Free or not?

[jimmyjimmy]

not perfectly but having a loving heart and desire to please Him with our obedience.

Do you have biblical backing for your theory because I have a ton of scriptures that oppose the idea.

 

[EmSw]

Do you biblical backing for your theory because I have a ton of scriptures that oppose the idea.

John says you are a liar if you don't keep His commandments. So, are you lying or not?

 

[Reformationist]

I agree--mortal humans can never obey perfectly.

So when Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more," He really meant "go and try not to sin that much," is that it?

That's why we have Jesus--who did obey perfectly.

Explain again why we need Jesus if God doesn't demand perfect obedience...

We have an impossible standard set before us--only Jesus was able to meed that standard.

So, essentially, because we are unable to comply, God demands less than perfection, is that it?

Does a kind and loving parent demand perfect obedience? No.

Well, other than God, you point out a parent that is holy as the Lord is holy and we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, I can't see the point in the comparison.

 

[Reformationist]

John says you are a liar if you don't keep His commandments. So, are you lying or not?

Do you understand that he isn't saying we don't have to keep the commandments?

He's arguing against the idea that all God commands of us is a loving heart and a desire to please God.

 

[EmSw]

Do you understand that he isn't saying we don't have to keep the commandments?

He's arguing against the idea that all God commands of us is a loving heart and a desire to please God.

So, are you lying or not?

 

[Reformationist]

So, are you lying or not?

I'm lying to myself that I keep thinking you're going to engage in some semblance of a rational discussion...

 

[Historical Christianity]

The idea of free will permeates the Bible, cover to cover. Central is the idea that people make choices. Choices have consequences. People are held accountable for their choices. People are urged to make better choices. The idea that man might not have free will is so foreign to biblical thought that supporting it from scripture is an eternal labor of desperation to force-fit the idea into the texts.

The central philosophy of Tanakh is the Mosaic Covenant. Once Israel accepted it (by choice), their corporate blessings or cursings were determined by their choice to obey its obligations or to disobey. From Acts 16, 'what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

Do you biblical backing for your theory because I have a ton of scriptures that oppose the idea.

Would you deny that Jesus' parable of the "Ungrateful Servant" (Matthew 18:21-35) is precisely about this issue?

Psalm 51:17; 1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12; John 13:34-35; James 5:19-20; Isaiah 66:2; Philippians 2:13

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

So when Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more," He really meant "go and try not to sin that much," is that it?

I expect He meant what He said. But, if we do sin, we have an advocate. (1 John 2:1)

Explain again why we need Jesus if God doesn't demand perfect obedience...

He demands more than perfect obedience. He demands perfect holiness because He is absolutely holy. We mortals are incapable of the absolute holiness that God demands, except by the power of His Spirit in us. When we succumb to the temptations of this world and fail the test of holiness, we have One who IS our holiness--our Redeemer.

So, essentially, because we are unable to comply, God demands less than perfection, is that it?

No, He still demands perfect holiness. He will never permit anything less than perfect holiness to enter His heaven. But that only happens under the cleansing Blood of the Lamb.

Well, other than God, you point out a parent that is holy as the Lord is holy and we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, I can't see the point in the comparison.

That is why I say that a parent is gladdened by a child who is loving and desires to please God. Jesus often compared God the Father to a loving parent. It was something that all people can understand.

 

[EmSw]

I'm lying to myself that I keep thinking you're going to engage in some semblance of a rational discussion...

So, are you lying from an autonomous free will, or are you lying because you still live to the old man, and presenting your members as instruments of unrighteousness, and haven't died to sin?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm lying to myself that I keep thinking you're going to engage in some semblance of a rational discussion...

It shouldn't surprise any of us that this person is not able to comprehend Spiritual truth and discuss it rationally.

There has never been an acceptance of the work of Christ as the hope of salvation or a belief in a blood sacrifice and an atonement.

For that reason, IMO, there has never been an imparting of the Spirit of God to guide and teach from within.

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."
1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[cuja1]

Hello everyone. I was hoping to get some insight into other's perspective on the will of man. So, after a rather unenlightening conversation with someone on a different thread, I thought I'd pose some questions here to see if I can find the root of the disagreements.

I thought it might be helpful if we start at the beginning of the creation account of mankind. When Adam and Eve were created, were they created with a nature predisposed to sin, i.e., a sin nature? Were they created with a will, i.e., were they volition creatures upon creation? If so, was that will free? If free, what types of choices were they able to make, e.g., sinful, not sinful, both, only one or the other, etc.? What influences, pre-Fall, would contribute to the choices they made. When Adam and Eve chose to rebell against God and were cast from the garden of Eden, did anything happen to change their constituent nature or did they remain the same?

That's probably a good start. Hopefully, there will be room and interest for follow up questions. I look forward to your answers.

