The weak foundation of free will

[Helen]

johnp, would you please give us all an example of a human being (not Jesus) who was righteous legally and therefore did not need a Savior?

Thank you.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Helen.

johnp, you are missing the purpose of the law:
"Indeed, I would not have known what sin was except through the law." The law shows us what sin is. The point Jesus was making is that it is impossible for man to keep the law perfectly. So He did it. And that is one reason why it is only through Him we are saved.

You are not saying what they are saying. They claim to be able to live up to the law but you know better. I know what the law was for but nevertheless a man who lives it lives.
Your stuff about Pharaoh is lacking, " EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, `This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "

'So that' ends the disput doesn't it? No? Why not?

johnp, would you please give us all an example of a human being (not Jesus) who was righteous legally and therefore did not need a Savior?

Not one comes to mind. But if you ask Craig he might be able to point to some.

john.

 

[Helen]

EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, `This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "

Please note, John, that the prophecy as you quoted it has to do with the LAST plague.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

Actually, Craig, it was not beyond the law, but the foundation of it, or one of the two foundations: you shall love your neighbor as yoruself.

It was VERY much beyond the Law, and the fact that it was can be proven by thousands of verses in the Old Testament that allow for wealth in the midst of the poor. And, of course, the concept of selling all that you have and giving it to the poor is NOT an Old Testament concept of righteousness.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Helen.

Please note, John, that the prophecy as you quoted it has to do with the LAST plague.

But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

But that makes little difference if God hardened Pharaoh's heart just to kill the firstborn.

john.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Craig.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And please explain how, by quoting the New Testament, I am “denying Scripture.”

...and therefore even those who keep the Law need a savior... No one ever said that a Saviour is necessary for the righteous. Show the scripture. The righteous need no Saviour as God says He will forget the former sins if a man keeps the law. Simple as that. EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
Lev. 18:5. ‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.’ (NASB, 1995)

What do you mean? Why do you want to change 'a man will live' to 'a man will not live'? If a man follows God's law he will not die for the wages of sin is death and when one has no sin he cannot die as he has no wages.

We have an Abysmally ridiculous God then. Do you cede the point?

john. </font>[/QUOTE]I have already, in this very thread, addressed all of these issues and shown from the Bible that your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the very words of the Bible.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by johnp.:
I take it the two of us includes npetreley? It is an honour for me to be associated with him, I'm not so sure he would approve though.

I consider it an honor to be associated with you.

Thanks for following up on my challenge with great scripture references.

I'm not surprised Tim is having trouble typing. All that spinning is surely making him dizzy.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Your thought and logic cannot go outside the bounds of calvin's teaching.

Bzzzt. I can't speak for johnp, but I haven't even read any of Calvin's teaching. I learned election from the Bible first, and then read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will, which is based on scripture and confirmed my views.

Your premise is astonishingly scripture-free. Worse, your premise keeps changing in order to dodge those who point out the huge gaping holes.

You go from "If man is unable to respond to the Gospel, then why does God have to harden his heart?" ...to... "Man hardens his own heart, and when he has passed up his chance, God hardens it further."

I have ignored the plain scriptures that contradict you, such as "Whom He will He hardens", which has nothing to do with man hardening his own heart. I have tried to stay within your own moving target of a premise just to point out the fact that it contradicts other scriptures. But it gets nowhere because you refuse to address the issues I raise.

The contradiction is so obvious that I can't type it without chuckling.

1. If man has hardened his heart such that he has passed up his chance, then why does God have to harden it more?

2. If, having "passed his chance", man is still somehow able to respond to the Gospel, then God must be hardening his heart in order to prevent him from ever responding to the Gospel, as you originally stated. If this is so, then God is clearly willing that some perish, and is taking action to MAKE SURE men perish when He hardens their hearts. This contradicts the free willer's view of 2 Peter 3:9.

I know I keep saying these things over and over again, but that's because you never address them.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Men are born into the world with a free will. Some men, however, choose to be wicked and God, at His pleasure, sometimes gives these individuals over to a reprobate mind.

