What Makes a Will Free?

[TCGreek]

HP: Men are born with a moral capacity, not morally good or evil. All have chosen evil according to Scripture.

1. You claim Scripture to support your view; What Scripture do you have in mind?

HP: No man is born with moral impurity or moral goodness. Morality is the product of the intents of mans will. Scripture states that all, at some point in time have sinned and became morally impure.

2. Therefore, according to your position, Man is born with a clean, neutral slate. Where is the Scripture for this?

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I must maintain two positions. Yes, I believe that the theoretical ‘POSSIBILIY’ indeed must exist, for without that existence of ‘POSSIBILITY” choice or freedom is non-existent. I also believe God’s Word in that NONE in our dispensation do so. Scripture is clear. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’

This is one area where I do not agree fully with HP's position.

In the quote from Romans 3 above we have part of the answer - in the rest of Romans 3 where we are told "NNE seeks after God - no not even one" we have to conclude for something other than "everyone can stop sinning without God but it just so happens that no one does".

In Romans 8 we are told that the mind of the sinful nature "does not please God neither indeed CAN it".

However I DO agree with HP on "the fact of Free Will" - but I claim it is divinely and supernaturally created by the "DRAWING OF ALL unto Me" John 12:32 and by the LIGHT of Christ "Who coming into the World ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN" John 1. That ENABLING does not enable sinless living - it ENABLES the choice for Christ resulting in the new birth - which includes the gift of the Holy Spirit IN YOU enabling you to "walk even as Christ walked" 1John 2.

HP I believe claims that it is divinely and supernaturally created at the moment of birth and so is an "ability" of human nature itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: I must maintain two positions. Yes, I believe that the theoretical ‘POSSIBILIY’ indeed must exist, for without that existence of ‘POSSIBILITY” choice or freedom is non-existent. I also believe God’s Word in that NONE in our dispensation do so. Scripture is clear. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’

BR:This is one area where I do not agree fully with HP's position.
In the quote from Romans 3 above we have part of the answer - in the rest of Romans 3 where we are told "NNE seeks after God - no not even one" we have to conclude for something other than "everyone can stop sinning without God but it just so happens that no one does".

In Romans 8 we are told that the mind of the sinful nature "does not please God neither indeed CAN it".

HP: Bob, you have misunderstood and misrepresented my position. How have I stated or implied that "everyone can stop sinning without God but it just so happens that no one does". That is NOT a quote nor implication you received from me. Why do you use quotes for a complete misconstruction of another’s thoughts? Tell me how my position would even remotely establish such a point?

You quote from Romans. "NNE seeks after God - no not even one" Who argues with that point? How does that equate with one, at first light of moral agency, having the ability to follow the light of conscience, or even as a sinner doing something other than what he does? Is it impossible, even for the sinner, under certan circumstances, for one to choose right? I believe even a atheist could, under certain circumstances, choose the right moral intent. That would not make him morally right before God, and it does not mean that he has ‘sought God’ now does it? You confuse ability of contrary choice with the desire to seek God. They are two separate matters completely.

At first light of moral consciousness few may have any firmly developed ideas as to God, but they do have at least some idea of right and wrong. All I would maintain is that they have the natural ability to do right IF they would so choose. Even as a developed sinner, I believe they could act from proper moral intents under certain circumstances, although again that does NOT mean that some good they might do in any way would make up for or change their over all moral character from selfishness to benevolence. Show me where Scripture ever indicates they have no capacity to make a morally correct decision. If they did not have this ability, blame for their formed intents would be absurd. God could have never told Cain that he was able and in fact should rule over sinful impulses.

BR: However I DO agree with HP on "the fact of Free Will" - but I claim it is divinely and supernaturally created by the "DRAWING OF ALL unto Me" John 12:32 and by the LIGHT of Christ "Who coming into the World ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN" John 1.

HP: I believe you falsely equate light of conscience with light concerning the work of salvation.

