way to prepare us. The problem was that man would clean the outside and make a nice presentation for the world to see but on the inside wicked as the worst sinner.

Our emotion has nothing to do with the will it is a part of our conscience the law written on the heart. To see someone dying on the side of the road to help them out. Emotion is only bad when it goes against the word of God.

Jesus had compassion on the multitude seeing them as sheep without a Shepard. He got angry when people was miss using the house of worship and repentance. Taking advantage by saying people was not bringing in their best buy their's.

I brought in the best I had Jesus Christ . Does anyone want to say mine is not good enough and turn me away and or sell me something better? Have you tried to do that?

 

[Winman]

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.

Yes, I have the ability to obey God, and so do you. Tell me one sin that you HAD to commit EVER. If you are honest you will admit that you never HAD to sin, even once.

I have probably told thousands of lies in my life, but I could have always told the truth, each and every time. The same is true of all other sin I have committed. If I took too long on break at work, which is really stealing when it comes down to it, I did not have to, I could have gone back to work on time. If I talked back to my parents or disobeyed them, it was because I chose to, not because I was irresistibly compelled to, I could have obeyed them.

You are simply making excuse for your sin. When you say you were born a sinner that MUST sin, all you are doing is blaming God for your sinfulness instead of taking responsibility for your own choices.

If Total Depravity is true, then every pervert or homosexual has the perfect excuse, they can claim they were born that way. And in fact, that is exactly what many of them claim. If your doctrine is correct, then their claim is true.

The fact that I have sinned many hundreds or thousands of times does not prove I was unable to do the right thing. Any truly honest person will admit they could have always done the right thing.

Note that I said HONEST person. :thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

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

So now you make a joke about whether God can lie or not? Only on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Are you serious? Such a flippant jesting about God like that is DISGUSTING and downright blasphemous.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, I have the ability to obey God, and so do you. Tell me one sin that you HAD to commit EVER. If you are honest you will admit that you never HAD to sin, even once.

I have probably told thousands of lies in my life, but I could have always told the truth, each and every time. The same is true of all other sin I have committed. If I took too long on break at work, which is really stealing when it comes down to it, I did not have to, I could have gone back to work on time. If I talked back to my parents or disobeyed them, it was because I chose to, not because I was irresistibly compelled to, I could have obeyed them.

You are simply making excuse for your sin. When you say you were born a sinner that MUST sin, all you are doing is blaming God for your sinfulness instead of taking responsibility for your own choices.

If Total Depravity is true, then every pervert or homosexual has the perfect excuse, they can claim they were born that way. And in fact, that is exactly what many of them claim. If your doctrine is correct, then their claim is true.

The fact that I have sinned many hundreds or thousands of times does not prove I was unable to do the right thing. Any truly honest person will admit they could have always done the right thing.

Note that I said HONEST person. :thumbs:

Nobody is born pure...no not one. Everyone is deceiptful, filthy and full of sin. That is our fallen nature. Sure you can claim you have a choise...but that is a choise contrary to your natural human nature (and that is to sin). And in truth. I still miss it sometimes. Its a lot harder to be good than to be basking in our sins each day.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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

There is also Scripture which states that he not only CAN do it but also DOES do it:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: <---notice they DO it, "by nature" too.

 

[Aaron]

and there is nothing in him that is condusive to promote any choice to sin.

Scripture please

Jesus said the same thing of himself. The divine nature is INCAPABLE of sin due to the character of the divine nature.

Incapable based on what? Scripture does not specify

A clear illustration of the misapprehension of the concept of freedom. The noncalvinist looks at corruptibility as a liberty and a power. They think of the "power to sin" and the "freedom" to disobey, when from God's point view, as the Scriptures well attest, sin is a weakening and disobedience a bondage.

They think of God in terms of a man. A man exists in a universe vastly greater than himself, and he is judged by the laws that are greater than he is and that govern the universe. But what is greater than God that can encompass Him? If He does a thing, who can say it is ungodly or unrighteous?

And so the argument is ever and anon, Why doth He yet find fault?

Freedom = slavery to Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A clear illustration of the misapprehension of the concept of freedom. The noncalvinist looks at corruptibility as a liberty and a power. They think of the "power to sin" and the "freedom" to disobey, when from God's point view, as the Scriptures well attest, sin is a weakening and disobedience a bondage.

They think of God in terms of a man. A man exists in a universe vastly greater than himself, and he is judged by the laws that are greater than he is and that govern the universe. But what is greater than God that can encompass Him? If He does a thing, who can say it is ungodly or unrighteous?

And so the argument is ever and anon, Why doth He yet find fault?

Freedom = slavery to Christ.