God bless

I think if you or I or anyone else were born as Adam or Eve, we would have done the exact same thing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm lying to myself that I keep thinking you're going to engage in some semblance of a rational discussion...

Been there; done that; got the tee shirt. - Utilized the ignore feature.

 

[EmSw]

It shouldn't surprise any of us that this person is not able to comprehend Spiritual truth and discuss it rationally.

There has never been an acceptance of the work of Christ as the hope of salvation or a belief in a blood sacrifice and an atonement.

For that reason, IMO, there has never been an imparting of the Spirit of God to guide and teach from within.

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."
1 Corinthians 2:14

So Marvin, did God predestine, and provide the means, for you to sin? Is God the provider of your sin?

 

[EmSw]

Been there; done that; got the tee shirt. - Utilized the ignore feature.

So jimmy, do you lie from an autonomous free will, or are you lying because you still live to the old man, and presenting your members as instruments of unrighteousness, and haven't died to sin?

 

[EmSw]

I am a new creation. I have been given a new nature. That new nature, which desires to serve God in obedience, resides in broken flesh, just as God had intended. When I seek to obey God, and make that my priority, that's what I do. When I give attention to the lusts of my flesh, it is my flesh I serve. This is the dichotomy about which Paul speaks in Romans 7.

So, you admit and condemn yourself by giving attention to the lusts of the flesh.

Romans 8
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Since you admit setting your mind on the flesh, you are admitting to death. You are hostile to God and cannot please Him. Since you admit to being in the flesh, Paul says the Spirit of God does not dwell in you, and you do not belong to Him.

Did God intend for you to reside in, and serve broken flesh?

So you do admit to having free will to choose. These are your words - 'When I seek to obey God, and make that my priority, that's what I do. When I give attention to the lusts of my flesh, it is my flesh I serve.'

 

[Marvin Knox]

Been there; done that; got the tee shirt. - Utilized the ignore feature.

One trouble with the "ignore" button is that it only keeps you from seeing what the other person says about the issue or about you yourself.

That really puts one at a disadvantage and gives the forum over to the heretic or troll, as the case may be.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So Marvin, did God predestine, and provide the means, for you to sin? Is God the provider of your sin?

FROM THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established......"

"God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

HOPE THAT HELPS.

 

[Reformationist]

The idea of free will permeates the Bible, cover to cover. Central is the idea that people make choices. Choices have consequences. People are held accountable for their choices. People are urged to make better choices. The idea that man might not have free will is so foreign to biblical thought that supporting it from scripture is an eternal labor of desperation to force-fit the idea into the texts.

Let me try to clear this up for those of you who seem to want to create the ridiculous strawman argument that's made in the above quote. Those of us who bristle at the use of the phrase "free will" do so because it is used in a manner that is both unbiblical and, more often than not, employed to make a point further than that even being intended by the person using the phrase.

So, to make it easy for you guys, here is how we approach the phrase "free will":

• We don't deny man has a will.
• We don't deny that man is a volitional creature.
• We don't deny that man makes choices.
• We don't deny that the choices man makes are made freely, i.e., free from any external causation.

And if that's not clear enough, I will state the inverse:

• Man was created with a will.
• Man was created to be a volitional creature.
• Man makes choices.
• The choices man makes are made freely, in so much as they spring from the will of the person making the choice without external causation.

That clear it up for you guys?

The reason we take issue with the phrase "free will" is because it is used to mean "a will that is not predicated by any determining causation." This is simply untrue, not to mention illogical. All choices have a cause. That the cause is internal, rather than external, is of no consequence in discussing the nature of the will's bondage. When man fell from grace and every vestige of his being was corrupted by the influence of sin, he remained a volitional creature. That is, he retained the ability to make choices. However, just as before the Fall, these choices are not without causation. The difference between the will of pre-Fall man versus post-Fall man, however, is significant. Prior to the Fall, man was not encumbered by the bondage of sin. After the Fall, that bondage exerted decisive control over his choices as it inculcated every desire of his heart.

So, while the will remained free in the sense that man still freely chose according to his desires, it was, in fact, in bondage to sin.

If that resonates as "freedom of the will" to you, have at it. The truth of Scripture is that the man's will is only truly free when all vestige of sin is removed from his being and he is free to choose to obey God without the pervading influence of sin.

 

[Reformationist]

I expect He meant what He said. But, if we do sin, we have an advocate. (1 John 2:1)

Well, yes. I'm aware of that. That has nothing to do with a discussion about whether we are expected to obey perfectly. The very fact that we need an advocate to serve as a substitutionary representative before God highlights the requirement. Further, the very fact that we stand before God clothed in the righteousness of the only perfect person to ever walk the earth, coupled with the fact that such imputation is necessary for us to be accepted in the Lord, reveals quite plainly that perfection, even substitutionary perfection, is a requirement.

The rest of your post seemed to go off on a side trail that I couldn't understand how it supported your position so I'll leave that for someone else.