BR: That ENABLING does not enable sinless living - it ENABLES the choice for Christ resulting in the new birth - which includes the gift of the Holy Spirit IN YOU enabling you to "walk even as Christ walked" 1John 2.

HP: Again, what is the talk of “enabling sinless living?” Does the theoretical possibility of simple contrary choice equate to “enabling sinless living?” Even a ‘dyed in the wool’ sinner can have the ‘possibility’ and possess the ability of contrary choice, although he might never avail himself to the influence of conscience to do so, or to act in accordance to the right. Does that mean he has been enabled for “sinless living?” I ask you, does the simple power of contrary choice to you suggest one has “been enabled for sinless living?” Once stained with sin, always stained with sin, apart from the gospels remedy.

BR: HP I believe claims that it is divinely and supernaturally created at the moment of birth and so is an "ability" of human nature itself.

HP: If you are referring to my position on free will or power of contrary choice, I would say that you understand me on this point. That is not to say that some at some point in their lives have so given themselves over to selfishness, that they have ensnared their wills to the point that it can rightfully be said that they have lost the ability of contrary choice. I would say that at that point they cease to be moral agents. Our mental homes are no doubt filled with such cases.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim



HP: Men are born with a moral capacity, not morally good or evil. All have chosen evil according to Scripture.

TCGreek: 1. You claim Scripture to support your view; What Scripture do you have in mind?

HP: Read my words again. What did I directly say that Scripture states? Do you not agree with me that Scripture states that?
Quote:
HP: No man is born with moral impurity or moral goodness. Morality is the product of the intents of mans will. Scripture states that all, at some point in time have sinned and became morally impure.

TCGreek: 2. Therefore, according to your position, Man is born with a clean, neutral slate. Where is the Scripture for this?

HP: Scripture does not state this directly that I know, neither does it refute it in such words.

You have but two alternatives. You can believe God punishes man in an eternal living hell for an unavoidable fate, which is nothing short of unjust necessitated fatalism,(which by the way Scripture does not say that either) or you must accept that men are the cause of their moral intents. I believe God has granted to man the ability to judge between right and wrong and has granted men the ability to choose one as opposed to the other, without which all morality, moral blame or praise, is a chimera. Our God enabled conscience testifies clearly to the fact of contrary choice, the possession of moral agency, and just blame or praise for ones intents and subsequent actions.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: Men are born with a moral capacity, not morally good or evil. All have chosen evil according to Scripture.



HP: There is no one alive, heathen or saint, that lives apart from the influence of God in some measure, with the possible exception of the one in whom the Spirit of God has been withdrawn.



HP: No man is born with moral impurity or moral goodness. Morality is the product of the intents of mans will. Scripture states that all, at some point in time have sinned and became morally impure.


HP: No man is devoid of some measure of understanding of God, right and wrong etc. All men have not had the gospel presented to them as I read Scripture. Men are granted a free will by God and must exercise it in order to be saved. They do not ‘will their salvation into effect’ for God is the sole Author and grounds of our salvation, yet just the same, without the exercising of their will in obedience, fulfilling the conditions God has set forth, no man shall see God. Due to the fact that God is involved in the heart and mind of every sentient being to some degree, or has been, your question is for all honesty, simply a mute question.

HP.

Thanks for answering the questions. I am seeking to understand you position completely. If you would be so kind as to indulge just a couple more questions:

1. Do you believe man and God must (or can) cooperate to achieve/effect man's salvation?

2. Do you believe that man can make the first move toward God? In other words, does man have the ability to intiate belief in God?

3. Is man completely ruined by sin or is he only tainted or "wounded" ?

 

[webdog]

1. Well, argue with me about what I said. I have not used the expression of "dead," tonight in our discussions.

2. And if I were to, your equivalence of "corpse" is not what the Scriptures nor Calvinists mean by "dead in sin."

Why are you evading the question? Regardless whether you personally have used the word "dead" in the last couple of days, your side has on numerous occasions used the corpse argument to prove man cannot choose anything unless regenerated. I hear "dead is dead" plenty of times. If this is true...then a corpse cannot also be in bondage to anything, no? You stated our wills are in bondage to sin. I asked how a corpse can be in bondage to anything. Kindly answer the question, or at least state you will not answer it. I'm trying to understand the concept of man being unable to come to Christ unless regenerated...but even then, unregenerated man is in bondage to anything let alone sin.