Good post:thumbs:

 

[kyredneck]

..."irresistible grace."

John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles.

 

[Inspector Javert]

If He does a thing, who can say it is ungodly or unrighteous?

HE CAN.

And there are some things which are inherently "un-godly" such as to lie or to be capricious, un-just or un-faithful. Thus, to know this, is to know un-equivocally that it is not possible for God to do certain things, and that he never would or will.

Therefore, one can know certain things in certain Theologies are aberrant if they would require God to act in a way which HE has already said are "ungodly" or "unrighteous".
HE has revealed certain things about himself in primarily (and only in subjection to) the Scriptures and subsequently in Natural Theology and the normative Universal consciences of men and we can know that he does not and cannot do them.

Thus, in some sense we can "judge" certain propositions about whether God would or would not be "just" to do certain things. It isn't judging "HIM"...it is judging certain actions which we know that he would not and could not perform.

Ever and anon the Calvinist confuses this with men "judging God" rather than "judging" an aberrant Theology in accordance with what God has already revealed to us in Scripture is impossible for him to do.

 

[DrJamesAch]

HE CAN.

And there are some things which are inherently "un-godly" such as to lie or to be capricious, un-just or un-faithful. Thus, to know this, is to know un-equivocally that it is not possible for God to do certain things, and that he never would or will.

Therefore, one can know certain things in certain Theologies are aberrant if they would require God to act in a way which HE has already said are "ungodly" or "unrighteous".
HE has revealed certain things about himself in primarily (and only in subjection to) the Scriptures and subsequently in Natural Theology and the normative Universal consciences of men and we can know that he does not and cannot do them.

Thus, in some sense we can "judge" certain propositions about whether God would or would not be "just" to do certain things. It isn't judging "HIM"...it is judging certain actions which we know that he would not and could not perform.



Ever and anon the Calvinist confuses this with men "judging God" rather than "judging" an aberrant Theology in accordance with what God has already revealed to us in Scripture is impossible for him to do.

The question for the opposition is that since God can not think evil or sinful, then who writes the software for the wills that are programmed to determine the unbeliever's perpetual sinfulness?

Seems to me that when God made the world, He saw everything that He made and it was good. Yet if God makes the will that is determined to do evil, then He made something that is not good. To be deterministically evil, it can not be said that God simply created a will that had the inability to not choose good, He MUST create a will that chooses only evil. That means God created something that is not good, but since all creation was based on the infinite mind of God, there would have to exist some evil in God's mind in order for the concept of evil to have an origin that precedes the will.

 

[Aaron]

Incapable based on what?

On the fact of His incorruptibility.

Scripture does not specify

Yes it does.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I have the ability to obey God, and so do you.

Either you did not understand what I said, or did not read it carefully, or you are simply being deceptive. You do not have the ability to be perfect, sinless and yet that is your responsibility "Be ye therefore PERECT even as your Father in heaven IS PERFECT" and "Be ye holy EVEN AS I am holy." If you think you CAN you are decieved according to John (1 Jn. 1:8-10). But that is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Tell me one sin that you HAD to commit EVER. If you are honest you will admit that you never HAD to sin, even once.

Do you know the difference between sins of commission (which you are speaking about) and the sins of omission - failing to measure up to SINLESSNESS AT ALL TIMES - Rom. 3:23???? Apparently not or you would not even be asking this lame question.

You always have the presence of indwelling sin - "the law of sin" abiding in YOUR PERSON. Sin consists of "evil thoughts" regardless of those thoughts are ever expressed by actions (Mt. 15:19). Sin consists of the wrong MOTIVE for anything you do (1 Cor. 10:31). Go learn the meaning of sin as your whole response is about one aspect of sin - sin of commission. That is exactly how the Scribes and Pharisees defined sin as well (Mt. 5:20-46).

 

[The Biblicist]

John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles.

Are you saying this is the norm? Your last example is erroneous. Paul was not separated from his mother's womb to preach. That is not what the text says. It only says that the same God who was pleased to separate him from his mother's womb is the same God who was pleased to reveal Christ in him when He called him to preach the gospel. Where does it say that Isaac was born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning? Why not mention that Christ was virign born also since you are taking the miraculous and abnormal and presenting them as the norm???

 

[Aaron]

HE CAN.

And there are some things which are inherently "un-godly" such as to lie or to be capricious, un-just or un-faithful. Thus, to know this, is to know un-equivocally that it is not possible for God to do certain things, and that he never would or will.

Therefore, one can know certain things in certain Theologies are aberrant if they would require God to act in a way which HE has already said are "ungodly" or "unrighteous".
HE has revealed certain things about himself in primarily (and only in subjection to) the Scriptures and subsequently in Natural Theology and the normative Universal consciences of men and we can know that he does not and cannot do them.