Rom. 1:28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (NASB, 1995)

We have no reason from Scripture to believe that even Pharaoh did not have a free will and the ability to respond to all that God asked of him. However, Pharaoh chose not to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people, and God gave him over to a reprobate mind. Did he, at that time lose the ability to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people? The Bible does not answer that question. Some individuals, who have dared to speak for God, have replied that Pharaoh did totally lose the ability to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people, but the Bible simply says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh refused to let the people go.

 

[npetreley]

So someone (other than Jesus) could observe the law perfectly and continually?

Galatians 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

If you are cursed if you do not continue to do EVERYTHING in the law, and if all who rely on observing the law are cursed, then it is obvious nobody has been able to continue to do everything written in the law. It's that simple.

As far as not being able to obey the law, the story of the rich young ruler refutes this. This man did obey the law, and he was not saved when he left Jesus.

No, the rich young man SAID he obeyed the law from his youth. The fact that he SAID he obeyed the law doesn't mean he actually did. I am certain that many (if not most) of the Pharisees would have said the same thing. I am certain Paul would have said the same thing, too. Later -- once Jesus had opened his eyes to it -- Paul admitted his sinful and depraved state.

 

[AresMan]

Originally posted by npetreley:
So someone (other than Jesus) could observe the law perfectly and continually?

Galatians 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

If you are cursed if you do not continue to do EVERYTHING in the law, and if all who rely on observing the law are cursed, then it is obvious nobody has been able to continue to do everything written in the law. It's that simple.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As far as not being able to obey the law, the story of the rich young ruler refutes this. This man did obey the law, and he was not saved when he left Jesus.

No, the rich young man SAID he obeyed the law from his youth. The fact that he SAID he obeyed the law doesn't mean he actually did. I am certain that many (if not most) of the Pharisees would have said the same thing. I am certain Paul would have said the same thing, too. Later -- once Jesus had opened his eyes to it -- Paul admitted his sinful and depraved state. </font>[/QUOTE]You shouldn't have to be a Calvinist to agree with just about everything said here. Amen!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by npetreley:
So someone (other than Jesus) could observe the law perfectly and continually?

That depends upon whether you believe John Calvin or the Bible. The Bible says,

Phil. 3:6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Originally posted by npetreley:
Galatians 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

If you are cursed if you do not continue to do EVERYTHING in the law, and if all who rely on observing the law are cursed, then it is obvious nobody has been able to continue to do everything written in the law. It's that simple.

The Bible does not say that if you are cursed you do not continue to do EVERYTHING in the law. The Bible says that “All who rely on observing the law [for righteousness] are under a curse” because the Law cannot save you from the curse of the guilt original sin.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As far as not being able to obey the law, the story of the rich young ruler refutes this. This man did obey the law, and he was not saved when he left Jesus.

No, the rich young man SAID he obeyed the law from his youth. The fact that he SAID he obeyed the law doesn't mean he actually did. I am certain that many (if not most) of the Pharisees would have said the same thing. </font>[/QUOTE]The rich young ruler said that he had obeyed the law from his youth, and there is nothing in the passage to suggest that had not done so, but there is the reply to him by Jesus in which Jesus did not refute the young man’s statement but required that he go far beyond the requirement of the Law.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by npetreley:
I am certain Paul would have said the same thing, too. Later -- once Jesus had opened his eyes to it -- Paul admitted his sinful and depraved state.

The Bible, of course, says just the opposite. Paul said of himself as a Jew before salvation,

Phil. 3:6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

John Calvin apparently had much too much to drink when he commented on Romans 7:14-25 and claimed that Paul, after he was redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, was then “sold into bondage to sin.” Who has the authority to sell any blood-bought believer in Christ?” Are we to believe that as an unregenerate Jew Paul was “blameless” with regard to the Law, but after he was saved he was sold into bondage to sin and practiced the very evil that he did not want to practice? Romans 7:14-25 depicts an unregenerate man struggling to keep the Law but not finding in himself the wherewithal to do so. Christians are NOT under the Law and they do not struggle, unsuccessfully at that, to keep it. What a blasphemous interpretation of the Word of God.

Adam Clarke wrote,

"It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. It requires but little knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Act_9:17."