 

[Helen]

Their main problem here, webdog, is that they are avoiding the biblical definition of dead, which is NOT 'unconscious', but, rather, separated. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from the Lord God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any state of unconsciousness. If it did, hell would have no meaning whatsoever!

In Isaiah 1, God is talking to the unsaved inviting them to 'come and reason' with him. One does not ask an unconscious person to come and reason!

Those who are dead spiritually are separated from the life which is in God. They are perfectly capable of responding and choosing, just as the Bible says. And, like all people, God has given them the ability to respond and choose according to their own wills. In Genesis 9 God told Noah the TENDENCY or INCLINATION of every adult human heart (or from youth on) is toward evil. He never said that a man cannot choose other than that inclination. In fact, every law made by man for other men is made on the presupposition that, regardless of inclination, a man can choose to obey.

God Himself is not willing that one should be separated from Him. But, nevertheless, in His sovereignty, He has given them the choice regarding their eternal destinies. He is big enough for that.

 

[NotCountedWise]

It's always important to get at the "original error" in these cases, which appears to be this point:

If for no other reason than recognizing that God blames and praises man should one readily accept that man indeed has a free will today IF he is a moral agent and as such held accountable for his moral intents. Scripture clearly represents God as holding man accountable, therefore our wills must indeed be free. Man is a willing rebel and not simply the victim of his circumstances.

In other words, God is incapable of holding man accountable for sins that man was bound to commit. What this is really saying is that we cannot be held accountable for the free will sin of Adam, which has corrupted us. This is a man-made dogma. Without it, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. (Indeed, it can't stand up under the mighty breath of God's Word, but that's for later.)

Consider some of the strange and inconsistent "exceptions" and "coincides" promoted by this view:

It's unimportant that Cain was conceived after the Fall.

Circumcision is in no way related to the fact that sin is passed through the man's seed.

The virgin birth wasn't necessary to avoid man's corrupt seed.

Man is born morally neutral, yet has "coincidentally" always chosen evil. (More on this later.)

Infants either haven't committed any actual sins and are thus blameless before God (ignoring, of course, "all have sinned") or aren't "accountable" because they evidently don't have have enough intellectual capacity to make fair choices.

Romans 5:6. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:10. For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

How does "morally neutral" translate into "powerless," "ungodly," "sinner," or "enemy?" I do wonder how man can be "powerless" if it is possible for him to avoid sin.

A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit.

Fortunately, it has been conceded that it is theoretically possible for man to save himself by completely avoiding sin. Let us build on that. Notice, going back to an earlier statement, that man (for some reason) always chooses evil. This can best be understood in the sense that man is bound to commit at least one sin in his life. And one sin, after all, will damn you.

Thus fact that neutral man doesn't need salvation by grace alone can therefore hardly be denied: Proponents of the morally neutral man cannot claim that *all* of man's actions are sinful, because of course that would defeat the entire purpose their position. Therefore the reality of the matter for Decision Theologians is that God is pleased with some (most?) of what you've done on your own. Sure, you can't *completely* avoid sin. No one is saying that. Nor is anyone saying that your good works can "balance out" or "make up for" your sin. Nevertheless, you *have* done works that were *not* laid upon Jesus at the cross.