Thus, in some sense we can "judge" certain propositions about whether God would or would not be "just" to do certain things. It isn't judging "HIM"...it is judging certain actions which we know that he would not and could not perform.

Ever and anon the Calvinist confuses this with men "judging God" rather than "judging" an aberrant Theology in accordance with what God has already revealed to us in Scripture is impossible for him to do.

If a potter creates a vessel from which to eat, and a vessel in which to poop, what wrong has he done?

If God chooses one upon which to show mercy, and another to harden, what wrong has He done? He owns them both. Each exists according His will.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The question for the opposition is that since God can not think evil or sinful, then who writes the software for the wills that are programmed to determine the unbeliever's perpetual sinfulness?

Seems to me that when God made the world, He saw everything that He made and it was good. Yet if God makes the will that is determined to do evil, then He made something that is not good. To be deterministically evil, it can not be said that God simply created a will that had the inability to not choose good, He MUST create a will that chooses only evil. That means God created something that is not good, but since all creation was based on the infinite mind of God, there would have to exist some evil in God's mind in order for the concept of evil to have an origin that precedes the will.

Precisely :thumbsup: The "compatibilist" explanation such as is proffered by most modern Calvinists and the O.P. only pushes the conundrum one step farther. It was GOD who decided that man would be "born" with those irresistibly evil desires in their wanton hearts, so it still fails to escape the accusation that God is ultimately responsible for sin and evil.

You can blame "Adam's fall"....but, that only works if it is somehow inevitable that all subsequent humans would necessarily have to be born with that inherited nature (programming).

Thus, either God could not CONTROL that inevitable result (which makes him not at all Omnipotent) or he CHOSE to impart that wicked programming on all subsequent humans. (which makes him the author of sin).

Frankly....(and this is my possibly mistaken opinion) this is sheer Manicheanism reborn.... Matter itself is somehow inherently "evil", and God must do something about it. Hence all the ideas of Christ's having of necessity to be born of a virgin due to the inherent "evil-ness" of man's physical seed etc...

The compatibilist explanation is valuable only insofar as it pushes the problem ahead by precisely one step.

 

[Aaron]

The question for the opposition is that since God can not think evil or sinful, then who writes the software for the wills that are programmed to determine the unbeliever's perpetual sinfulness?

Seems to me that when God made the world, He saw everything that He made and it was good. Yet if God makes the will that is determined to do evil, then He made something that is not good. To be deterministically evil, it can not be said that God simply created a will that had the inability to not choose good, He MUST create a will that chooses only evil. That means God created something that is not good, but since all creation was based on the infinite mind of God, there would have to exist some evil in God's mind in order for the concept of evil to have an origin that precedes the will.

God made all things good, but not incorruptible.

 

[Inspector Javert]

If a potter creates a vessel from which to eat, and a vessel in which to poop, what wrong has he done?

None, none whatsoever. And you are right to understand this. But that isn't the question. The question is, if a potter has already told you that he never would make a vessel sheerly with the intent to poop in it, because it simply isn't his style or what-not do you believe him?

Thus, if someone later sees a vessel that the potter has subsequently pooped in, and declares to you that that was the potter's initial purpose for that vessel, than it would be incumbent upon you to explain to them that that is not possible since the potter has explained that that was not his initial intent for ANY of the vessels he made.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God made all things good, but not incorruptible.

Only till the fall.

 

[InTheLight]

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

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,

Bumping, as there has been no response.

 

[The Biblicist]

It was GOD who decided that man would be "born" with those irresistibly evil desires in their wanton hearts, so it still fails to escape the accusation that God is ultimately responsible for sin and evil..

Think through what you are saying! First, is God omniscient? Yes! Therefore did God create man KNOWING he would fall into sin and all the consequences of sin that would follow? Yes! Did he therefore purposely determiined to create man anyway? What is your answer?

Second, Does the creation of an unfallen condition of moral choice necessitate the option of sin? Yes! Did God know this before creating such beings? Yes! Did God purpose to do it anyway KNOWING the full consequences? What is your answer?

Third, is not the creation of a faculty that is enabled by God to choose sin implicate God as the author of sin INDIRECTLY but without responsibility for that choice since He created man to be responsible for that choice? What is your answer?

Therefore did not the OMNICIENT God purposely create man with full knowlege of the fall and all its consequences? How is sin not part of God's eternal purpose then at least by PERMISSION? - Psa. 76:10! Does not God "work ALL things" or merely SOME things for the ultimate Good of His people and His glory, even Sin????