On Free Will

[lastofall]

No..and No
As for free will [for me anyway] Christ tells us that if anyone will follow Him, they must deny their self, which is to deny (disown) our own will: this is what is free will, that we shall either freely submit to what the Lord says, or by our free will we will not submit to Him.

 

[Hammster]

In the context surrounding 1 Cor 2:14, the spiritual man is the one endowed by the Holy Spirit to receive words revelation from the Holy Spirit and wrote those words down so we today can read them. The spiritual man is the inspired writer of the bible.

The natural man are those who have not been endowed by the Holy Spirit to receive words of revelation from God. He does not have Divine access to the things of God's mind therefore all he and has is the wisdom of the world.

Ephesians 3:3-4 "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

Paul was a spiritual man, an inspired writer of the bible who was given divine access/revelations to the things of the mind of God. Paul wrote those inspired words down where the natural man, who does not have such access to the mind of God, can then read and understand the things of the mind of God.

So the natural man is not a totally depraved man not able to understand the word of God and obey it. He simply was not inspired to receive revelatory words from the Holy Spirit about the things of God Yet the natural man can read the writings of spiritual men and understand the mind of God....as they did in Ephesus.

So the Calvinists are right is thinking that man cannot know the things of God apart from revelations of the Holy Spirit. But Calvinists would be wrong in thinking those revelations are miraculously zapped into certain men apart from the word of God. The things of God are passed to every man through the word as written by inspired spiritual men where then the lost natural man can read and understand those words and use his free will to believe or not believe those words.

So Paul is NOT saying the lost natural man is so totally depraved that he cannot understand the things of God for he can understand those things of God by reading the written word.

Paul is saying the natural man simply was not given power of inspiration to receive by divine revelation the things of God's mind therefore is limited to wisdom of the world. But the natural man can read the inspired word of God and know the things of God.

The men that Peter preached to in Acts 2 and Stephen in Acts 7 were lost natural men. Yet they were able to hear the things of the mind of God as spoken by inspired spiritual men and those natural men in Acts 2 use their free will to believe and obey those words and those natural men in Acts 7 chose not to believe what they heard.
--the natural man understood what was preached
--the natural man did not have to first be "regenerated" by Holy Spirit before he could understand
--the natural men in Acts 2 and 7 were not totally depraved

It looks as if we're attempting to address the OP, but I'm not exactly sure that you did.

 

[CodyFaith]

Okay, so doing something natural like caring for a child pleases God, but trying to please Him doesn't?

I don't believe caring for your own child is always natural. To good people yes, but wicked people are cruel to their children. Being a good parent involves moral choices, sacrifices, etc.

Works does not refer to all actions and choices a person can make.

 

[Hammster]

1 Peter chapter 4 verse 8
Love covers a great many sins.

I see some people doing this who don't know church or have been driven away by hypocrites.

I really can't see how this addressed the OP.

 

[Hammster]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. - 2 Corinthians 4:7

If the excellency of the power dwell in us spiritually, naturally, and intelligently, from God himself, then we can do that which is spiritually good. If the excellency of the power from the Holy Spirit is not of God, then we struggle.

But if the excellency of the power is not of God, which I believe more times than not is true, then we must do the best we can do. We therefore can do what is spiritually good away from God, but we will do a better job if it is indeed God.

Okay, but why would the natural man even try to please God?

 

[Hammster]

No..and No
As for free will [for me anyway] Christ tells us that if anyone will follow Him, they must deny their self, which is to deny (disown) our own will: this is what is free will, that we shall either freely submit to what the Lord says, or by our free will we will not submit to Him.

You say no, but then go on to say that the natural man can please God (submit to Him).

 

[Greg Merrill]

Every time (and I mean every time) any discusion where Reformed theology is brought up, some sort of "but man has free will" argument arises, as if the secular humanistic view of free will is some sort of counter argument.

So my question is this. Can the natural man do anything that's spiritually good? Or to ask another way, can the natural man do anything to glorify God?

disclaimer: the questions may br modified if they aren't clear enough

In the consideration of "free will" (which I believe in) I don't understand why "the natural man" has to be brought up. The Christian man/woman who yields them self to the Holy Spirit and then is under His control, walking in the Spirit, can still believe in "free will". So why bring up the natural man? Am I missing something here?

 

[TheSeabass]

It looks as if we're attempting to address the OP, but I'm not exactly sure that you did.

In short, the natural man is not totally depraved, but in fact does have the ability to read the inspired word of God and understand those words and then use his free will to please God by believing and obeying those words or can choose to not believe and reject them.

Again those preached to in Acts 2 and 7 were lost natural men, (you might say they were 'unregenerated') but they were NOT totally depraved for they were ABLE TO UNDERSTAND the inspired word preached to them and those in Acts 2 chose to believe and obey while those in Acts 7 chose not to believe.

 

[rockytopva]

Okay, but why would the natural man even try to please God?