Thus, I bet if you go out to five or six sigma (on the population bell curve), you'll find people who only needed Jesus to pay for 5% of their works. (95% of their works were good.) If you drop down to two sigma, maybe you'll find people who need atonement for 50% - 70% of their works. So they need Jesus a bit more. And on it goes. Sure, really bad people will pretty much need Jesus the whole way, but I bet even Hitler did a least one righteous deed. Thus, the claim that man is morally neutral turns "salvation by grace alone" into nothing more than man needing God to fix those potentially few mistakes that he's made. (As opposed to man being able to fix them himself.) In other words, man can avoid (or at least minimize) the need to turn to God, through his obedience and good works. What's the solution to sin? Stop sinning. That way you won't have to repent anymore. This is commonly known as "works righteousness." And when papists commit this error, Decision Theologians claim they they are deniers salvation by grace alone. This might be considered hypocritical.

Back to the "original error."

Scripture clearly represents God as holding man accountable, therefore our wills must indeed be free.

This against:

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Conclusion? Repent of the evil notion that God somehow can't hold us all accountable for the sin of Adam that has "unfairly" corrupted us. He can and does. It's not necessary for the Fall to be continually repeated by every person in order for that person to bear full responsibility for sin.

Indeed, according to Paul, the *fact* that God does hold us accountable for the one "original sin" is the *basis* for why God allows the one Son of Man to redeem us all. Thus, if one rejects that Adam's sin resulted in our condemnation, there is a an obvious corollary: Christ's death doesn't result in our righteousness. Thus, if you ignore the condemnation brought on you by Adam's original sin (and instead presume you are condemned because of those potentially few mistakes you've made), you cannot expect Jesus to atone for those mistakes and cover them with His Righteousness.

Here's another nail in the coffin of Decision theology.

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Repent, Decision Theologians, you who claim that God can only blame those who have the ability to make some kind of "moral choice." Repent of questioning God, for he does blame you for the "original" sin Adam freely chose to commit; that choice was passed on to you. Repent, you who claim that salvation depends on man's "desire" or "effort" or "choice" instead of solely upon God's mercy. You cannot make a choice, Adam chose for you. Repent! Discard all your sinful, fallen assumptions. Stop thinking that salvation depends on your decision. Turn to Christ ALONE, lay *ALL* your sins at his feet (meaning those good works that you think aren't sins, like your "decision") and ask forgiveness. He will surely grant it. Then open your Bibles and start reading.

 

[webdog]

In other words, God is incapable of holding man accountable for sins that man was bound to commit. What this is really saying is that we cannot be held accountable for the sin of Adam, which has corrupted us. This is a man-made dogma. Without it, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. (Indeed, it can't stand up under the mighty breath of God's Word, but that's for later.)

This is exactly true...we are NOT held accountable for Adam's sin. We are held accountable for OUR sin.

Infants either haven't committed any actual sins and are thus blameless before God (ignoring, of course, "all have sinned") or aren't "accountable" because they evidently don't have have enough intellectual capacity to make fair choices.

Please tell us what sin an infant has committed? The Scripture "all have sinned" is past tense, btw. This would mean an infant would have had to commit some sin in the past in the womb. What was that sin?

Fortunately, it has been conceded that it is theoretically possible for man to save himself by completely avoiding sin. Let us build on that.

You cannot build on that, because all men have a sin nature. In the same way an infant will talk, stand and walk, feed themselves (all part of the human nature) they will also sin.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Let's apply this Scripture the way you are:

Because of Adam = all guilty of Adam's sin
Because of Christ = all made righteous by Christ's death.

Either your application of this verse is wrong...or you espouse universalism.

Here's another nail in the coffin of Decision theology.

You may want to add where the Scripture is located for our readers. At any rate, that is not speaking of individual salvation in it's correct context.

Conclusion? Repent of the evil notion that God somehow can't hold us all accountable for the sin of Adam that has "unfairly" corrupted us. He can and does. It's not necessary for the Fall to be continually repeated by every person in order for that person to bear full responsibility for sin.

Indeed, according to Paul, the *fact* that God does hold us accountable for the one "original sin" is the *basis* for why God allows the one Son of Man to redeem us all. Thus, if one rejects that Adam's sin resulted in our condemnation, there is a an obvious corollary: Christ's death doesn't result in our righteousness. Thus, if you ignore the condemnation brought on you by Adam's original sin (and instead presume you are condemned because of those potentially few mistakes you've made), you cannot expect Jesus to atone for those mistakes and cover them with His Righteousness.

