Our Freewills

[Openly Curious]

OC's quote:

"Because he considers us to have bad doctrine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/emot-questioned.gif) woe is me a sinner"

OC's subsequent quote:

"It was not me that made the ludicrous statement I believe I said "woe is me a sinner" you however are trying to persuade me that your truth is absolute truth and it didn't wash with me nor will it in this regards. referencing post #121 here"

SW says:

OC, your first quote was not really made to confess any sin you might have committed by spreading bad doctrine. It basically was just mocking the idea that you should confess any sin in that regard. Of course, if it was a sincere confession perhaps you are now agreeing that bad doctrine is sin. So, either your confession was a mockery or you are agreeing that bad doctrine is a form of sin.

Further, please show me in any of the 300 plus posts I have made here where I have claimed to have the absolute truth about everything in Scripture.

OC

it don't matter what i believe still "Woe is me" take however you want twist it however you want but it is still "Woe is me a man of unclean lips"

[Marnie]

Some teach that God actually hated Esau. To me that is a false doctrine. Nevertheless, to believe that or to take the opposite postion that I do, that God hated his ways doesn't make either of us guilty of sin.

The reason G-d said He hated Esau was in response to the Jews' accusation that He really didn't love them. He said He loved them and they responded, "Show us," or "Prove it." The proof was in what happned to Esau (Edomites--they disappeared) and Jacob (Israel--G-d's chosen people). It's not so much that He hated Esau, (as we would define hatered) but preferred Jacob, which is astonishing considering what a scoundrel Jacob turned out to be.

[EricH]

NEW RESPONSE:

And neither does the text say he couldn't, so to make that assumption, you have added to the text.

Actually I have not added to the text at all. Jesus said he could only do the will of the Father. He could not act on HIs own initiative. I have not added anything. I have accepted the text as written. You have added the concept of free will to it, to explain the plain meaning away

NEW RESPONSE: I am looking at the text right now and it doesn't even use the word determined, at least not in Matthew 26:39 of which I made those last comments.

I was referring to the passage I provided that you never adressed. Namely that Jesus said the Son of Man had to go as had been determined. You did not adress that passage

NEW RESPONSE: God in the form of God cannot sin or be tempted with sin. As you already acknowledged, Jesus put aside his divinity and lived as a mortal man. God is also the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. He is immortal, yet Jesus yielded to death. Your argument if I am understanding you correctly is that Jesus didn't use his God nature to resist temptation, but if his fleshly man were to be overcome, his God nature would have somehow kicked in making it impossible to sin. While there is no way I can prove such a theoretical argument false, it likewise cannot be proven true. It sounds crazy to me, but I will concede that is possible, just to me not probable. I don't accept that argument, but at least I understand your position better.

No, I never said Jesus set aside his deity to become human. Jesus was totally God and totally man. He did not set aside being divine. What passage indicates that to you? My point is that your position cannot be brought into the 4 things we know for sure that I stated earlier

1. Jesus was totally God

2. Jesus was totally man

3. Jesus was really tempted

4. God cannot sin or be tempted to sin.

Where you have landed contradicts the 4th statement. You have solved this by stating that Jesus set aside being God, which is not sciptural as far as I can see. That is why I cannot agree with where you have landed. My explanation at least attempts to come to terms with what we know for sure as stated in scripture.

I guess my problem with this whole thing here is that the Bible never says God took away anyone's free will to choose. I mean if he did, why does anyone bother to preach the gospel in the first place? Why did Paul make such an impashioned appeal to Agrippa? If we have no free will as Calvin teaches, then why not simply go about our lives and let God save who he will, after all, it was decided before the foundation of the earth. If I didn't believe in man's free will to choose, I wouldn't support missionaries, or evangelists or even be concerned with anyone being discipled, because it would be in vain anyway. The only saved people would be those God chose to save. If I am misunderstanding your position feel free to correct me, but you said you believe Calvin's doctrine and that is what he taught. To me it seems at odds with the entire mission of the church.

Maybe the bible never says it was taken away, because we never had it in the first place. There are however several places in scripture that speak to the fact that our ability to choose has been marred by sin and that we are incapable of choosing right. The questions you raise regarding why should we obey are not really valid objections. We obey because God has commanded us to. I do not know who the elect are, and I am commanded by God to share with everyone. It is God's job to worry about the elect, not mine. My job is to obey what He has told me to do. I don't need a reason, I just obey.

By the way. Calvin does not teach we have no free will. He teaches that our freedom to act is limited by the boundries God has placed around us as a result of the fall. We are free to act according to our natures

[Openly Curious]

does any body know about being a debtor to christ or being a bond servant just curious about these two things

Openly Curious

[st. Worm]

butero says:

"St Worm, I would greatly appreciate it if you would give me the chapter and verse where the Bible says the only unpardonable sin is unbelief.

SW says:

Really, that's not as hard as you think although it involves a reasonable interpretion of the Bible.

But first butero, let's play the game you want to play about chapter and verse. Please give me chapter and verse that says man has a morally neutral free will with no constraints to believe the gospel. That is the real issue of the thread and what you and others keep arguing. Thanks.

sw

[st. Worm]

butero, nothing in those verses either states nor implies that man has a "free will". Try again.

[st. Worm]

butero, if you wish to start another thread on the Unpardonable sin and its relationship to unbelief then that would be great but the issue here is free will and I think we should deal with that first. I am waiting for your chapter and verse that says all men have a perfectly unbound free will capable of freely choosing Jesus. Thanks.

SW

[st. Worm]

butero:

Those verses I gave prove we have a free will and an active part in our salvation. We must believe and we must confess. That is something we must do.

SW says:

That is simply not true. While we are told what we must do, the verses in no way address man's ability of lack thereof to do those things. If this is the best you have then you should re-consider your views and come into line with the greatest teachers in the history of the church who taught free will is a myth.

Like I said, start a thread on unpardonable sin and I will respond.

Also, earlier in this thread I believe I gave several verses that speak to man's lack of free will. Further, systematic theology when studying issues like this requires more than playing Bible pingpong exchanging verses. That is the way of the fundamentalist.

[st. Worm]

Although not all inclusive you might consider for starters:

Genesis 6:5, The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9, "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, Who can know it?"

Romans 3 with Paul explaining man's depravity using the authority of the Old Testament, "There is none righteous, no not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God .... There is none who does any good, no, not one."

John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."

Sounds like a will bound by sin to me. That is why Jesus tells Nicodemas that unless a man is born again he cannot even begin to see the Kingdom of God. Of course I assume you believe being born again is something we do to ourselves.

Later, I am heading out to enjoy the nice weather.

sw

[Isaiah-smiles]

you are not explaining your belief on freewill at all how does freewill get one saved and saved secure which is what I think you are advocating to me here. And I don't see where it was advocated of free will before salvation either.

I was not saying that free will gets you saved, quite the opposite. I am saying that when a person is dead, spiritually speaking, or not saved, they are incapable of free will. God has to intervene. because the Bible says that none seeks after God. It also says that we are slaves to sin or in bondage to it because we are sinners by our very nature. Going against our own nature is like a lion eating hay. This would be at odds with the lion's nature since he would be a carnivour by nature

When we are in our depravity and in bondage to our own sinfulness, we have no free will. We only do the desires of our own deceptive hearts. To do what I want to do. God has to intervene.