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Helen wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually, Craig, it was not beyond the law, but the foundation of it, or one of the two foundations: you shall love your neighbor as yoruself.

It was VERY much beyond the Law, and the fact that it was can be proven by thousands of verses in the Old Testament that allow for wealth in the midst of the poor. And, of course, the concept of selling all that you have and giving it to the poor is NOT an Old Testament concept of righteousness.

</font>[/QUOTE]No. Rather it was a NT test that Jesus used to show the rich man that he hadn't even gotten past the first commandment let alone the ones that pertained to loving man. Money was obviously his god and Jesus was merely pointing that out. One can see this in verse 23.

You commented also:

The rich young ruler said that he had obeyed the law from his youth, and there is nothing in the passage to suggest that had not done so, but there is the reply to him by Jesus in which Jesus did not refute the young man’s statement but required that he go far beyond the requirement of the Law.

No, none except Rom. 3:10,23 and no doubt Mt. 5:48. Jesus wasn't asking to go past the Law. Have you never read James 2:10? This guy never got past the first one!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Whoops! There goes my dog again!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Helen wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually, Craig, it was not beyond the law, but the foundation of it, or one of the two foundations: you shall love your neighbor as yoruself.

It was VERY much beyond the Law, and the fact that it was can be proven by thousands of verses in the Old Testament that allow for wealth in the midst of the poor. And, of course, the concept of selling all that you have and giving it to the poor is NOT an Old Testament concept of righteousness.

</font>[/QUOTE]No. Rather it was a NT test that Jesus used to show the rich man that he hadn't even gotten past the first commandment let alone the ones that pertained to loving man. Money was obviously his god and Jesus was merely pointing that out. One can see this in verse 23. </font>[/QUOTE]You are confusing New Testament doctrine with the Law of Moses.

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You commented also:

The rich young ruler said that he had obeyed the law from his youth, and there is nothing in the passage to suggest that had not done so, but there is the reply to him by Jesus in which Jesus did not refute the young man’s statement but required that he go far beyond the requirement of the Law.

No, none except Rom. 3:10,23 and no doubt Mt. 5:48. Jesus wasn't asking to go past the Law. Have you never read James 2:10? This guy never got past the first one! </font>

You are confusing New Testament doctrine with the Law of Moses.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Men are born into the world with a free will. Some men, however, choose to be wicked and God, at His pleasure, sometimes gives these individuals over to a reprobate mind.

Rom. 1:28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (NASB, 1995)

We have no reason from Scripture to believe that even Pharaoh did not have a free will and the ability to respond to all that God asked of him. However, Pharaoh chose not to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people, and God gave him over to a reprobate mind. Did he, at that time lose the ability to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people? The Bible does not answer that question. Some individuals, who have dared to speak for God, have replied that Pharaoh did totally lose the ability to acknowledge God and His will for the Hebrew people, but the Bible simply says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh refused to let the people go.

I agree. And if one would be honest in their reading of Scripture you will note that Pharaoh hardened his own heart seven times through his own pride before God harded his heart.

That is why it's dangerous to refuse the Gospel for someone that isn't saved. They sometimes think that they will do it later some other time. Ya, maybe. James 4:15; 2 Cor. 6:2.

When God choses to harden one's heart, they're done.

 

[Craigbythesea]

JackRUS wrote,

When God choses to harden one's heart, they're done.

Maybe—and maybe not! The Bible does not provide us with that information.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Most of the Pontifical Augustinian Calvinbelievers I know will tell you that man's will died in the garden. (the will to search for or choose God, that is). Yet the Holy Book says that God "drove" Adam from the garden. Now I'sa livin' dawn heersin' kentuc and we drive our mules. Any...body that has ever drove mules knows they've got a will of their own. God had to drive Adam because he was a carefree willfully sinning soul who wanted to leave the presence of God and was not trying to hold onto any of the past years walking and talking with his maker. RIIIIIIIIIIght....and I got a bridge in Arizona for sale for any of you guys who still want to hold onto the "will died in the garden" hypothosis. Blew a hole in the side of that theory and she's a sinkin' fast.
Thanks -----Bart