This borders on calling out the salvation of those who do not agree with augustinian original sin...a violation of BB rules.

Repent, Decision Theologians, you who claim that God can only blame those who have the ability to make some kind of "moral choice." Repent of questioning God, for he does blame you for the "original" sin of Adam. Repent, you who claim that salvation depends on man's "desire" or "effort" or "choice" instead of solely upon God's mercy. Repent! Discard all your sinful, fallen assumptions. Stop thinking that salvation depends on your decision. Turn to Christ ALONE, lay *ALL* your sins at his feet (meaning those good works that you think aren't sins, like your "decision") and ask forgiveness. He will surely grant it. Then open your Bibles and start reading.

Repent of your self righteousness!

 

[TCGreek]

Why are you evading the question? Regardless whether you personally have used the word "dead" in the last couple of days, your side has on numerous occasions used the corpse argument to prove man cannot choose anything unless regenerated. I hear "dead is dead" plenty of times. If this is true...then a corpse cannot also be in bondage to anything, no? You stated our wills are in bondage to sin. I asked how a corpse can be in bondage to anything. Kindly answer the question, or at least state you will not answer it. I'm trying to understand the concept of man being unable to come to Christ unless regenerated...but even then, unregenerated man is in bondage to anything let alone sin.

1. Calvinists do not equate being dead in sin to a corpse. If you know of such a quote used by the Calvinist, then present it, and I'll apologize for not knowing this.

2. But to equate "dead in sin" with a "corpse" is not a postion that I am willing to argue from.

 

[TCGreek]

Their main problem here, webdog, is that they are avoiding the biblical definition of dead, which is NOT 'unconscious', but, rather, separated. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from the Lord God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any state of unconsciousness. If it did, hell would have no meaning whatsoever!

1. Now, I like your definition of death, Separation, which is biblical.

2. How can man on his own, who is separated from God by his sins, return to God and thereby remove the Separation.

In Isaiah 1, God is talking to the unsaved inviting them to 'come and reason' with him. One does not ask an unconscious person to come and reason!

3. God was addressing his covenant people Israel not the unsaved.

Those who are dead spiritually are separated from the life which is in God. They are perfectly capable of responding and choosing, just as the Bible says.

4. Paul says that in such a state, man has turned away from God, does not seek God and there is no fear of God in him (Rom 3:9-20).

 

[NotCountedWise]

This is exactly true...we are NOT held accountable for Adam's sin. We are held accountable for OUR sin.

"Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners." Adam's sin IS our sin. This is not rocket science, man!

Furthermore, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Who are you to tell God why he holds us accountable? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Who is God that he should have to submit to mere human reason?

Please tell us what sin an infant has committed? The Scripture "all have sinned" is past tense, btw. This would mean an infant would have had to commit some sin in the past in the womb. What was that sin?

Why don't you ask David? "In sin did my mother conceive me." Perhaps she was an adulteress, eh?

You cannot build on that, because all men have a sin nature. In the same way an infant will talk, stand and walk, feed themselves (all part of the human nature) they will also sin.

I'm amazed that you can talk about a "sin nature" without understanding what that means. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature. This is the sin of Adam, which he passed on to us. This is what Christ speaks of when he says, "A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit." Adam chose corruption, and so we are born corrupt, the products of his free choice. Whether we produce much evil fruit or only a little, or whether we haven't actually produced any fruit yet at all (infants), we are all equally corrupt.

I just don't understand how you can claim to affirm a "sin nature" which somehow predestines an infant to commit actual sins, while simultaneously denying that there is anything sinful about the infant until the infant actually commits an actual sin. (Whew!) We sin because we are sinners, because of Adam's sin. A bad tree produces bad fruit because it is a bad tree.