Paul had problems with having revival in some city and then coming back to find everything in disarray. They done well as spiritual, and then done evil as carnal. So they were once spriitual and now carnal, therefore Paul cries...

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, - Galatians 4:19

Travail in birth... Again! The second time! They went from spiritual to natural, and now Paul is trying to win them again back to spiritual. Sometimes ending up again as a natural man is a work of the flesh!

 

[Hammster]

In the consideration of "free will" (which I believe in) I don't understand why "the natural man" has to be brought up. The Christian man/woman who yields them self to the Holy Spirit and then is under His control, walking in the Spirit, can still believe in "free will". So why bring up the natural man? Am I missing something here?

I brought it up because it's an issue that's raised frequently. People are under the impression that they can choose to believe in something simply by their free will.

 

[PeaceB]

A natural man is an unspiritual man, who is in the flesh, not the Spirit, and is spiritually dead in their sins.

OK, but this definition is not very helpful for the purpose of discussing the OP, because we cannot determine in any concrete fashion who this category includes and who it does not include.

Under your definition, what objective criterion makes a man "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

For example, is a person who makes a sincere profession of faith in Jesus Christ, as savior and Lord, "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

As another example, is a baptized Christian who has not committed an unprepented mortal sin "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

 

[Hammster]

In short, the natural man is not totally depraved, but in fact does have the ability to read the inspired word of God and understand those words and then use his free will to please God by believing and obeying those words or can choose to not believe and reject them.

Again those preached to in Acts 2 and 7 were lost natural men, (you might say they were 'unregenerated') but they were NOT totally depraved for they were ABLE TO UNDERSTAND the inspired word preached to them and those in Acts 2 chose to believe and obey while those in Acts 7 chose not to believe.

How do you know they were unregenerate when they believed? What is in that text to support your conclusion?

 

[Hammster]

Paul had problems with having revival in some city and then coming back to find everything in disarray. They done well as spiritual, and then done evil as carnal. So they were once spriitual and now carnal, therefore Paul cries...

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, - Galatians 4:19

Travail in birth... Again! The second time! They went from spiritual to natural, and now Paul is trying to win them again back to spiritual. Sometimes ending up again as a natural man is a work of the flesh!

That wasn't even close to addressing the question.

 

[PeaceB]

I brought it up because it's an issue that's raised frequently. People are under the impression that they can choose to believe in something simply by their free will.

But who believes that? That is just simple Pelagianism is it not?

 

[SolomonVII]

Every time (and I mean every time) any discusion where Reformed theology is brought up, some sort of "but man has free will" argument arises, as if the secular humanistic view of free will is some sort of counter argument.

So my question is this. Can the natural man do anything that's spiritually good? Or to ask another way, can the natural man do anything to glorify God?

disclaimer: the questions may br modified if they aren't clear enough

What exactly is "natural man"?
Does any man even exist as anything other than a 'natural' ball of clay, without the breath of God, the very Spirit of God, animating him?

I personally am not much of a dualist, seeing God as an add-on app to my corporal existence. The Spirit of God is at the very essence of who a man is.

 

[rockytopva]

That wasn't even close to addressing the question.

Maybe someone needs to come up with a "Once Spirtual Always Spiritual" doctrine asserting that we can all live forever free of the effects of the natural man!

 

[PeaceB]

In short, the natural man is not totally depraved, but in fact does have the ability to read the inspired word of God and understand those words and then use his free will to please God by believing and obeying those words or can choose to not believe and reject them.

Yes, but God must move towards the unbeliever first. The unbeliever will not come to God unless God first grants him grace that enables him to do so.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I brought it up because it's an issue that's raised frequently. People are under the impression that they can choose to believe in something simply by their free will.

Interesting and I appreciate the explanation. I know there are some things that people either can't or have great difficulty believing simply by their free will, but would you say there is nothing a person can believe simply be their free will? I am honestly interested in knowing if that would really be true or not, but presently think many things can be believed simply by free will.

 

[Hammster]

OK, but this definition is not very helpful for the purpose of discussing the OP, because we cannot determine in any concrete fashion who this category includes and who it does not include.

Under your definition, what objective criterion makes a man "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

For example, is a person who makes a sincere profession of faith in Jesus Christ, as savior and Lord, "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

As another example, is a baptized Christian who has not committed an unprepented mortal sin "in the flesh, not the Spirit, and spiritually dead in their sins"?

How about can a person who is not saved (the unregenerate) please God?

 

[TheSeabass]

Yes, but God must move towards the unbeliever first. The unbeliever will not come to God unless God first grants him grace that enables him to do so.

God has already "made His move" in choosing to inspire certain men (as Paul) to reveal words to thru the HS and have those inspired spiritual men write those inspired words down so the rest of us can read and understand them. So man already has the ability to understand the word of God and does not need to be 'enabled'.

Again those in Acts 2 and Acts 7 were lost natural men. Yet they already had the ability within them to understand the inspired word of God as preached to them. God did not have to "regenerate" them or miraculously "enable them first before they could understand.

They heard, they understood then they choose to believe or not believe.