Anyway, back to the "original" point: You (and the others) have yet to concede that unregenerate man is capable of nothing but sin. That's what I'm building on. Since you refuse to concede this, it is clear you believe that some of your activities were not paid for by the shed blood of Christ. In which case it is clear that you only need his blood to cover up your *mistakes*. (As opposed to covering *you*.) In other words, man can avoid (or at least minimize) the need to turn to God, through his obedience and good works. This is the very essence of works-righteousness.

Btw, I need Christ's blood to cover *me.* Because *I* am sin.

Let's apply this Scripture the way you are:

Because of Adam = all guilty of Adam's sin
Because of Christ = all made righteous by Christ's death.

Either your application of this verse is wrong...or you espouse universalism.

What application? Again, you amaze me. You have simply paraphrased what the passage says. Please demonstrate that your quarrel is with someone other than Paul. But wait. Universalism? Yes, I uphold a universal atonement. As Paul evidently does. Don't you? Of course, that's not the universalism you're talking about, is it. I don't know why you bring it up, since when Paul says, "so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" he's not saying, "none will enter hell."

At any rate, that is not speaking of individual salvation in it's correct context.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

[...]

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

I welcome your attempts to demonstrate that "It" refers to something other than the salvation of the "children of the promise." I wonder, are the "children of the promise" individuals?

This borders on calling out the salvation of those who do not agree with augustinian original sin...a violation of BB rules.

You guys keep getting him mixed up with Paul, for some reason.

True. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

False. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were NOT made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Hmm. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were NOT made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will NOT be made righteous.

Repent of your self righteousness!

One. I'm sure the Israelites said that to the prophets. Two. By the grace of God alone, I do. Every day. Three. Repent of all your righteous acts (such as a "decision for Christ"), for they are as filthy rags before God. Isaiah 64.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB:1. Do you believe man and God must (or can) cooperate to achieve/effect man's salvation?

HP: If you call fulfilling the conditions God commands man to fulfill ‘cooperating,’ then yes, by all means. Bear in mind that anything we do is NOT thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, for the only grounds of salvation is the mercy of God. The things God calls on man to do such as repent, believe, and remain faithful are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ They are conditions of salvation, not the grounds.

RB: 2. Do you believe that man can make the first move toward God? In other words, does man have the ability to intiate belief in God?

HP: There is not anything in our selfish nature apart from God's influence that would ever lead one to Christ. “It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves.” God does not create mans moral nature and intellect as a blank slate, but gifts man with intuitive wisdom and knowledge both as a result of our God given nature as well as by outside stimuli. Scripture states that no man is void of some knowledge of the Creator. God has made a move in every moral beings life from the every inception of their being. While we were yet in our mothers womb, God was approaching us. He knew us and formed our very beings. How could we ever be thought to have ‘made the first move’ is beyond me. Possibly I am not understanding what you are seeking.

RB: 3. Is man completely ruined by sin or is he only tainted or "wounded" ?

HP: Man is ruined by sin, yet God, through the gift of salvation, brings glory out of ashes. When man makes his first sinful choice he inherits the full penalty of the law. “The soul that sinneth it shall surely die.” We are morally bankrupt from that point forward apart from the redeeming power of Christ.

 

[webdog]

"Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners." Adam's sin IS our sin. This is not rocket science, man!

Exactly. A sinner, by definition is one who sins. Through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners...as from that point on the affects of sin will taint man.

Furthermore, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Who are you to tell God why he holds us accountable? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Who is God that he should have to submit to mere human reason?

I'm not talking back to God...I'm talking back to you

Why don't you ask David? "In sin did my mother conceive me." Perhaps she was an adulteress, eh?

I asked what sin the infant has committed...not the parent.

I'm amazed that you can talk about a "sin nature" without understanding what that means. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature. This is the sin of Adam, which he passed on to us.

Ummm...it would seem by this post you don't know what a sin nature is. It's not having a person's sin passed on, but the nature (sin nature) passed on.

This is what Christ speaks of when he says, "A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit." Adam chose corruption, and so we are born corrupt, the products of his free choice. Whether we produce much evil fruit or only a little, or whether we haven't actually produced any fruit yet at all (infants), we are all equally corrupt

The above is disturbing. Christ said a corrupt tree bears bad fruit. If an infant is a non fruit bearing tree to start off...how are they guilty of personally bearing bad fruit? Makes no sense.

I welcome your attempts to demonstrate that "It" refers to something other than the salvation of the "children of the promise." I wonder, are the "children of the promise" individuals?

Collectively in the text, no, it is speaking of the nation of Israel and it's future redemption.

What application? Again, you amaze me. You have simply paraphrased what the passage says. Please demonstrate that your quarrel is with someone other than Paul. But wait. Universalism? Yes, I uphold a universal atonement. As Paul evidently does. Don't you? Of course, that's not the universalism you're talking about, is it. I don't know why you bring it up, since when Paul says, "so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" he's not saying, "none will enter hell."

Let me help you out with this. As in Adam all die means in the same manner Adam died (by sinning), we will also die in like manner...by sinning.

 

[webdog]

Stupid double post. What's going on with the BB? This is always happening!

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Bob, you have misunderstood and misrepresented my position. How have I stated or implied that "everyone can stop sinning without God but it just so happens that no one does". ...

All I would maintain is that they have the natural ability to do right IF they would so choose. Even as a developed sinner, I believe they could act from proper moral intents under certain circumstances, although again that does NOT mean that some good they might do in any way would make up for or change their over all moral character from selfishness to benevolence. Show me where Scripture ever indicates they have no capacity to make a morally correct decision. If they did not have this ability, blame for their formed intents would be absurd. God could have never told Cain that he was able and in fact should rule over sinful impulses.

You appear to use as your example - the case of Cain and say that even as a lost person God wanted Cain to rule over his sinful nature and do right without the new birth or new-creation benefit. Just telling the lost "do right because it IS right" and the lost should be able to do so?

That is where we differ. My argument is that the lost have only one free-will course of action left to them -- "choose Christ" or not. Once they decide not to choose for Christ they are held in the Eph 2 bondage that Paul says they are in -- also in Romans 6.

In Rev 7 and in 2Thess 2 we see where the Holy Spirit restrains the wicked -- but that is not the same thing as the wicked "choosing righteousness"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here's another nail in the coffin of Decision theology.
Repent, Decision Theologians, you who claim that God can only blame those who have the ability to make some kind of "moral choice."

Repent of questioning God, for he does blame you for the "original" sin Adam freely chose to commit; that choice was passed on to you. Repent, you who claim that salvation depends on man's "desire" or "effort" or "choice" instead of solely upon God's mercy. You cannot make a choice, Adam chose for you. Repent! Discard all your sinful, fallen assumptions. Stop thinking that salvation depends on your decision. Turn to Christ ALONE, lay *ALL* your sins at his feet (meaning those good works that you think aren't sins, like your "decision") and ask forgiveness. He will surely grant it. Then open your Bibles and start reading.

This post is wrong in soooo many areas it is hard to know where to begin.

#1. IF God is the one MAKING the Christians on this board INSIST that we have free will -- then why are you telling them to stop??

#2. Scripture IS saying "God CAME to HIS own but HIS OWN received Him NOT" John 1. It is NOT making the argument "God Came to an arbitrarily select FEW and those are the very ones CAUSED to accept salvation".

#3. Scripture says "God is NOT willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3. It is too late to imagine that Scripture says "God cares that the FEW of Matt 7 come to repentance and the MANY of Matt 7 are not the objects of God's Love".

#4. Scripture says "God gave His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for OUR SINs only but for the SINs of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 --

In Adam "All die" which means ALL need a savior - and so praise God ALL have one! Therefore see the free-will argument "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: You appear to use as your example - the case of Cain and say that even as a lost person God wanted Cain to rule over his sinful nature and do right without the new birth or new-creation benefit. Just telling the lost "do right because it IS right" and the lost should be able to do so?

HP: The way you started your objection as I recall was by using the word ‘sinless.’ It was if though you were suggesting that my position maintains that the lost could be ‘sinless.’ That is impossible, for sinless is to have no sin. Say a lost man indeed did indeed do right. That would still not make him righteous, or sinless. He would still be as lost as he was to start with. This is not about the lost being sinless or not if in fact they started willing in the right direction. This is simply about whether or not the lost have the abilities to do right. I say absolutely they do, but they will not, and or at least have not at some time in their past, for all have sinned. Again, even if in fact they would do right, apart from the remission of past sins there is no change in their sinful state. If they chose right the rest of their lives they would still be as guilty as they were before for past sins, for Scripture states that all have sinned.


Cain is indeed an unusual example, simply due to the fact of the state of ignorance men were in not having the law in written form at least. What Cain’s spiritual condition was known only to God and Cain and is not expounded on in Scripture that I know of. We know he sinned, but why should that shock may on this list? Once a son always a son you know. Anyway, one thing we do know and that is that God told him to exercise his will in ruling over temptation, clearly suggesting that Cain indeed possessed the necessary abilities to do so, regardless of what his spiritual state was or was not. I simply use the illustration of Cain to point out that a sinner is not as dead and lacking abilities to do right as some would have us to believe. God did not admonish Cain that he could not help himself until God regenerated him. He told him to utilize his will in resisting temptation. If that bothers any on the list, we will all have time to ask about his spiritual condition n the life hereafter, and all get our theology straight. I believe Cain might offer us all a little consternation with our theology personally.

BR: That is where we differ. My argument is that the lost have only one free-will course of action left to them -- "choose Christ" or not. Once they decide not to choose for Christ they are held in the Eph 2 bondage that Paul says they are in -- also in Romans 6.

HP: I do not find Scripture to support that notion. Did God instruct Cain about Christ before He gave him the instructions to rule over his will? I am not saying that he did not, it simply is not recorded as such. If man had no ability to do right, their present actions could in no way be seen as sin. Sin involves a willful choice of disobedience. If all one can do is sin, sin is a misnomer. Sin would not be a moral issue at all, for without power of contrary choice, morality is impossible to conceive of. Praise and blame would be unjust and absurd if ones will was not free and contrary choice not possible.

Let me ask you BR. If one does physical harm to another, is it sin?

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I do not find Scripture to support that notion. Did God instruct Cain about Christ before He gave him the instructions to rule over his will? I am not saying that he did not, it simply is not recorded as such. If man had no ability to do right, their present actions could in no way be seen as sin. Sin involves a willful choice of disobedience. If all one can do is sin, sin is a misnomer. Sin would not be a moral issue at all, for without power of contrary choice, morality is impossible to conceive of. Praise and blame would be unjust and absurd if ones will was not free and contrary choice not possible.

Let me ask you BR. If one does physical harm to another, is it sin?

WE are held accountable for each sin. If a drunk driver hits a child in the street - no matter how drunk -- he is guilty because when he takes that drink he is responsible for what he does afterwards.

When the sinner rejects Christ and the Gospel he is accountable for all sins he commits afterwards even though Eph 2 and Romans 6 declares him to be "enslaved" to those sins.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: WE are held accountable for each sin. If a drunk driver hits a child in the street - no matter how drunk -- he is guilty because when he takes that drink he is responsible for what he does afterwards.

When the sinner rejects Christ and the Gospel he is accountable for all sins he commits afterwards even though Eph 2 and Romans 6 declares him to be "enslaved" to those sins.

HP: Bob, what if the man was held down and forced to drink? Even in your illustration you were careful to not that he is guilty because at one point in time he DID have a choice whether or not to drink. My question to you now eliminates that choice. What will your response now be? Is he still guilty because he swallowed rather than to be forcefully drowned? Why or why not?